State v. Mebane — dissenting

Summary

The dissent would conclude that the trial court's questioning of the defendant's two expert witnesses created a serious risk that the jury perceived the court as endorsing the state's theory and discrediting the defense experts. In the dissent's view, the questioning went beyond clarification and undermined the defendant's due process right to a fair trial, warranting a new trial. The dissent does not address the majority's other issues. Justice D’Auria, dissenting in part, would order a new trial based on the trial court's questioning of the defense experts.