State v. Outlaw — concurring

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the conviction should stand, but concludes that the trial court's response to a juror who appeared to sleep for approximately an hour was inadequate and that the court had an independent duty to conduct a more serious inquiry. It nevertheless agrees that the defendant failed to establish a constitutional violation because the circumstances did not make the trial fundamentally unfair or the proceedings manifestly unjust. Justice McDonald, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would find the trial court's response to the sleeping juror insufficient and would disagree with affirmance on that issue.