State v. Outlaw — concurring in part and dissenting in part

Summary

The dissenting opinion would hold that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a meaningful inquiry into a juror who appeared to sleep through approximately an hour of critical testimony. It would further conclude that the resulting violation of the defendant's right to a fair trial was structural error requiring a new trial, while agreeing with the majority on the remaining issues. Justice McDonald, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would order a new trial; Justice Ecker, joined by Chief Justice Robinson, would find the inquiry inadequate but would affirm because the omission did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.