State v. Outlaw

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that the trial court adequately addressed concerns that a juror appeared to be sleeping, that unpreserved witness-protection evidence did not produce a manifest injustice, and that any error in admitting a cooperating witness’s guilty plea was harmless. The court also held that the prosecutor’s reference to the witness’s acceptance of responsibility did not comment impermissibly on the defendant’s exercise of his jury-trial right because it was directed to the witness’s credibility. Justice McDonald, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have found the response to the sleeping-juror issue inadequate, while Justice Ecker, concurring in part and in the judgment, agreed that the inquiry was inadequate but would still affirm because the trial was not fundamentally unfair.