SMITH, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS

¶ 1. Danny McCugh, a 45 year old convenience store worker, was shot four times with a twenty-five caliber pistol on the morning of July 17, 1994 during a robbery at the Circle K convenience store in Biloxi, Mississippi. McCugh died at the hospital several hours later. After allegedly receiving a confession from his son, Richard Wharton, father of Darren Wharton, drove to New Orleans with Investigator Billy Emile of the Ocean Springs Police Department in order to assist in his son's peaceful arrest. Darren Wharton was in fact arrested in New Orleans and charged with the capital murder of McCugh and with the underlying crime of robbery.

¶ 2. At trial, the State's case included three separate confessions made by Wharton shortly after the murder. First, Priscilla George, a friend of Wharton's, testified that she had been playing a drinking game with Wharton and some other friends at her sister's house on the night of the murder. She testified that Wharton left the house that night and came back in a highly emotional state. George testified that:

A: And I picked up this little blanket and there was money there and a Circle K bag.

Q: Okay.

A. And then that's when he said that — that's when he said he robbed the store.

Q: That's when who said that they robbed the store ?

A: Darren Wharton.

. . .

Q: Okay. At any point at time did the defendant say anything about having shot the clerk ?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What did he say ?

A: He said that he think(s) he killed a man.

George admitted under cross-examination that she had been drinking a great deal that night, but she asserted that she clearly remembered Wharton's statements.

¶ 3. The second confession was allegedly made by Wharton to Michael Green, who was originally a co-defendant with Wharton, but who testified pursuant to an agreement with the prosecution. Green testified for the State that Wharton had tried to buy a gun from him prior to the robbery. Green testified that Wharton stated that he needed the gun to rob the store, and that, following the robbery, Wharton testified that he had shot the cashier.

¶ 4. The third confession was made by Darren to his father, Richard Wharton, who gave a tape-recorded statement to police in which he detailed the confession allegedly made by his son on the day of the murder. At trial, Richard Wharton denied any recollection of having made the statements in question, but the trial judge permitted the tape recorded statement to be played for the jury over the objection of the defense.

¶ 5. During the trial, the judge permitted the jurors to submit written questions to several witnesses and allowed jurors to take notes over the objection of both the prosecution and defense. Wharton was convicted of capital murder by the jury and was sentenced to life imprisonment following a capital murder sentencing trial. Aggrieved, Wharton appeals to this Court claiming the trial Court erred in admitting the taped statement of Richard Wharton, erred in allowing jurors to question witnesses, and erred in allowing jurors to take notes.

I. WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A TAPED STATEMENT OF RICHARD WHARTON AFTER RICHARD STATED THAT HE DID NOT RECALL MAKING THE STATEMENT ON DIRECT EXAMINATION?

¶ 6. The trial judge should not have allowed the jury to ask questions of the witnesses, especially since both the State and defense objected to the procedure. However, here, the questions that were posed and the answers given were extremely unlikely to have influenced the jury's verdict. Therefore, the procedure although improper, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶ 7. This Court, in Wilkins v. State, 603 So.2d 309 (Miss. 1992), held that the State must be surprised by the testimony that the person was unable to recall the prior inconsistent statement in order for the prior inconsistent statement to be admissible.

¶ 8. Wharton argues that the State does not even attempt to assert that it was surprised by Richard's testimony, and the prosecutor acknowledged that prior to Richard's testimony that he claimed to have no memory of his statement to police. Wharton ignores the very language of Wilkins as well as the language of the case law upon which it is based and, more importantly, the other facts of this record. In Wilkins, this Court wrote "it will be necessary that he show surprise or unexpected hostility . . ." Id. at 322. The language in Wilkins is disjunctive and also allows for unexpected hostility. Accordingly, under the plain language of Wilkins, the fact that the State may not necessarily claim surprise does not end the inquiry. Conversely, it must also be determined whether the State could show unexpected hostility, because only one week before trial Richard had assured the district attorney during two interviews that he recognized his own voice on the tape and he remembered what was said. Surely, based on that fact, the State had reason to believe that Richard would tell the truth during questioning at trial.

¶ 9. The record clearly reflects that it was the defense that objected to the line of questioning of Richard Wharton by the district attorney, on the basis that Wharton was previously shown a transcript of his prior statement and that now, while on the witness stand, Wharton apparently was not testifying to his own independent recollection. Whereupon the State promptly advised the trial judge that the State had "interviewed Richard on two occasions prior to today's trial, both occasions occurring last week." The State further stated, "In addition to having the opportunity to review that transcript, he was also given the opportunity to listen to that tape recording of his own voice. He advised me at that time that he recognized his own voice, and he did, in fact, remember what was said." (Emphasis added). Thus, the State prior to trial, had legitimate reason to believe that Richard would in all likelihood testify truthfully. But, due to Richard's sudden lack of memory at trial, and contrary to what he had stated to the district attorney only one week prior, the district attorney announced to the trial judge, "The point is, Your Honor, that this is a hostile witness, and he may not want to remember." Therefore, this Court cannot under the facts of this record determine that Richard's testimony was expected hostility. Rather, the testimony was clearly unexpected.

¶ 10. Here, under the facts, the State clearly showed unexpected hostility. The record more than adequately so demonstrates. Before the prosecutor began questioning Wharton's mother and father, he announced that, "Judge, the next two witnesses are — one is the defendant's mother, and the other is his father. If they're not responding appropriately, I may have to have them as adverse witnesses, hostile witnesses." (emphasis added). The record thus indicates that the State, relying upon Richard's statement made during two interviews one week prior to trial believed that both witnesses would tell the truth. Nevertheless, if they did not tell the truth the State maintained that upon such occurrence it would ask the Court to declare the witnesses hostile. In fact, Constance Wharton, who testified prior to Richard, apparently testified truthfully and no attempt was made by the State to claim surprise or hostility regarding her testimony. However, when Richard started answering questions, immediately he seemed to develop a lack of memory requiring the State to have him declared a hostile witness and to attempt to impeach him with his prior inconsistent statement.

¶ 11. The Wilkins holding is based upon this Court's decision in Cooper v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co., 568 So.2d 687 (Miss. 1990), wherein this Court held that the admission of hearsay testimony to impeach a witness was in error. Specifically, this Court pointed out that

[a]n extensive and careful reading of the record as a whole . . . shows that State Farm, knowing all the while what the responses would be, offered the testimony of Susie Arnett for no other reason than to impeach her denials with the hearsay testimony of McClain, Brown and Lomenick [the insurance company representatives].

Wilkins, 603 So.2d at 322 (quoting Cooper, 568 So.2d at 691).

¶ 12. In Cooper, State Farm clearly knew in advance that the witness was going to deny certain statements thus it laid the trap for her. The case at bar is clearly distinguishable from Cooper since the prosecution unquestionably indicated that it may have to declare either or both Constance and Richard as adverse witnesses, depending upon whether they responded truthfully and appropriately. Here, the fact that the mother testified first and truthfully answered questions posed by the prosecution provides further support for the position that the State expected Richard to testify truthfully, but did not know with one-hundred percent certainty how Richard would testify once he was on the witness stand under oath. But, at any rate the State expected that he would tell the truth based on two prior admissions. Consequently, the State can and certainly did show unexpected hostility. Accordingly, under the facts of the case at bar, the taped confession was admissible as impeachment testimony under Rule 607 and in accordance with this Court's prior holdings. That is all that was required of the State in order to impeach Richard Wharton. There is no merit to this issue.

II. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE JURY TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS TO WITNESSES?

¶ 13. Over the objection of both the State and defense, the trial judge permitted the jury to submit written questions for his approval to be read to witnesses. Wharton argues that the trial judge denied Wharton the right to an impartial jury by permitting the jury to submit questions to the witnesses. Specifically, Wharton argues that:

In allowing the jury to present questions to the witnesses, the trial court redefined their role and transformed them from "fair and impartial" to active participants in the trial. By doing so, the trial court also relieved the State of its burden of proof. The jury, by asking questions, was allowed to elicit evidence from the witnesses — the State did not have to do its job and meet its burden. When the State failed to elicit the evidence from a particular witness the jury was allowed to pick up the slack.

In electing to permit the questioning of witnesses by the jurors, the trial judge stated that he was unaware of any cases set forth by this court which either permitted or forbade questioning by jurors.

¶ 14. Wharton notes, however, that this Court has in fact addressed this issue in the past. On the rare occasion that this issue has arisen, this Court has expressed varying degrees of reservations with regard to the practice of juror interrogation of witnesses. This Court has held the matter to lie within the discretion of the trial judge in at least one opinion. In Lucas v. State, 381 So.2d 140, 144 (Miss. 1980), this Court held that:

This Court does not approve the practice of a trial court inviting jurors to ask questions of witnesses. This privilege should only be granted when, in the sound discretion of the trial judge, it appears that it will aid a juror in understanding some material issue involved in the case and then, ordinarily, when some juror has indicated that he wishes such a point clarified. Here, the defense counsel invited the jury to ask questions when no juror had voiced a need for clarification of any issue or testimony. It was improper for the defense attorney to request the jurors to ask questions of the witness, and the trial judge was correct in sustaining the objection.

Lucas, 381 So.2d at 144-45. This Court thus held in Lucas that the juror questioning of witnesses is within the "sound discretion of the trial judge" when it appeared that the juror wanted a point clarified and that the primary consideration should be whether the information will "aid a juror in understanding some material issue involved in the case." Id. at 144.

¶ 15. In a more recent case, however, this Court wrote more strongly in disfavor of the practice of juror interrogation of witnesses. This Court held in Myers v. State, 522 So.2d 760 (Miss. 1988) that:

We note some courts allow juror interrogation in the trial court's discretion. We are of the view, however, that this is a practice that should be discouraged. In the event a juror does blurt out a question, the trial judge should step in without waiting for an objection and seek to prevent any prejudice befalling the defendant. Where, as here, that opportunity passed by, we must review whether the juror's conduct so prejudiced the defendant that a new trial is warranted.

Myers, 522 So.2d at 762 (citations omitted.). This Court in Myers did not mention the earlier decision in Lucas, and Lucas has not been overruled. Moreover, this Court in Myers did not forbid outright the interrogation of witnesses by jurors, but merely "discouraged" such questioning. This Court in Myers did make a limited holding applicable to cases in which a juror "blurts out" a question, but the present case involves a preliminary deliberate decision by a trial judge to have written questions submitted by jurors and read to witnesses within his discretion. Myers is thus less applicable to the facts of the present case than Lucas, and the "blurting out"of questions by jurors clearly carries a higher likelihood of unfairly prejudicing a defendant than the practice implemented by the trial judge in the present case.

¶ 16. Although this Court has not written approvingly of the practice of juror interrogation of witnesses, the practice implemented by the judge in the present case is, in many respects, less objectionable than the practices which this Court considered in both Myers and Lucas. The record indicates that, in total, twelve questions were submitted to the trial judge for his scrutiny, but the judge permitted only six questions to be read to the witnesses. The trial judge thus rejected half of the questions submitted by the jurors for his consideration, and it is thus apparent that the present case did not involve the direct and unfettered questioning of witnesses by the jurors.

¶ 17. A review of nationwide authority on this issue indicates that the view expressed by this Court in Lucas constitutes, by far, the majority view on this issue. In Commonwealth v. Urena, 632 N.E.2d 1200 (Mass. 1994), the Supreme Court of Massachusetts cited Lucas in noting the "decisions by the great majority of the courts of other States that, in general, permit juror questioning of witnesses . . . in the sound discretion of the judge." Urena, 632 N.E.2d at 1203. It is thus apparent that the Massachusetts court interpreted the law of this State as permitting juror interrogations within the discretion of the trial judge.

¶ 18. The record reveals that the questions which were submitted to the witnesses all concerned factual matters relating to the evidence. Patrolman Johnson, a witness for the State, answered "no" when questioned as to whether he had asked either of the two black girls in the store if they had made a 911 call. Michael Green, a witness for the State, answered "no" when asked if he had purchased a particular type of shell for his .25 automatic. He also answered in the negative when questioned whether the store in which the murder occurred was the one he patronized for purchasing beer. Priscilla George, a witness for the State, answered in the affirmative when questioned whether Randy (Ricky) and Shane Caldwell were brothers. She also responded to a question regarding the age of the brothers by stating "I think Ricky is 22 and Shane is 20."

¶ 19. The aforementioned questions are all of a highly innocuous nature, and it is extremely unlikely that the answers to these questions influenced the jury's verdict in any respect. The only question which might be argued to have conceivably played any role whatsoever in the jury's verdict was a question posed to Randall Ludwig regarding the race of a person who he saw running from the store on the night of the murder. Randall Ludwig testified for the defense that the man who he saw running from the store that night was not present in the courtroom, and the defense sought to use this testimony to argue that someone other than Wharton robbed the store on the night in question. The State did not inquire during cross-examination, however, whether the man who Ludwig saw running from the store was black or white. We do not see where this question influenced the jury or its' verdict.

¶ 20. A trial is in large part a search for the truth. Our adversary system, through the well defined roles of its participants, is also designed to protect individual rights of defendants. "Due process and those individual rights that are fundamental to our quality of life co-exist with, and at times override, the truth-finding function." See Morrison v. State, 845 S.W.2d 882, 884-845 (Tex.Crim. App. 1992) (creating an absolute bar to juror questioning of witnesses).

¶ 21. The most obvious problem with allowing jurors to question witnesses is the unfamiliarity of jurors with the rules of evidence. "Our system is an adversary one which depends upon counsel to put before lay fact finders that which should be admitted in accordance with the rules of evidence and to keep from them that which should not be received in evidence." State v. Hays, 883 P.2d 1093, 1099-1100 (Kan. 1994) (quoting State v. Zima, 478 N.W.2d 377 (Neb. 1997)). Other potential problems include (1) Counsel may be forced to either make an objection to a question in front of the juror who asks the question, at the risk of offending the juror, or withhold the objection and permit prejudicial testimony to come in without objection; (2) juror objectivity and impartiality may be lessened or lost; (3) if a juror submits a question in open court, the other jurors are informed as to what the questioning juror is thinking, which may begin the deliberation process before the evidence is concluded and before final instructions from the court; (4) if the juror is permitted to question the witness directly, the interaction may create tension or antagonism in the juror; and (5) the procedure may disrupt courtroom decorum. Hays, 883 P.2d at 1099.

¶ 22. Our prior warnings concerning juror questioning have apparently gone unheeded on occasion. Today we hold that juror interrogation is no longer to be left to the discretion of the trial court, but rather is a practice that is condemned and outright forbidden by this Court. To that extent, both Lucas and Myers are overruled. Although we hold the procedure to be reversible error, here we find same to be harmless for the previous reasons set forth.

III. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE JURY TO TAKE NOTES DURING THE TRIAL?

¶ 23. Wharton argues that the trial court committed reversible error in permitting the jurors to take notes over the objection of both parties. However, in Wash v. State, 521 So.2d 890, 897 (Miss. 1988), this Court held that:

Today, we hold that juror note-taking is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge to permit it in cases where he/she deems it desirable or necessary in complicated matters or where both parties agree that jurors may take notes.

We allow juror note taking at the discretion of the trial judge subject to some restrictions. However, a significant danger of prejudice exists if jurors are allowed to use in deliberations notes taken during trial. Juror notes may give undue weight to that portion of the evidence covered by a juror's notes at the expense of evidence on which no notes were taken. The notes should not be read or used by any juror other than the juror who took the notes. See Wash v. State, 521 So.2d 890, 897 (Miss. 1988) (citing Nixon v. State, 533 So.2d 1078 (Miss. 1987)). We therefore hold that juror notes are permissible, but should not be allowed to be taken by that juror into the jury room during deliberations. To that extent, Wash and Nixon are overruled. There is no merit to this issue.

CONCLUSION

¶ 24. Richard Wharton's prior statement was admissible under Rule 607 in accordance with this Court's prior holdings. The State showed unexpected hostility and that was all that was required in order to impeach Richard. Juror questioning of witnesses is prohibited. Juror note taking during trial is allowed, however, jurors are prohibited from taking those notes into the jury room during deliberations.

¶ 25. CONVICTION OF CAPITAL MURDER AND LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AFFIRMED.

PITTMAN, P.J., ROBERTS AND WALLER, JJ., CONCUR. SULLIVAN, P.J., CONCURS IN PART. PRATHER, C.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY BANKS AND McRAE, JJ. SULLIVAN, P.J., JOINS IN PART. MILLS, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED IN PART BY McRAE, J.