Further, the dangers inherent in such a practice cannot be adequately circumvented by the imposition of procedural safeguards. The Corpus Christi and Houston courts of appeal have also been grappling with the issue of juror questioning. Velasquez v. State, 815 S.W.2d 842, 845-46 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1991) (procedure permitted); Nichols v. State, 815 S.W.2d 306, 307-08 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, pet. granted); Buchanan v. State, 807 S.W.2d 644, 645-46 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. granted); Allen v. State, 807 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet granted). Accordingly, this issue is ripe for our review. TEX.R.APP.PRO. 200(c)(2)

(error waived). In Allen v. State, 807 S.W.2d 639, 639 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. requested), and in Buchanan, the trial court permitted jurors to submit to the court written questions for witnesses. The juries were then retired, and the judge heard objections.

This court has directly dealt with appellant's point of error by approving the trial court's practice of allowing the jurors to propound written questions to witnesses. Allen v. State, 807 S.W.2d 639, 642 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. granted 1991); Buchanan v. State, 807 S.W.2d 644, 646 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. granted 1991). This court has examined closely the procedure utilized by the trial court in allowing the jurors to question the witnesses in both of the cited cases, and also has examined the procedure employed in this case.

It may sometimes be that counsel are so familiar with a case that they fail to see problems that would naturally bother a juror who is presented with the facts the first time. Allen v. State, 807 S.W.2d 639, 642 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.) (quoting Callahan, 588 F.2d at 1086) (emphasis added); Buchanan v. State, 807 S.W.2d 644, 646 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.). The principle implicit in the quote — that jurors need to be well-informed on the pertinent facts to determine truth and reach a fair and just verdict — is indisputable in the abstract.

The court of appeals overruled this point and affirmed the conviction in a published opinion. Allen v. State, 807 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991). We granted appellant's petition to determine whether the court of appeals erred in holding the trial did not abuse his discretion in allowing such questioning.

We believe the same analysis applies here. In each of the three cases cited by the appellant, Morrison v. State, 815 S.W.2d 766 (Tex.App. — Waco 1991), aff'd, 845 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992), Buchanan v. State, 807 S.W.2d 644 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991), reversed, 846 S.W.2d 853 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993), and Allen v. State, 807 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991), reversed, 845 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993), the defendant made a timely objection to a procedure adopted by the court that permitted the jury to submit written questions to be reviewed and answered by the witnesses. Here, the appellant did not make a timely objection, and the case involved only one spontaneous question from a juror.

This appears to be a case of first impression in a civil cause of action in Texas. However, two criminal cases recently decided by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals involved this same issue. See, e.g., Allen v. State, 807 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. granted); Buchanan v. State, 807 S.W.2d 644 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. granted). Since the petitions for discretionary review have been granted in each of these cases, however, they cannot be relied upon as primary authority. Nevertheless, the court in these two cases did determine that the trial court's allowing the jurors to propound questions to the witnesses was not improper. Allen, 807 S.W.2d at 642, Buchanan, 807 S.W.2d at 646.

" Both the prosecutor and defense counsel declined the court's invitation to ask follow-up questions limited to the subject matter of the question and the witness was excused. This court has approved an identical procedure in Allen v. State, 807 S.W.2d 639, 641-42 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. granted) and Buchanan v. State, 807 S.W.2d 644, 645-46 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. granted). Even if it had been error for the court to allow juror questions, we conclude that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Until recently, this practice had been virtually unknown in Texas and its legitimacy is uncertain. Cf. Carr v. State, 475 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972) (legitimacy of juror questions was raised but not addressed because the point of error was multifarious and presented nothing for review). Within the last six months, however, the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals in two separate opinions has found nothing inherently improper about a trial judge soliciting written questions from the jury to be reviewed and then asked by the trial judge to a witness. Allen v. State, 807 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. granted); Buchanan v. State, 807 S.W.2d 644 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. granted). Noting that this practice has been generally allowed in other states, the Houston court concluded that it is also consistent with the rule in Texas that the manner of examining a witness is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.