In State v. Jackson, 92 Ohio St.3d 436, 2001 Ohio 1266, 751 N.E.2d 946, the defendant again failed to object to the presence of alternate jurors during jury deliberations. Id. at 438. In addition, the trial judge warned the alternate jurors that they were not permitted to participate in those deliberations. Id. at 439. Unlike the court in Murphy, however, the Jackson court expressly determined that "the trial court clearly erred in failing to abide by the mandates of Crim.R. 24(F) now Crim.R. 24(G)(1) in allowing the alternate jurors to remain present during deliberations." Id. The Ohio Supreme Court then engaged in a plain error analysis and found that the defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the alternate jurors' presence. Id. at 440.