With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". did not raise the issue of juror misconduct in his petition for post-conviction relief. Ordinarily, this would result in waiver of the issue. See Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(8). However, the right to an impartial jury is guaranteed by Article I, § 13 of the Indiana Constitution, and is an essential element of due process. Lahrman v. State, 465 N.E.2d 1162, 1169 (Ind.Ct.App.1984). Further, if it is established that a juror lied on voir dire, the defendant is entitled to a new trial. Lopez v. State, 527 N.E.2d 1119, 1130 (Ind.1988). Therefore, any error committed by the trial court in making a determination that there was no juror misconduct would substantially affect the due process rights of the defendant, and is therefore, fundamental. See Taylor v. State, 717 N.E.2d 90, 93 (Ind.1999) (<HOLDING>). As a result, we will address the issue on

A: holding that icecovered steps did not present a high likelihood of harm or severity of harm
B: holding that fundamental error doctrine applies only to violations of basic and elementary principles of due process when harm or potential for harm cannot be denied
C: recognizing plain or fundamental error
D: holding that doctrine does not violate due process
B.