People v. Trask

HALL, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment convicting defendant of the crime of robbery, and also from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The only reasons suggested why the judgment and order should be reversed grow out of the method adopted by the trial court for the impanelment of the jury to try defendant.

[104]

Immediately after the first twelve names had been drawn, . and the persons so drawn had been sworn to answer questions, the judge of the court examined each of them as to his qualifications, and each by his answers showed himself possessed of all the statutory qualifications, and each answered that he had never heard of the case, did not know any of the parties, counsel or witnesses, and had no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and had never expressed any such opinion. The judge thereupon announced that all of the jurors appeared

prima, facie

to be qualified jurors, but that either counsel could challenge either one or all of the jurors for any statutory cause, and if such challenge was not denied by opposing counsel, the challenge would be allowed, and the juror excused without further examination; but that if the challenge was' denied by opposing counsel, then, on the issue so made, the juror challenged- could be questioned and examined by counsel on both sides. The judge further gave at some length his reasons for the course thus adopted, making it quite clear that he did not consider that counsel had any right to examine a juror on the

voir dire

in advance of a challenge to such juror.

The brief of appellant is almost entirely devoted to a discussion of what he claims to be error in this action of the court. But he nowhere points out where the bill of exceptions shows that he either objected or excepted to this action of the court, and after a diligent examination of the bill of exceptions we have not been able to find any such objection or exception noted therein. Nowhere do we find that defendant’s counsel objected to the court examining the jurors, or that he expressed any wish to examine them as to their qualifications before challenging, except that he did ask to be allowed to put three stated questions to each juror “solely for the purpose of determining whether he should exercise peremptory challenges.” Defendant having reserved no exception to the.action of the court above set forth, we are not called upon to determine whether the course adopted by the court was erroneous or not. '