Opinion ID: 836418
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Service by a Juror Who Had Been Dismissed from Prior Service Within Two Years

Text: During voir dire, the trial court questioned a prospective juror, Johnson, who stated that, in September 199421 months earliershe had been called to serve as a juror in an unrelated case. During questioning by defense counsel, Johnson stated that she had been a member of a jury panel two years ago, but had not been selected to serve at trial. Defense counsel did not challenge Johnson for cause. Defendant now argues that the trial court erred by allowing Johnson to serve because she was ineligible under ORS 10.030(4) (1993), which provided: No person is eligible to act as a juror in any circuit or district court of this state within 24 months after being discharged from jury service in a federal court in this state or circuit or district court of this state unless that person's service as a juror is required because of a need for additional jurors. However, defendant's failure to object to Johnson's eligibility during voir dire precludes us from considering his argument. This court has held that the failure to object to the eligibility of a juror during voir dire waives a defendant's right to appeal based upon the juror's service. State v. Benson, 235 Or. 291, 293-94, 384 P.2d 208 (1963). In State v. Powers, 10 Or. 145, 151, 45 Am Rep 138 (1882), this court explained: Were a defendant allowed to take his challenge to the jurors after the trial, he never would do it before, but would always rather depend upon moving it to the court after the trialfor if he should be acquitted he would say nothing about the disqualification of the juror, and if convicted, he could avoid judgment by offering his objection. This in fact would be placing him in a situation totally exempt from danger and from punishment, so long as he could get a juror sworn against whom he could offer any legal objection, and would give him the additional advantage of several chances for his acquittal. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Defendant concedes that the foregoing preservation rule prevents him from challenging Johnson's presence in his own behalf. However, he asserts that his case is distinguishable because he raises the issue in behalf of Johnson, who suffered the subtle damage of infringement on her right to be required to serve only once every two years. [2] However, even were we to decide that defendant could raise this issue in behalf of a jurora determination we do not make herethe risk of improper manipulation of the trial court remains the same. Thus, to preserve the issue for review, a defendant must object to the eligibility of a juror during voir dire, regardless of whether the juror's presence is challenged in the defendant's or the juror's behalf. Purporting to raise the issue in behalf of a juror will not allow defendant to circumvent the requirements of preservation. Defendant's argument is not preserved. Accordingly, we do not consider this assignment of error.