Opinion ID: 1667377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Voir dire of prosecutor

Text: The trial began December 7, 1992. The newly elected prosecutor joined in the trial after taking office in January, 1993. By that time, most of the jurors had been selected. During voir dire, which occurred before the new prosecutor's participation, each panel of jurors was asked whether they were related to, acquainted with, or had been represented by the two prosecutors who had been assigned to the case at that time. Questions were asked of the selected jurors and those to be selected whether they knew or had been represented by the new prosecutor, but the jurors were not asked whether any of them were related to him. Mr. Bowen argues that was error. Although a general objection was made to the jury ultimately selected on the ground of lack of impartiality, and the objection contained a reference to questioning about a different prosecuting attorney the point now being argued was not presented to the Trial Court, and we thus decline to consider it. Wicks v. State, supra .