Opinion ID: 2199758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The denial of the challenge for cause of the venireman Paul R. Spaeth.

Text: Rodriguez assigns as error the trial court's denial of his motion to excuse the venireman Spaeth for cause. The record discloses that his counsel subsequently exercised his last peremptory challenge against this venireman. Assuming the denial of the challenge for cause was erroneous, it is still well settled that no ground for a reversal is presented if the juror was challenged peremptorily and the defendant's challenges were not exhausted at the conclusion of the selection of the jury. Drake v. State, 53 N.J.L. 23, 33 ( Sup. Ct. 1890); State v. Morehous, 97 N.J.L. 285, 288 ( E. & A. 1922). While Rodriguez expended his last peremptory challenge to remove Spaeth, the record shows every subsequent challenge for cause made by him was honored by the court and no objection whatever was stated to the jurors who were actually selected. Indeed, in almost all instances he expressly stated on the record they were acceptable to him. Assuming error, it was harmless. See State v. Deegan, 133 N.J.L. 263, 268 ( E. & A. 1945): Inasmuch as defendant offered no objection to any juror drawn after exhausting his challenges, but expressed approval and satisfaction as to each juror thereafter drawn and sworn, it is apparent that he suffered no injury by the rulings of the trial judge with respect to questions propounded to prospective jurors, or with respect to the excusing or failure to excuse jurors for cause. Defendant made no objection to or motion with respect to any of the jurors sworn.