Opinion ID: 2612916
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: judge acquainted with juror

Text: For his final issue, Timley contends that the trial judge noted the judge's personal relationship with a juror and that this juror should not have been permitted to remain on the jury. During voir dire, the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Next prospective juror is Ms. Susan Green. Ms. Green is an accountant. And I'm sorry, Susan, I've forgotten who you're employed by. MS. GREEN: CCP, Computax. THE COURT: Thank you. And we've known one another, let's say, a couple of years. You're a friend of my wife's. MS. GREEN: Right. THE COURT: And is there anything about that that would keep you from serving on this jury as a fair and impartial juror? MS. GREEN: No. THE COURT: You would not hold that against the State and you would not hold that against Mr. Timley? MS. GREEN: No. Neither the State nor Timley's trial counsel further questioned this juror concerning her acquaintance with the trial judge. The record does not show that this issue was presented to the trial court. The defendant cannot raise points on appeal which were not presented to the trial court. Holley, 238 Kan. at 508. Even if Timley had raised this issue below, it has no merit. This juror affirmatively stated that her personal acquaintance with the trial judge would not affect her ability to be fair and impartial. Had the defendant objected, there would have been no error in not excluding her from the jury. Affirmed.