Court Opinion

ID: 9664835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:31:28.357415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:10.689085
License: Public Domain

CRANDALL, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. I agree that the prudent course of action would have been to sustain defendant’s challenge for cause of Venireman Leigh. I disagree with the conclusion that the trial court committed reversible error.
The fact that Mrs. Leigh was a victim of an unsolved burglary is not raised by defendant as an issue on appeal and should not be used, sua sponte, to bolster the conclusion by the majority that the trial court erred.
The gravamen of this appeal is whether Mrs. Leigh, if chosen to be a juror, could properly evaluate the testimony of police officers. In response to questions by defense counsel, she initially demonstrated a predilection in favor of police officers that might have prevented her from considering their testimony fairly and impartially. The prosecutor, by his questioning, successfully rehabilitated her as a juror. The trial judge then made an independent examination of the venireman in order to satisfy himself of her ability to be fair and impartial. The trial judge had the opportunity to hear what she said and how she said it. We, as an appellate court, are limited to a review of a printed recordation of a past event.
My review of the record does not lead me to the conclusion that there was a “clear abuse of discretion and real probability of injury to the complaining party.” For that reason I would affirm the defendant’s conviction.