Court Opinion

ID: 9633172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:36:32.475428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:30.281838
License: Public Domain

FONT, J.,
dissenting.
I concur with the majority on all points except the second assignment of error. In State v. Hunt, 15 Or App 76, 514 P2d 1363 (1973) Sup Ct review denied (1974), we affirmed the conviction of a passenger in defendant’s car despite our conclusion that there were two errors made in that case. Nevertheless, we concluded that they were not sufficiently prejudicial in that case to warrant a reversal.
In this case, respondent in its brief states:
“* * * In the present case, although six jurors who sat on Miss Hunt’s case evidently sat on defendant’s case, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In this case, the majority holds that because proper procedures were not invoked to challenge the impaneling of six of the same jurors and because of the inadequacies of the record, the conviction here should nevertheless be affirmed.
' In' my view, it is clear that the defendant apprised the court both in advance of and during the trial that he wished all jurors who sat on the Hunt case to be excluded from his jury. •
While the' majority eorrectiy points out the proper and .presumably available procedure was not *71utilized hy the defendant to challenge those jurors individually at the time they were impaneled, I nevertheless conclude that under the circumstances it was error to allow the sis jurors who sat on the Hunt case to serve in this case, and that such error was fundamentally unfair and directly affected the right of the defendant to a fair and impartial trial. Accordingly, I would reverse and grant a new trial.