Court Opinion

ID: 9641767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:39:56.327573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:39.649209
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I remain convinced of the soundness of the opinion in Houston v. State, supra, but do not agree with the disposition of the present case.
The only reason the juror Rose was challenged was because the district attorney belatedly learned that Rose worked with the sister of the appellant and not the sister of the deceased. I have concluded, and in this I think I am joined by my brethren, that Rose acted in perfectly good faith all the way through. He merely got the names mixed. He told everybody in open court before he was sent to join the other jurors that he was■ prejudiced in the case.
No one ever learned, and we do not know now, whether Rose *537was prejudiced against the accused or “prejudiced” in his favor. As long as the district attorney guessed that Rose’s prejudice was in favor of his side of the controversy, he was perfectly willing for him to serve. As soon as he suspected the contrary, he immediately appealed to the court to help him get rid of the juror.
The purpose of the voir dire examination is to learn about the prospective jurors. Neither side should be allowed to waive proper examination and then run to the court for aid when they find out information which was available to them all along. A full and proper examination of Rose by the district attorney would have revealed what he later learned. He should not now be allowed to say that he was misled when he might have learned had he tried.
I respectfully dissent.