Court Opinion

ID: 9727288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:29:28.698081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:35.952301
License: Public Domain

*116Wachenfeld, J.
(dissenting). Although the specific question in controversy was not asked of the juror Kuhnle, nevertheless the purpose of counsel was obvious and plain as the inquiry had already been put to another prospective juror.
One who has been assaulted, threatened with a deadly weapon and robbed is not likely to forget or forgive nor to treat lightly or even fairly similar conduct in others. This is a normal human reaction following customary behavior, expected and anticipated by the background of experience.
Counsel were endeavoring to secure jurors who had not been embittered by having been subjected to the same treatment which was the basis of the charge pending against the accused. They made it quite clear they were trying to avoid triers of fact who had suffered a like factual occurrence.
That was the kind of jury the defendants were entitled to but were unsuccessful in obtaining, as evidenced by the disclosures after trial.
A life should not be taken by legal process unless every reasonable doubt is resolved in favor of the condemned, and unless the best judicial procedure has been “rigidly and jealously enforced,” State v. Auld, 3 N. J. 436, 443 (1949), dissenting opinion.
I would reverse.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Oliphant, Burling, Jacobs and Brennan — 5.
For reversal — Justices Heher and Wacheneeld — 3.