Court Opinion

ID: 9852191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:26:29.118584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:24.026608
License: Public Domain

Benham, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in Division 1 of the majority opinion in this case, and in the holding in Division 2 that Glover has not adequately shown that juror Wise failed to answer honestly a question regarding his experience in law enforcement. I cannot, however, concur in the rest of Division 2 because I harbor serious doubts about the validity of the second half of the standard employed by the majority, the requirement that “a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” That standard sets the stage for defendants being deprived of the valuable right to make peremptory challenges because it leaves a defendant without a remedy when false answers on voir dire conceal information on which a peremptory challenge would have been based. Therefore, I am unable to concur with the portion of the majority opinion applying that questionable standard.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hunstein joins this concurring opinion.