Court Opinion

ID: 9543475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:45:51.115629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:25.311690
License: Public Domain

BRYNER, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the result reached in the majority opinion, and with the opinion itself except to the extent that it suggests that a trial court’s duty to excuse jurors for cause is interchangeable with the court’s power to grant additional peremptory challenges. Challenges for cause and peremptory challenges are, of course, conceptually different and are governed by differing procedural requirements. While I agree that in many instances the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause may be cured by allowing an extra peremptory challenge, this fact does not to any extent relieve the trial court of its duty to consider and rule on challenges for cause to the best of its ability, applying the rules applicable to such challenges. To suggest otherwise is to inject unnecessary and unwarranted confusion into the distinction between two legally and analytically separate forms of juror challenge.