Court Opinion

ID: 9600267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:25:29.006202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:51.489025
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
Respondent's petition for rehearing relies upon the case of Buckley v. Chadwick, 45 Cal.2d 183 [288 P.2d 12, 289 P.2d 242], but that decision does not overrule or impair the effect of the cases discussed in the opinion herein. It was held in the Buckley case that an erroneous overruling of a peremptory challenge was not prejudicial under the facts of that ease—facts which do not present an analogy to the situation at bar. It was not claimed in that case that the juror was subject to challenge for cause; the peremptory challenge was made with advance knowledge that it would not be allowed; counsel actually withdrew the challenge before the jury was completed and withdrew his *228exception to the court’s ruling (see pp. 201-202); the juror remained on the case; a unanimous verdict was rendered (the opinion was modified on November 4, 1955, to show that fact), and the court pointed out at page 203 that “the appellant ‘has made no affirmative showing, and does not offer to show, that any of the . . . jurors who were actually sworn and served in the trial of the cause were biased, prejudiced, or in any way unfit to serve as trial jurors; nor does it appear that by reason of the manner in which the jury was selected the . . . [appellant] did not have a fair and impartial trial. ’ ”
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 21, 1956. MeComb, J., did not participate therein. Spence, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.