Court Opinion

ID: 9658007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:43:52.814177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:50.554284
License: Public Domain

SCHULTZ, Justice
(specially concurring).
I cannot agree with the reasons advanced in divisions III and IV. I believe that if a proper and timely objection had been made at the original trial, the court would have been bound to set aside the jury panel.
I do, however, join the result reached by the majority. Error in selecting the jury panel was not preserved at the original trial or advanced on direct appeal. Additionally, I would not hold that the counsel’s failure to timely object to the jury panel deprived petitioner of effective assistance of counsel. Consequently, I agree that the denial of the applications for postconviction relief should be affirmed.
UHLENHOPP, CARTER, and WOLLE, JJ., join this special concurrence.