Court Opinion

ID: 9628639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:27:29.594233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:09.127601
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
*173Hollister & Thomas, Portland, filed a brief in support of the petition.
No appearance contra.
Before McAllister, Chief Justice, and Warner, Sloan, O’Connell and Howell, Justices.
HOWELL, J.
(Pro Tempore)
In a petition for rehearing the defendant asserts that the original opinion incorrectly stated the facts when it was said, “He [meaning the offending juror who conducted and reported the experiment] testified before the presiding judge of Multnomah county.” The defendant is correct. The juror did not appear before the presiding judge. His testimony was, however, taken at the Multnomah county courthouse before an official reporter. While the witness was not placed under oath, both counsel were present. The examination was conducted first by plaintiff’s counsel, and then defendant’s counsel cross-examined the witness. No objection was raised by counsel to the fact the witness was not sworn. This clearly constituted a waiver.
“* * * When a defect such as alleged here [failure to swear witness] is known at the time, *174the defect must be taken advantage of at once and the failure to do so is such acquiescence in the testimony as will preclude objection after the verdict.” State ex rel. Tucker v. Alvis (Ohio), 89 NE2d 328.
“Both in civil and in criminal trials and in administrative hearings conducted without traditional court ritual, the right to object to the failure to have a witness properly sworn may be waived by failing to object in time * * 98 CJS 22, Witnesses § 320.
In addition to State v. Doud, cited in our original opinion, see the following: Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Wilby, 78 Ohio App 183, 69 NE2d 429; Martin, v. Wolfson, 218 Minn 557, 16 NW2d 884; State v. Hope, 100 Mo 347, 13 SW 490, 8 LRA 608; State v. Embrey, 62 N Mex 107, 305 P2d 723; Wenham Transportation, Inc. v. Radio Const. Co., 190 Pa Super 504, 154 A2d 301; 3 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence 197, §836.
We have considered the petition for rehearing in its entirety and except for the above correction, we adhere to the original opinion.
The petition for rehearing is denied.