Harrison

Defendant was convicted upon an information charging him with statutory rape. He appeals from the judgment and an order of the court denying his motion for a new trial.

As grounds for reversal numerous errors are assigned, very few of which, however, merit other than general notice.

In impaneling the jury to try the case twelve men were called to the jury-box and, following their examination upon voir dire, four were excused upon the ground that they were disqualified. Without calling others to take the place of those so excused, and with the jury-box containing only eight qualified jurors, defendant, over his objection and contrary to his request that the box be filled, was required to exercise his peremptory challenges. In so ruling it is claimed the court erred. The code does not specify the particular stage of .the proceedings when a peremptory challenge shall be interposed to an objectionable juror, and, so far as we are advised, the supreme court has announced no rule applicable to the facts here presented. Under these, circumstances, we are not inclined to hold that the court erred, particularly as it is not made to appear that defendant was in any wise prejudiced by such…

I concur in the judgment. The record, disclosing no reviewable error in denying the challenge of jurors for cause, renders unnecessary any discussion of the question which would be involved had the action of the trial court resulted in restricting defendant’s right of peremptory challenge conferred by statute.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on April 20, 1912.