Robert Lee Henderson was convicted of theft by conversion of more than $500. He brings this appeal enumerating two errors. Held:
1. In his first enumeration of error, Henderson complains that the trial court erroneously precluded a voir dire question which in effect inquired whether knowing that a defendant does not have to present evidence and should that right be exercised, any juror would hold that election against Henderson. The trial court sustained the State’s objection thereto complaining that such a question was improper.
We find no error in the refusal to allow such a question on voir
*303
dire. The purpose of voir dire is to make inquiry into and expose any prejudice or bias a prospective juror might have against an accused person, or any interest a juror might have in a cause.
Lundy v. State,
2. In his second enumeration, Henderson argues that the evidence, being circumstantial in nature, was not sufficient to preclude every reasonable hypothesis of the evidence save that of guilt, i.e., the general grounds.
Under the facts presented the jury was warranted in accepting as fact the following occurrences on the day of the conversion. On September 21, 1983, a car dealership in Albany as a result of its business operations generated approximately $32,000, all but $2,159 of which was in checks. There being $2,159 in cash, all the money including the checks and cash was placed in a safe deposit box at a bank on the evening of September 21. The following morning the money pouch was redeemed by the business personnel of the dealership and a bank deposit was prepared. The business clerk testified that when he obtained the pouch from the bank on the morning of September 22 all the checks plus the $2,159 in cash were in the pouch. When the deposit slip had been prepared and the checks listed, the closed pouch including the cash and checks was given to Henderson, a utility workman, to make a standard deposit.
When Henderson arrived at the bank, he surrendered the pouch to a drive-in teller. That teller opened the pouch and ,saw a number of checks and a bundle of currency. However, she also noted that the deposit slip did not have an entry for the amount of cash to be deposited. She did not count or verify any of the contents of the pouch but returned it to Henderson stating that he should return the pouch to the dealership for a correct preparation of the deposit slip with an entry for the amount of cash to be deposited. A short time later, Henderson offered the pouch to a second drive-in teller at the same bank. At this time there was no cash in the pouch. The teller accepted the pouch containing only checks and validated the deposit slip. A later verification by the bank showed that the deposit was $2,159 short of the deposit total.
Appellant contends that as there is no evidence directly showing
*304
that he took anything from the pouch and since several others had access to the pouch, the evidence does not exclude all reasonable explanations for the shortage except that of his guilt. While the verdict of guilty was not demanded, it was not necessary for the State to prove that it was impossible for the offense to have been committed by anyone else, or that it might not, by bare possibility, have been done by another.
Pinson v. State,
Judgment affirmed.