Defendant was convicted by jury verdict of armed robbery. 1 His motion for new trial was denied and he appeals from the conviction аnd sentence and the denial of his motion for new trial.
Defendant raises 4 questions for review, but 2 of them, namely:
“Was defendant denied a fair trial because of prejudicial comment and conduct of the trial court?”
“Was the trial court abusive of its discretion in limiting the scope of the voir dire examination?”
were not raised in the trial сourt and they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
People
v.
Will
(1966),
“Was the triаl court in error in refusing appellant’s motion for a new trial?”
“Was the trial court in error in refusing appellant’s motion for change of venue?”
Defendant wаs one of four participants in the offense. The other three pleаded guilty and were sentenced to prison, but they all testified against defendant at his trial. Later, one of them, Bradford Woodworth, recanted by way of affidavit which was one of the grounds urged for granting a new trial, and one of the grounds argued here in support of the *102 asserted error on the part of the trial court in denying defendant’s motion for new trial.
The motion for new trial was addressed to the trial court’s discretion.
People
v.
Vasquez
(1942),
“As a rule the court is not impressed by the ■recanting affidavits of witnesses who attempt to show that they perjured themselves at the trial.”
One of the reasons alleged in the motion for change of venue was that defendаnt’s right to receive a fair and impartial trial had been jeopardized by рublication in local newspapers of articles concerning the оffense and the guilty pleas by three of the participants in which the name of defendant was linked with the other three. The trial court reserved decision оn the motion until an attempt was made to obtain a fair and impartial' jury. This is the аpproved procedure.
People
v.
Swift
(1912),
This motion was also addressed to the trial court’s discretion. CL 1948, § 762.7 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.850). To establish error an abuse of discretion must be shown. People v. Swift, supra. The rule applicable to allegations such as are here raised by defendant is aptly stated in Swift, supra, p 480, in a quotation from 24 Cyc p 298 as follows:
“Newspaper reports are ordinarily regarded as too unreliable to influence a fair-minded man when-called upon to pass upon the merits of a case in “the light of evidence given under oath; and it is now a well-settled rule that a juror, although he'may have formed an opinion from reading such reports, is competent if he states thаt he is without prejudice and can try the case impartially according tо the evidence and the court is satisfied that he will do so.”
Our statutes set up a similar test. See CL 1948, § 768.10 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1033). A reading of the voir dire examination discloses that 4 of the seated jurors had heard or read of the incident involved in the trial previously. However, each denied prejudice from what he had heard or read, .deniеd having formed any opinion from such information and stated affirmatively he would sit аs a fair and impartial juror in the trial and render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence the same -as though-he hadn’t heard about the case before.- Thi's satisfies the test of Swift, supra, and we find no abuse' of discretion.
Affirmed.