*1 аre, court;” if allegations of the circumstances miscommunication here are not ex- misunderstanding anything, egregious. intended to traordinary or We affirm. 60(b)(1). Thus, be covered Civil Rule to relief
Chefornak is not entitled under 60(b)(6). Stone,
CivilRule See Stone v. (Alaska 1982) (motion
P.2d which brought provi- under other
could have been 60(b) when
sion Rule was barred 60(b)(6)
brought under Rule more because year passed).
than one had SIROTIAK, Appellant, Bruce argues that Mr. Curda’s Chefornak also court, actions amounted to a fraud entitling thus them to relief under Civil COMPANY, H.C. PRICE H.C. Con- 60(b).8 Rule Chefornak admits that there Alaska, Inc., Company, struction ARCO any is no that Mr. Curda had evidence Townsend, Gary Appellees. intent to defraud the court. None- actual No. S-1965. theless, conduct, it claims that Mr. Curda’s failing city’s knowing to secure the con- Supreme Court of Alaska. explain failing adequately sent and consequences judgment, July amounts to of the fraud.
To constitute fraud on the court 60(b), egre
under Rule conduct must be so
gious corruption it involves Stone,
judicial process. P.2d See 7; Bussell,
586 n. Allen v. (Alaska 1976). We have also said
fraud be found even the absence of Grow,
intent to defraud. Mallonee v. Here, (Alaska 1972). how
P.2d
ever, allegations simply fall Chefomak’s any which defiles the
short of “behavior Mr. Curda made exten
court itself.” Id. explain everything
sive efforts members, and, Judge Fraties
city council as opinion, in his is difficult to
wrote “[i]t
surmise what more could have been done.”
CONCLUSION judgment entered Chefornak signed stipulation does
on the basis IX, article section 9 of the Alas-
not violate judgment is not a
ka Constitution. as that term is used ... contracted”
“debt Thus, judgment our constitution. ground that it
may not be set aside on Second, judgment
was void. reason,” “any other set aside for upon the it results from “fraud
because 60(b) judgment court." specifically provides for fraud on the that it aside a 8. Civil Rule power of a court to ... set "does not limit the *2 MATTHEWS, C.J.,
Before and BURKE, WITZ, RABINO COMPTON MOORE, and JJ.
OPINION COMPTON, Justice. appeal from denial of a
This arises personal injury for in a motion new trial cаse. Bruce Sirotiak claims he suffered injury speed, in a two- lower back slow trial, collision. At asked for truck Sirotiak damages; million he re- over dollars $1 $16,000. approximately appeal ceived On jury claims that was he biased opportunity him denied he was present an case. to effective rebuttal We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND THE A. ACCIDENT. 15, 1982, morning September
On the shift, completing night after in a accident. was involved two-truck driving pick-up1 on the an ARCO While Slope, headed northbound North icy gravel roadway approximately anon per he an аpproached miles hour. As alleyway at an controlled intersection by Gary stop sign, pick-up driven saw (Price) Townsend, Company an H.C. approaching from east. Si- employee, go- realized that Townsend was rotiak stop sign; ing stop for the he therefore stepped move little bit” and “tried to over a attempt to in an avoid on the accelerator Townsend, who had been collision. hour, traveling per 10-15 miles between approxi- down at the intersection slowed trucks mately per hour. The two miles front of left nonetheless collided. right wheel hit the rear Townsend’s truck panel of Sirotiak’s truck. quarter Suddock, Suddock, Libbey An- & John got out of impact both men After chorage, appellant. accident. to discuss the their vehicles Moser, III, felt Pletcher, uninjured and Sirotiak Larry W. Z. John Townsend conceded ap- right time. Townsend Slaybaugh, Anchorage, for at the Pletcher & all they fault pellees. that the accident perform and leased vehicles em- services for time accident Sirotiak was 1. At the ployeed by Slope. Intеrnational Constructors Alaska on the North ARCO (AIC). apparently contracted At time AIC pain prior him place plained of back work then drove back accident. supervisor of Townsend’s inform Sirotiak’s
fault.
party
Each
introduced
accident
at trial. Sirotiak’s
reconstruction evidence
to the infir-
days later Sirotiak went
Two
Talbott,
expert, John
testified via a video
pain.
complaining
back
mary
of lower
deposition. Relying
part
on Sirotiak’s
went to see
Shortly thereafter Sirotiak
*3
statements,
posit-
and Townsеnd’s
Talbott
Anchorage
He never returned
doctor.
degree
a 90
the front
ed
collision between
Slope.
the North
of Townsend’s truck and rear axle of Sirot-
Anchorage,
saw Dr. J.J.
In
Sirotiak
he
iak’s truck. Sirotiak stated that was hit
Smith,
diagnosed
problem as
Sirotiak’s
who
broadside
the back of the “box” of his
prescribed pain medi-
strain and
low back
pick-up.
that he
Townsend had stated
later re-
rest. Sirotiak
cation and bed
pulled through the intersection and hit Si-
care was
his
turned to Minnesota where
right
quarter panel.
rotiak in the
reаr
specialist Dr. Matthew
by back
assumed
damage
Townsend described the
to his
Eckman.
piece
truck as “it bent
of trim
headlights.”
chrome around the
THE TRIAL.
B.
Talbott theorized that the action
Price,
ARCO
filed suit
Sirotiak
right
hitting
panel
truck
rear
Townsend
September 1984. Before
and Townsend
truck
of Sirotiak’s truck caused Sirotiak’s
and Townsend
to trial Price
the case went
spin.
spinning
That
motion carried Si-
negligence,
not the extent
conceded
but
upper body
while his low-
rotiak’s
forward
injury. A trial was held
severity of
vehicle, resulting
body rotated
er
with
Septеmber
through
Oc-
Anchorage from
receiving twisting jolt.
spine
in his lower
6, 1986.
tober
developing
theory,
In
his
Talbott assumed
lighter weight truck than was
as fact a
that Sirot-
At trial Dr. Eckman testified
actually driven.
normal
appeared to be
before
iak’s back
Eckman stated that Sirot-
the accident.
contrast,
expert,
Price’s
James Stir-
In
significant arthritic
iak’s back showed
than
ling, posited
angled collisionat less
an
by
September 1982 ac-
changes caused
only minor dam-
degrees which caused
cident,
process
of deterioration
Stirling also relied on
age to both trucks.
continue,
longer
and that he could no
would
Sirotiak, Townsend, as
by
made
statements
perform physical
the accident
labor. Since
Price em-
and several other
well as Waller
living supervising
Sirotiak has earned
Townsend’s
Consistent with
ployees.
investing in a
logging business and
small
statements,
employ-
the Price
Waller and
restaurant/bar.
damage
Stirling
there was no
ees told
except
truck
the front of the Townsend
exam-
request,
At Price’s
Sirotiak was
headlight
left front
area.
September
ined Dr. Horton on
degener-
diagnosed as
injury was
Stirling’s theory
fact that the
Under
Horton testified
ative disk disease.
of the im-
metal absorbed the force
sheet
degenerative
pre-existing
angled
there were
coupled
collisionresult-
pact
with
aggra-
significantly
changes that were not
gentle
in a
rotation of the truck.
ed
by the 1982 accident.
addition, Stirling correctly
vated
his calcu-
based
pick-
weight Ford 250
lations on a heavier
tri-
was introduced at
Additional evidence
also lessen Sirot-
up, a factor that would
caused Sirot-
suggesting other events
al
Stirling
iak’s rotation.
described
Byman, a
problems. Robert
iak’s back
him
pushing
in the truck as
movement
Minnesota, testified
deputy sheriff from
the forces
into his seat much like
backward
police
had an altercation
that Sirotiak
airplane
in an
takeoff.
at work
in which
on December
officers
theory of an
ground. Mar-
learned of Price’s
was wrestled to the
Sirotiak
At
Waller,
angled
days
trial.
on the North
collision two
before
Sirotiak’s roomate
vin
out of the
point
was
may have com-
Slope, testified that Sirotiak
deрosi-
having left behind a video
and the door was locked. Sirotiak’s coun-
country,
containing calculations based
called Price's counsel at 11:08 a.m.
tion
sel
He
weight
only
reports
wrong
and discussions
Price's counsel that the
truck
informed
theory.
degree
immediately.
collision
Price’s
the 90
available
coun-
were
theorizing
in chief
presented
thus
case
indicated
send
sel
someone
introduc-
degree
up.
collision but without
pick
them
of a 90 de-
determinative
ing any evidence
Monday morning Price moved to strike
gree
Not until
the close
after
collision.
Nelson’s
as well as the testimo-
eye
did Sirotiak locate an
in chief
his case
argued
ny
experts.
of the two other
damage to the
witness who
describe
report
that Nelson’s
was insufficient to
de-
of a 90
truck determinative
Townsend
give it information to cross-examine the
Yanity,
witness,
gree
This
Alvin
collision.
summary.
because it
a mere
witness
was
nota-
testify
willing
that there
reports
Price contended that the
lacked the
damage
front
all across the
ble
theory
expert’s
and the
for the theo-
basis
*4
Townsend truck.
reports
ry.
argued
Price also
that
were
appear
Although Yanity’s
did not
name
of
late. Sirotiak defended the contents
the
list,
attempted to
on
Sirotiak
the witness
reports.
explained
He also
that
tried to
his
case. The
part of
rebuttal
call him as
reports early Saturday morning.
the
deliver
testimony.
Yanity’s
trial court excluded
argued
fact that he called
Sirotiak
that the
angled colli-
As
rebuttal to the
additional
up
pick
counsel at
to
the re-
Price’s
11:08
attempted to call three
theory
sion
Sirotiak
enough
not
to
ports was
reason
exclude
Fisher,
Dr.
Dr.
Peter
expert witnesses:
testimony.
Nelson’s
Only
Dr.
Nelson.
Douglas
and Will
Smith
testimony.
The court excluded Nelson’s
list.
on Sirotiak’s witness
Fisher was
agreed
Price that
The trial court
what
theory as
to defend
Nelson was
Talbott’s
report.
produced
inadequate
was an
was
degree impact,
as Tal-
to the 90
as well
addition,
the
the
noted that
“re-
court
the
on the rotation of
bott’s calculation
port” was late.
willing
defend Tal-
truck. Nelson was
negli-
jury found
Townsend’s
The
that
theory
though
had used
bоtt’s
even
Talbott
legal
injury
gence
of Sirotiak’s
was
cause
wrong
weight.
truck
Nelson would
the
$15,720.
only
Sirotiak had
but awarded
original theo-
also have defended Talbott’s
income,
for over million
lost
$1
asked
ry taking
Yanity’s
into account
statement
$7,708
$17,726
expenses
in medical
damage.
as to truck
expenses. Sirot-
vocational rehabilitation
initially agreed
Nelson
The court
to allow
ground
the
for a
trial on
iak moved
new
of
to testify as a rebuttal witness because
opportunity to
he was denied an
that
Friday
unavailability.
the
be-
Tаlbott’s
On
case. The
present an
rebuttal
effective
of-
testify,
the court
fore Nelson was
denied,
appeals.
Sirotiak
motion was
deposing
the choice
Sirot-
fered Price
of
per-
iak’s three
rebuttal witnesses
DISCUSSION
getting
son or
written statements
DID
THE TRIAL
NOT
opted for written
A.
COURT
them. Price’s counsel
reports
ERR IN
CHALLENGES
He asked
the
be
DENYING
statements.
that
PRO-
Saturday,
CAUSE OF VARIOUS
10 a.m.
in order
FOR
available at
on
him time to
with another
SPECTIVE JURORS.
afford
consult
necessary.
counsel re-
expert if
error is
assignment
first
sponded
reports
available
that
could be
jurors to
triаl
court “allow[ed]
by noon,
compromised
on
and the
against the cause of
serve who were biased
a.m.
sought.”
of relief
and the amount
action
questions
dire
voir
counsel The trial court allowed
following morning
The
Several mem-
tort reform debate.
offices
Price’s counsel
on the
stopped by the
strong
expressed
jury panel
re-
drop
9 a.m.
off the
bers
approximately
reform and
for tort
time,
building
feelings about
need
ports.
was dark
At that
miscarriage
to prevent
high damage
awards.
circumstances
objected to
indicates, however,
Knight, that none of the
Mitchell v.
justice.”
record
challenged
prospective jurors
(Alaska 1964).
Sirotiak
six
next
We
determine
jury.
for cause sat
erroneously
the trial court
whether
denied
challenges
against
for cause
Havard and
challenged
cause
Three of those
for
were
Augestad.
judge.2 The trial court
excused
against
challenges
for
John
denied
cause
Havard,
engineer,
stated that he had
Augestad.
Alfred
Havard and
preconceptions
ability
for
“towards
by exercising
jurors
thеn excused those
someone to sue H.C.
because
challenges. Sirotiak
peremptory
two
happened
stop sign
to run a
employee
their
challenge
peremptory
to ex-
used
third
somebody
gross
and hit
when there was no
Winters,
challenged
not
who was
cuse Jane
negligence
neglect
or willful
involved.”
challenged juror,
remaining
for
cause.
that Price
When asked how
fact
through
Fisher,
removed
Todd
damages
him,
pay
have to
would affect
peremptory
for
grant of “an extra
you
waiting
are
responded:
Havard
“If
3 Thus,
appeal
on
the narrow issue
cause.”
my
I
say
me to
think it would affect
judge erroneously
the trial
de-
is whether
judgment,
impossible
make it
for me to be
so,
challenges
and if
nied two
for cause4
fair, you’re
going
say
hear me
that.
by being
prejudiced
whether Sirotiak
fair,
I
I
I
think it would
think
but
challenges
peremptory
forced
use two
me,
predispose
...”
jurors
have been re-
for cause.5
moved
Although Havard
indicated
*5
prove
dam-
have to work harder
would
challenge
for
The
of a
determination
average
agеs
person,
than
to Havard
discretion of the
cause lies in
sound
damages
proved
“if
stated
are
Havard
47(c). The
judge. Alaska R.CÍV.P.
trial
any
facts
to be
based on the
then
with the ex-
appellate court will “interfere
response to
exceptional
fair.”
In
defense
only in
number
is
of
ercise
that
court).
(1)
neys
See also
A.B.A.
jurors
the trial
1983
included:
and
dismissed for cause
2.
Relating
Manage-
Bennett,
to Juror Use and
suspicious of
Standards
who was
worker’s
Rana
compensation
ment, Commentary
strong feelings
8 at
How-
to Standard
81.
claims
had
discretion,
ever,
signs
of
running stop
is
clear abuse
which she felt she
unless there
a
about
Haas,
aside;
challenge
(2)
for cause
put
who
of the view that if no
could not
Jeannette
are
challenge
very strongly
monetary
is
See
awards should
then the
waived.
felt
made
Haslett,
813,
(Alaska
anything
be
for
other than medical
641 P.2d
816
available
Grimes v.
exist; (3)
Lally,
1983).
repair
proven to
Eileen
bills
Price,
employee
informed the
a
of
who
former
panel
company
a
as fair as Price
entire
challenging party
it
demonstrate that
5.A
must
any
it
this claim if were
would have settled
good.
peremptory challenges
its
before
has used all of
prejudice
court’s refusal
results from the trial
State,
juror for
See McGee v.
excuse a
cause.
initially
challenge
800,
(Alaska 1980)
for cause was
denied
3. The
cert. denied 450
614 P.2d
807
expressed
967,
1485,
(1981);
Fisher
a "fundamen-
Fisher.
S.Ct.
Challenges for cause among others: following grounds, the adopt strin- urges us a more against or a person That the is cold record biased that when the gent standard: party attorney. bias, appellate or must be the reflects subsequent assertion of any mind convinced that a state of person That the shows absolute.” “unequivocal is and rendering impartiality him from prevent will which 1223, Nell, F.2d 1230 526 verdict, positive States v. United or has formed State, 501 Cir.1976); (5th Auriemme v. as to the of the case or opinion on facts Land, 41, (Fla.App.1986); v. be, 44 State cannot So.2d outcome should and what the (Mo.1972); v. 290 Williams try the issue 478 S.W.2d disregard opinion such and 63, (Tex.Cr.App.1978). State, 65 565 S.W.2d impartially. Inc., Society, So.2d Andry 387 jurors’ v. Cumis Ins. permitted See voir dire on 6. The trial court 1374, high (La.App.1980); Alaska R.CÍV.P. perceived award in between a 1377 connection 47(c)(12). insurance rates. Sirot in- this case аnd their own between the connection We view perceived analogizes connection to Civil iak this high as no more premiums verdicts and surance 47(c)(12)’s excusing jurors provision for Rule size of the verdicts. general as to the bias than litigation. financially in the who are interested
1277
DID
argues
THE TRIAL COURT
NOT ERR
the
B.
instant case Sirotiak
In the
A
accept
jurors
IN REFUSING TO GRANT NEW
ready
those
too
court was
THE
bias,
TRIAL ON
GROUND SIROT-
admitting
they
said
who,
also
while
THE
IAK WAS DENIED
OPPOR-
fair.
would be
TO
AN EFFEC-
TUNITY
PRESENT
adopt
persuaded to
We are not
REBUTTAL
TIVE
CASE.
First,
suggestion.
we conduct our review
looking only for abuse
of the record
assignment
second
of error is
require
cold record to
To
discretion.
refusal to
trial court’s
allow Alvin Yani-
impar-
“unequivocal and absolute”
reflect
testify
Nelson to
on
ty and Dr. Will
rebut-
granted
tiality intrudes on the
tal.
judge
present
is
trial courts because
Second,
any compe
is
observing proceedings.
“[R]ebuttal
explains,
is a direct
could state
tent evidence which
truly
juror
honest
doubt
to,
a contradiction of material evi
absolutely
reply
that his or
or
unequivocally and
by
party
... a
in a civil
have no effect
vеr-
dence introduced
her biases will
Tonder,
633,
Riffey
v.
Md.App.
required
prospective
of a
36
All that is
action.”
dict.
(1977);
good
Wigmore,
that he or
juror is a
faith statement
375 A.2d
J.
fair,
(Chadboum
1976)
impartial and follow in-
ed.
Evidence §
rev.
she will be
(usual
has
rule excludes all evidence which
structions.
necessary
opponent’s
by
made
not been
this
to Havard
Applying
standard
Lodge,
Horn
Inc.
Van
reply).
in
case
Cf.
the trial court
Augestad we conclude
Ahearn,
v.
denying
its discretion
did not abuse
respond
to new
The focus of rebuttal
challenges for causе.
introduced
points or material first
strong
Although Havard stated he had a
Holiday
Val
Chrisler
opposing party.
suing
person
predisposition
Inc.,
(Mo.App.
ley,
580 S.W.2d
thought,
albeit
“deep pocket” he said
Railways
v. United Electric
1979);
Souza
difficulty, he could be fair. Sirotiak
(1928).
Co.,
143 A.
49 R.I.
argues
evidence
that Havard’s statements
merely
contradict
Rebuttal
pallid acquiescence
juror
only
already presented,
in
corroborate evidence
impartial
spite
strongly
held
could be
in denial of
be evidence
stead it should
However,
that some of
we observe
biases.
answering
fact which the
affirmative
some
ability
Havard’s assertions of fairness
Yeomans
prove.
party endeavors
response
instructions were
to follow
Warren,
448 N.Y.S.2d
87 A.D.2d
acqui-
questions
“pallid
and not
(1982).
leading questions.
escence” to Price’s
with wide discre
trial court is vested
Auges-
respect
prospective juror
With
*7
proof.
controlling the order
in
tion
responded to
initially
that he
tad we realize
Corp. v.
American Nat’l Watermattress
indicating that
questions by
(Alaska
Manville,
1330,
1339
the evidencе
proof by
preponderance
1982).
proper
is
rebuttal
evidence
Whether
However, he then
satisfy him.
would not
sound
trial court’s
lies within the
evidence
under-
problem
have a
stated he “wouldn’t
Airlines, Inc. v.
discretion. See Alaska
instructions
standing
judge’s]
what
[the
1977).
Sweat,
916,
(Alaska
P.2d
932
568
response
In
to
follow them.”
would be and
determining
whether
“The standard
firmly
Augestad
stated
questioning
Price’s
allowed to testi
should be
rebuttal witness
judge’s
the
fair and follow
he could be
timely
not
name was
fy when the witness’s
instructions.
‘dependent on whether
identified ...
[is]
testimony sought to be rebutted
they would be
jurors stated
Because both
anticipated prior to
reasonably have been
we
fair, impartial and follow instructions
”
McLean, 702
City Kotzebue
no
in
trial.’
discretion and
error
find no abuse of
1985)
(quoting
1315
challenges for
P.2d
the trial court’s denial
Sweat,
re-
We have
568 P.2d at
Augestad.
against Havard and
cause
court’s
found
peatedly upheld
surprised by
the trial
that Sirotiak was not
admitting
excluding
theory.
in
evidence Price’s
both
defense
The court
rea
non-compliance
there has
damage
where
been
soned
to
that
Townsend’s truck
order.7
discovery
pretrial
or the
day
“was an issue the
the case started.”
consistently
Townsend had
stated that the
general,
necessary
which
evidence
only damage to the truck
prove
prima facie case should
to
be
headlight.
chrome around the left front
Si
in
case
presented
plaintiffs
in the
chief. 6
attempted
rotiak
that he
testified
have
Wigmore,
Although
at 678.
J.
§
to swerve
to
to the left
avoid the accident
anticipate
required
not
to
de
plaintiff is
negated
which would have
a full frontal
chief,
part
case in
fenses as
of its
see
impact by
Thus,
the Townsend vehicle.
Ky.
Coursey,
S.W.
Houser
implicitly
court
concluded
(1949),
“the
plaintiff may
not
2d
sought
reasonably
or
be rebutted could
ignore known defense theories
close his
anticipated prior
have been
eyes
directly
her
coun
to trial.” Mc
evidence
Lean,
prima
plaintiff’s
Accordingly,
facie case. See Pien
P.2d at 1315.
ters
Benbenek,
A.D.2d
iewski v.
392 hold that
court did
the trial
not abuse its
(1977) (although
excluding Yanity’s
N.Y.S.2d
evidence
testimony.
discretion in
would have rebutted how аccident occurred
initially willing
The trial court was
evidence should
excluded because it cor
testify
to allow
Nelson
in rebuttal
plaintiff's
roborated
evidence
expert
recog
Price’s
The
witness.
chief).
in
have been
case in
principal expert,
nized that Sirotiak’s
Tal-
In the instant case Sirotiak tried to
bott,
theory.
was unavailable to defend his
properly
introduce
rebuttal evidence
However,
preparing
as a sanction for
belonged in his
in chief. Sirotiak’s
case
inadequate
delay
transmitting
report and
in
theory
required proof
of the case
of a 90
report
the trial court excluded Nel
However,
degree
prior
collision.
to trial
testimony.
son’s
prepare any
did not
evidence deter
degree
reasoning
minative of a 90
collision.
until
excluding
Not
The
trial court’s
after Sirotiak learned Price intended to ar
First,
unpersuasive.
Nelson is
the trial
gue
degree
a less than 90
collision did
“report”
court reasoned that
search
for evidence determinative
part
summary
mere'
on material
based
degreе
Consequently,
of a 90
collision.
already
the court had
ruled inadmissible.
witness, Yanity,
not
Sirotiak did
locate a
However,
trial court had not ordered a
damage
testify
who
to truck
deter
Moreover,
specific
report.
Price
detailed
degree
of a 90
until
minative
collision
after
reports
rather than to de-
chose
receive
the close of
case in chief.
pose
wit-
Sirotiak’s three
rebuttal
Further,
to let
nesses.
Sirotiak offered
Yanity was not on Sirotiak’s witness list.
to the in-
testify
Nelson
without reference
Although Yanity
had been interviewed
Second,
court ex-
admissible
months
material.
investigator
some
earlier
delay
cluded Nelson because
short
he was one
several witnesses whose
transmitting
the statements
names Sirotiak
to disclose
refused
counsel.
ar-
during discovery.
counsel to Price’s
As Sirotiak
The trial court excluded
gues,
specify
Yanity.
Yanity
court did
whether
court reasoned
reports
to deliver the
was not on the
list.
court also
Sirotiak was
witness
*8
Gordon,
(Alaska 1983) (as
(Alaska
Compare
soon
Doyle,
State
P.2d 733
v.
time. On balance has
ing a sanction where there a witness as good attempt comply faith
been discretion.
vague orders is an abuse of
Nonetheless, judgment affirm supported record any ground by the
on by the trial if it was not relied on
even Village Eyak v. G.C.
court. Native Contractors,
1983). leads us Our review record that the exclusion of Nelson
conclude Sirotiak, previously de- as
justified because
termined, surprised by the defense Therefore, sought
theory. reasonably have been
to be rebutted
anticipated prior to the trial.
CONCLUSION above, the deci-
For the reasons stated of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
sion Justice,
BURKE, dissenting.
I dissent. court, in my judgment, abused
The trial it to excuse two
its discretion when refused prospective jurors, and Au Havard
gestad, I the lead for cause. would follow that rever
of those courts which have held required under circumstances.
sal is these
See,
Frankel,
Ariz.
e.g., Wasko
(1977);
P.2d 230
v. Man
Crawford
(Utah
George Appellant, M. Alaska, Appellee.
STATE
No. A-1726. Appeals of Alaska.
Court
July