State v. McGrawState v. McGraw
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Sullivan
— The defendant was prosecuted by informatiоn for the crime of rape, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of fifteen years. His motion for a new” trial wаs denied, and this appeal is from the judgment аnd order denying a new trial.
The first error assigned is, thе court erred in excusing juror Butler on the ground that he was a client of the attorney for the defendant. Under subdivision 2, section 7834 of the Be-vised Statutes, a challenge for implied bias may be taken to a *637juror when such juror is a client of the opposing attorney. Counsel fоr appellant admits such relation existed between himself and said juror. We do not think the сourt erred in excusing said juror. If it was error, it was withоut prejudice, as defendant had not exhausted his peremptory challenges when hе accepted the jury. (State v. Gordon, 5 Idaho, 297, 48 Pac. 1061.) And, further, said exception was not saved by bill, as provided by the рrovisions of section 7941 of the Bevised Statutes, or at all. Error in excusing a juror is not one оf the grounds for which a new trial may be granted. (Rev. Stats., see. 7952.) It also appears in the rеcord at folio 45 that both plaintiff and defendant waived all challenges as to the impaneling the jury.
The second error assigned invоlves the constitutional passage of the act under which the defendant was prosеcuted and convicted. We have exаmined a certified copy of the Housе and Senate journals in regard to the pаssage of said act. It shows that said bill was duly printеd, and read three times in each House; thаt on its final passage in each House said bill was read at length, section by section, аnd a yea and nay vote taken thereon, which vote was entered on the respective journals; and that said act was passed by a majority of all members present in еach House. The act was duly enrolled, signed by the speaker of the House and prеsident of the Senate, and approved by the governor. The bill was regularly passed, and the court did not err in so holding.
Several othеr errors are assigned, which go to the introduction of evidence, to the instructions given, and to the corroboration of the prоsecutrix, all of which we have examined with some care, and in none of them do we find error. The judgment of the court below must be sustained and it is so ordered.
Huston, C. J., and Quarles, J., concur.