Lingafelter v. Moore

Citations

• 95 Ohio St. (N.S.) 384

Syllabus

<p>Challenge of juror — Result of overruling by trial court — Where bias of juror is manifest — Exhaustion of peremptory challenges— Section 11438, General Code — Conduct of trial.</p> <p>1. The right of trial by jury guaranteed by the constitution carries with it by necessary implication the right to a trial by a jury composed of unbiased and unprejudiced jurors.</p> <p>2. Under the provisions of Section 11438, General Code, a challenge to a juror must be sustained if the trial court has any doubt as to the juror being unbiased. Where the facts as to bias are uncontradicted and the only conclusion that can be legally drawn is that the juror is biased, the overruling of a challenge by a trial court is a manifest abuse of discretion and warrants a reversal of the judgment, where the challenge is made by a party after his peremptory challenges have been exhausted.</p> <p>3. Testimony of a juror on his voir dire that he was a depositor ■ in the bank of one of the defendants, that he had a feeling against him, that he would have a feeling against him whether or not the case in which he was called as a juror had anything to do with the failure of the bank and, further, that in starting in the trial of the case he could not get that- feeling out of his mind, shows the existence of a state of mind evincing a bias against that defendant, and in admitting such juror after his peremptory challenges have been exhausted the defendant is denied his constitutional right to an impartial jury.</p>