State v. Harris, 36937
| Decision Date | 18 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 36937,36937 |
| Citation | 184 Neb. 301,167 N.W.2d 386 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Randall HARRIS, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Denial of a continuance on the ground that defendant could not have a fair and impartial trial before the regualr panel of jurors, because a jury selected therefrom had previously found his companion guilty of another offence, was not prejudicially erroneous where the record shows that each juror selected for the second trial was duly qualified to act as such.
2. A defendant who fails to challenge jurors for disqualification and passes the jurors for cause waives his right to object to their selection and cannot later object after receiving an unfavorable verdict.
3. The verdict of the jury rendered in a criminal prosecution will not be reversed in the absence of a showing of prejudice to a substantial right of defendant.
Richard J. Spethman, Omaha, for appellant.
Clarence A. H. Meyer, Atty. Gen., James J. Duggan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C.J., and CARTER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN, and NEWTON, JJ.
Defendant and a companion were arrested in Douglas County, Nebraska, on a charge of burglary. While awaiting trial, the companion was tried and convicted on a felony charge unconnected with the burglary for which defendant was tried. Defendant's trial was has to the same jury panel which had heard his companion's case. Defendant moved for a continuance on the ground that he could not receive a fair trial before the jury panel from which a jury had been selected which had tried and convicted his companion on a different charge. The motion was overruled by the court and on its own motion, the court dismissed any jurors called who had served as jurors in the case of defendant's companion. In doing so, the court avoided any reference to the connection between the two cases. Jurors called were examined on voir dire by the defendant's attorney and passed for cause. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
There is absolutely no showing of prejudice to any substantial right of the defendant in the record before us. It does not appear that any juror had any knowledge that defendant's companion had been previously convicted on a felony charge separate and distinct from the burglary charge on which defendant stood trial. Under such circumstances, it appears that defendant's assignment of error must be rejected on several...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tommy Y., Jr.
...the jury is empaneled, that party waives any right to complain of the jury's composition at a later time."); Syl. pt. 2, State v. Harris, 184 Neb. 301, 167 N.W.2d 386 (1969) ("A defendant who fails to challenge jurors for disqualification and passes the jurors for cause waives his right to ......
-
Howard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...236 Neb. 33, 458 N.W.2d 472 (1990), overruled on other grounds, State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558, 477 N.W.2d 544 (1991); State v. Harris, 184 Neb. 301, 167 N.W.2d 386 (1969); State v. Eggers, 175 Neb. 79, 120 N.W.2d 541 (1963). Regier expressly notes that "[n]o challenge for cause by the defen......
-
Regier v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., s. 38365
...and passes the jurors for cause waives any objection to their selection. State v. Eggers, 175 Neb. 79, 120 N.W.2d 541; State v. Harris, 184 Neb. 301, 167 N.W.2d 386. The defendant contends that the verdicts were excessive. This is the principal issue presented by the The verdicts in these c......