Strong v. State

• Decision Date: 23 June 1921
• Docket Number: 21845
• Citation: 183 N.W. 559,106 Neb. 339
• Parties: FRANK J. STRONG v. STATE OF NEBRASKA
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

183 N.W. 559

106 Neb. 339

FRANK J. STRONG v. STATE OF NEBRASKA

No. 21845

Supreme Court of Nebraska

June 23, 1921

ERROR to the district court for Madison county: WILLIAM V. ALLEN JUDGE. Remanded, with directions.

REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS.

Barnhart & Stewart, for plaintiff in error.

Clarence A. Davis, Attorney General, and Mason Wheeler, contra.

Heard before LETTON, DAY, DEAN and ROSE, JJ.

OPINION

DAY J.

Frank J. Strong was convicted in the district court for Madison county on a charge of statutory rape, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for an indeterminate period of from three to twenty years. As plaintiff in error he has brought the record here for review.

For convenience, plaintiff in error will be hereinafter referred to as defendant. The chief complaint of the defendant upon the oral argument, as well as in his brief, is tat the trial court erred in restricting and limiting his counsel in the voir dire examination of veniremen called as prospective jurors in the case. The record shows that during the examination upon their voir dire several prospective jurors were asked by counsel for the defendant whether they were married, how many children they had, and whether the children were boys or girls. During the examination of venireman Fred Reeker by defendant's counsel, he was asked: "Q. You are married? A. Yes, sir. Q. And got some children? A. Yes, sir." At this juncture the court interrupted, saying: "I am going to stop you. It is wholly immaterial whether this man has children or not. Avoid that, Mr. Barnhart."

The principal purpose of the voir dire examination is to ascertain whether the proposed juror is free from bias or prejudice, and whether he is in such attitude of mind with respect to the case in hand that he would be a fair and impartial juror. With this end in view, it is the policy of the law to give to the parties ample opportunity to question the venireman upon matters bearing upon his competency, and questions which tend to show his attitude of mind and feelings should not be unreasonably abridged. And as each party has the right to exercise a certain number of peremptory challenges, it is proper, within reasonable limits, to propound questions which, in the judgment of the respective parties, may assist them in the exercise of that right. The extent to which the examination may be carried rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion to the prejudice of the party complaining. Van Skike v. Potter, 53 Neb. 28, 73 N.W. 295.

The question here presented is not a new one in this jurisdiction. In Basye v. State, 45 Neb. 261, 63 N.W. 811, it was held: "On the examination of a juror on his voir dire, each party has the right, within reasonable limits, to put pertinent questions for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there exists sufficient ground for a challenge for cause, and also to enable the party to properly exercise his statutory right of peremptory challenge."

From an examination of the questions propounded to the veniremen, as shown by the record, it is perfectly clear that the fact sought to be elicited from the proposed juror was for the purpose of assisting counsel in their peremptory challenges. In directing the trial, a large amount of discretion must necessarily be given to the trial judge, to the end that trials be expedited, and that the examination of proposed jurors be not extended beyond reasonable bounds. In the case at bar we are of the view that the restrictions placed upon the examination of the proposed jurors did not amount to an abuse of judicial...