California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Saugstad, 203 Cal.App.2d 536, 21 Cal.Rptr. 740 (Cal. App. 1962):
Appellants also complain the court committed prejudicial error because it permitted the district attorney to challenge a juror after he had announced that he was satisfied with the jury. There is no merit in this contention. The defense requested a recess after the district attorney announced he was satisfied with the jury and then in the absence of the jury a discussion was had on the question of a change of venue. During this discussion the defense indicated the prospective jury was acceptable. After the jury was recalled the district attorney asked permission of the court to reopen his challenge. The defense objected. After a discussion the court granted the district attorney's request. In the absence of a showing of prejudice to appellants' substantial rights a departure from the procedure prescribed by section 1088 of the Penal Code may not be availed of on appeal. (People v. Hoyt, 20 Cal.2d 306, 125 P.2d 29.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.