Legal Opinion

State v. Wakefield

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 1924PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

The first two errors are predicated upon the ruling of the court in permitting the prosecuting attorney, over the objection of the defendant, to propound to two jurymen, after the defendant had exhausted his peremptory challenges, the following question:

“If you were acting as a district attorney in this case, would you be willing to have a man who is in your present frame of mind to sit on a jury in a case that you were conducting?”

This question is objectionable. It does not necessarily tend to determine impartiality in the venireman. If the venireman was favorable to the state, he would…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. White v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. State v. BaconOregon Supreme Court · 1886
  3. State v. DonovanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
  4. State v. JarvisOregon Supreme Court · 1890
  5. State v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1887

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. ManleySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1969
  2. State v. HarrisOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  3. State v. LaPierreSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1963
  4. State v. CoffeyOregon Supreme Court · 1937
  5. State v. WinslowCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1970

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API