The opinion
BLACKMAR, Judge,
concurring.
I concur, and write separately simply to express concern about the many cases presented to our Court and the Court of Appeals in which a juror indicates doubt about his or her ability to function impartially, and is nevertheless continued on the panel tendered to counsel for strikes. In the typical case the trial judge or the prosecutor will ask questions until the juror gives assurance of efforts of impartiality. The suspicion remains that the juror’s initial reaction persists, and that the assurances are only what might be expected from interrogation by a high authority figure.
Trial judges should fully sustain challenges to jurors who indicate reservations about their impartiality. Replacement jurors are easily available in the metropolitan areas, and it should not be difficult to ensure adequate supply of jurors in other parts of the state.
I regret the necessity for reversal of a conviction of a persistent offender on serious charges, in which there seems to be no other substantial claim of error, but agree with the analysis in the principal opinion demonstrating that the challenged juror never gave an answer which was free from reservation.