holding trial court has significant discretion in considering a challenge for cause
How later courts described this case
- holding trial court has significant discretion in considering a challenge for cause
- holding that it is generally impermissible to have one witness comment on the credibility of other witnesses
- stating that “[a] witness’s opinion about the truth of the testimony of another witness is not permitted.”
- holding trial court has significant discretion in considering a challenge *622for cause
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COOPER, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the result reached by the majority and with its analysis of the issues with one exception. I would not characterize the tidal judge’s failure to disclose the information volunteered to him by a juror during recess as “harmless error.” Rather, I would characterize the incident as “no error.” The juror neither made a misstatement nor withheld requested information during voir dire, Johnson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 892 S.W.2d 558, 563 (1994), but simply reiterated to the judge the same information previously given to counsel by his failure to affirmatively respond to the voir dire question. I find no error in the trial judge’s failure to interrupt the jury selection process to advise counsel that a juror had responded truthfully during voir dire.
GRAVES, J., joins this concurring opinion.