must then be sworn, and six additional names must be drawn and presented for examination, with which the same process should be repeated, and so continued until the jury is complete." This was also held to be the rule in People v. Russell, 46 Cal. 121; People v. Iams, 6 Pac. C. L. J. 882.

1069. A peremptory challenge can be taken by either party, and may be oral. It is an objection to a juror for which no reason need be given, but upon which the court must exclude him.

1. Peremptory Challenges.-Sec. 1068, n.; People v. Weil, 40 Cal. 268; People v. Jenks, 24 Id. 11; People v. Reynolds, 16 Id. 128; People v. Kohle, 4 Id. 198.

1070. If the offense charged be punishable with death, or with imprisonment in the state prison for life, the defendant is entitled to twenty and the state to ten peremptory challenges. On a trial for any other offense, the defendant is entitled to ten and the state to five peremptory challenges. [Amendment, approved March 30, 1874; in effect July 1, 1874.

1071. A challenge for cause may be taken by either party. It is an objection to a particular juror, and is either:

1. General-that the juror is disqualified from serving in any

case; or,

2. Particular-that he is disqualified from serving in the action on trial.

1072. General causes of challenge are:

1. A conviction for felony;

2. A want of any of the qualifications prescribed by law to render a person a competent juror;

3. Unsoundness of mind, or such defect in the faculties of the mind or organs of the body as renders him incapable of performing the duties of a juror.

1. Qualifications Required of Jurors.-Code of Civil Procedure, 198, post. See Const., art. 20, sec. 11.

2. Exemptions.-Code of Civil Procedure, 200, post.

3. Challenge, What Constitutes.-Sec. 1055, n. 1.

1073. Particular causes of challenge are of two kinds:

1. For such a bias as, when the existence of the facts is ascertained, in judgment of law disqualifies the juror, and which is known in this code as implied bias;

2. For the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the case, or to either of the parties, which will prevent him from acting with entire impartiality and without prejudice to the substantial rights of either party, which is known in this code as actual bias. [Amendment, approved March 30, 1874; in effect July 1, 1874.

1. Implied Bias.-Sec. 1074.

2. Actual Bias.-Sec. 1076.

3. Challenge, How Taken.-A challenge must state the specific grounds upon which it is taken; otherwise it will be disregarded. A challenge which merely states that "the juror is challenged for cause," ..for actual bias," or for implied bias," is no challenge. People v. Cotta, 49 Cal. 166; People v. Buckley, 49 Id. 241; People v. Walsh, 43 Id. 447; People v. McGungill, 41 Id. 429; People v. Hardin, 37 Id. 258; People v. Dick, Id. 277; People v. Reynolds, 16 Id. 128.

1074. A challenge for implied bias may be taken for all or any of the following causes, and for no other:

1. Consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree to the person alleged to be injured by the offense charged, or on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted, or to the defendant.

2. Standing in the relation of guardian and ward, attorney and client, master and servant, or landlord and tenant, or being a member of the family of the defendant, or of the person alleged to be injured by the offense charged, or on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted, or in his employment on

wages.

3. Being a party adverse to the defendant in a civil action, or having complained against or been accused by him in a criminal prosecution.

4. Having served on the grand jury which found the indictment, or on a coroner's jury which inquired into the death of a person whose death is the subject of the indictment or information.

5. Having served on a trial jury which has tried another person for the offense charged.

6. Having been one of a jury formerly sworn to try the same charge, and whose verdict was set aside, or which was discharged without a verdict, after the case was submitted to it. 7. Having served as a juror in a civil action brought against the defendant for the act charged as an offense.

8. If the offense charged be punishable with death, the entertaining of such conscientious opinions as would preclude his finding the defendant guilty; in which case be must neither be permitted nor compelled to serve as a juror. [Amendment, approved April 9, 1880; in effect immediately.

1. Challenge, How Taken.-Sec. 1073, n. 3.

2. Formed or Expressed an Unqualified Opinion.-Prior to the amendment of section 1074, adopted in 1874, the section included as an additional ground of challenge for implied bias, the following: "Having formed

or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief that the prisoner is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged." This ground of challenge, however, no longer exists, though it is in part supplied by the provisions of sections 1073 and 1076, relating to challenges for actual bias. No exception can be taken, however, to an order allowing or disallowing a challenge to a juror for actual bias the only exception that can be reserved being to rulings admitting or rejecting evidence on the trial of such challenge. Sec. 1170. It would seem that, on appeal, the only question that will be considered, where a challenge for actual bias has been taken, is whether or not the trial court erred in admitting or rejecting testimony on the trial of the challenge, and that the decision of the trial court on the question of the fitness of the juror to serve—a question of fact-will not be reviewed. And unless an exception is taken to the ruling of the court in admitting or rejecting evidence, a challenge to a juror for actual bias will not be considered at all by the supreme court. People v. Cotta, 49 Cal. 166; People v. Vasquez, 49 Id. 560; People v. Taing, 53 Id. 602. Prior to this amendment, the most common ground of challenge for implied bias was "that the juror had formed or expressed an unqualified opinion" on the merits of the case, and the ruling of the trial court disallowing such challenge was subject to direct review by the supreme court. See People v. Brown, 48 Cal. 253; People v. Brotherton, 47 Id. 388; People v. Brotherton, 43 Id. 530; People v. Edwards, 41 Id. 640; People v. Weil, 40 Id. 268; People v. King, 27 Id. 507; People v. Symonds, 22 Id. 348; People v. Mahoney, 18 Id. 180; People v. Reynolds, 16 Id. 128; People v. Cottle, 6 Id. 227. 3. Defendant to Exhaust all Peremptory Challenges.-The ruling of the court disallowing a challenge to a juror for implied bias, after which the defendant challenges the juror peremptorily, will not be reviewed, unless it appears from the record that defendant exhausted all his peremptory challenges, before a jury was secured. People v. McGungill, 41 Cal. 429; People v. Gatewood, 20 Id. 149; People v. Gaunt, 23 Id. 156. But if defendant exhausts all his peremptory challenges, the ruling of the court will be reviewed on appeal. People v. Weil, 40 Id. 268.

4. Conscientious Opinions.-A juror who has such conscientious opinions as would preclude him from finding the defendant guilty in a capital case upon circumstantial evidence, is not competent if challenged. People v. Ah Chung, 54 Cal. 401.

1075. Au exemption from service on a jury is not a cause of challenge, but the privilege of the person exempted.

1. Exemption from Service-Privilege of the Party.—A party who accepts a juror, knowing him to be disqualified, is estopped from afterwards availing himself of such disqualification. People v. Stonecifer, 6 Cal. 411. So a defendant who receives a juror whose name is upon the poll-tax list only, can not, after the verdict, object that he was not a competent juror. Id.; People v. Sanford, 43 Id. 31. An exemption from service on a jury is a personal privilege, and such persons are not disqualified from serving as jurors. If they fail to exercise their privilege the parties can not complain. Proffatt on Jury Trial, sec. 119; State v. Wright, 53 Me. 328; State v. Forshner, 43 N. H. 89; State v. Adams, 20 Ia. 486.

1076. In a challenge for implied bias, one or more of the causes stated in section 1074 must be alleged. In a challenge

for actual bias, the cause stated in the second subdivision of section 1073 must be alleged; but no person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion upon the matter or cause to be submitted to such jury, founded upon public rumor, statements in public journals, or common notoriety; provided, it appear to the court, upon his declaration, under oath or otherwise, that he can and will, notwithstanding such an opinion, act impartially and fairly upon the matters to be submitted to him. The challenge may be oral, but must be entered in the minutes of the court or of the phonographic reporter. [Amendment, approved March 30, 1874; in effect July 1, 1874.

1. Secs. 1073, n., 1074, n.

1077. The adverse party may except to the challenge in the same manner as to a challenge to the panel, and the same proceedings must be had thereon as are prescribed in section 1061, except that if the exception be allowed, the juror must be excluded. The adverse party may also orally deny the facts alleged as the ground of challenge.

1078. If the facts are denied, the challenge must be tried by the court. [Amendment, approved March 30, 1874; in effect July 1, 1874.

1. A Juror, When Qualified.-To be able to sit on a jury without bias --that any opinion he has can be changed by evidence, and a willingness to be governed by the evidence-constitute a good juror, if qualified in other respects. People v. McCauley, 1 Cal. 379. The mere hearing of or reading about a case, and even of a statement of the facts, does not disqualify a person, but it is the formation of a conclusion. People v. Reynolds, 16 Id. 128. If a person called as a juror has said, "The people ought to take the prisoner out of jail and hang him," it would be error to allow him to sit on the jury, and the court would grant a new trial. People v. Plummer, 9 Id. 298. But see People v. Fair, 43 Id: 137. Being a policeman, and having a general bad opinion of people charged with crime, is no valid objection to a person otherwise competent to sit on a jury. People v. Reynolds, 16 Id. 128. If a disqualified juror is once accepted, the objection can not be interposed by one who knew the disqualification and did not urge it at the proper time. People v. Stonecifer, 6 Id. 405. As challenge for implied bias, counsel must allege one or more of the causes so specified. People v. Hardin, 37 Id. 259; People v. Reynolds, 16 Id. 130. Hearing the purported facts rumored, but conversing with none of the witnesses, and from this forming an opinion, is not a disqualification. Prople v. Williams, 17 Id. 142. General impressions of defendant being a bad man, from reading papers, etc., not a disqualification. People v. Mahoney, 18 Id. 180. Fixed conclusions do, but impressions do not, disqualify. People v. Symonds, 22 Cal. 348. And these conclusions must amount to settled convictions, or they must have been expressed to disqualify a juror. People v. King, 27 Id. 507. Where a juror upon examina

tion states that he has formed a fixed, decided opinion in regard to the guilt or innocence of defendant, a subsequent statement by him that his opinion is not an unqualified one, and that he can try the case and render a verdict according to the evidence, notwithstanding his opinion will not make him competent to serve as a juror, and the challenge should be allowed. People v. Weil, 40 Id. 268. Where the juror stated that he would under no circumstances convict on circumstantial evidence, it was held that a challenge by the district attorney should be sustained. People v. Ah Chung, 54 Id. 398. See also People v. Renfrow, 41 Id. 39; People v. Dick, 37 Id. 277; People v. Welch, 49 Id. 174.

2. Juror, Competency of.-In the examination of trial jurors as to their competency in a criminal case, the defendant is not restricted to the inquiry whether the juror can try the case and render a verdict under the law as declared by the court, and upon the evidence adduced without regard to any previously formed opinion. People v. Woods, 29 Cal. 636. The court must determine the competency of a juror. Id.

3. Triers. Prior to the amendment of section 1078, all challenges to jurors for actual bias were tried by three disinterested persons appointed by the court, and who were designated "triers."

[1079, 1080. Repealed by act approved March 30, 1874; in effect July 1, 1874. Amendments 1873-4, 443.]

1081. Upon the trial of a challenge to an individual juror, the juror challenged may be examined as a witness to prove or disprove the challenge, and must answer every question pertinent to the inquiry.

1. Proposed Juror may be asked whether he would take the word of a Chinaman as soon as that of white man. People v. Car Soy, 6 Pac. C. L. J. 880; People v. Han Tin, Id. 866.

1082. Other witnesses may also be examined on either side, and the rules of evidence applicable to the trial of other issues govern the admission or exclusion of evidence on the trial of the challenge.

1083. The court must allow or disallow the challenge, and its decision must be entered in the minutes of the court. [Amendment, approved March 30, 1874; in effect July 1, 1874.

1. Allowance of Challenge, not Reviewable. The action of the court in allowing a challenge to a juror will not, it seems, be reviewed on appeal. People v. Atherton, 51 Cal. 495; People v. Murphy, 45 Id. 142. Neither can the action of the court in sustaining a challenge for implied bias be excepted to or reviewed on appeal. People v. Colson, 49 Id. 679. Sec. 1170, n.

[1084, 1085. Repealed by act, approved March 30, 1874; in effect July 1, 1874. Amendments 1873-4, 444.]

1086. All challenges to an individual juror, except peremptory, must be taken, first by the defendant, and then by the