In People v. Crowe (1973) 8 Cal.3d 815, the California Supreme Court held that the lower court did not err in employing the method of voir dire under which the court, itself, conducts the examination and permits counsel to submit questions to the court which it finds to be within the scope of reasonable examination. ( Id., at p. 824.) And, if special circumstances in the case make defendant's questions relevant to show bias or other grounds for a challenge for cause, it is his burden to inform the court of his reasons for asking the questions. ( Id., at p. 830.) On these grounds, the court in Crowe held the trial judge acted entirely within his discretion when he precluded inquiry of a prospective juror as to whether being the only black on the jury panel "'might in any way place her in a compromising position.'" ( Id., at p. 829.) The court reasoned that since the juror had already made clear that her judgment would not be compromised by racial considerations, further inquiry was merely exploratory. (Ibid.) As Crowe emphasized, "It is now well settled that a juror may not be examined on voir dire solely for the purpose of finding a basis to exercise a peremptory challenge." ( Id. at p. 830.)