State v. Latham
In State v. Latham, 100 Wn.2d 59, 64, 667 P.2d 56 (1983), court found that the defendant failed to show that the two jurors complained of should have been excused for cause. Latham, 100 Wn.2d at 64.
Nevertheless, this court went on to enunciate a rule before declining to apply it:
Finally, we note the use of a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been removed for cause "cures" the error.
Where the juror is excused through a peremptory challenge, the defendant must show that the use of the peremptory challenge actually prejudiced his case.
Petitioner contends, however, that because he was forced to use two peremptory challenges on these jurors, he was prejudiced.
He argues the use of these challenges denied him the opportunity to exclude any jurors who may have had strong opinions about drug use.
Because we hold the trial court did not err by refusing petitioner's challenges for cause, we need not address this issue. Id.
Although the Court in Latham never explicitly says that the petitioner exhausted his peremptory challenges, that appears to be the case since he complains about not being able to use his peremptory challenges on other jurors. Id. at 63, 64.