Criminal appeal from conviction for conspiracy to obtain contributions for a governing political party through influence peddling.
The majority held that questioning prospective jurors in private after arraignment and plea, on grounds including possible partiality, formed part of the trial for purposes of s. 577(1) of the Criminal Code and violated the accused's right to be present.
The majority further held that this defect could not be cured by later challenges for cause or by the curative provisions dealing with jury irregularities, and that the process impermissibly intruded into the Code's exclusive scheme for determining juror impartiality.
A new trial was ordered, although the majority indicated agreement with the dissent's resolution of the remaining issues concerning the definition of “person”, the co-conspirators' hearsay exception, and good character instructions.
