
    Koch v. State of Ohio.
    A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to two peremptory challenges. Having thus challenged one of a special venire and passed his second challenge, the special venire was exhausted and a new juryman called. Defendant then claimed the right to a second peremptory challenge, which was refused. This was error.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Clermont county.
    A jury being called into the box by special venire, and there being, no challenge for cause, the court inquired of the parties whether they wished to exercise any peremptory challenges, and thereupon defendant challenged one of the panel. Another person was called into the box, and there being no challenge for cause, the state challenged one of the number peremptorily. The panel was again filled by the sheriff calling a talesman, and there being no challenge for cause, the defendant at that time declined to exercise a further peremptory challenge. The prosecuting attorney, on behalf of the state, then exercised a second peremptory challenge. And thereupon, the sheriff' called into the box one Geo. W. Nice, a regular juryman, to fill the panel, the special venire being exhausted, and neither party asking for a special venire for talesmen. Thereupon, the defendant claimed the right to> challenge one of said panel, he having up to that time exercised but one peremptory challenge. The court denied the right at that stage of the case. To which ruling of the court the defendant then excepted and tendered his bill of exceptions, showing the foregoing facts, which was made part of the record.
    
      Nichols § Davis, and A. T. Cowen, for plaintiff in error.
    
      T. A. Griffith, for defendant in error.
   Wright, J.

By section 133 of the code of criminal procedure it is provided, “ (he prosecuting attorney and every defendant may peremptorily challenge two of the panel.” When the juror Rice was called into the panel, it was a new jury, and-the defendant, having up to that time exercised but one peremptory challenge, had the legal right to peremptorily challenge any one of the jurors. The denial of this right was error. ..

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.  