dissenting.
The majority would disqualify the juror under challenge for principal cause, that is, because of her employment, she was automatically disqualified.4 This expands the holding in Hutcheson v. State, 246 Ga. 13 (268 SE2d 643) (1980), to equate employees of district attorneys with full-time police officers. To be sure, there are occasions in which such employees should be disqualified, but those employees are not law enforcement officers in any sense of the term, and, as jurors, should not be treated with the same status.5 Indeed, we have consistently refused to extend the rule in Hutcheson, to those less connected with law enforcement than full-time police officers. In Denison v. State, 258 Ga. 690, 691 (4) (373 SE2d 503) (1988), we rejected an assumption of bias on the part of sworn deputies, employed by the sheriff. Likewise, we rejected such an assumption as to inactive reserve policemen and auxiliary policemen in Wilson v. State, 250 Ga. 630, 635 (4) (a) (300 SE2d 640) (1983), and as to former police officers *787currently working for the state at a correctional facility in Jordan v. State, supra.
Decided February 8, 1991. Lynne Y. Borsuk, Donna Lea Avans, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Rebecca A. Keel, Constance C. Russell, Assistant District Attorneys, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, for appellee.The element of fairness in the jury selection process remains intact by virtue of the fact that a juror not automatically disqualified is yet subject to challenge for cause if bias is shown, and in any event is subject to peremptory challenge.6 Because there was no showing during the voir dire examination that this particular juror was in any way biased or prejudiced,7 and because I would not expand the Hutcheson rule to presume bias on the part of one of many secretaries in the appellate division in the district attorney’s office, I would affirm the conviction.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
There are two types of challenges to an individual juror for cause: [fn.] (1) for principal cause, and (2) for favor. [Cits.] Challenges for principal cause are based on facts which, if proved, automatically disqualify the juror from serving. . . . Challenges for favor are based on admissions of the juror or facts and circumstances raising a suspicion that the juror is actually biased for or against one of the parties.
Jordan v. State, 247 Ga. 328, 338 (6) (276 SE2d 224) (1981). Both types of challenges involve a determination of bias on the part of the juror. Challenges for principal cause, the first type, involve a nonrebuttable presumption of bias. In challenges for favor, the second type, bias on the part of the juror is asserted by the party moving to disqualify but is not presumed. In the latter case, a decision is made by the trial judge, based on his or her discretion, whether the juror should be excused for cause. The holding in this case places all employees of a district attorney, regardless of how remotely they may be connected with the case on trial, in the former category. I would place them in the latter.
Accord Roubideaux v. State, 707 P2d 35 (Ok. 1985) (trial court did not err in refusing to excuse for cause a prospective juror, an administrative assistant in the district attorney’s office, who stated she was not involved in any aspect of the case, or its investigation, and that she could serve as a fair and impartial juror); Lowe v. State, 384 S2d 1164 (Ala. 1980) (fact that prospective juror was employed by the district attorney at the time of trial did not impute bias as a matter of law); State v. Wright, 182 NW 385 (la. 1921) (trial court did not err in overruling a challenge for cause of a juror who was a client and employee of one of the attorneys for the prosecution).
But for the rule in Harris v. State, 255 Ga. 464, 465 (2) (339 SE2d 712) (1986), this alleged error would have been found harmless. The potential juror was peremptorily struck by the defendant who had two remaining peremptory strikes after the jury was ultimately selected. The speculative nature of weighing the value of unused peremptory strikes, referred to in cases such as Blankenship v. State, 247 Ga. 590, 593 (4) (277 SE2d 505) (1981); and Pope v. State, 256 Ga. 195, 202 (345 SE2d 831) (1986), is not present in this case.
Beam’s lawyer ended her principal voir dire examination of the juror without moving to disqualify her. Thereafter, she called the juror for further questioning, and upon learning that the juror had access to case files, although she received and reviewed only those dealing with appeals, moved to disqualify her. The basis for the motion to disqualify, and for the ultimate striking of the juror, was not over any concern of undue loyalty to her employer, but seemed related to a fear that the juror might, from a source beyond the evidence, learn something about the case. Nothing from the voir dire examination demonstrated such fear would be realized. The information acquired, therefore, would certainly encourage a peremptory strike, but would not authorize a challenge for cause.