¶1(dissenting) :
¶2The appellant is a locally well-known, young, black, bearded, civil or “human” rights activist, who contended, inter alia, that marijuana was planted upon him by law enforcement officers who were “out to get him.” The jury panel was composed of six blacks and thirty whites. The appellant requested voir dire examination of the prospective jurors and specifically requested that the following questions, inter alia, be asked.
¶3“1. Would you fairly try this case on the basis of evidence and disregarding the defendant’s race?
¶4“2. You have no prejudice against Negroes? Against black people? You would not be influenced by the use of the term ‘black’ ?
¶5“3. Would you disregard the fact that this defendant wears a beard in deciding this case?”
¶6The Trial judge declined to ask the foregoing questions, ruling that they were not relevant. Instead, His Honor asked the jurors only the three basic questions specifically required *13by Sec. 38-202 of the 1962 Code. Under the facts and circumstances of this case and the principles enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Aldridge v. United States (1931), 283 U. S. 308, 51 S. Ct. 470, 75 L. Ed. 1054, (which decision is binding upon this Court), I conclude that His Honor was in error in summarily disposing of the proposed questions as irrelevant. It was, of course, not necessary for the court to ask questions in precisely the form presented, but under the Aldridgecase it was required, I think, to inquire of the jurors whether they had any prejudice because of these particular matters which would prevent them giving a fair and impartial verdict.
¶7The case of State v. Young, 238 S. C. 115, 119 S. E. (2d) 504, relied upon by the respondent as sustaining the action of the trial judge, is clearly distinguishable on the facts. In fairness to the lower court, his ruling in this respect finds some support in State v. Bethune (1910), 86 S. C. 143, 67 S. E. 466, and State v. Bethune (1912), 93 S. C. 195, 75 S. E. 281. The Aldridgecase supra, is however, I think controlling.
¶8The defendant in my opinion is entitled to a new trial and I would reverse and remand to that end.