In any criminal action tried before a jury, either party shall have the right to examine, personally or by his counsel, each juror outside the presence of other prospective jurors as to his qualifications to sit as a juror in the action, or as to his interest, if any, in the subject matter of the action, or as to his relations with the parties thereto. If the judge before whom the examination is held is of the opinion from the examination that any juror would be unable to render a fair and impartial verdict, the juror shall be excused by the judge from any further service upon the panel, or in the action, as the judge determines. The right of such examination shall not be abridged by requiring questions to be put to any juror in writing and submitted in advance of the commencement of said action.

Cited. 196 C. 667; 197 C. 314; 200 C. 586; 201 C. 125; 203 C. 506; 204 C. 156; Id., 377; 205 Conn. 61; 218 C. 309; 222 C. 1; 223 C. 299; 226 C. 237; Id., 618; 230 C. 385, see also 37 CA 801; 233 C. 215; Id., 813; 237 C. 238; Id., 454. Nothing in section requires trial court to permit a party to ascertain prospective jurors’ views on specific evidence during voir dire. 269 C. 213. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by precluding defense counsel from asking venirepersons specifically about self-defense. 292 C. 656. Cited. 10 CA 624; 16 CA 165; Id., 333; 26 Conn.App. 165; 30 CA 359; Id., 470; 31 CA 278; judgment reversed, see 230 Conn. 385, see also 37 Conn.App. 801; 38 CA 247; Id., 598; 40 CA 328; 46 CA 600. Purpose of voir dire. 49 CA 41. In a case concerning a male on male, or female on female, sexual assault, relevant questions to venirepersons that delve into prejudices, beliefs and attitudes toward homosexuality should be permitted, but questions relating to the issue of struggling with sexual identity are not permitted as such questions are unrelated to the issues in the case, are not based on undisputed facts and would test the prospective jurors’ views of certain facts. 112 CA 694.