CARLEY, Presiding Judge.
After a trial before a jury, judgments of conviction and sentences were entered by the trial court on the verdicts finding appellant guilty of one count of child molestation, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Appellant appeals, enumerating as error only the trial court's failure to sustain his challenge to the jury panel.
A prospective juror expressed the desire to be excused because of her "dissatisfaction with the system ... related to lawyers who represented guilty defendants knowing that they were guilty." After advising her that such "was not the case," the trial court excused her for cause. Because the other prospective jurors had overheard the comment, appellant correctly made a challenge to the poll. See Hill v. State, 221 Ga. 65, 66 (1, 2) ( 142 S.E.2d 909) (1965). Compare Lingerfelt v. State, 147 Ga. App. 371, 373 (1) ( 249 S.E.2d 100) (1978); Edmonds v. State, 196 Ga. App. 190, 194 (1) ( 395 S.E.2d 566) (1990). The trial court asked whether any other juror shared the views of the excused prospective juror and whether her statement had affected any juror's ability to be fair and impartial. No juror responded affirmatively.
The excused "`juror's statement . . . provide[s] no ground for disqualifying the jury.' [Cit.]" Nelson v. State, 199 Ga. App. 487, 488-489 (4) ( 405 S.E.2d 310) (1991). See also McBurse v. State, 182 Ga. App. 759 (2) ( 357 S.E.2d 144) (1987); Petty v. State, 179 Ga. App. 767 (2) ( 347 S.E.2d 663) (1986). The statement was not "inherently prejudicial." Compare Moore v. State, 156 Ga. App. 92, 93 (1) ( 274 S.E.2d 107) (1980); Lingerfelt v. State, supra at 373-374 (1). It "did not link [appellant] to other criminal violations on his part which were complete and separate from the offense for which he was being tried. [Cit.]" Roberts v. State, 259 Ga. 441, 443 (2) ( 383 S.E.2d 872) (1989). See also McBurse v. State, supra at 759 (2). Compare Moore v. State, supra; Lingerfelt v. State, supra.
Moreover, "`[i]n view of the remedial action taken by the trial court, we find no error in its refusal to disqualify (the entire panel) on the basis of a comment made by one prospective juror. ...' [Cit.]" Nelson v. State, supra at 489. "Furthermore, the record reflects that the remaining prospective jurors indicated they would not be affected by the remark. [Cit.]" McBurse v. State, supra at 760 (2). Accordingly, "[s]ince there was no showing that the [statement] influenced the minds of [any member of] the jury prejudicially to appellant, the denial of appellant's [challenge to the poll] was not error. [Cits.]" Thaxton v. State, 260 Ga. 141, 142-143 (3) ( 390 S.E.2d 841) (1990). See also Roberts v. State, supra at 443 (2).
Judgments affirmed. Pope and Johnson, JJ., concur.
DECIDED APRIL 7, 1992.