Since six persons were indicted for the crimes in question (of which fact the appellant had notice), and since the evidence showed that the appellant aided and abetted in the commission of the crimes, but it was impossible to determine which defendants inflicted the fatal stab wounds among the multiple wounds, the charge on party to crime was not erroneous. See Hubbard v. State, 145 Ga. App. 714 (3) ( 244 S.E.2d 639) (1978); Davis v. State, 134 Ga. App. 750 (4) ( 216 S.E.2d 348) (1975). 13.

See generally Clark, supra at 438. Indeed, it appears that the legislature, by placing the word "any" before "building," intended that the statute include buildings of whatever kind. Furthermore, we note that this court has affirmed burglary convictions where the house burglarized was under construction, although the specific issue of whether an unfinished house is a "building" within the meaning of the burglary statute was not raised. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 134 Ga. App. 750 ( 216 S.E.2d 348) (1975); Thurston v. State, 186 Ga. App. 881 ( 368 S.E.2d 822) (1988). We find the decisions in cases such as Clark and Angel persuasive, and hold that a "building" under the burglary statute includes a house under construction which is so far completed as to be capable of providing shelter to people, animals, or property, such as the house in this case.

The foregoing responses "reflected that [their] purported bias or prejudice was not so fixed that it would not yield to the evidence and that [they] would vote in accordance with the evidence as required by law." Davis v. State, 134 Ga. App. 750, 751(1) ( 216 S.E.2d 348) (1975). See also Watkins v. State, 160 Ga. App. 9 11 (4) ( 285 S.E.2d 758) (1981) (although potential juror exhibited strong belief in integrity and credibility of police officers, response indicated she would weigh such testimony in light of all the evidence).

'" Butler v. State, 231 Ga. 276, 278-279 ( 201 S.E.2d 448) (1973). See also Davis v. State, 134 Ga. App. 750, 751 ( 216 S.E.2d 348) (1975); Todd v. State, 143 Ga. App. 619 ( 239 S.E.2d 188) (1977). 2.

We find no error here. See Davis v. State, 134 Ga. App. 750 (1) ( 216 S.E.2d 348); Todd v. State, 143 Ga. App. 619 (1) ( 239 S.E.2d 188). Furthermore, the trial transcript does not show that the defendant exhausted his peremptory strikes, and if defendant did not use all his strikes no harm would be shown and error cannot be said to exist. Evans v. State, 222 Ga. 392, 401-402 ( 150 S.E.2d 240); Faulkner v. State, 166 Ga. 645 (6) ( 144 S.E. 193); Wilson v. State, 69 Ga. 224, 240 (6).

Williams v. State, 177 Ga. 391, 411 (4) ( 170 S.E. 281) (1933). See also Clemon v. State, 218 Ga. 755, 758 ( 130 S.E.2d 745) (1963); Morgan v. State, 211 Ga. 172, 175 ( 84 S.E.2d 365) (1954); Hill v. Hospital Authority, 137 Ga. App. 633, 636 ( 224 S.E.2d 739) (1976); Davis v. State, 134 Ga. App. 750 (1) ( 216 S.E.2d 348) (1975). The trial court did not err in refusing to sustain the challenge for cause against the juror.