On the first day of appellant’s trial for burglary, the court ordered both sides not to violate Wheeler during the jury selection. On appeal, appellant contended that the trial court’s order contained an implicit threat to impose monetary sanctions if counsel wrongly challenged venire members, and therefore the order created a conflict of interest between defense counsel and defendants, in that defense counsel might be less than zealous in exercising peremptory challenges. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed. Although there is no specific authority authorizing the prophylactic order issued here, the trial judge has the inherent power to exercise control over the proceedings, and may take what steps are necessary to protect the administration of justice. Here, the court acted reasonably to avoid predictable problems in jury selection.