Craig v. State, 64854
| Decision Date | 18 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 64854,64854 |
| Citation | 299 S.E.2d 745,165 Ga.App. 156 |
| Parties | CRAIG v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William C. Puckett, Jr., Decatur, for appellant.
Robert E. Wilson, Dist. Atty., Susan Brooks, Asst. Dist. Atty., Decatur, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of trafficking in cocaine. Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered on the guilty verdict.
1. Appellant asserts error in the trial court's refusal to permit defense counsel to ask prospective jurors the following questions during voir dire: "Have you or any of your children ever been a victim of a drug transaction?" "Has any member of your family ever had any problems with drugs?"
Code Ann. § 59-705 provides, in pertinent part, that in criminal cases, "counsel for either party shall have the right to inquire of the individual jurors examined touching any matter or thing which would illustrate any interest of the juror in the cause, including any opinion as to which party ought to prevail, the relationship or acquaintance of the juror with the parties or counsel therefor, any fact or circumstance indicating any inclination, leaning or bias which the juror might have respecting the subject matter of the suit, or counsel or parties thereto, and religious, social and fraternal connections of the juror."
Although on voir dire, the trial judge has discretion to determine which questions are impermissible, Hart v. State, 137 Ga.App. 644, 224 S.E.2d 755 (1976), the failure of the trial court in the instant case to permit appellant's counsel to ask the above stated questions was an abuse of its discretion. The questions were clearly "touching any matter or thing which would illustrate any interest of the juror in the cause," and were specifically questions concerning a "fact or circumstance [which would indicate] any inclination, leaning or bias which the juror might have respecting the subject matter of the suit." Code Ann. § 59-705.
The state argues that appellant's questions were unnecessary because the state had previously asked two general questions as to whether any of the prospective jurors had any strong feelings about the use of drugs or exposure to the drug world which would prevent them from sitting as fair and impartial jurors. However, a question seeking to elicit, from an individual juror on his voir dire, specific facts or circumstances which are clearly within the purview of Code...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chancey v. State
... ... (A) First, appellants argue that the trial court placed limitations on defense counsel's questioning of prospective jurors in violation of Craig v. State, 165 Ga.App. 156, 299 S.E.2d 745 (1983) ... In Craig, the appellant was convicted of the offense of trafficking in ... ...
-
Ellington v. State
...645 (1983), as well as the offenses charged in the indictment. See, e.g., id. at 401, 306 S.E.2d 645 (citing Craig v. State, 165 Ga.App. 156, 156, 299 S.E.2d 745 (1983) (holding in a case charging cocaine trafficking that the trial court abused its discretion in precluding defense counsel f......
-
Henderson v. State
...142 S.E.2d 909 (1965); Curtis v. State, 224 Ga. 870, 871, 165 S.E.2d 150 (1968). On the other hand, it was held in Craig v. State, 165 Ga.App. 156, 157, 299 S.E.2d 745 (1983), that it is the type of suit (a drug case), not the particular suit, which controls the scope of voir It should be k......
-
Ridgeway v. State
...was charged with selling illegal drugs, the question was clearly within the parameters of OCGA § 15-12-133. See Craig v. State, 165 Ga.App. 156 (1), 299 S.E.2d 745 (1983). 4. Appellant next enumerates as error the trial court's refusal to require that the identity of the undercover agent's ......