Harris v. State
Decision Date | 11 April 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 72147,72147 |
Citation | 178 Ga.App. 735,344 S.E.2d 528 |
Parties | HARRIS v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
G. Terry Jackson, Savannah, for appellant.
Spencer Lawton, Jr., Dist. Atty., Virginia A. Erskine, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The defendant, William E. Harris, appeals his conviction for the offenses of burglary and rape. Held:
1. Error is enumerated in the rulings of the trial court, refusing to strike for cause two jurors. Counsel argues that the potential jurors, Mary Pace and Katherine Sullivan, admitted their inability to be fair and impartial to the defendant and should have been stricken upon his motion.
Counsel asked of the panel whether any of them had been a victim of, or had relatives or close personal friends, who may have been victims of the crimes of burglary and rape. Mrs. Pace answered:
The record also shows that an unnamed juror responded: "I'm a mother of two young daughters and I do not feel that I could be impartial." The judge then asked: The court refused defendant's challenges to these jurors.
Challenges are of two types, to the array and to the poll. Challenges to the poll, the individual juror, are either peremptory or for cause. Challenges for cause are made in one of two forms--for principal cause or for favor. Principal cause is disqualification based on the grounds enumerated in OCGA § 15-12-163, i.e., the juror is not a citizen, is under 18 years of age, is incompetent because of mental illness, retardation or intoxication, or is so near in kinship to the prosecutor or accused as to disqualify him. Jordan v. State, 247 Ga. 328, 338, 276 S.E.2d 224. Challenges for favor, in a criminal case, are based on admission by the juror that he is biased for or against one of the parties, in response to questions authorized by OCGA § 15-12-164, i.e., whether the juror has formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, has prejudice or bias for or against the accused, is perfectly impartial between the state and the accused, and in capital felony cases is not conscientiously opposed to capital punishment.
We are confronted here with challenges for favor. Whether to strike a juror for favor lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (Patterson v. State, 239 Ga. 409, 411, 238 S.E.2d 2); Welch v. State, 237 Ga. 665, 671, 229 S.E.2d 390), and absent manifest abuse of that discretion, appellate courts will not reverse. Depree v. State, 246 Ga. 240, 243, 271 S.E.2d 155. These jurors were excused by defendant's peremptory challenges, but defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges before the final jurors were chosen. Hence, these issues are reserved for appeal. Bradham v. State, 243 Ga. 638, 639, 256 S.E.2d 331.
The record reflects that "the panel was qualified by the clerk." We will assume this means the clerk properly performed the duty of the court to ask on voir dire the subjects covered by OCGA §§ 15-12-163 and 15-12-164 (Tucker v. State, 249 Ga. 323, 326, 290 S.E.2d 97), i.e., whether any of the jurors had formed and expressed any opinion as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gilstrap v. State
...complete freedom from all bias, does not demand as a matter of law that the juror be excused for cause. (Cits.)' Harris v. State, 178 Ga.App. 735, 736(1) (344 SE2d 528) (1986)." Scott v. State, 193 Ga.App. 577, 578(2), 388 S.E.2d Under the particular facts and circumstances of the case sub ......
-
Ivey v. State, A02A0933.
...to feelings about the accused may be eligible for service. (Footnotes omitted; emphasis supplied.) Id. See also Harris v. State, 178 Ga.App. 735, 736(1), 344 S.E.2d 528 (1986). Juror Konkol's situation is similar to that in Torres v. State, 253 Ga.App. 318, 320(2), 558 S.E.2d 850 (2002), wh......
-
Brown v. State
...deciding whether or not to discharge a prospective juror, this court will not reverse the trial court's decision. Harris v. State, 178 Ga. App. 735, 736, 344 S.E.2d 528 (1986). During voir dire, juror Hill indicated that he had seen newspaper articles regarding the case. He also indicated t......
-
Scott v. State
...complete freedom from all bias, does not demand as a matter of law that the juror be excused for cause. [Cits.]" Harris v. State, 178 Ga.App. 735, 736(1), 344 S.E.2d 528 (1986). Although the juror expressed her bent toward the prosecution ostensibly because she herself had been a victim of ......