Lamons v. State
| Decision Date | 11 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 42835,42835 |
| Citation | 255 Ga. 511,340 S.E.2d 183 |
| Parties | LAMONS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Edward C. Stone, Marietta, for Phillip Morris Lamons.
Debra H. Bernes, Asst. Dist. Atty., Marietta, for State.
We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the juror misconduct warranted the grant of a mistrial or new trial. The Court of Appeals held it did not. Lamons v. State, 176 Ga.App. 290, 335 S.E.2d 652 (1985). We reverse.
Lamons was convicted of selling pills containing amitriptyline and ephedrine at his home to undercover police detective T.M. Clark. The trial began on the afternoon of October 8, 1984, and concluded with a verdict at 1:30 p.m., October 9. Clark was the state's witness to the transaction and remained in the courtroom to assist the prosecutor during the trial. After the close of the evidence, the state informed the court that Clark had telephone contact the night before with a woman he believed to be on the jury. A conference was held in chambers and the juror was identified and questioned along with Clark.
The jurors had been instructed not to talk to witnesses, and the officer stated that the caller would not identify herself except to say she learned about him in court. The juror had called the officer to turn in her ex-boyfriend for transacting business in illegal drugs. The juror stated she went ahead and called Clark because she felt she could talk to him; she indicated she had reported this same person to the authorities on previous occasions.
The juror and witness talked on the phone for approximately twenty minutes. Each stated there was no discussion of the case on trial but the witness would not divulge the substance of the conversation because of the confidential relationship he had developed with her as an informant. When asked by the court if she could still be fair and impartial she stated that while she couldn't be impartial with her ex-boyfriend, she could with the defendant on trial because "I don't know this guy or his extent or degree of salesmanship or whatever."
After the questioning in chambers was concluded, defense counsel moved for a mistrial based upon the misconduct of the juror which was overruled. The juror continued to serve and after conviction, a motion for new trial on the same ground was also denied. In our view a new trial is required.
It has long been recognized by the courts of this state that the guarantee of a fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice. Monroe v. State, 5 Ga. 85 (1848). There is a presumption of prejudice to the defendant when an irregularity in the conduct of a juror is shown and the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no harm has occurred. Martin v. State, 242 Ga. 699, 251 S.E.2d 240 (1978). We have also recognized that some irregularities are inconsequential. Smith v. State, 218 Ga. 216, 126 S.E.2d 789 (1962).
We do not agree with the state that this case is similar to the facts in Hardy v. State, 242 Ga. 702, 251 S.E.2d 289 (1978), where this court upheld the trial court's conclusion of no harm when a juror was seen laughing and talking at lunch with a witness for the state. Each of those present at lunch testified that the case had not been discussed.
In the present case the parties to the misconduct were not in public and subject to being observed by others. Additionally, officer Clark was not merely a witness, but was the chief prosecuting witness, a party to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State
...of the name of the case in which she had been called was juror misconduct requiring a presumption of harm. Compare Lamons v. State, 255 Ga. 511, 340 S.E.2d 183 (1986). The juror was entirely forthright about her brief conversation with her husband, had learned nothing from him that would se......
-
State v. Christensen
...S.E.2d 192, 195 (1997). The Georgia caselaw, however, distinguishes between inconsequential and irregular conduct. Lamons v. State , 255 Ga. 511, 340 S.E.2d 183, 184 (1986) ("[S]ome irregularities are inconsequential."). See generally Rachel Morelli, Comment, The Connected Juror’s Effect on......
-
Turpin v. Todd
...of communications between the bailiff and jurors, and the applicability of OCGA § 17-9-41 was not considered. Lamons v. State, 255 Ga. 511, 340 S.E.2d 183 (1986) and Battle v. State, supra, are totally inapplicable, since they do not involve a juror's post-verdict attempt to impeach the ver......
-
Chambers v. State
...alike demand that the verdict shall not be in the slightest degree influenced or controlled by matters and conduct extrinsic to the trial.”) 7.Lamons v. State, 255 Ga. 511, 512, 340 S.E.2d 183 (1986), citing Monroe v. State, 5 Ga. 85 (1848). 8.Shaw v. State, 83 Ga. 92, 100(1), 9 S.E. 768 (1......