Moore v. State, 60561
| Decision Date | 14 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 60561,60561 |
| Citation | 156 Ga.App. 92,274 S.E.2d 107 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MOORE v. The STATE. |
Charles L. Wilkinson, III, Augusta, for appellant.
Richard E. Allen, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The appellant was charged in a single indictment with three counts of burglary and two counts of arson in the first degree. He pled not guilty to all five counts but during the trial of the case admitted that he had committed the three burglaries. His appeal is from the convictions on the two arson counts.
During voir dire, one of the prospective jurors volunteered the following information about the appellant: (This statement was not responsive to any question asked of the panel members.) Defense counsel immediately challenged the jury poll, whereupon the trial court disqualified the panel member who had made the statement and asked the remaining panel members whether any of them felt that they could not give the appellant a fair trial in view of what they had heard. Hearing no response, he instructed them that the disqualified juror's statement was hearsay and to disregard it. Defense counsel then made a motion for a mistrial or, in the alternative, a continuance, contending that no instruction could erase the prejudice which had necessarily resulted from the statement. The trial court responded that a motion for mistrial could not be entertained prior to the actual trial of the case. He then instructed the prospective jurors that the appellant was presumed innocent until proven guilty and again asked whether any of them felt incapable of deciding the case based on the evidence. Hearing no response, he denied the motion for continuance. Held :
1. It cannot seriously be argued that a prospective juror in an arson case could remain neutral after hearing sworn testimony by another prospective juror to the effect that the defendant was reputed to be a firebug. If such knowledge was sufficient to authorize the disqualification of the panel member who made the statement, as the trial court evidently concluded, it was necessarily sufficient to require the disqualification of the others.
This court was faced with a very similar situation in Lingerfelt v. State, 147 Ga.App. 371(1), 249 S.E.2d 100 (1978). The defendant in that case was on trial for breaking into a woman's home and raping her. During voir dire, one of the prospective...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wells
...additional remedial action by a trial court (see e.g. Mach v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 630, 633 [9th Cir.1997]; Moore v. State, 156 Ga.App. 92, 93, 274 S.E.2d 107, 108 [Ct.App.1980]). Furthermore, none of the prospective jurors indicated that the comment about the detective would affect his or her......
-
Jackson v. State
...money in jail." The court excused Juror Brands but refused to excuse the other prospective jurors. Relying on Moore v. State, 156 Ga.App. 92(1), 274 S.E.2d 107 (1980), appellants contend that Juror Brands's comments required the disqualification of the entire panel, not just Juror Brands. A......
-
Pruitt v. State
...the potential juror's statement. Riceman v. State, 166 Ga.App. 825, 828, 305 S.E.2d 595 (1983). Appellant relies on Moore v. State, 156 Ga.App. 92(1), 274 S.E.2d 107 (1980). In Moore, during voir dire in an arson case, a potential juror stated in the presence of the jury panel that he worke......
-
Hughey v. State
...knew [defendant] when he was at Alto" (Yarber v. State, 159 Ga.App. 392, 283 S.E.2d 620). Cases cited by the defendant, Moore v. State, 156 Ga.App. 92, 274 S.E.2d 107 and Lingerfelt v. State, 147 Ga.App. 371, supra, 249 S.E.2d 100, involved remarks before a jury that the defendant "was a fi......