State v. Hutter
| Decision Date | 19 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 40016,40016 |
| Citation | 307 S.E.2d 910,251 Ga. 615 |
| Parties | The STATE v. HUTTER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Arthur E. Mallory III, Dist. Atty., LaGrange, Blanchette C. Holland, Asst. Dist. Atty., Newnan, for the State.
Earl Seals, LaGrange, for Alan Joseph Hutter.
Hutter was tried and convicted by a jury for molestation of his twelve year-old stepdaughter. The Court of Appeals reversed, Hutter v. State, 166 Ga.App. 608, 305 S.E.2d 124 (1983), and we granted certiorari.
During voir dire, the following colloquy occurred:
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court denied Hutter the right to individual voir dire of each juror, in violation of OCGA § 15-12-133 (Code Ann. § 59-705). We do not agree.
"While the common-law practice of impanelling jurors was to present each juror as he was called, to examine, pass, or challenge him, and to swear him before the next juror was presented ... the clear intent of the General Assembly in enacting ... [OCGA § 15-12-133] was to permit the parties in civil cases to examine the individual jurors making up the two panels before interposing their challenges." Keebler v. Willard, 90 Ga.App. 66, 67, 81 S.E.2d 842 (1954). A parallel change of procedure was intended in criminal cases. "Where defendant asserts his right to examine all jurors before striking any of them, it is reversible error for the trial court to deny him that right." Thomas v. State, 247 Ga. 7, 273 S.E.2d 396 (1981), and cites.
Hutter was not denied a right to examine all jurors before striking any of them. Instead, he was denied an opportunity to ask one question seriatim to each of the jurors, and was required to address the question once to the panel as a whole in a manner which would assure an individual response from each juror.
OCGA § 15-12-133 (Code Ann. § 59-705) provides: Thus it is seen that the right to an individual response--not to an individual question--is the substance of the statute.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State
...a showing of hands, and permit individual follow up voir dire." Lynd v. State, 262 Ga. 58, 59(2), 414 S.E.2d 5 (1992); State v. Hutter, 251 Ga. 615, 307 S.E.2d 910 (1983). (b) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying King's motion seeking to have a questionnaire sent to prosp......
-
Smith v. State
...is apparent from the record that the defendant was afforded an opportunity for individual voir dire of the jury. See State v. Hutter, 251 Ga. 615, 616-617, 307 S.E.2d 910; State v. Graham, 246 Ga. 341, 343, 271 S.E.2d 627. Compare Henderson v. State, 251 Ga. 398, 399-402(1), 306 S.E.2d 645.......
-
Lynd v. State
...of discretion. Sanborn v. State, 251 Ga. 169(3), 304 S.E.2d 377 (1983). There was no denial of individual voir dire. State v. Hutter, 251 Ga. 615, 307 S.E.2d 910 (1983). 3. The record supports the trial court's conclusion that the defendant could receive a fair trial in Berrien County and t......
-
Williams v. State
...stated Georgia law. As noted by the court in Hutter v. State, 166 Ga.App. 608(3), 305 S.E.2d 124, reversed on other grounds, 251 Ga. 615, 307 S.E.2d 910 (1983), this issue has been decided adversely to defendant many times. The charge requested by defendant "is misleading to the extent that......