State v. Newsome
| Decision Date | 14 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 46478,46478 |
| Citation | 259 Ga. 187,378 S.E.2d 125 |
| Parties | The STATE v. NEWSOME. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Charron, Dist. Atty., Debra Halpern Bernes, Asst. Dist. Atty., Marietta, for the State.
August Francis Seimon III, Atlanta, for Thomas James Newsome.
Thomas James Newsome was charged with two counts of child molestation, was found guilty by a jury, and was sentenced to a term of years. As the jury retired, the trial court, over objection, allowed the alternate juror to accompany the jury to the jury room to and be present during deliberations. The trial court instructed the alternate that he could not participate in the jury's deliberations, and could not speak until and unless he was instructed by the court to the contrary. Newsome appealed his convictions, contending the presence of the alternate juror during the jury's deliberations constituted a violation of OCGA § 15-12-171, which provides in part: "the alternate jurors shall not retire with the jury of 12 for deliberation." He insists that this violation is presumptively injurious.
1. After this matter was docketed in the Court of Appeals, and with leave of court, the record in the trial court was supplemented with affidavits from the alternate juror and the twelve trial jurors. In its opinion the Court of Appeals stated: Newsome v. State, 189 Ga.App. 329, 330, 375 S.E.2d 621 (1988). We granted certiorari to review the holding of the Court of Appeals.
2. After this matter was docketed in this court, the record in the trial court, with leave of this court, was supplemented with the affidavits of the two jurors who previously had failed to comment on whether the alternate juror had influenced the jury's verdict. All of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pye v. State
...to replace any regular jurors and, therefore, did not participate in deliberations or influence the verdict. State v. Newsome, 259 Ga. 187, 188(2), 378 S.E.2d 125 (1989). The Guilt-Innocence Phase of 4. The evidence presented at trial authorized the jury to find the following: Pye had been ......
-
Eller v. State
...by the alternate juror’s presence." London v. State , 260 Ga. App. 780, 781, 580 S.E.2d 686 (2003) (citing State v. Newsome , 259 Ga. 187, 188, 378 S.E.2d 125 (1989) and Johnson v. State , 235 Ga. 486, 494–495, 220 S.E.2d 448 (1975) ). The State showed harmlessness at the motion for new tri......
-
Lester v. State
...of harm whenever the alternate juror merely "participates" in deliberations. When the same issue later arose in State v. Newsome , 259 Ga. 187, 378 S.E.2d 125 (1989), and the presence of the alternate juror during deliberations was undisputed, we neither ruled on nor required the trial cour......
-
State v. Grovenstein
...164 Pa.Super. 516, 67 A.2d 746 (1949). However, other jurisdictions follow the presumption of prejudice analysis. See State v. Newsome, 259 Ga. 187, 378 S.E.2d 125 (1989); State v. Grant, 221 Mont. 122, 717 P.2d 562 (1986).3 Rule 24(c), Fed.R.Crim.P., provides in pertinent part:An alternate......