Thomas v. State, 36570
| Decision Date | 16 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 36570,36570 |
| Citation | 247 Ga. 7,273 S.E.2d 396 |
| Parties | Calvin THOMAS v. STATE of Georgia. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Andrew J. Ryan, III, Dist. Atty., Savannah, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., for appellant.
G. Terry Jackson, Savannah, for appellee.
Calvin Thomas was convicted in Chatham County of murder and given a life sentence. His sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in denying written and oral motions for individual voir dire of jurors prior to interposing any challenge. Under Code Ann. § 59-705: "In all criminal cases both the State and the defendant shall have the right to an individual examination of each juror from which the jury is to be selected prior to interposing a challenge." 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. Ladd v. State, 228 Ga. 113, 184 S.E.2d 158 (1971); Ferguson v. State, 218 Ga. 173, 126 S.E.2d 798 (1962); Blount v. State, 214 Ga. 433, 105 S.E.2d 304 (1958).
The written motion filed by Thomas was in two paragraphs, the first asking for the right to individually examine the prospective jurors prior to accepting or excusing the first juror, and the second asking that the examination of individual jurors take place outside the presence of other jurors. The State correctly argues that granting or denying isolated examination is within the discretion of the court. Finney v. State, 242 Ga. 582, 250 S.E.2d 388 (1978); Whitlock v. State, 230 Ga. 700, 198 S.E.2d 865 (1973). We find, however, that this argument is inapplicable here because the oral motion renewing a portion of the written motion clearly referred to the request for individual voir dire. The colloquy between defense counsel and the court as it appears in the record is as follows:
Inasmuch as the failure to allow individual examination of jurors prior to any challenge constitutes reversible error, the judgment of conviction must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur except JORDAN, C. J., dissents.
GREGORY, J., not participating.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. State
...to examine prospective jurors on voir dire, the burden is on the state to show that the error was harmless. Accord, Thomas v. State, 247 Ga. 7, 273 S.E.2d 396 (1981); Bradham v. State, 243 Ga. 638(3), 256 S.E.2d 331 (1979). 6 This holding applies even though the defendant did not exhaust hi......
-
Hutter v. State, 65785
...error to deny a criminal defendant the right to individual examination of each juror prior to imposing a challenge. Accord, Thomas v. State, 247 Ga. 7, 273 S.E.2d 396; Cowan v. State, 156 Ga.App. 650, 275 S.E.2d 665; Wallace v. State, 164 Ga.App. 642, 298 S.E.2d 2. It is claimed that the tr......
-
State v. Hutter
...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 Hutter was not denied a right to examine all jurors before striking any of them. Instead, he was denied an opportunit......
-
Walker v. State
...the scope of the questions). This practice complies with Rule 10.1 of the Uniform Rules of the Superior Court.2 Thomas v. State, 247 Ga. 7, 273 S.E.2d 396 (1981), is not apposite. That case simply held that a defendant is entitled to voir dire the entire prospective jury pool before exercis......