Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 05 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 40076,40076 |
| Citation | 310 S.E.2d 528,252 Ga. 7 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Velma C. Tilley, Vaughan & Tilley, Cartersville, for John Willie williams.
Darrell E. Wilson, Dist. Atty., Mickey R. Thacker, Asst. Dist. Atty., Cartersville, for the State.
In this case, the appellant Williams and a co-defendant Applin were convicted of burglary based, in part, on proof of their recent, unexplained possession of the stolen goods. The Court of Appeals, 166 Ga.App. 892, 305 S.E.2d 644, affirmed Williams' conviction. As authority, the Court of Appeals cited Henderson v. State, 162 Ga.App. 345, 291 S.E.2d 422 (1982), which contains the holding that recent, unexplained possession of stolen property is a circumstance which, standing alone, is sufficient to support a conviction of burglary of the goods. In affirming Williams' conviction, the Court of Appeals also sustained the trial court's denial of Williams' motion for new trial, which was based on an affidavit of one of the jurors to the effect that another juror had told the jury during its deliberations that he had seen one of the defendants in a store attempting to shoplift. However, this juror also stated that this did not affect his decision to vote for a conviction. The Court of Appeals found it highly probable that this alleged misconduct did not infect the verdict. We granted certiorari in order to consider these issues concerning juror misconduct and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.
1. In Watkins v. State, 237 Ga. 678, 229 S.E.2d 465 (1976), this court ordered a new trial for a defendant convicted of armed robbery and simple battery, because two of the jurors had made an unauthorized visit to the scene of the crime and gathered critical evidence which was reported to the other jurors. In ordering a new trial, the court held that the rule prohibiting jurors from impeaching their own verdict had to give way to the constitutional rights of the defendant to a fair trial and to be presented with witnesses against him.
However, the court recognized that the rule prohibiting jurors from impeaching their verdict 237 Ga., supra, at pp. 683, 684, 229 S.E.2d 465. Thus, although holding that the rule could not be applied in Watkins without emasculating the defendant's right to a fair trial, the court acknowledged that, "The rule has a valid and salutary application in disallowing jurors to impeach their verdicts on the basis of statements made to one another in the jury room and the effect of those statements on the minds of the individual jurors." Id. at p. 685, 229 S.E.2d 465. This is precisely the situation here.
However, we need not go so far as to hold that extra-record statements made by a juror concerning the defendant during the course of jury deliberations can never be so prejudicial as to infect the verdict and require that the defendant be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hanson v. State, 229 Ga.App. 205, 206(1), 493 S.E.2d 605 (1997). See also Williams v. State, 252 Ga. 7, 9, 310 S.E.2d 528 (1984); Hestley v. State, 216 Ga.App. 573, 455 S.E.2d 333 (1995); Bolar v. State, 216 Ga.App. 195, 197(4), 453 S.E.2d 790 (1995); Sl......
-
Spencer v. State
...incompetency "cannot be applied in such an unfair manner as to deny due process." Shillcutt v. Gagnon, supra at 1159; Williams v. State, 252 Ga. 7(1), 310 S.E.2d 528 (1984); Dobbs v. Zant, 720 F.Supp. 1566(III) (N.D.Ga.1989). See also Wright & Gold, supra at 437, n. 104 ("It is safe to say ......
-
Ward v. State
...of inference). Cf. High v. State, 282 Ga. 244(1), 647 S.E.2d 270 (2007) (applying inference in burglary case); Williams v. State, 252 Ga. 7, 9(2), 310 S.E.2d 528 (1984) (same). 5. See Pless, supra at 786(1), 545 S.E.2d 340; Kier v. State, 247 Ga.App. 431, 433–434(1), 543 S.E.2d 801 (2000); ......
-
Murphy v. State
...there was no showing that the alleged racial bias of two jurors caused jurors to convict). As originally stated in Williams v. State , 252 Ga. 7, 8, 310 S.E.2d 528 (1984) :[T]o allow a jury verdict to be upset solely because of such [extra-record] statements goes very far toward impugning t......