FOURTH D I VI SI ON

BA RNES, P. J.

, RA Y and M CM I LLI A N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

Nov em ber 10, 2015



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 5 A0 84 1 . GOULDING v

. THE STATE.

B A R N E S , Pres i d i n g J ud g e.

A j u ry co n v i ct ed J o nat h an Go u ld i ng o f t wo co u n t s each o f cru el t y t o ch i l d ren

,

ag g rav at ed as s au l t

, an d ag g rav at ed b at t ery aft er Go u l d in g ’ s t h ree-m o n t h -o l d b ab y

w a s di ag n o s ed w i th i n

ju ri es co n s i s t en t wi t h “ s h ak en ba b y sy ndr om e

. ” G oulding r a ise s

fi ve arg u m en t s o n ap p eal

, co n t en d i n g t hat : (1 ) th e tri al co u rt i m pro p erl y d en i ed h i s

m o ti o n t o ex cu s e a ju ro r fo r c au s e; (2 ) t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n al lo wi n g t h e St at e to

p l ay a “ Day in t h e Li fe” v i d eo o f t h e i n ju red ch il d ; (3 ) a ju ry i n s tru ct i o n co ns t i t u t ed

a n i l l e g al co m

m en t o n th e ev i d en ce; (4 ) Go u l d i n g ’ s ri g h t t o b e pres en t d u ri ng a

cri t i cal s t ag e o f h i s t ri al was v i o l at ed wh en a s eat ed ju ro r was d i s m i s s ed ; an d (5 ) t h e

t ri al co u rt erred b y d en y i n g Go u l d i n g ’ s req ues t t o ch arg e o n acci d en t. Fo r t h e reas on s

t h at fo ll o w, we affi rm t h e v erd i ct

.

1

. W e v i ew t h e ev i d en ce o n ap p eal i n t he l ig h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e v erd i ct

.

S mi th v. S t a te

, 2 83 Ga. 2 3 7 ( 1) (6 5 7 SE2 d 52 3 ) (2 0 08 ). So v i ewed

, t h e ev i d en ces h o ws t h at t h e v i ct i m was b o rn t h ree week s earl y o n Jan u ary 1

, 2 0 0 8, an d rem ai n ed

i n th e h o s p i t al fo r 1 9 d ay s d ue t o s o m e b reat h in g an d feed i n g di ffi cu l ti es

. Th e m o t h er

ret u rn ed t o wo rk o n Feb ru ary 4

, 2 0 0 8

, an d Go u l d i n g cared fo r t he b ab y u nt i l sh e cam e

h o m e, wh en h e h an ded th e b ab y t o h er an d ret u rn ed t o pl ay in g an o n l i n e v i d eo g am e

cal l ed W o rl d o f W arcraft

. On ce wh en t h e m ot h er cam e h o m e fo r l u n ch

, s h e fo u n d t h e

b ab y pro p p ed u p o n t h e l i v in g ro o m co u ch w i t h a b o t tl e wh i le Go u l di n g p lay ed W o rl d

o f W arcraft i n th e b ed ro o m wi th earp h o n es o n

. Go u l d in g ex p l ai n ed t h at t h e b ab y h ad

b een cry i n g an d h e n eed ed a b reak

.

In m i d -Feb ru ary

, G o ul d i n g rep ort ed t o t h e m o t h er th at t h e b ab y h ad ap p eared

t o hav e a s ei zu re wh i l e h e w as eat i n g

, an d t h ey t o ok t he b ab y t o t h e em erg en cy ro o m

.

Th e ex am i n i n g d oct o r d i ag n o s ed t h e p ro b l em as refl u x an d i n creas ed t h e am o u n t o f

m ed i cat i o n b ei n g ad m in i s t ered t o th e ch i l d b efo re he was fed

. On sev eral occas i on s

Go u l d i n g cal l ed t h e b ab y ’ s m o t h er (h i s wi fe) o r h i s m o th er-i n -l aw b ecau se t h e b ab y

wo u l d n o t s t o p c r yi n g

. Hi s m o t h er-i n -l aw, wh o was a p aram ed i c, t es t i fi ed t h at

Go u l d i n g cal l ed h er at wo rk in M arch 2 0 0 8 b ecau s e t h e b ab y wo u l d n o t s t o p cry i n g,

an d s ai d h e h ad b een t ry i n g to b u r p t h e b a b y an d h eard a p o p

. Th e m o t h er-i n -l aw

wen t t o t h e ap art m en t an d fo u n d t h e b ab y s cream i n g as i f h e were in p ai n

, b u t u p o n

ex am i n at i o n s h e fo u n d no ex t ern al s ig n s o f i n ju ry

. He cri ed m o re w i t h ev ery

2m o vem en t

, b u t an h o u r o r t wo aft er t h e b ab y ’ s m o t h er cam e h o m e an d ad m i n i s t ered

Ty l en o l

, t h e b ab y s t o p ped cry in g

. Go u l d in g t o l d h i s m o t h er-i n -l aw t h at t h e b ab y cri ed

a l l t h e t i m e wh en t h e b ab y ’ s m o t h er was at wo rk

, b u t s t o pp ed as s o o n as s h e ca m e

h o m e. Go u l d i n g s ai d t hat s o m et i m es he go t fru s t rat ed en o u g h t o s h ak e t h e b ab y

, an d

h i s m o t h er-i n -l aw cau t i o n ed hi m an d offered t o co m e g et t h e b ab y an y ti m e G o u l d i n g

b ecam e t o o s t res s ed t o d eal wi t h h i m

.

Lat er i n M arch 2 0 0 8

, t h e b ab y h ad s o m e u n ex p l ai n ed b ru i ses o n h i s fo rearm

,

h i s cal f, o n t h e i ns i d e o f b o t h arm s, an d o n h i s ch es t

, w hi ch Go u l d i ng an d t h e m o t h er

cal l ed t o t h e p ed i at ri ci an ’ s at ten t i o n

, feari n g s o m e k i n d o f b l eed i n g d i s ord er. Th e

p ed iat ri ci an o rd ered b l o o d wo rk

, wh i ch was n o rm al

, b u t was al so co n cern ed ab o u t t h e

s i ze o f t h e b ab y ’ s h ead

, wh i ch was g ro w i n g b ig g er t h an ex p ect ed

. M eas u rem en t s a

week l at er o n Ap ri l 3

, 2 0 0 8

, rev eal ed t h at t he b ab y ’ s h ead h ad co n ti n u ed t o g ro w, s o

t h e p ed i at ri ci an referred h i m t o t h e em erg en cy ro o m fo r ev al uat i o n

, an d t h e p ed i at ri c

em erg en cy ro o m d o ct o r o r d e r e d a CAT s can

. Th e s can rev eal ed an u n u s u al l y l arg e

am ou n t o f fl u i d b u il d -u p al o n g wi t h a s m al l am o u n t o f b l o od b et w e e n t h e b ab y ’ s

b rai n an d s k u ll

, b ut t h e b a b y was al ert

, awak e, n o t fu s s y

, an d h ad a n o rm al

n eu ro l o g i cal ex am wi t h n o s i g n o f ex t ern al i n j u ri es

. Aft er co ns u l t i ng wi t h a p ed i at ri c

n eu ro s u rg eo n

, t h e b ab y was no t a d m i t ted t o th e h os p it al on A p ri l 3, 2 0 0 8

, b u t was

3s een b y a p ed i at ri c n eu ro s u rg eo n t h e f o l l o w i n g d ay

. Th e b ab y w as “ h ap p y an d

p l ay fu l ” w i t h n o o u t ward s i g n s o f i n ju ry , an d t h e n eu ro s u rg eo n d i ag n os ed t h e b ab y

as h av in g a b en i g n hy d ro cep h al u s

, o r in creas ed s pi n al fl u i d i n t h e h ead

, wh i ch m i g ht

h av e cau s ed a vei n t o t ear sl i gh t l y b u t h ad cau sed no t rau m a t o t h e b rai n. Th e d o ct o r

s aw no s i g n s o f b rai n in

ju ry

, b u t p l an n ed t o o bt ai n an M RI t h e fo l l o wi n g week to

d et erm i n e w h et h er t h e b lo o d o n t h e b ab y ’ s b rai n w as cau s ed b y rep et it i v e b l eed i n g,

an d d i sch arg ed t h e b ab y

.

Fi v e d ay s l at er, o n Ap ri l 9

, 2 0 0 8

, G o u l d i n g cam e t o t h e em erg en cy ro o m

b ecau s e t h e b ab y was n o t b reat h i n g

, was u n res po n s i v e, an d had tu rn e d blue. G o u l d i n g

t o l d t he t ri ag e nu rs e t h at t h e b ab y h ad “ cl en ch ed u p ” aft er b ei n g g i v en hi s m ed i ci n e

an d qu i t b reat h i n g

, an d aft er t h e b ab y d id n o t res p o n d t o ch es t co m p res s i o n s

,

Go u l d i n g p u t h i m

i n t h e car an d b ro u g h t h i m t o t he h o s pi t al

.

Th e b ab y was s t ab i l i zed an d t ran s ferred t o a n earb y T en n es s ee h o s p it al wh ere

a b ed was av a i l a b l e i n th e p ed i at ri c i n t en si v e care u n i t. A ph y s i ci an wh o was

q u al i fi ed as an ex p ert i n p ed i at ri c cri t i cal care an d ab u s iv e h ead t rau m a t es t i fi ed t h at

t h e b ab y was i ni ti al l y p l aced o n a v en ti l at o r an d gi v en IV fl u i d s t o s t ab i l i ze h i s

b reat h i n g an d ci rcu l at i o n

. Th e b ab y was un co n s ci o us an d u nres p o ns i v e

, a n d h i s

p u p i l s d i d n o t react t o l ig h t

. Th e s o ft s p o t o n h i s h e a d w h e r e h i s sk u l l h ad n o t y et

4fu s ed was t i g h t

, i n d icat i n g i n t ern al pres su re. Lab wo rk in d icat ed th e b ab y was an em i c

fro m b l o o d l os s

, an d a ch es t x -ray rev eal ed t h at t h e b ab y h ad p ri o r ri b fract u res t h at

h ad b eg u n to h eal

. . An o t h er CAT s can o f t h e b ab y ’ s h ead rev eal ed th at t h e in creas ed

v o l u m e o f fl u i d was p res s i n g o n h i s b rai n an d cau s i n g t h e s u t u res wh ere h i s s k u l l

p l a t es cam e t o g et h er to p u ll ap art

. Th e fl u i d w as di fferen t co l o rs d u e t o b o t h o l d

b l o o d an d n ew b l o od fro m an acu t e i n ju ry

, an d t h e b rai n m at ter i t s e l f was s wo l l en

fro m ei t h er t r a u m a t i c i n

ju ry

, l ack o f o x y g en

, o r b ot h

. A n eu ro s u rg eo n l o wered t h e

p res s u re o n t h e b ab y ’ s b rai n b y rem o v i ng fl u i d wi th a s y ri ng e th ro u gh t h e s o ft s p o t

,

an d an ex am i n at i o n o f t h e fl u i d co n fi rm ed t h e p res en ce o f o l d an d n ew b l o o d

.

An ey e ex am o n Ap ri l 1 0

, 2 0 0 8 rev eal ed “ l i t eral ly h u nd red s ” o f h em o rrh ag es

ex t en d i n g t o t h e ed g es o f t h e ret i n as i n b o t h ey es

. A n M RI o n Ap ri l 11

, 2 0 0 8,

co n fi rm ed ol d hem o rrh ag es o f d i fferen t ag es as wel l as v ery recen t h em o rrh ag es

, an d

rev eal ed b l eed in g d eep wi t h i n t h e b rai n i t s el f, fro m p art s o f t h e b rai n t h at h ad b een

t o rn or sh eared

. Aft er ru l i n g o u t a cl o tt i n g d i s o rd er o r o t h er p os s i b le cau s es

, an d

co n si d eri n g t h e ret i n al h em o rrh ag es

, t he h eal i ng ri b fract u res

, t h e acu te an d o ld

b l eed s aro u n d t h e b rai n

, an d t h e b l eed in g wi t h i n t h e b rai n, t h e ped i at ri c cri t i cal care

d o ct o r d i ag n o s ed t h e b ab y wi t h “ ab us i ve h ead t rau m a.” Th e do ct o r fu rt h er o p i n ed t h at

t h e b ab y s u ffered t h e fi nal

, m os t s i gn i fi can t h ead t rau m a i m m ed i at el y b efo re t h e b ab y

5s t op p ed b reat h i n g o n Ap ri l 9, 2 0 0 8

, rat h er t h an ex p eri en ci ng a h ead t rau m a day s

earl ier th at g rew wo rs e o v er t im e. Fi n al l y

, i n h i s o p i n i on

, t h e b ab y ’ s i n ju ri es h ad b een

cau s ed b y ch ro n i c an d acu t e ab u s i v e i n ju ry

, co ns i s t en t wi t h so m eo n e h av i n g g ras p ed

t h e b ab y b y th e ch es t an d s h ak en h i m . Th e d o ct o r t h o u g h t t h e b ab y h ad a v ery p o o r

p ro g no s i s an d wo u ld n ev er care fo r h i m s el f o r ev en s i t u p , wal k , o r t al k

.

Al t h ou g h Go u l d i ng ha s n o t en u m erat ed t h i s i s s u e as erro r, w e fi n d t h at t h e

ev i d en ce was s u ffi ci e n t t o en ab l e a rat i o n al ju ry to fi n d h i m g u i l t y b ey o n d a

reas on ab l e d o u b t o f al l t h e o ffen s es fo r wh i ch h e was co n v i ct ed

. Ja cks o n v. Vi r g i n i a

,

4 4 3 U. S. 3 0 7 (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9); S mi th

, 2 8 3 G a. at 2 3 7 -2 3 8 (1 ). See

al s o fo rm er OCGA § 2 4 -4 -6 (co n v i ct i o n b as ed o n ci rcu m s t an t i al ev id en ce au t h o ri zed

wh ere th e ev i d en ce “ ex cl ud e[s ] ev ery ot h er reas o n ab l e h y p o t h es i s s av e t h at o f t h e

g u i l t o f t h e accu s ed ”) 1

.

2

. Go u l d i n g co nt en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n d en y i n g h i s m o t i o n t o ex cu s e

a ju ro r fo r cau s e. J u ro rs are p res um ed t o b e i m p art i al

, an d t he bu rd en o f p ro v i n g

p art i al i t y l i es wi t h t he p art y s eek i n g t o h av e t h e ju ro r d i sq u al ifi ed

. Ed en f i el d v. S t a t e

,

2 9 3 Ga. 3 7 0, 3 8 4 (7 ) (a) (7 4 4 SE2 d 7 3 8 ) (2 0 1 3 ). “ W h et h er a p ro sp ect i v e ju ro r s h o u ld

1 Fo rm er O C G A § 2 4 -4 -6 was reen act ed i n th e rev i s ed Ev id en ce Co d e as OCGA

§ 2 4-1 4-6

.

6b e ex cu s ed fo r cau s e i s co m m i t t ed t o t h e d i s c r et i o n o f t h e t ri al co u rt

, an d

... t h e

d i s cret i o n o f t he t ri al co u rt in t h i s res p ect i s b ro ad .” S ea r s v. St a te

, 2 9 2 Ga. 6 4

, 6 6 (2 )

(7 3 4 SE2 d 3 4 5 ) (2 0 1 2 ).

Here, t h e t ri al co u rt as k ed t h e fo l l o wi n g g en eral q u es t io n o f t h e pan el

, “ Hav e

y o u an y p reju d i ce or b i as res t i n g o n y o u r m i n d ei t h er fo r o r ag ai n s t t h e a c c u s ed

J o n at h an M i ch ael Go u l d i n g ? ” J u ro r 9 rai s ed her h an d an d ex pl ai ne d

, “ I ’ m afrai d i f

i t ’ s a b ab y

I wo ul d h av e a pro b l em wi t h i t

. Becau se I hav e a n ew g ran d s o n an d I’ m

afrai d th at co ul d affect m e.” Th e St at e fo l l o wed u p

, an d t h e fo ll o wi n g ex ch an g e t o o k

p l ace:

[STATE] : [J uro r 9 ]

, t h e J u d g e as k ed y o u i f y o u h ad an y

— i f y o u co u l d

s i t o n t h i s cas e an d b e i m p art i al

.

[J UROR 9 ] : I can no t [,] n o .”

[STATE] : Ok ay

, ... t h e St at e wi l l pres en t ev i d en ce an d y o ur wi l l h ear th e

i n s t ru ct i o ns fro m th e J ud g e. Is i t y o u r t h o u g ht t h at y o u can n ot l i s t en t o

t h e ev id en ce as –

[J UROR 9 ] : (In terp o si n g) No t real l y . No

.

[STATE] : An d t hat ’ s b as ed o n y o u r p ers on al l i fe ex p eri en ce.

7[J UROR 9 ] : (No d s h ead affi rm at i v el y .)

Defen s e co u n s el t h en q u es t io n ed t h e ju ro r as fo l l o w s :

[DEFENSE COUNSEL] : Ag ai n t h e qu e s t i o n befo re th e Co u rt at t h i s

p art i cu l ar m o m en t i s wh et h e r o r n o t

... y o u h av e an y b ias o ne way o r

an o t her ag ai n s t M r. Go u l d i n g s i t t i n g h ere ri g h t t h i s m o m en t ?

[J UROR 9 ] : No t ag ai n s t h i m , n o

.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL] : Yo u t h i n k y o u co u l d l i s t e n t o t h e ev i d en ce

t h at ’ s p res en t ed i n t hi s cas e an d d eci de t h e cas e so l el y u p o n t h e ev i d en ce

y o u h ear i n t h i s cas e, i n t hi s co u rt ro o m an d th e l aw as t h e J u d g e p res en t s

i t to y o u ?

[J UROR 9 ] : I d on ’ t wan t t o s ay th at I co u ld b ecau s e

, l i k e I s ay

, i t ’ s a

b ab y

.

Go u ld i n g th en m o v ed t o s t ri k e J u ro r 9 fo r cau s e, arg u i n g t h at s h e had i n d i cat ed

t h at s h o ul d co u l d n o t s t at e sh e was i m p art i al

. Th e St at e d i s ag r e e d

, arg u i n g t h at t h e

ju ro r o n l y

s ai d i t wo u l d b e d i ffi cu l t fo r her, an d s t at ed affi rm at i v el y t h at s h e h ad n o

b i as ag ai n s t Go u l d i n g

. Th e t ri al co u rt d ecl i n ed t o ex cu s e t h e ju ro r fo r cau s e.

Th e p art i es b eg an i n d i v id u al v o ir d i re, wh i ch was n o t t ak en d o wn

. T he p art i es

t h en s t ru ck t h e ju ry

, wi th Go ul di n g u s i n g a t o t al o f 8 s t ri k es

, t h e s eco n d ag ai n s t J u ro r

89

. Th e St at e ex erci s ed 1 1 o f i t s s t r i k e s

, a nd aft er t h e ju ro rs were ex cu s ed fo r t h e

ev en in g

, t h e t ri al co u rt as k ed i f an y t hi n g ab o ut v o ir d i re n eed ed t o b e p l aced o n t h e

reco rd

. Go u l d i n g res p o n d ed t hat h e h ad m ov ed t o s tri k e J u ro r 9 fo r cau s e, b ecau s e s h e

s ai d d u ri n g i n d i v i d ual vo i r di re t h at s h e w as n o t s u re i f s h e co u l d b e fai r, an d t h e t ri al

co u rt ag reed t h at it h ad d en ied t h at m o t io n

.

In t h e heari n g o n Go u l d i n g ’ s m ot i on fo r n ew t ri al

, h i s tri al co u n s el t es ti fi ed t h at

h e rev i ewed h i s n ot es fro m t h e i n d i v i d u al v o i r d i re an d h a d w r i t t en ab o u t J u ro r 9,

“ No t s u re i f I can b e fai r.” Acco rd i n g t o t h e h eari n g t ran s cri p t , t ri al co un s el ’ s n o t es

were ad m i t t ed as an ex h i b i t

, b u t n ei t h er p art y h as ci t ed t o t h em

, th ey are n o t i n cl u d ed

wi t h t h e h eari n g t ran scri p t

, an d t h ei r l o cat i o n i n t h e reco rd i s n o t o t h erwi s e o b v i o u s

.

Reg ard les s

, tri al co u ns el t es t i fi ed t h at h e d i d n o t recal l an y t h in g el s e ab o u t Ju ro r 9 ’ s

i n d i v i d u al v oi r d i re t h at wo u l d fu rt h er il l u m i n at e t h e i s s u e, ev en aft er refres h i n g h i s

reco l l ect i o n wi t h h is p ers o n al n o t es

.

Go u ld i n g arg u es o n ap p eal t h at J u ro r 9 co ns i s t en tl y an d un eq ui v o cal l y s wo re

s h e s ho u l d n ot b e a fai r an d i m p art i al j u ro r, b u t th at t h e reco rd w as d is t ort ed an d t h e

t ri al co u rt erro n eo u s l y co n cl ud ed t h at t h e ju ro r s t at ed o n l y t h at s h e wo u l d f i n d i t

d i ffi cu l t t o s erv e o n t h e ju ry

. Th e ju ro r was n o t q u es t i o n ed ex t en s iv el y on t h e reco rd

b y t h e co urt o r t h e p art i es

. Ho wev er, wh i l e th e t ran s cri p t es t ab l i s h es t h at th e ju ro r s ai d

9s h e co u l d n o t b e fai r b ecau s e a b ab y was i n v o lv ed

, i t al s o es t ab li s hes t h at s h e s t at ed

affi rm at i v el y

t h at s h e h ad n o b i as o r p reju d i ce ag ai n s t Go u l d i ng

.

[F] o r a ju ro r in a cri m i n al cas e t o b e ex cu s ed fo r cau s e o n t h e st at ut o ry

g ro u n d t h at h er ab i li t y t o b e fai r an d i m p art i al i s s u bs t an t i al l y im p ai red

,

i t m u s t b e s h o w n t h at s h e h o l d s an o p in i o n o f t h e g u i l t o r i nn o cen ce o f

t h e d efen d an t t h at i s s o fi x ed an d d efi n i t e t h at t h e j u ro r wi l l n o t b e ab l e

t o set i t as i d e an d d eci d e t h e cas e o n t h e ev i d en ce o r t h e co u rt ’ s ch arg e

o n t h e ev i d en ce.

(Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed

. ) Po o l e v. S ta t e

, 2 9 1 Ga. 8 4 8

, 8 5 2 (3 ) (7 34 SE2 d 1 ) (2 0 1 2 ). “ A

p r o s p ect i v e ju ro r’ s d o u b t as t o h i s o r h er o wn i m p art i al it y d o es n ot d em an d as a

m at t er o f l aw t h at he o r s h e be ex cu s ed fo r cau s e. No r is ex cu s a l req u i red wh en a

p o t en t i al ju ro r ex p res s es res erv at i o ns ab ou t hi s o r h er ab i l i t y t o p u t as i d e p ers o n al

ex p eri en ces

. H

o lmes v. S t a t e

, 2 6 9 Ga. 1 2 4, 12 6 (2 ) (4 98 SE2 d 7 3 2 ) (1 9 9 8) (ci t at i on s

o m it t ed ).

Here, Ju ro r 9 ex p res s l y s t at ed t h at s h e h el d no b i as ag ai n s t Go u l d i n g, an d t h e

t ri al co u rt d i d n o t ab u s e it s di scret i o n i n decl i ni n g t o ex cu s e her fo r cau s e. See Da n i el

v. S t a t e

, 2 9 6 Ga. Ap p

. 5 1 3

, 5 2 0 -2 2 (6 ) (6 75 SE2 d 4 7 2 ) (2 0 09 ) (ju ro r’ s d o u bt as t o h er

i m p art i al i t y d i d n ot d em an d as a m at t er o f l aw t h at s h e b e ex cu s ed fo r cau s e).

103

. Go u l d i n g co n t en d s t h at t h e t r i a l co u rt erred i n al l o w i n g t h e St at e t o p l ay a

“ Day in t h e Li fe” vi deo o f t h e b ab y at ag e 1 9 m on t h s t h at es t ab l i s h ed ho w p ro fo u n d l y

d a m a g e d h e w as

. Go ul di n g arg u es th at h e n ev er co n tes t ed t h e sev eri t y a n d

p erm an en cy o f t h e b ab y ’ s b rai n d am ag e, o n l y t h e al l eg at i o n t h at h e w as res p o n s i b l e

fo r i n fl i ct i n g t h e i n

ju ri es t h at cau s ed t h e dam ag e, h i s defen s e b ei n g t h at t h e i n ju ri es

were cau sed b y acci d en t

, n at u ral cau s es

, or ot her peo p l e w h o h ad acces s t o t h e b ab y

.

Fu rt h er, h e arg u es

, t h e b ab y ’ s m o t h er was a cru ci al wi t n es s ag ai n s t h i m

, an d t h e v i d eo

p o rt ray ed h er i n a wh o l l y s y m p at h et i c l i g h t wh i l e sh e cared fo r t he b ab y ’ s need s wh i l e

h e wo re s h i rt s ex p res s i n g h i s l ov e fo r h i s m o t h er.

Th e vi d eo u n d o u b ted l y co n t ai n s, as G o u l di n g d es cri b es t h em

, “ g u t -wren ch i n g

i m ag es ,” b u t

[a] n y ev i d en ce i s rel ev an t wh i ch l og i cal l y t en d s t o p ro ve or to d i s p ro ve

a m at eri al fact wh i ch i s at i s su e i n t h e cas e, an d ev ery act o r

ci rcu m s t an ce s erv i n g t o el u ci d at e o r t o t h ro w l i g ht up o n a m at eri al i s s ue

o r i s s ues i s rel ev an t

. Th e t ri al co u rt h as g reat d is cret i o n t o d et erm in e

rel ev an cy an d m at eri al i t y o f e v i d en ce, an d ad m i s s i on i s fav o red i n

d o u b t fu l cas es

. T h e ad m i s s i o n o f rel ev an t ev i d en ce t hat is ch al l en g ed o n

t h e b as i s t h at i ts p ro b at i v e v al u e i s o u t wei g hed b y i ts p reju d i ci al i m pact

i s wi t h i n t h e s ou n d d i s cret i o n o f t h e t ri al co u rt

.

11(Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Br o o ks v. S t a t e

, 2 8 1 Ga. 51 4

, 5 17 (3 ) (6 4 0 SE2 d

2 8 0 ) (2 0 0 7 ).

Th e St at e fi l ed a m o ti o n i n l i m i n e s eek i n g p erm i s s i o n t o i n t ro d u ce v i d eo s o f

t h e b ab y t ak en befo re an d aft er h e s u s tai n ed a s ev ere head i n j u r y. G o u l d i n g was

i n d i ct ed fo r cru el t y t o ch i l d ren fo r m al i ci o u s l y cau s i n g t h e v i ct i m cru el an d ex ces s i v e

p ai n in o n e co u n t b y in fl i ct i n g a t rau m at ic b rai n i n ju ry o n h i m an d i n a s eco n d co u nt

b y fract uri n g hi s ri b s

. Go ul di n g was fu rt h er i n d i ct ed f o r a g g rav at ed b at t ery fo r

m al i ci ou s l y cau s i n g t h e v i ct i m b o d i l y h arm i n o ne co u n t by ren d eri n g h i s b rai n

u s el es s an d d ep ri v in g t h e v i ct im o f t h e u se o f h is b rai n

, an d i n a s eco n d co u n t by

ren d eri n g h i s ri b s u s el es s by fract u ri ng th em

. Th e St at e arg u ed in it s m o t io n i n l i m i n e

t h at v i d eo s tak en i n Feb ru ary an d M arch 2 0 08 es tab l i s h ed t h at th e b ab y h ad b een

fu n c t i o n i n g n o rm al l y an d act i n g ap pro p ri at el y fo r h i s ag e, wh i l e t he d ay -i n -t h e-l i fe

v i d eo t ak en i n Au g u st 2 0 0 9 d em o n s t rat ed th at t h e b ab y ’ s b rai n was ren d ered u s el es s

b y Go u l d i n g ’ s act io n s , an d i ll u s t rat ed t h e n at u re an d ex t en t o f t h e b rai n i n ju ry

.

In a l en g th y heari n g

, t h e t ri al co u rt rev i ew e d t h e en t i re v id eo an d h eard

arg u m en t

. W h il e t h e u n red act ed v i d eo pl ay ed , Go u l d i n g m ad e h i s o bject i o n s t o t h e

l en g t h o f t h e v i d eo

, t o p o rt i o n s du ri n g w h i ch t h e cam era l i n gered o n

, fo r ex am p l e, t h e

b ab y ’ s feed i n g t ub e, wi t h ou t ap p aren t p u rp o s e, to t h e ex t en d ed l en gt h of t i m e s p en t

12p erfo rm i n g t as k s wh i l e th e m o t h er ex p l ai n ed t h e p ro c e s s e s

, an d t o t h e rel ev an ce o f

s h o wi n g t h e m o t h er ex erci s i n g t h e b ab y ’ s an k l e s

. G o u l di n g al s o n o t ed t h at

, wh i l e

t h ere w as n o d is p u t e t h at an in ju ry h ad o ccu rred

, h e co ul d n o t det erm i n e at t h e t i m e

o f t h e h eari n g wh et h er th e sp eci fi c d efi ci t s s h o wn i n t h e v id eo were m ed i cal l y rel at ed

t o t h e al l eg ed i n

ju ry t h at o ccu rr e d i n A p ri l 2 0 0 8

. Fi n al l y

, G o u l d i n g n o t ed at t h e

m o ti o n s heari n g t h at w h i l e t h e St at e i ni t i al l y ch arg ed h im wi t h h av i n g co m m i t t ed

t h es e cri m es o n Ap ri l 9

, 2 0 08

, i t had re-i n d i ct ed h i m f o r h a v i n g co m

m i t t ed t h es e

cri m es b e t w e e n J a n u ary 1

, 2 0 0 8

, an d Ap ri l 9

, 2 00 8

, wh i ch m ad e t h e cas e “ far, far

m o re co m p l i cat ed .” He w as co ncern ed t h at t h e ju ry wo u l d d eci d e t he cas e bas ed n ot

o n wh at h ap p en ed i n 2 0 0 8, b ut o n t h e ch i l d ’ s cu rren t co n d it io n

.

Th e St at e ag reed t o red act an y cap t i o ns

, cert ai n p ort i o n s o f t he vi d eo

, an d t h e

au d io

. Th e co u rt h el d t h at

, i f o t herwi s e p ro p erl y au t h en ti cat ed

, t h e v i deo was

ad m i s s i b l e t o t h e ex t en t i t s o u g h t t o p ro v e t h e ex ten t an d n at u re o f t h e b ab y ’ s i n ju ri es

,

wh i ch w as pro b at i v e an d rel ev an t t o wh et h er t h e ch il d was cau s ed cru el an d ex ces s i v e

p h y s i cal p ai n an d wh et h er a m em b er o f h i s b o d y was ren d ered u s el es s

. Bas ed o n t h e

St at e’ s o ffer o f p ro o f as t o o t h er t es t i m o n y, t h e t r i a l co urt fo un d t h at t h e v i d eo was

p ro b at i v e an d t h at i t s rel ev an ce an d p ro b at i v e v al u e o u twei g h ed an y p r e j u d i ci al

effect

.

13Go u ld i n g d i d n ot rai s e an y o b ject i o ns at t h e h eari n g o n t he St at e’ s m o t i o n in

l i m i ne o r at t ri al reg ard i n g t h e cl o t h i n g t h e bab y wo re i n th e po s t-i n ju ry v i d eo

, n o r d id

h e arg u e t h at t h e v i deo u n fai rl y p o rt ray ed t h e m o t h er i n t h e bes t p o s s i b le l i gh t o r t h at

h i s ab sen ce fr o m t h e v i d eo u nfai rl y i m p l i ed t h at he h ad b een ex cl ud ed fro m t h e

b ab y ’ s l i fe b ecau s e h e was g u i l t y o f t h e ch arg ed cri m es

. Fu rt h er, wh i l e G o u l d i n g

arg u es o n ap p eal th at t h e v i deo was cu m ul at iv e o f t es t i m o n y ab o u t t h e ex t en t o f t h e

b ab y ’ s i n ju ri es

, h i s arg u m en t at t h e h eari n g was t h at t he St at e was req u i red to

es t ab l i s h t h ro u g h m ed ical t es t i m o n y t h at t he i n ju ri es d ep i ct ed i n t h e v i d eo h ad b een

cau s ed b y t h e i n

ju ri es h e was accu s ed o f i n fl i ct i n g

. T h es e n ew arg um en t s

, rai s ed fo r

t h e fi rs t t i m e o n ap p eal , are t h erefo re wai v ed

.

Fu rt her, wh i le Go u l d i n g as s ert s t h at t h e v i d eo was u n n eces sari l y p reju d i ci al

b ecau s e h e h ad n ev er co nt es t ed t h at t h e b ab y was s ev erel y i n j u red

, h av i n g p l ead n ot

g u i l t y t o t h e ch arg es

, t h e St at e was req u i red t o p ro v e each el em en t of each o ffen s e

b ey o n d a reas o nab l e do u b t

. Jo n es v. S t a t e

, 2 7 2 Ga. 9 0 0, 9 0 3 (3 ) (5 3 7 SE2 d 8 0 ) (2 0 0 0 )

(p l ea o f n o t g u i l t y

t o i n d i ct m en t was ch al l en g e t o al l accu s at i o n s co n tai n ed t h erei n,

i n cl u d i n g v en u e, w h i ch St at e m u s t p ro v e b ey o nd reas o n ab le d o u b t ). Fu rt h er, t h e St at e

h as t h e au t h o ri t y “ t o ch o os e t he ev i d en ce n eed ed t o p ro v e i t s cas e.” Ro s s v. S t a t e

, 2 7 9

Ga. 3 6 5 , 3 6 7 (2 ) (6 1 4 SE2 d 3 1 ) (2 0 0 5 ).

14M o re ex act l y

, a cri m i n al d efen d an t m ay no t s t i p ul at e o r ad m i t h i s way

o u t of t h e fu l l ev i d en t i ary fo rce o f t h e cas e as t he St at e ch o o s es t o

p res en t i t

. It i s fo r t h i s reas o n t h at t he l aw i n t h i s St at e p ro p erl y p rev en t s

a d efen dan t fro m ad m i t t i n g cert ai n cru ci al fact s rel at ed t o t h e c r i m e

,

s u ch as t h e cau se of t h e v i ct i m ’ s d eat h

, i n o rd er t o p rev en t t h e ad m i s s i o n

o f ev i d en ce t e n d i ng to p ro v e t h at fact

. A d efen dan t can n o t u n derm in e

t h e cred i b i l i t y of t h e St at e’ s s t o ry b y s el ect i v el y ad m i t t i n g cert ai n

i n cri m i n at i n g ev id en ce t o p rev en t th e ju ry fro m recei v i ng t h at ev id en ce.

(Fo o tn o tes an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Id

.

In a cas e t h a t i s p h y si cal p reced en t o n l y

, 2 t h i s co u rt affi rm ed a t ri al co urt ’ s

ex cl u s i o n o f a d a y- i n

- t h e-l i fe v i d eo d uri n g t h e li ab i l i ty po rt i o n o f a m ed i cal

m al p ract i ce tri al “ o n th e g ro u n d t h at t h e ev i d en ce o n t h e DVD rel at ed t o dam ag es

, n ot

l i ab i l i t y

, an d t h at i t was un d u l y p reju d i c i a l in t h at it p l ay ed u p o n t h e ju ry ’ s

s y m p at h ies .” Kes t er

s o n v. Ja r r et t

, 3 0 7 Ga. Ap p

. 2 4 4

, 25 2 (3 ) (7 0 4 SE2 d 8 7 8) (2 0 1 0 ),

o v erru l ed o n o t h er g ro u n d s

, Kes t er s o n v. Ja rr et t

, 2 9 1 Ga. 3 80 (7 2 8 SE2 d 5 5 7 ) (2 0 1 2 )

(Co urt o f Ap p eal s erred i n a f fi rm i n g t ri al co urt ’ s g ran t o f d efen dan t ’ s m o t i o n to

ex cl u d e t h e i n

ju red ch i l d h ers el f fro m t h e co u rt ro om d u ri n g t h e l i ab i l i t y p h as e o f t h e

2 “ If an ap p ea l i s d eci d ed b y a Di v is i on

, a ju dg m en t i n wh i ch al l t h ree ju d g es

f u l l y co n cu r i s a b i n d i n g p reced en t ; p ro v i d ed

, h o wev er, an o p i n i o n is p h y s i c a l

p reced en t on l y wi t h res p ect t o an y Di v i s i o n o f th e o pi n io n f o r wh ich t h ere i s a

co n cu rren ce i n t h e j u d gm en t o n l y o r a s p e c i a l c o n cu rren ce wi t h o ut a s t at em en t o f

ag reem en t wi t h al l t h at i s s ai d.” Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 3 3 (a).

15t ri al ). Kes t er s t o n i s n o t co n t ro l l i n g h ere. Fi rs t

, t hi s co u rt fo u n d n o ab us e of d i s cret i o n

i n t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci si o n t o excl u d e t h e v i d eo

, n o t a d eci s i on t o i n cl u d e i t

. Fu rt h er,

t h e is s u es th at h ad t o b e d et erm i n e d d u ri ng t h e l i ab il i ty p has e o f t h e ci v i l t ri al in

Kes ter t o n were m o re l i m i t ed t h an t h o s e t h at had to b e d e t erm i n ed d uri n g t h e g u i l t

i n n o cen ce p has e o f t h i s cri m i n al t ri al

. Here, t h e St at e h ad t o pro v e al l o f t h e el em en t s

o f t h e ch arg ed cri m es

, wh i ch i ncl u d ed p ro v i n g cru el an d ex ces s i v e p ai n an d b o d i l y

h arm t o su p po rt t he cru el t y t o ch i l d ren an d ag g rav at ed b at t ery ch arg es

, as o u t l i n ed

p rev i o u s l y

.

Th e t r i a l c o u rt co m

m i t t ed n o ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n i n ad m i t t i n g t h e v id eo i n to

ev i d en ce.

4

. Go u l d i n g co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n gi v i n g t h e fo l l owi n g ju ry

i n s t ru ct i o n : “ M em

b ers o f t h e ju ry

, i f y o u fi nd fro m t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed to y o u t h at

t h e Defen d an t m ad e an at tem p t t o i n fl u en ce a wi t nes s , y o u m ay

, i n y o ur d i s cret i o n,

co n si d er i t as ev i d en ce o f co n s ci o u s n es s o f g ui l t .” Go u l d i n g ex cep t ed t o t h e ch arg e

“ p u rs u an t t o p ret ri al ch arg e co nferen ce.”

Go u ld i n g ’ s ob

ject i o n d u ri n g t h e ch arg e co n feren ce was t h at t h e ev i d en ce

p res en t ed was n o t “ s u ffi ci en t t o rai s e t hi s p art i cu l ar i s s ue a n d t o ch arg e th e ju ry o n

16t h i s i s s u e,” an d al s o t h at t h e ch arg e “ en d s u p al m o s t b e c o m i n g a b urd en -s h i ft [i n g ]

k i n d o f t h i n g ” t h at was i nap p ro p ri at e “ b o t h fact u al l y an d i n t erm s o f l an g u ag e.”

Go u ld i n g co nced es o n ap p eal t h e ex i s t en ce an d ad m i ss i b i l i t y o f ev i d en ce

s h o wi n g t h at h e h ad at tem pt ed t o co n v i n ce t h e bab y ’ s m o t h er to cl ai m t h at h er fat h er

h ad ab us ed t h e b ab y an d t o l i e ab o u t wh et h er al co h o l h ad b een p res en t i n t h ei r h o m e.

Nev ert h el es s

, Go u ld in g arg u es t h at cas e l aw h as es t ab l i s h ed t h at an y ju ry ch arg e o n

co n sci o u s n es s o f g u i lt i s erro r. Go u l d i n g d i d no t ob ject to t h e ch arg e o n t h i s g ro u n d

at tri al

, an d t h u s

, ab s en t p l ai n erro r, h as wai v ed h i s ri g h t to arg ue i t o n ap p eal

. OCGA

§ 1 7 -8 -5 8 (b ) (fai l u re t o o b j ect “ s h al l p recl u d e ap p el l at e rev i ew u nl es s su ch p o rt i o n

o f t h e ju ry ch arg e co n s t i t u t es p l ai n erro r wh i ch affect s s u b s t a n t i al ri gh t s o f t h e

p art i es ”).

Gi v i ng t h i s ch arg e d i d n o t co n s t i t u t e p l ai n erro r. Ad d res s i n g a sim i la r arg u m en t

i n t h e co n tex t o f an i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce of co u n s el cl ai m

, o u r Su p rem e Co u rt

recen t l y s t a t e d

, “ Ap p el l an t do es n o t p o i n t t o an y cas e h o l d i n g t h at t h i s ch arg e i s

i n co rrect

, an d it ap p ears th at n ei t h er t h i s Co u rt n o r t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s h as h el d t h at

s u ch a ch arg e i s erro r. In fact

, th e Co u rt of Ap p eal s h as ap p ro v ed o f t h e ch arg e. See

W i l l ia ms v. S t a t e

, 1 71 Ga. Ap p

. 9 3 4 (3 ) (3 2 1 SE2 d 4 29 ) (1 9 8 4 ).” Da u g h t r y v. S t a t e

,

172 9 6 Ga. 8 4 9

, 8 6 0 (2 ) (h ) (7 7 0 SE2 d 8 6 2 ) (2 0 1 5 ). Acco rd i n g l y

, Go u l d in g h as fai l ed

t o p ro v e an y

erro r ri s in g t o t h e l ev el o f p l ai n erro r.

Go u ld i n g al s o arg u es t h at t h e ch arg e was n o t b al an ced b ecau se i t fai l ed t o s t at e

t h at an at t em

p t t o in fl u en ce a wi t n es s co u l d al s o b e ev i den ce o f i n n o cen ce as wel l as

g u i l t

. Go u l d i n g d i d n o t o b ject t o t he ch arg e o n t h i s g ro u n d at t ri al

, an d ab s en t p l ai n

erro r, h as wai v ed h i s ri g ht t o arg u e i t o n ap peal

. W e fi n d n o p l ai n erro r i n th i s reg ard

.

Fi n al l y

, Go u l d i n g arg u es t h at t h e ch arg e a s g i v en co n s t it u t ed an i m p ro p er

co m m en t o n t h e ev i den ce i n v i o l at i o n o f fo rm er OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7

. Th at co d e s ect i o n

p ro v id ed

,

It i s erro r fo r an y ju d g e i n an y cri m i n al cas e, d uri n g i t s p ro g res s o r i n h i s

ch arg e t o t h e ju ry, t o ex p res s o r i n t im at e hi s o p i n i on as t o wh at h as o r

h as no t b een p ro v ed o r as t o t h e g u il t of th e accu s ed

. Sh o u l d an y j u d ge

v i o l at e th i s Co d e s ect i o n

, t h e v i o lat i o n s h al l b e h el d b y t h e Su p rem e

Co u rt o r C o u r t o f Ap p eal s t o b e erro r an d t h e deci s i o n i n t he cas e

rev ers ed

, an d a n ew t ri al g ran t ed in t h e co u rt b el ow w i t h s u ch d i rect i o n s

as t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o r Co u rt o f Ap p eal s m ay l awfu l l y g i v e. 3

3 OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 was am en d ed effect i v e J ul y 1

, 2 0 1 5

. Th e rev i s ed co d e

s ect i on s t i l l p ro v id es t hat a t ri al co u rt ’ s in t i m at i o n o f t he accu se d ’s g u i l t req u i res a

n ew t ri al

, b u t n o w al so p ro vi d es t h a t

, w i t h o ut a co n t em p o ran eo u s o b

ject i o n

, a t ri al

co u rt ’ s i n t i m at i o n o f wh et h er a fact w as o r was n o t p ro ven wi l l res u l t i n a n ew t ri al

o n l y wh en t h e v i o l at i o n “ co ns t i t u t es p lai n erro r wh ich affect s su b st an t i v e ri g h t s o f t h e

p art i es .”

18Al t h o u g h Go ul d i n g d i d n o t o b j ect to t h e ch arg e o n t hi s g ro un d

, t h e fai l ure t o o b ject

t o su ch a v i o lat i o n “ d o es n ot wai v e t h e i ss u e o n ap p eal ; o n ap p eal

, t he i s s u e i s s i m p l y

wh et h er t h ere was s u ch a v i o l at i o n .” Rees e v. S t at e , 2 8 9 Ga. 4 46 , 4 51 (5 ), n. 4 (7 1 1

SE2 d 7 1 7) (2 0 1 1).

Ex am in i n g t h e p l ai n w o rd i n g o f t h e ch arg e, i t is ev i d en t t h at i t d i d n ot

co n st i t u t e a n o p i n i on b y th e t ri al co u rt as t o wh et h er a fact at i s s u e h ad o r h ad n ot

b een p ro v en

. Th e co u rt i n g i v i n g t h e ch arg e i n st ru ct ed t h e ju ry t hat i f i t fo u n d fro m

t h e ev i d en ce t h at Go u l d i n g m ad e an at t em p t t o i n fl u e n c e a wi tn es s

, t h e ju ry was

p erm i t t ed

, in i t s d i s cret i o n

, t o co n s id er t h at co n cl us i o n as ev i d en ce o f co ns ci o u s n es s

o f g u i l t

. By g i v in g t h e ch a r g e

, t h e t ri al co u rt di d n o t i n ti m at e an o p i n io n ab o ut

wh et h er t h e ev i d en ce act u al l y es t ab l i s h ed an at t em p t to i n fl u en ce a wi t n es s

, n o r d id

t h e co u rt d i rect t he ju ry t o co n s i d er ev i d en ce o f i n t i m i d at i o n as an i n d i cat i o n o f g u i l t

.

Th e ch arg e s i m

p l y i n s t ru ct ed th e ju ry th at it had t he op t i o n t o co n s i d er s u ch a fi n d i n g

as ev i den ce o f g u i lt

. See Co ll i er v. S t at e

, 2 8 8 Ga. 7 56

, 75 9 (4 ) (7 0 7 SE2 d 1 0 2 ) (2 0 1 1 )

(ch arg e t h at w i t nes s “ m ay b e” i m p each ed

, n o t t hat h e “ i s ” i m p each ed

, by p ro o f o f

d ru g co n v i ct i o n s was n o t an i m p erm i s s i b l e co m

m en t o n t h e ev i d en ce).

5

. G o u l d i n g arg ues t h at t h e t ri al co u rt v i o l at ed hi s ri gh t to b e p res en t d u ri n g a

cri t i cal s t ag e o f h i s tri al wh en a m em b er o f t h e ju ry w as ex cu s ed an d an al t ern at e t o o k

19h er pl ace. A c r i m i n al d efen d an t ’ s “ ri g ht t o b e pr es en t an d s ee an d h ear, a l l t h e

p r o ceed in g

s wh i ch are h ad ag ai n s t h i m o n t h e t ri al b efo re t h e Co urt ” i s em b o d i ed in

o u r s t at e Co n s t i t u t io n. (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed .) H a n i fa v. S t a t e , 2 6 9 Ga.

7 9 7

, 8 0 7 (6 ) (5 0 5 SE2 d 73 1 ) (1 9 9 8 ); 1 9 8 3 Geo rg i a Co n s t i t u t io n

, Art

. I, Sec. I, Par.

XII. “ A co l l oq u y bet ween th e t ri al ju d g e an d t he ju ry i s a p art o f t h e p ro ceed i n g s t o

wh i ch t h e d efen d an t an d co u n sel are en t i t l ed t o b e p res en t .” Pen n ie v. S t a t e

, 2 7 1 Ga.

4 1 9 , 4 2 1 (2 ) (5 2 0 SE2 d 4 4 8) (1 9 9 9 ). ‘ [C] o m m u n i cat i o n s h o u l d b e res t ri ct ed , i n t h e

ab s en ce o f t he acc u s e d a n d hi s co u n s el

, t o m at t ers rel at in g t o th e co m fo rt an d

co n ven i en ce o f t h e ju ry .” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed .) S t ewa r t v

. S t a t e

, 1 6 5

Ga. Ap p

. 4 2 8

, 4 3 0 (2 ) (3 0 0 SE2 d 3 3 1 ) (1 9 83 ) (t ri al co u rt ’ s m es s ag e t o ju ro rs t h ro u g h

b ai l i ff t h at t h ey s h o u l d “ k eep on t ry i n g ” aft er t h ey rep o rt ed b ei n g d ead lo ck ed was n ot

s o m at eri al as t o req u i re p res en ce o f d efen d an t an d co u n s el ).

In t h i s cas e, at t h e en d o f t h e fo u rt h day o f t ri al

, aft er t h e j u ro rs were ex cu s ed

fo r t h e ev en i n g

, t he t ri al co urt sai d i n o p en co u rt w i t h Go u l d i n g p res en t

, “ [I] n reg ard

t o t h e ju ro r i s su e t h at I t al ked t o y ou ab o u t i n ch am b ers

, s h e’ s g o i n g t o cal l m y o ffi ce

i n th e m o rn i ng an d so we’ l l n eed t o res u m e i n h ere, I g ues s ab o u t 8 : 4 0

— at 8 : 4 5 in

t h e m o r n i n g

. . .. So we can ad d res s an y t h i n g th at m i g h t n eed to be tak en up i n t h at

20reg ard .” T h e t ri al co u rt t h en ad d res s ed an o ut s t an d i n g m ot i o n in l i m i n e an d d i s cu s s ed

s ch ed u l i n g i s s u es wi t h t h e p art i es b efo re ad jo u rn in g fo r t h e d ay

.

Th e n ex t m o rn i n g

, ag ai n i n o p en co u rt wi t h Go u l d i n g p res en t

, t h e t ri al co u rt

n o t ed t h at

, as i t h ad d is cu s s ed i n ch am bers t h e p rev io u s d ay

, a ju ro r h ad b een

i n s t ru ct ed b y h er d o ct o r to co m e t o h i s offi ce i f t h e p reg n an cy t es t s h e was t o t ak e t h at

m o rn i n g was p o s i t i v e

. T h e ju ro r h ad cal l ed t h e ju d g e’ s o ffi ce at 8 : 15

, s eek i n g

d i rect i o n an d was t o l d t o g o to h er do ct o r’ s o ffi ce. T h e t ri al co u rt rep o r t e d t h a t t h e

co u rt ’ s as s i s t an t cal l ed t h e ju ro r b ack

, an d d e t e r m i n ed t h at th e ju ro r w as at h er

d o ct o r’ s o ffi ce an d di d n ot k no w s p eci fi cal l y wh en s he wo u l d b e do n e. Th e t ri al co u rt

s t at ed th at

, b as ed o n co n v ers at i o n s wi t h b o t h co un s el t h e prev i o u s d ay

, it u n d ers t o o d

t h at n ei t h er p art y o b

j ect ed t o e x cu s i n g t h e ju ro r an d s ub s ti t ut i n g an al t ern at e,

p art i cu l arl y in li g h t o f Go u l d i n g ’ s co n cern s th at h i s ex p ert wi t n es s wo ul d o n l y b e ab l e

t o t es t i fy t h at m o rn i n g

. Go u l d i ng ’ s co u n s el rep l i ed t h at

, g i ven th e s t at u s o f t h e ju ro r

an d t h e cas e, h e h ad n o o bject i on t o ex cu si ng th e ju ro r b ecau s e t h ere were p l en ty o f

al t ern at es

. Th e St at e h ad n o o bject i o n ei t h er, an d t h e t ri al co urt an d co un s el d i s cu s s ed

h o w b es t t o n o t i fy

t h e rem ai n i n g ju ro rs ab o ut t h e ex cu s al

.

W h en t h e ju ro rs ret u rn ed t o t h e co u rt ro o m

, t h e t ri al co urt n o t i fi ed th em t h at t h e

ju ro r i n q u es t i o n “ h ad a m ed i cal s i t u at i o n th i s m o rn i n g t h a t h er do ct o r ad v i s ed t h at

21s h e n eed ed t o at t en d t o ,” an d sh e h ad b een ex cu sed fro m s erv ice b y co n s en t o f al l t h e

p art i es

. At t h at p o i nt

, al t h o u gh t h e S t a t e h ad n o t res t ed

, Go u l d in g ’ s ex p ert wi t n es s

w a s cal l ed t o t es t i fy i n o rd er t o acco m m od at e t h e wi t n es s’ s sch ed u le, an d t h e tri al

res u m ed

.

Go u ld i n g n o w arg u es th at h e was n ot pres en t d u ri n g th e t ri al co u rt ’ s co l l o q uy

wi t h t h e ju ro r, h e d i d n o t w a i v e hi s ri g h t to b e pres en t

, an d he was n o t co n s u l t ed

reg ard i n g t h e dec i s i o n ab o ut wh et h er t o ex cu s e t h e j u ro r fro m fu rt h er s erv i ce o r to

d el ay t h e t ri al u nt il th e ju ro r fi n i s h ed h er d o ct o r’ s ap p o i n tm en t an d ret u rn ed t o co u rt

.

W e d is ag ree. Fi rs t

, t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d i s cu s s i o n wi th t h e ju r o r a t t h e en d o f t h e t h i rd

d ay was ap p aren t l y l i m i t ed t o h er rep ort i n g t o t h e j u d ge t h e d i rect i o n s h e h ad recei v ed

fro m h er do ct o r i f a p reg n an cy tes t s h e was g o i n g t o t ak e t h e n ex t m o rn i n g t u rn ed o ut

t o b e p o s i t iv e. Th i s co n v ers at i o n p l ai n l y i n v o l v e d t h e j u ro r’ s “ co m fo rt an d

co n ven i en ce,” an d was n o t a cri t i cal s t ag e o f t ri al

.

Fu rt h e r

, t h e ju ro r was n o t d is m i s sed i n Go u ld i n g’ s ab sen ce at t h e en d o f t h e

t h i rd d ay o f t ri al ; o th erwi se, as t h e St at e p o i n t s o u t

, t h e ju ro r wo u ld n o t h av e b een

d i rect ed t o cal l t h e ju d g e’ s o ffi ce o n t h e m orn i n g of t h e fo u rt h d ay o f t ri al t o rep o rt

i n

. T h e a ct u al d eci s i o n t o ex cu s e t h e ju ro r to o k p l ace i n o p en co u rt w i th G o u l d i n g

p res en t o n t h e m o rn i n g o f t h e fo u rt h d ay o f t ri al

. W h i l e h e n o w arg u es t h at he was n ot

22co n su l t ed reg ard i n g t he d eci s i o n t o di s m i s s t h e ju ro r rat h er t h an wai t an in d et erm i n at e

l en g t h o f t im e fo r her t o ret u rn

, t h u s p o s s i b l y l i m i t i n g t h e t es ti m o n y of Go u l d i n g ’ s

ex p ert w i t n es s

, h e w as p res en t d u ri n g t he cri t i cal p has e wh en t h e d eci s i o n t o ex cu s e

t h e ju ro r was m ad e. W h et h er h e ag reed wi t h t he d eci s i o n o r n o t i s n o t t h e i s s u e; t h e

i s su e i s wh et h er h e was p res en t wh en h e h ad t h e co n s t i t u t i o n al ri gh t t o b e p res en t

, an d

i n t hi s cas e, h e was

.

6

. Fi n al ly

, G o u l d i n g co n t en d s th at t he t ri al co u rt erred b y d en y in g h i s req u es t

t o ch arg e t h e ju ry o n acci d en t

. Un d er OCGA § 1 6 -2 -2

, “ [a] p ers on s h al l n o t b e fo u n d

g u i l t y o f a n y c ri m e co m m i t t ed b y m i sfo rt u ne o r acci d en t wh ere it s at i s fact o ri l y

ap p ears t h ere was n o cri m i n a l s c h e m e o r u n d ert ak i ng

, i n t en t i o n

, o r cri m i n al

n eg li g en ce.” “ To au t h o ri ze a ju ry i n st ru ct i o n o n a s ub ject

, t h ere n eed o n l y b e

p ro d uced at t ri al s l i g h t ev i d en c e s u p p o rt i n g th e t h eo ry o f t h e ch arg e. W h et h er t h e

ev i d en ce p res en t ed i s s u ffi ci en t t o au t h ori ze t h e g i v i n g o f a ch arg e i s a q u es t i o n o f

l aw.” ( Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Jo n es v. S t a t e

, 2 87 G a. 7 7 0

, 7 7 1-7 7 2 (2 )

(7 0 0 SE2 d 3 5 0 ) (2 0 1 0 ).

To es t ab l i s h an ev i d en t i a r y f o u n d at i o n fo r an i n s t ru ct i o n o n th e

affi rm at iv e d efen s e o f acci d en t

, t h e d e f e n d a n t ad m it s t h e d o i n g o f th e

act ch arg ed b u t s eek s to ju s t i fy

, ex cu s e, o r m i t i g at e i t

. Acco rd in g l y

, i f a

23d efen d an t d o es n o t ad m i t t o co m m i t t i n g an y act wh i ch co ns t i t u tes th e

o ffen s e ch arg ed

, h e i s n o t en t i t l ed t o a ch arg e o n th e d efen s e o f acci d en t

.

(Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Du r d en v. S t a t e

, 3 27 Ga. Ap p. 17 3

, 1 79 (6 ) (7 5 5

SE2 d 9 0 9) (2 0 1 4).

Go u ld i n g as s ert s th at h e was en t i t l ed t o t h e acci den t ch arg e b ecau s e t h e j u ry

h eard ev i d en ce t h at h e m i g h t h av e acci d en t al l y cau s ed i nju ri es t o t h e b ab y b y t o s s i n g

h i m i n t h e ai r, st rap p i n g h im i n t o h i s car s eat t o o t i g h t l y

, an d s h ak i n g o r p o k i n g h i m

aft er h e tu rn ed b lu e. Bu t h i s d efen s e at t ri al was n o t th at he acci d en t al l y h urt th e b ab y

.

In h i s cl o s i n g arg u m en t, h e d en i ed he hu rt t h e b ab y an d arg u ed t h at o t h er p eo p l e h ad

acces s t o t h e b ab y d u ri n g t h e t i m e fram e i n wh i ch he was in ju red

. “ Co ns eq u en t l y

, h e

was n ot en t i t l ed to a ch arg e on t h e l aw o f acci d en t an d t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n ot err wh en

i t decl in ed t o g i v e s u ch a ch arg e.” W i l so n v. S t a t e

, 2 7 9 Ga. 1 0 4 , 1 0 5 (2 ) (6 1 0 SE2 d

6 6 ) (2 0 0 5 ).

Ju d g men t a f f i r med

. McMi l l ia n

, J., co ncu r s

. Ra y, J., co n cu r

s i n j u d m en t o n l y

a s t o Di vi s io n 2 , o t h er wi s e co n cu rs f u l l y a n d s peci a l l y.

24A1 5 A0 84 1 . GOULDING v . THE STATE.

R A Y , J u d g e, co n cu rri n g s p eci al l y

.

I wri t e s ep arat el y to ad d res s two p o in t s. Fi rs t

, I jo i n i n ju d g m en t o n l y to

Di v is i o n 2 o f t h e m ajo ri t y o pi n i o n becau s e I d o n ’ t ag ree wi th al l t h at i s s ai d t h erei n,

al t h o u g h I do ag ree wi t h t h e res u l t

. Fro m t h e reco rd wh ich i s b efo re u s, I b el i ev e t h at

J u ro r 9 d i d ex p r e s s d o u b t s th at s h e co ul d b e fai r an d i m p art ial to t h e Defen d an t

b ecau s e o f t h e n at u re o f t h e ch arg es an d t h e fact t h at s h e h ad a n ew g ran d ch i l d

. It i s

t ru e t h at th e ju ro r in d i cat ed t hat s h e h ad n o p ers o n al b ias ag ai n st t h e Defen d an t

, b ut

i t i s eq u al l y tru e t hat t h e ju ro r w as afrai d t h at t he ch arg es t h em s el v es al o n g wi t h h er

p ers o n al ex p eri en ces co u ld cau s e h er t o b e u nfai r.

At t h e s am e t i m e, ho wev er, t h e reco rd b efo re u s is “ co l d”. W e d o n ’ t h av e t h e

ab i l i t y t o s ee t h e ju ro r, l is t en t o h er t o n e i n an s weri n g t he qu es ti o ns

, an d o bs erv e h er

n o n -v erb al cu es an d d em ean o r. Th e t ri al co u rt di d hav e t h at o p p o rt u n i ty

. M o r e

i m p o rt an t l y

, b e c a u s e o n l y a p art o f t h e i n d i v i d u al v o i r d i re o f th e ju ro r was

t ran s cri b ed , we are al s o d ep ri v ed o f t h e ab i l i t y t o rev i ew t h e t ex t o f o t h er q u es t i on s

t o an d an s wers g i ven b y Ju ro r 9

, wh i ch al s o m ay h av e i m p act ed t h e d eci s i on o f t h e

t ri al co u rt i n l eav i n g h er i n t h e ju ro r p o ol

. As s u ch

, I am rel u ct an t t o i n t erfere wi th

t h e d i s cret i o n o f t h e t ri al co u rt i n d en y in g t h e m o t i o n t o ex cu s e.Seco n d l y

, ev en i f we were t o h o l d t h at i t was erro r fo r t h e t ri al co u rt t o h av e

refu sed t o ex cu s e J u ro r 9

, in m y v i ew s u ch e r r o r w as n o t act u al l y h arm fu l t o t h e

Defen d an t as h e ex cu s ed s u ch j u ro r wi t h a p erem pt o ry s t ri k e an d h ad an ex ces s o f 5

p erem pt o ry s t ri k es t h at h e di d n o t u s e. Un der p reced en t fro m o u r Su p rem e Co u rt

,

Ha r ri s v. S t a t e

, 2 5 5 Ga. 46 4 (3 39 SE2 d 7 1 2 ) (1 98 6 ), h o w ev er, t he D efen dan t wo u ld

h av e b een en ti t l ed t o a n ew t ri al

. Res p ect fu l l y

, i f g i v e n t h e o p p o rt u n i t y

, I u rg e o u r

h i g h co u rt t o rev i si t i t s h o l d i ng i n Ha r r i s

.

Pri o r t o Ha r r i s , “ [t ] h e b u rd en was u p on t h e d efen d an t t o s h ow t h at h e was in

s o m e w ay i n

ju red b y t h e [co u rt ’ s d en ial t o s tri k e a ju ro r fo r cau s e] .” (Ci t at i o n

o m it t ed .) Eva n s v. S t a te

, 2 2 2 G a

. 3 9 2

, 4 0 2 (1 4 ) (1 50 SE2 d 2 40 ) (1 9 6 6 ) (o v erru l ed

b y H a r r i s a t 4 6 5 (2 )). A d efen d an t ’ s fai lu re t o s t ri k e t h e offen d i n g v en i re ju ro r

co m b i ned wi t h t he fai l ure to u t i l i ze al l o f h i s p erem pt o ry s t ri k es “ [ren d ered ] h arm l es s

a t ri al co u rt ’ s erro r i n refu s i ng t o s t ri k e an u n q u al ifi ed ju ro r.” Ha r ri s at 4 6 5 ( 2 ).

Rat h e r t h a n p res u m i n g h arm

, we req u i red t h e d efen d an t t o s at i s fy a b u rd en o f

s h o wi n g s o m e fo rm

o f h arm

.

In Ha rr i s

, o u r Su prem e Co u r t f o u nd t hat “ a t ru e d et erm i n at i o n o f th e h arm

cau s ed by a t ri al co u rt ’ s refu s al t o st ri ke an u n q u al ifi ed ju ro r wo u l d r e q u i re

o m ni s ci en ce.” (Ci t at i on o m i tt ed .) Ha rr i s at 4 6 5 (2 ). T h erefo re, it h el d

, “ [t ] h e

2d efen d an t ’ s u s e o f p erem p t o ry s t ri k es

. . . no l o n g er p l ay a ro l e in o u r ev al u at i o n o f t h e

h arm cau s ed b y

t h e refu s al t o s t ri k e an u n q ual i fi ed ju ro r.” Id

.

In a s p eci al co n cu rren ce i n B l a n ken s h i p v. S t a t e

, 2 47 Ga. 5 9 0 (2 7 7 SE2 d 5 0 5 )

(1 9 8 1), fo rm er J u st i ce Greg o ry l ai d o u t t h e arg um en t fo r do i n g away wi t h req u i ri n g

a p art y t o s h o w t h e h arm

t h at th ey ex p er i en ced as a res ul t o f t h e t ri al co urt ’ s d en i al

o f a m ot i o n t o s t ri ke fo r cau s e. In h i s co ncu rren ce, h e s et fo rt h a h y p o th et ical wh ere

t h e St at e was h arm ed d u e t o t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fai lu re t o s t ri ke a ju ro r fo r cau s e.

Su p p o se t h e co u rt p erm it s a ju ro r t o b e i m p an el ed wh o

, o n v o i r d ire, h as

g i v en an s wers d i s q u al i fy i n g h i m

. . . As s um e t h at ju ro r i s n u m ber 3 6 an d

t h at an o t h e r j u ro r wh o i s ev en m o re o bject i o n ab l e t o t he s t at e i s

i m p an el ed as n u m

b e r 3 9. Su p p o s e as ju ro r n u m b er 3 6 i s p l aced u p o n

t h e s t at e i n t h e s el ect i o n p r o c e ss

, a t o t al o f [t en ] ju ro rs h av e b een

s el ect ed

, an d t h e s tat e h as [o n e] ch al l en g e rem ai ni n g wh i le the de f e n d an t

h as [fo u r]

. W h at d o es t h e s t at e d o ? If th e s tat e p erem p t o ri ly ch al l en g es

n u m b er 3 6 i t wi l l h av e no w a y t o e li m i nat e n um b er 3 9

. So

, t h e s t at e

d o es n o t ch al len g e n u m

b er 36

. Nei t h er d o es t h e d efen d an t

. T h e n

s u p p o s e n ei t h er p art y ch al l en g es j u ro r n u m b er 3 7

. Th e p an el o f [t wel v e]

i s co m pl et e. T h e st at e h as rem ai n i n g o n e u n u s ed ch al l en ge. It ju s t d o es

n o t fo l l o w t h at i t i s h arm l es s erro r t o wro n g fu ll y ex cu s e a ju ro r as b ei n g

d i s q u al i fi ed

. . . s i m

p l y becau s e t h e s tat e d o es n o t u se al l i t s p erem pt o ry

ch al len ges an d t herefo re co ul d h av e b een ex p ect ed t o u se a ch al len g e t o

el i m i n at e t h e ju ro r ev en i f i m p an e l e d

. Th ere are t o o m an y v ari ab l es

wh i ch m ay g i v e ri s e t o t he n o n -u se o f a p erem p to ry ch al len g e.

(Pu n ct u at i on o m i t t ed .) Id at 8 9 7

.

3On a b a s i c l ev el

, I ag ree t hat t h i s arg u m en t m ak es s en s e. Th ere are m an y

v ari ab l es at p l ay i n a p art y ’ s u s e o f p erem p to ry s tri k es d u ri n g t h e ju ry sel ect i o n

p ro ces s

. Ho wev er, th i s d o es n ’ t m ean t hat a t ri al co u rt ’ s erro r s h ou l d b e p er s e

rev ers i bl e. A p art y s h o u l d s ti ll h av e t o at l eas t at tem pt t o s h o w s o m e h arm

. In J u s t i ce

Greg o ry ’ s h y

p o t h et ical

, t h e St at e co u l d eas i l y p ro ffer o n ap peal t hat i t was sav i n g i t s

ch al l en g e fo r ju ro r n u m

b er 39

. In fact

, t h e St at e co u l d h av e p u t t h i s fact o n t h e reco rd

at t h e en d o f ju ry s el ect i on

, p erfect i n g t h e reco rd fo r p u rp o s es o f ap p eal

. Th i s wo u ld

ex p lai n w h y i t h ad a rem ai n i n g s t ri k e, an d i f i n fact ju ro r 3 6 s h o u l d hav e b een s t ru ck

fo r cau s e, i t m ig h t es t ab l i s h h arm

. 1

A defen d an t is n o t h arm ed by b ei n g ‘ fo rced ’ to ex hau s t a p erem pt o ry s t ri k e o n

an o b j e ct i o n ab l e ju ro r i f he o th erwi s e wo u l d no t h av e u s ed th at s t ri k e. Here, t h e

Defen d an t was l i k el y n o t h arm ed t h ro u g h h i s u s e o f a s t ri k e t o rem o v e J u ro r 9

. Had

t h e tri al co u rt s t r u c k J u ro r 9 fo r cau s e, t h e Defen d an t wo u l d h av e fi n i sh ed ju ry

1 Fo r t h o s e wh o arg u e t h at s u ch a p ro ces s wo u l d b e t oo sp ecu l at i v e an d

u n wi el dy

, I p o i n t t o t h e p r o c e d u re u s ed i n ch al l en gi ng t h e s t ri k es of th e o p p o s i n g

p art y u n d er Ba t

so n v. Ken t u cky

, 4 7 6 U.S. 7 9 (1 9 8 6 ). In a Bat s on ch al l en g e, t h e p art y

s t ri k i n g a ju ro r fo r an al leg ed i m p erm i s s i b l e p urp o s e i s req u i red to ju s t i fy t h at s t ri k e

aft er t h e fact an d th e Co u rt i s cal l ed u p o n t o d eci d e i f t h e no n -d i s cri m i nat o ry reas o n

g i v en fo r t h e s t ri k e i s g en ui n e or m erel y a p re-t ex t

. Cert ai n ly

, th en

, t h e Co urt co u ld

l i kewi s e d et erm i n e t he s i nceri t y o f co u n s el ’ s cl ai m t h at i t wo u l d h a ve s t ru ck o t h er

ju ro rs had i t n o t b een fo rced t o u se a p erem p t o ry s t ri k e on a ju ro r wh o s h ou l d h av e

b een st ru ck fo r cau s e.

4s el ect i o n wi th s i x s t ri k es rem ai n i n g rat h er t h an fi ve. 2 I d o n o t s ee h ow t he Defen d an t

s u ffered an y fo rm o f harm by t he t ri al co u rt ’ s fai l u re t o s t ri ke J u ro r 9 fo r cau s e wh en

h e was s t i l l cap ab l e o f s t ri ki n g al l o f t h e ju ro rs h e d es ired

. Th e Defen d an t s h o u l d n ot

b e g i v en a n ew t ri al o n t h e b as i s o f an erro r t h at d i d n o t h arm h i m

.

Ap p lyi n g an au t o m at i c pres u m p t i o n o f h arm is by far t h e m i n o ri t y p o s i t i o n

am on g o u r s i s t er s t at es

. Th i r t y -n i n e s tat es

, as wel l as t h e Di s t ri ct o f Co l u m b i a,

req u i re a p art y t o s h o w s o m e fo rm o f h arm o r p reju d i ce t o prev ai l o n an ap p eal o f a

t r i a l co u rt ’ s fai lu re t o ex cu s e a v en i re j u ro r fo r cau s e. 3 Th ei r i n d iv i d u al ru l es

2 Here, I as s u m e fo r th e s ak e o f arg u m en t t h at t h e t ri al co u rt sh o ul d hav e s t ru ck

ju ro r n u m

b er 9

.

3 See Ha mmo ck v. St a t e

, 5 2 P3 d 7 4 6, 7 5 0 (Al as k a Ap p

. 2 0 0 2 ) (Defen d an t u s ed

p erem pt o ry ch al l en g e to st r i k e ju ro r A.B., wh o t h e t ri al co u rt erro n eo u s l y fai l ed to

s t ri k e fo r cau s e, t h en ex h au s t ed h i s ch al l en g es

. Co urt h el d t h at ev en i den t i fy i n g t h at

h e wo u l d h av e s t ru ck ju ro r S.A. h ad t h e co urt s t ru ck A.B. fo r cau se was n ot su ffi ci en t

t o es tab l i s h p reju d i ce, as h e d i d n o t “ d em o n s t rat e s o m e reas o n t o b el i ev e t h at o n e o r

m o re o f t h e ju ro rs wh o d eci d ed h i s cas e were, i n fact

, n o t fai r.”(Ci tat i on o m i t t ed

. ));

S t a t e v. S u t h er la n d

, 2 3 1 W

. Va. 4 1 0

, 4 1 8-4 2 0 (2 0 1 3 ) (o v ert u rn i n g p ri o r p reced en t to

req u i re d efen d an t t o s h o w p reju d i ce an d s t at i n g t h at Geo rg i a i s i n t h e cl ear m i n o ri t y

o f s t at es wh o d o n ot req u ire a s ho wi n g o f p reju d i ce.); S t a t e v. Ku h s

, 2 2 4 P3 d 1 9 2

, 1 9 8

(Ari z. 2 0 1 0 ) ( N o e r r o r if d efen d an t p erem p t o ri l y s t ri k es ju ro r an d d o es n ot rai s e a

cl ai m t h at t h e ju ry t h at d eci d ed h i s cas e was n o t fai r an d i m p art i al ); S t a t e v. W

i l ki n s

, 6 9 3 NW 2d 3 4 8

, 3 51 (Io wa 20 0 5 ) (s am e); S ta t e v. Da n i el

, 6 06 NW 2 d 5 3 2, 53 5 (S.D.

2 0 0 0 ) (s am e); S t a t e v. Ma n n i n g

, 19 P3 d 8 4

, 97 (Kan

. 2 0 01 ) ( ov erru l ed o n o t h er

g ro u nd s b y S t a t e v. Ki n g

, 20 4 P3 d 5 8 5 (Kan

. 2 0 09 )) (s am e); S ta t e v. Ra mo s

, 8 0 8 P2 d

1 3 1 3

, 1 3 1 5 (Id ah o 1 9 9 1) (s am e); M i l es v. S t a t e

, 8 5 SW 3 d 9 07

, 9 1 1 (Ark

. 2 00 2 ) (“ t h e

l o s s o f a p erem

p t o ry ch al len g e can n o t b e rev i ewed o n ap peal . . . t h e ap p eal fo cu s es

5s p eci fi cal l y o n th os e wh o were s eat ed o n t h e ju ry

. . . a ch al l en g e m u s t s h o w t h at t h e

ap p el l an t was fo rced to a c c e p t a ju ro r w h o s h o u l d h av e b een ex cu s ed fo r

cau s e.”(Ci t at i o n s an d p un ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) ) ; S t a t e v. Di Fr i s co

, 64 5 A2 d 7 3 4

, 7 5 3

(N.J

. 1 9 9 4 ) (s am e); Ha rmo n v. S t at e

, 2 4 8 P3 d 9 1 8

, 9 32 ( O k l a. Cri m

. Ap p

. 2 0 1 1 )

(s am e); S t a t e v. Ma nn i

x

, 3 2 6 P3 d 1 23 6

, 1 24 2 (Or. Ap p

. 2 0 1 4 ) (s am e); S t a t e v

. S ch m ei der er

, 3 1 9 SW3 d 6 0 7

, 6 3 3 (Ten n

. 2 0 1 0 ) (s am e); S t a t e v. Ma es t a s

, 2 9 9 P3 d

8 9 2

, 91 1 (Ut ah 2 0 1 2) (s am e); St a t e v. Fi r e

, 3 4 P3 d 1 2 1 8

, 1 2 2 4 (W as h

. 2 0 0 1 ) (s am e);

Pr eci a d o v. S t a t e

, 31 8 P3 d 1 7 6

, 1 7 9 (Nev

. 2 0 1 4 ) (Defen d an t can n o t b e p reju d i ced by

ju ro r wh o d i d n o t s it o n ju ry ); S t a te v. Li nd el l

, 6 2 9 NW 2 d 2 2 3

, 2 51 (W i

. 2 0 0 1 )

(s am e); Leca t o v. S t a t e

, 7 6 3 A2 d 9 1 (Del

. 2 0 00 ) (Defen d an t m ay n ot ch al l en g e d en i al

o f m o t i o n t o s t ri k e i f defen dan t ret ai ned an y un u sed perem p t o ry ch al l en g es ); W

a r e

v. S t a t e

, 7 5 9 A2 d 76 4

, 77 1 (M d

. Ap p

. 2 0 00 ) (s am e); S t a t e v. Is i a h

, 7 8 1 P2 d 29 3

, 3 0 2

(N.M

. 1 98 9) (s am e); S ta t e v. Ja s t er

, 6 9 0 NW 2 d 21 3

, 2 1 7 (N.D. 2 0 0 4 ) (s am e); S t a t e

v. G r een

, 3 9 2 SE2 d 1 5 7

, 1 59 (S.C. 19 9 0 ) (s am e); Peo pl e v. W h a l en

, 2 9 4 P 3 d 9 1 5

, 9 5 1 (1 1 -1 2 ) (Cal

. 2 01 3 ) (Defen d an t can no t ch al l en g e tri al co u rt ’ s al leg ed erro n eo u s

d en ial o f m o t io n to s tri k e wh en h e fai l s t o u t i l ize al l p erem p t o ry ch al l en g es an d d o es

n o t ex p res s d i s s at i s fact i o n w i t h t h e s e a t e d ju ry .); W ei s h ei t v. S t a t e

, 2 6 NE3 d 3

, 1 3

(In d

. 2 0 1 5 ) (s am e); Peo

p l e v. Ho l l id

a y

, 37 6 NW 2 d 1 5 4

, 1 6 2 (M i ch

. Ap p

. 1 9 8 5 )

(s am e); S t a t e v. P er cy

, 5 95 A2 d 2 4 8

, 2 5 3 (Vt . 1 99 0 ) (s am e); S t a t e v. Ba r n vi l l e , 4 4 5

A2 d 2 9 8

, 3 0 1 (R.I. 1 9 8 2 ); St a t e v. Oma r

, 4 3 A3 d 7 6 6

, 7 68 (Co n n

. Ap p

. 2 0 1 2 )

(Defen d an t m

u s t n o t o n l y u t il i ze al l p erem p t o ry ch al l en g es

, b u t al s o m u s t s eek

ad d it i o n al ch al l en ges fro m t h e co u rt an d h av e t h at req u es t d en i ed b efo re b ei n g ab l e

t o ap p eal t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f m o t i o n t o s t ri ke fo r cau se); S t a t e v. Iu l i

, 65 P3 d 1 4 3,

1 5 2 (Haw. 2 0 0 3 ) (s am e); Peo p l e v. Bo wen s , 9 43 NE2 d 1 2 4 9, 1 2 57 (Il l . Ap p . 2 0 1 1 )

(s am e); St a t e v. Cl emmo n s

, 6 3 9 SE2 d 11 0

, 1 12 (N.C. Ap p

. 2 0 0 7 ) (s am e); Her n a n d ez

v. S t a te

, 3 9 0 SW 3 d 31 0

, 3 1 6 (Tex

. Cri m

. Ap p

. 2 0 1 2 ) (s am e); Jo n es v. Un i t ed S t a t es

, 2 7 A3 d 1 1 3 0

, 11 5 0 (D.C. Ap p

. 2 01 1 ) (Co u rt d o es n o t ev en e v al u at e wh et h er t ri al

co u rt erred i n refu s i n g t o st ri k e ju ro r fo r cau s e i f d efen d an t s tri k es t h at ju ro r); S t a t e

v. Ja mi so n

, 3 6 5 SW 3 d 6 2 3

, 6 27 (M o

. Ap p

. 2 0 1 2) (s am e); Al b a rr a n v. St a te

, 9 6 So 3 d

1 3 1

, 1 6 2 (C) (Al a. Cri m

. Ap p

. 2 0 1 1 ) (“ fai l u re t o rem o ve a ju ro r fo r cau s e i s h arm l es s

wh en t h at j u ro r i s rem o ved b y t h e u s e o f a p erem p to ry s tri k e.”(Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed

. ));

Co mmo n wea l t h v. Ch amb er s

, 6 8 5 A2 d 9 6, 1 0 7 ( P a

. 1 9 9 6 ) (“ h arm l es s erro r wh en a

ju ro r wh o s h o u l d h av e b een ex cl u d ed fo r cau s e i s act u al l y ex cl ud ed b y a p erem p t o ry

c h al l en g e, i f t he d efen s e d o es n o t ex h au s t it s p erem p t o ry ch al l en ges .” (Ci t at i o n s

6ran g e fro m a p er s e ru l e t h at t h ere i s n o h arm i f t h e part y fai l s to u ti l ize al l av ai l ab l e

p erem pt o ry s t ri k es

, t o a ru l e wh i ch n o t o nl y req u i res a p art y t o ex h au st al l st ri k es

, b ut

al s o t o req u es t ad d i t i o nal s t r i k e s a n d s t at e wh o th ey wo u l d us e t h em o n, t o a ru l e

wh i ch m erel y req u ires a p art y t o s h o w o n t h e reco rd s o m e fo rm o f h arm

. Th e o n e

t h i n g al l t h es e s tat es h av e in co m m o n i s t h at t hey h av e ab an d o n ed a p er s e ru l e o f

p reju d i ce i n t h e ev en t of a t ri al co u rt erro n eo u s l y fai l i n g t o s t ri k e a ju ro r fo r cau s e.

Si n ce Ha rr i s w a s d e c id ed

, t h e Un i t ed St at es Su p rem e Co u rt h as i s s u ed t wo

o p i n i o n s wh ich are rel ev an t t o t h i s d is cu s s i o n

. In Ro s s v. Okl a ho ma

, 48 7 U.S. 8 1

(1 9 8 8), t h e Su p rem e Co u rt “ reject [ed ] t h e no t i o n t h at t he l o s s of a p erem p t o ry

ch al l en g e co n s t i tu t es a v io l at i o n o f t h e co n s ti t ut i on al ri g ht to an i m p art i al ju ry

. . . So

l o n g as t h e ju ry t h at s i t s i s i m p art i al

, t h e fact t hat t h e d efen d an t h ad t o u s e a

o m it t ed .)); S t r eet v. S ta te

, 5 9 2 So 2 d 36 9

, 3 7 0 (Fl a. Di st

. Ct

. A p p

. 1 9 92 ) (Defen d an t

“ m u s t i den t i fy

a s peci fi c ju ro r wh o m

h e o t h erwi s e wo u ld h av e s t ru ck p erem p t o ri l y

. Th i s ju ro r m

u s t b e an i n d iv i d u al wh o act u al ly s at on t h e ju ry an d wh o m t h e d efen d an t

ei t h er c h al l en g ed fo r cau s e o r at t em p t ed t o ch al l en g e p erem p t o ri l y o r o t h erwi s e

o b ject ed t o aft er h i s p erem

p t ory ch al l en g es h ad b een ex h au st ed .”); Co mmo n wea l th

v. S ea b r o o ks

, 7 4 3 NE2 d 8 3 1

, 83 7 (M as s

. 2 0 0 1 ) (s am e); S t a t e v. P r t in e

, 7 8 4 NW 2 d

3 0 3

, 3 1 1 (M i n n. 2 0 1 0 ) ( s a m e ) ; Jo h n s o n v. S t a t e

, 68 So 3d 1 2 39

, 1 24 7 (M i s s

. 2 0 1 1 )

(s am e); S t a t e v. Da l

y

, 7 7 5 NW 2 d 4 7

, 7 0 (Neb

. 20 0 9 ) (“ ev en t h e erro n eo u s o v erru l i n g

o f a ch al l en g e fo r cau s e w i l l n o t warran t rev ers al u nl es s i t i s s h own o n ap p eal t h at an

o b ject i on ab l e j u ro r w as fo rced u p o n t h e ch al l en g i n g p art y an d sat u p on t h e ju ry aft er

t h e p art y ex h au s t ed h is o r h er p erem p t o ry ch al len g es .”); S t a te v. H a l e

, 8 9 2 NE2 d 8 6 4,

8 8 8 (Oh i o 2 0 0 8 ) (s am e).

7p erem

pt o ry ch al l en g e t o ach i ev e t h at res u l t d o es n o t m ean t h e Si x t h Am en dm en t was

v i o l at ed .” (Ci t at i on s an d p un ct u at i o n o m i t ted .) Id at 8 8

. In fact

, acco rd i n g t o t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt

, p erem

pt ory ch al l en g es are “ a m ean s t o ach i ev e t h e en d o f an

i m p art i al ju ry .” Id

. As l o n g as t h e defen d an t u l ti m a t e l y h ad an i m p art i al ju ry

, an y

p o t en t i al erro r i s t ru l y

h arm l es s erro r.

Al t h ou g h t h is i s an i n t erp ret at i o n o f t h e Fed eral Co n s t i t u ti o n

, an d is m erel y a

f l o o r fo r Geo rg i a cri m i n al p ro ced u re an d o u r in t erp ret at i o n o f th e Geo rg i a

Co n s t i t u t i o n

, I b el i ev e t h at i t s h o u l d i n f l u e n ce h o w we v i ew th e i s s u e i n Geo rg i a.

M em bers o f o u r co u rt s h av e co m e t o t h e s am e co n cl u s i o n ap p l y in g Geo rg i a l aw wi th

t h e b ack d ro p o f fed eral l aw. Fo rm er J u s ti ce Carl ey (jo i n ed b y fo rm er J u s t i ce Sears )

s t at ed in hi s d i s s en t i n Fo r t s o n v. S t a t e

, 2 7 7 Ga. 1 6 4

, 1 68 -1 7 2 (5 7 8 SE2 d 39 ) (2 0 0 3 ),

t h at “ [t ] h e m ere ex hau s t i o n o r w as t e o f p erem p t o ry s t ri k es s h o u l d n o t d i ct at e t h at a

g i v en act i o n reg ard i n g a d i s q u al i fi ed ju ro r i s ei th er i n v ari ab l y h arm l es s o r n eces s ari l y

h arm fu l

. In s t ead

, th e fo cu s u n d er cu rren t Geo rg i a l aw s h ou l d b e o n w h et h er an y

u n q u al i fi ed ju ro r was seat ed as t h e u l t im at e res u l t o f erro rs wi th res p e c t t o j u ro rs

ch al l en g ed fo r cau s e.” (Ci t at io n o m i t t ed .) Id at 1 7 0

.

An al y zi n g a s l ig h t l y d i fferen t i s s u e, ou r Su prem e Co u rt u n an i m o u s l y h as co m e

t o t h e s am e co n cl u si o n. In Ba r n er v. S t a t e

, 2 6 3 Ga. 3 6 5

, 3 6 7 (4 ) (4 3 4 SE2 d 4 8 4 )

8(1 9 9 3), ou r Su p rem e Co u rt co n s i d ered wh et h er a s t at u t e wh i ch m o d i fi ed t h e n u m b er

o f s t ri k es g i v en to p art i es i n cri m i nal cas es s h o u l d b e g iv en ret ro act i v e effe c t

. T h e

Co u rt h el d t h at “ [t ] h e ex erci s e o f p erem p t o ry s t ri k es h as l o n g b een reco g n i zed as a

p ro ced ure creat ed to as s i s t li t i g an t s i n o b tai n i n g a fai r an d i m p art i al ju ry an d n o t an

i n d ep en den t s u b s t an t i v e ri gh t

. T h e s u b s tan t i v e ri g h t in vo l ved i s t h e ri gh t t o an

i m p art i al ju ry an d p erem

p t o ry s t ri kes are m erel y o n e po s s i b l e p ro ced u re t h at can b e

u s ed to o b tai n s u ch a ju ry

. ” (Ci t at i on s o m i tt ed .) Id

.

In Un i ted S t a t es v. Ma rt i n ez -S

a l a z a r , 5 28 U.S. 3 0 4 (2 0 0 0 ), t h e Un i t ed St at es

Su p r e m e Co urt was co n fro n t ed wi t h t h e s am e is s u e ag ai n ; d o es t h e fact t h at a

d efen d an t ex erci s ed a perem pt o ry s t ri k e t o cu re an erro n eo u s d e n i al o f a m o t i o n to

s t ri k e a v en i re ju ro r req ui re t h e rev ers al o f a co n vi ct io n ? Th e Co urt h el d

,

[t he d efen d an t ] h ad t h e o p t i o n o f l et t i n g [t h e ju ro r] s i t o n t h e p et i t ju ry

an d

, u p o n co n v i ct i o n, p ur suing a S ix t h A m en d m en t ch al l en g e o n ap p eal

. In s t ead

, [t h e d efen d an t ] el ect ed t o us e a ch al l en g e t o rem o v e [t h e ju ro r]

b ecau s e h e di d n o t wan t [h i m ] t o s i t o n h i s j u r y. T h i s was [t he

d efen d an t’ s ] ch o i ce. Th e Di s t ri ct Co u rt d i d n ot d em an d

. . . t h at [t he

d efen d an t ] u se a p erem

p t o ry ch al l en ge cu rat iv el y

. In ch o o s i n g t o

rem o v e [t h e ju ro r] rat h er t h an t ak i n g h is ch an ces o n ap p eal

, [t he

d efen d an t ] d id n o t l o s e a p erem p t o ry ch al l en g e. Rat h er

, h e u s ed th e

ch al len ge i n l i n e wi th a p ri n ci p al reas o n fo r p erem p t o ri es : t o hel p s ecu re

t h e co ns t i t u t i o n al g u aran t ee o f t ri al b y an i m p art i al ju ry

.

9(Ci t at i o n s

, p u n ct u at i on an d fo o t n o t e o m i t t ed .) Id at 3 1 5 -3 1 6

. Th e p erem p t ory s t ri k es

t h em s el v es are n o t th e su b s t an ti v e ri g ht g u aran t eed to t h e accu s ed

. Th e s u b s t an t i v e

ri gh t i s t h e ri g h t to a tri al b y a fai r an d i m p art i al ju ry

. Th e s t ri k es are m erel y a m ean s

t o an en d, a way

t o en s u re l i ti g an t s o bt ai n a fai r an d i m p art i al ju ry

.

Al l o w i n g a d e fen d an t an au t o m at i c rev ers al in t h e ev en t a b i as ed ju ro r i s n ot

s t ru ck fo r cau s e i n es s en ce g i v es t h e d efen d an t a “ free seco n d b i te at t h e ap p le.” Yes

,

i t d o es g i v e th e p ro s ecu ti o n a reas on n o t t o fi g h t t o k eep a ju ro r wh o i s q u es t i o n ab l y

b i as ed i n t h e ju ry p o o l

, b u t t h at in cen t i v e i s a l r e ad y t h ere. A d efen d an t wh o g et s

co n vi ct ed b y a ju ry w i t h ev en o n e bi as ed j u ro r h as a co ns t i t u t i o nal cl ai m fo r rev ers al

.

See Pa rker v. Gl a d

d en

, 3 8 5 U.S. 3 6 3

, 3 66 (1 9 66 ) (d efen dan t s are “ en t i tl ed t o b e t ri ed

b y 1 2

, n o t 9 o r ev en 1 0

, im p art i al u n p reju d i ced j u ro rs ”). Th e i n cl u s i on of ev en a

s i ng l e b i as ed ju ro r wi l l req u i re a rev ers al o n ap p eal

. D ef e n d a n t s a r e faced wi t h a

ch o ice: s t ri k e th e v en i re ju ro r b el i ev ed t o b e bi as ed u s i n g a p erem p t o ry st ri k e, o r s av e

t h e s t r i k e fo r s o m eo n e b el iev ed t o be ev en m ore o b ject i o n ab l e an d l eav e t h e

p o t en t i a l l y bi as ed ju ro r o n th e p an el

, s av i n g a b as i s fo r ap p eal i n th e ev en t o f

co n vi ct i o n

.

I n t h e ev en t t h e d efen d an t fai l s t o s t ri ke t h e v en i re j u ro r an d ret ai ns s t r i k e s

,

t h ere i s li k el y no h arm fu l erro r. He h ad t he ab il i ty t o rem ov e t h at al leg ed i nfl u en ce.

10In t h e ev en t t he d efen d an t s t ri kes t h e p ot en t i al l y bi as ed v en i re ju ro r an d fai l s t o u t i l i ze

al l o f h i s al lo t t ed s t ri k es

, t here l i k el y i s n o h arm fu l erro r. Hi s s t ri k es s e r v e d t h e

p u rp os e t h ey were i n ten d ed t o s erv e. In b o t h i n s t an ces , t h ere s h ou l d b e n o rev ers al

i f t h e defen dan t s u ffered n o h arm

. Ho wev er, i f t h e d efen d an t u t i l izes al l o f h i s

s t ri k es , i n cl u d i n g o n e o n a v en ire ju ro r wh o s h o u l d h av e b een s t ru ck fo r cau s e, an d

u l t i m at el y i s un s at i s fi ed wi t h t h e p et i t ju ry

, t h en s o m e h arm i s p o ss i b l y pres en t

. It i s

t h i s si t u at i on i n wh i ch w e s ho u l d fo cu s ou r s cru ti n y

, no t in ot h er s i t u at i o ns wh ere n o

p o s s i b l e h arm

co u l d ex i st

.

11