FI FTH DI VI SI ON

M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, BROWN and M A R K LE, 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.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

Decem ber 11, 2023



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 3 A1 27 8 . NELSON v

. THE STATE.

M C F A D D E N , Pres id i n g J u d g e.

A j u ry fo un d Do n n a Nel s o n g u i l t y o f t wo co un t s o f fi rs t d eg ree fo rg er y i n

v i o l at i o n o f OCGA § 1 6 -9 -1 (b ) a n d t w o co u n ts of m ak i ng a fal s e s t at em en t in

v i o l a t i o n o f OCGA § 1 6 -1 0 -2 0 i n co n n ect i o n wi th h er effo rt s to o b t ai n ti t le t o r e a l

an d p ers o n al p ro p ert y t h at h ad b een o wn ed b y Si d n ey Jo n es befo re h i s d eat h i n 2 0 2 0.

Sh e was t ri ed jo i n t ly

wi t h t h ree co -d efen d an t s

.

Aft er ju ry d el i berat i o n s b eg an an d t he ju ry d ead l ock ed el ev en t o o ne as t o t wo

o f t h e d efen d an ts

, t h e t ri al co u rt rem o v ed a ju ro r an d rep l aced h er wi t h an al t ern at e.

Nel s o n arg u es t hat t h i s was rev ers i b l e erro r. W e ag ree, b ecau s e t h e reco rd s h o ws t h at

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s i n q u i ry i n t o th e ju ro r’ s al l eg ed in cap aci t y d i d n o t es t ab l i s h a su ffi ci en tfact ual b as i s u p o n w h i ch t h e t ri al co urt co u l d ex erci se j u d ici al d i s cret i o n t o rem o v e

t h e ju ro r. So we rev ers e.

Becau s e t h e ev i d en ce was s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt Nel s on ’ s co n v ict i on s

, s h e m ay

b e ret ri ed

. W e d o n ot reach N el s o n’ s o th er cl ai m s o f erro r b ecau s e t h ey are n o t l i k el y

t o recu r o n ret ri al

.

1

. Fa ct s

Vi ewed i n t he l i gh t m o s t fav o rab l e t o th e v erd i ct s

, t h e ev i den ce at tri al s h o wed

t h at Si d n ey J o n es p as s ed away o n Ap ri l 3

, 2 0 2 0

, wi t h o u t a wi l l

. Nel s o n had m et J o n es

i n 2 0 1 7 an d l i v ed wi t h h i m o ff an d o n b efo re h i s d eat h

.

Aft er Jo nes d i ed

, Nel s o n r e m a i n e d l i v i n g in h i s h ou s e an d d id n o t co o p erat e

wi t h t he ad m i n i s t rat o r o f h i s es t at e. In st ead

, Nel s o n su b m i t t ed t o v ari ou s

g o v ern m en t al en t i t ies s ev eral d o cu m en ts fal s el y i n di cat in g t hat J o nes had g i v en h er

t h e h o us e, a veh i c l e, an d a p o n t o o n b o at

. Th es e s u b m i s s i o n s in cl ud ed a q u i t cl ai m

d eed fo r J o n es ’ s ho u s e a n d a b i l l o f s al e fo r h i s p o nt o o n bo at ; b o th d o cu m en t s

ap p eared t o b ear J o n es ’ s s i gn at u re, b u t an ex p ert wi tn es s o p i n ed t hat t h e s i g n at u res

were fo rg eri es

. Th es e su b m i ss i o n s al s o i n cl u d ed an affi dav i t o f in h eri tan ce f al s el y

s t at i n g t hat Nel s o n h ad i nh eri t ed a v eh i cl e fro m J o n es

, an d an ap p l i cat i o n t o reg i s t er

2t h e p o n t o o n b o at i n h er n am e b as ed o n t h e fo rg ed bi l l o f sal e; Nel s o n s i g n ed b o th

d o cu m en t s

. Th es e s u b m i s s i on s fo rm ed t h e b as i s o f t h e st at e’ s ch arg es ag ai n s t Nel s o n.

In ad d i t io n

, t h e s t at e p res en t ed o t h er act s ev i d en ce t h at Nel so n fi led wi t h t h e

p ro b at e co u rt a p et i t i o n to p ro b at e a wi ll p u rp o rt i n g t o l eav e al l o f J o n es ’ s p ro p ert y

t o h er. Th at d o cu m en t

, a h an d w ri t t en affi d av it

, ap p eared to b ear J on es ’ s s i g n at u re, b ut

an ex pert wi t n es s o p i n ed t h at t h e s i g n at u re was a fo rg ery

.

Th e s t at e ch arg ed Nel s o n wi t h two co un t s of fo rg ery i n t h e f i r s t d e g r ee

p ert ai n i n g t o t h e q u it cl ai m d eed an d t h e b o at ’ s b i ll o f s al e; an d t w o co u n t s of m ak i n g

fal s e s t at em en t s p ert ai n i n g to Nel s o n ’ s ap p li cat i o n t o ch an g e t h e b o at ’ s reg i s t rat i o n

an d h er s u b m i s s io n o f t h e affi d av i t o f i n h e r i t an ce t o o b t ai n t it l e t o t h e v eh icl e. Th e

s t at e ch arg ed Nel s o n ’ s co -d efen d an t s wi t h b ei ng p art i es t o t h e fo rg eri es

. (Co

d efen d an t Mark Cai n p rep ared an d n o t ari zed t h e fo rg ed q u i t cl ai m deed an d n o t ari zed

t h e fo rg ed b i l l o f s al e fo r t h e b o at

. Co -d efen dan t s M ary St ep h en s an d Cy n t h i a Pad g et t

wi t n es s ed t h e fo rg ed q u i t -cl ai m d eed . )

2

. Remo va l

o f a j u r or d u r i n g d el i b er a t i o n s

Aft er t h e ju ry b eg an d el ib erat i n g

, t h e t ri al co u rt rem o ved a ju ro r — i d en t i fi ed

i n t h e reco rd as J u ro r W h i t e — an d rep l aced h er w i t h an al t ern at e. OCGA § 1 5 -1 2

-

1 7 2 p erm i t s a t ri al co u rt t o rep l ace a ju ro r wi t h an al t ern at e i f, am o ng o t h er reas o n s

,

3t h e ju ro r “ u p o n . . . g o o d cau s e s h o wn t o t h e co u rt i s fo u n d t o be u n ab l e t o p erfo rm

[h er] d u ty [.] ” W hi l e a “ t ri al co u rt g en eral ly has bro ad d i s cret i o n t o rem o v e a ju ro r fo r

cau s e[,]

. . . t h is di scret i o n i s n a r r o we d o n ce d el i b erat i o n s h av e beg u n[.] ” Jo n es v.

S t a t e

, 3 1 4 G a. 2 1 4

, 2 2 2 ( 2 ) ( b ) (8 7 5 SE2 d 7 3 7 ) (2 02 2 ). Nel s o n arg ues th at t h e t ri al

co u rt ab u s ed h i s d i s c r et i o n wh en h e rem o ved J u ro r W h i t e aft er d el i b erat i o n s h ad

b eg un , an d we ag ree.

A t ri al co urt m

u s t h av e a s o u n d b as i s u p o n wh ich t o ex erci s e hi s di s cret i o n in

rem o v in g a ju ro r. Mo o n v. S t a t e , 3 1 2 Ga. 3 1

, 3 6 (2 ) (8 6 0 SE2 d 5 1 9 ) (2 0 2 1 ). If “ t h e

b as i s fo r t h e ju ro r’ s i n cap aci t y is n o t cert ai n o r o b v io u s

, so m e h eari n g o r i n q u i ry i n to

t h e s i t u at i o n i s ap pro pri at e t o t h e p ro p er ex erci s e o f ju d i ci al d i scret i o n.” Id

. at 3 7 (2 )

(ci t a t i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m it t ed ). W h en t h e ju ry i s dead l o ck ed aft er beg i n n i n g

d el i b erat i o n s

, “ t he t ri al co u rt h a[s ] a h ei gh t en ed res p o n si bi l i t y t o p erfo rm a t h o ro u g h

i n v es t i g at i o n i n t o t h e ci rcu m st an ces s urro un d i n g t h e ju ro r’ s d eci s io n -m ak i n g

. . . .” Id

.

at 4 5 (2 ) (b ).

A t ri al co u rt ab u s es h i s d i s cret i o n i f he d o es n o t en g ag e i n a su ffi ci en t i n q u i ry

t o d ev el o p fact s t h at s h o w a p erm i s si b le bas i s fo r rem o v al

. See Jo n es

, 31 4 Ga. at 2 2 5

(2 ) (b ). It i s n o t p erm i s s ib l e fo r t h e t ri al co urt t o rem o v e a ju ro r “ fo r reas o n s rel at ed

t o t he ju ro r’ s v i ew o f t h e t ri al ev i d en ce[.] ” Id . at 2 2 3 (2 ) (b ). See Mi l l s v. S t a t e , 3 0 8

4Ga. 5 5 8

, 5 6 2 ( 2 ) ( 8 4 2 S E 2 d 2 8 4 ) (2 0 2 0 ) (t h e fact th at a ju ro r “ had reach ed a

co n cl u s i o n d i fferen t fro m t h at o f t h e o t h er ju ro rs d i d n o t s h o w th at s h e was

i n cap aci t at ed o r l eg al l y

u nfi t t o s erv e”).

Th e reco rd i n t h i s cas e s h o ws t h at t h e t ri al co u rt fi rs t l earn ed o f an i s s u e wi th

J u ro r W h i t e t h ro u g h a s eri es o f n o t es fro m t h e ju r y

. Th o se n o tes in d i cat ed t h at t h e

ju ry was d ead l o ck ed el ev en t o o n e as t o t wo o f t he fo u r d efen d an ts

. On e o f t h e n o t es

s t at ed t h at t h e h o l d o u t j uro r h el d a b el i ef t h at two o f Nel s o n’ s co -d efen d an t s

,

St ep h en s an d Pad g et t, h ad been “ m an i p u l at ed d u e t o m en t al s t at e[.] ” T he t ri al co u rt

i n s t ru ct ed th e j u ry t o co n t i n ue del i b erat i n g an d n o t to co n s i d er “ m an i p u l at i o n d u e to

m en t al s t at e” b ecau s e t h at i s s u e was n o t b efo re t h em

, b u t wh en t h e fo rep ers o n l at er

rep o rt ed t h at t he ju ry was n o t m ak i n g an y head way

, t h e t ri al co u rt s po k e t o al l o f t h e

ju ro rs i n di v i d u al l y

.

Th e t ri al co u rt ’ s i n q u i ry rev eal ed t h at t h e j u ry h ad reach ed u n an i m o u s v erd ict s

as t o t wo o f t h e fo u r d efe n d a n t s

, b u t t h at J u ro r W h i t e was n o t p art i ci p at i n g i n t h e

d el i b erat i o n s as t o t he o t h er t wo d efen d an t s

, p res u m ab l y St ep h en s an d Pad g et t

. So m e

o f t he ju ro rs ei t h er i m

p l i ed o r e x p r es s l y s t at ed t h at J u ro r W h i t e in i t i al l y h ad

p art i ci p at ed in del i b erat io ns b u t at s o m e p o i n t h ad st o p ped d el i b erat i n g

. O n e o f t h o s e

ju ro rs s ug g es t ed t hat th e reas o n fo r J u ro r W h it e’ s act i o ns was t h at “ [s ] h e can n o t m ak e

5t h i s d eci s i o n b ecau s e o f t h e p ers o n ’ s m en t al s t at e.” O t h er ju ro rs s i m p l y res p o n d ed

affi rm at i v el y wh en t h e t ri al co u rt as ked t h em i f a ju ro r ei t h er h ad n o t d el i berat ed o r

was n o t d e l i b erat i n g

. (Th e tri al co u rt v ari ed t h e t en s e u s ed i n hi s q u es t i o n s

. ) J u ro r

W h i t e t o ld t h e t ri al co urt t h at sh e fel t s h e h ad part i ci p at ed i n t he d el i b erat io n s as t o

al l fo ur d efen d an t s an d t h at t h e o t h er ju ro rs “ ju st d o n’ t l i ke m

y an swer.”

Ov er t he o b

ject i on o f Nel s o n ’ s co u n s el

, t h e t ri al co u rt r e m ove d J u ro r W h i t e an d

rep l aced h er wi th a n al t ern at e. Aft er d o i n g s o

, th e t ri al co u rt as k ed t h e rem ai n i n g

ju ro rs

, “ [w] as t h e ju ro r I rem o v ed n o t p art i ci p at i n g i n d el i b erat i o n s ,” an d t h e ju ro rs

,

as a g ro up

, res p o n d ed affi rm at i v el y

. Th e t ri al co u rt di d n o t s et fo rt h h i s reas o n s fo r

t h e rem o v al in a wri t t en o r d e r

, b u t h e s tat ed o n th e reco rd t hat h e rem ov ed J u ro r

W h i t e b ecau s e t h e fo rep ers o n o f t h e ju ry h ad m ad e h i m aware t h at t h e ju ro r “ was n ot

p art i ci p at i n g b as ed o n a reas o n in g t h at th e co u rt h ad n ot u s ed

, ” b ecau s e s h e “ d i d n ot

fo l l o w t he i n s t ru ct i o n s o f th e co u rt ,” an d b ecau s e “ el ev en ju ro rs h a[d ] t o ld [t h e t ri al

co u rt ] s h e was n ot p art i ci p at i n g .”

Th i s reco rd d i d n ot p ro v i d e t h e t ri al co u rt wi t h a s u ffi ci en t b as i s u p o n wh i ch

t o e x erci se h is d i scret i o n i n rem o v i n g Ju ro r W h i te. As s t at ed ab o v e, “ [a] ju r o r m a y

n o t b e rem o v ed fo r reas o n s rel at ed to t h e ju ro r’ s v i ew of t h e t ri al ev i d en ce, ev en i f t h e

ju ro r’ s i n s i s t en ce o n t h at v i ew h as n eg at i v e e f fect s o n o th er ju ro rs an d t he ju ry ’ s

6d e l i b e rat i o n s

. ” Jo n es

, 3 14 Ga. at 2 2 3 (2 ) (b ). Befo re rem ov i n g a ju ro r, a t ri al c o u r t

m u st d ev el o p s u ffi ci en t fact s “ t o co n cl ud e wi t h co n fi d en ce t h at t he reas o n fo r

rem o v al was u n rel at ed t o t h e ju ro r’ s v i ew of t h e ev i d en ce.” Id

. at 2 25 (2 ) (b ). Th e t ri al

co u rt d i d n o t el i ci t ad eq u at e fact s t h ro u gh h i s i n q u i ry t o m eet t h i s req u i rem en t

.

Th e fact t h at “ el ev en j uro rs [h ad ] t ol d [t h e t ri al co u rt t h at J u ro r W h i t e] was n ot

p art i ci p at i n g ” i n d el i b erat i on s d o es n o t

, wi t h o u t m o re i n qu i ry

, s u p p o rt t h e rem o v al

.

A t ri al co u rt m ay n o t re m o v e a j u ro r fo r fai li n g t o d el i b erat e i f t h e ju ro r i n i t i al l y

p a rt i ci p at ed i n del i b erat i o n s b u t t h en “ reach ed a fi rm co ncl u s i o n as to t he co u n t s

b efo re t h e ju ry an d decl i n ed t o d el ib erat e fu rt h er.” Jo n es

, 3 1 4 Ga. at 2 2 7 (2 ) (b ). Th i s

i s t ru e ev en i f t h e ju ro r r e a ch es th at fi rm co n cl u s i o n sh o rt l y aft er t h e s t art o f

d el i b erat i o n s . See i d

. at 2 3 0 (2 ) (b ) n . 1 6.

No t h i n g i n t h e reco rd b efo re u s sh o w s t h at J u ro r W hi t e refu s ed fro m t h e o u ts et

t o p art i ci p at e in d el i b era t i o n s

. In s t ead

, s o m e o f t h e fact s el i ci t ed b y th e t ri al co u rt

s h o w th e co n t rary

. Th e ju ry ’ s n o t es i n d i cat e t hat J u ro r W h it e p art ici p at ed i n v o t es o n

al l o f t he d efen d an t s

. Ju ro r W h it e s t at ed t h at s h e h a d p art i ci pat ed in d el i b erat i o n s b ut

t h at t h e ot h er ju ro rs d i d n o t l i k e h er co n cl u s io n s. An d n o n e of t h e o t h er ju ro rs s t at ed

t h at J u ro r W h i te h ad refu sed t o p art i ci p at e i n an y o f t h e d el i b erat i o n s

. So m e o f t h em

7ex p res s l y s t at ed o r i m p l i ed t h at J u ro r W h i t e h ad i n i t i al l y p art i ci pat ed in d el i b erat i o n s

,

an d t h e o t h ers d i d n o t ad d res s t h at i s s u e o n e way o r t h e o t h er.

A co m m en t b y t h e tri al co u rt d u ri n g t h e m id s t o f h i s i n q u i ry s u g g es t s t h at h e

b e l i ev ed J u ro r W h it e o n l y p art i ci p at ed i n t h e d el i berat io n s as t o t wo o f t h e fo u r

d e f e n d a n t s

. Th is m ay h av e b een th e cas e, bu t ag ai n

, n o j u ro r act u al l y s ai d s o

, t h e

ju ry ’ s no t e st at i n g t h at t h ey were d ead l o ck ed el ev en t o on e on t h e rem ai n i n g

d efen d an t s s u g g es t s ot h erwi s e, an d t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s in qu i ry d i d n o t cl ari fy t h at p o i n t

.

Th e tri al co u rt ’ s ot h er ex p res s ed reas on s fo r rem o v i n g Ju ro r W h i t e are al s o n ot

s u p p ort ed b y t h e fact s dev el o p ed i n t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s i n q u i ry

. Th e t ri al co u rt st at ed t h at

J u ro r W h i t e “ was no t p art i ci p at i n g b as ed o n a reas o ni ng t h at t h e co urt h ad no t u s ed ”

an d t hat s h e “ d i d n o t fo l l o w th e i n s t ru ct i o n s o f t h e co u rt [.] ” Fro m th e co n t ex t we i n fer

t h at t h e t ri al co u rt was referri ng t o J u ro r W h i t e’ s al l eg ed co n cern s ab ou t t h e “ m en t al

s t at e” o f t wo o f N el s on ’ s co -d efen d an ts an d t he t ri al co u rt ’ s i ns t ru ct i o n t h at t h e ju ry

n o t co n s i d er t h at i s s u e. Fo r th e p u rp o s e o f o u r an al y s i s we as s u m e wi t h ou t d eci d i n g

t h at i t was ap p ro p ri at e fo r t he t r i a l c o u r t t o rem o v e t h e i s s u e o f t h e d efen d an t s ’

“ m en t al s t at e” fro m t h e j u ry ’ s co n s i d erat i o n an d we as s u m e wi t h o u t d eci d i n g t h at t h e

t ri al co u rt was al l o wed t o rem o v e a ju ro r fo r n ev ert hel es s co ns i d eri n g “ m en t al s t at e”

i n reach i n g an o p i n i on o n t h e c o u n t s p r es en t ed

. Ev en so

, t he t ri al co u rt d i d n ot

8q u es ti o n J u ro r W h i t e ab o u t wh et h er s h e s t o p p ed p art i ci p at in g i n d el i b erat i o n s b as ed

o n co n cern s ab o u t s o m e d efen d an t s ’ “ m en t al s t at e.” In s t ead

, t h e t r i al co urt ap p ears

t o h av e rel i ed on s t at em en t s m a d e b y o th er ju ro rs

, ei t h er du ri n g q u es t i o ni n g o r in

n o t es

. Th o s e acco u n t s fro m j u ro rs o t h er t han J u ro r W h i t e d i d n o t pro v i d e t h e t ri al

co u rt w i t h an ad eq u at e b as i s fo r co n cl u d i ng t h at J u ro r W h i te h ad d i sreg ard ed t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s i n s t ru ct i on s o r o t h e r w i s e act ed im p ro p erl y d u ri ng d el i b erat i o n s

. See Mo o n

,

3 1 2 Ga. at 4 8 -5 0 (2 ) (b ).

Fo r t h es e reas o ns

, we fi n d t h at fro m t h e in fo rm at i on i n t h e rec o r d

, t h e t ri al

co u rt d i d n o t h av e g ro u n d s t o “ co n cl u d e wi t h co n fi d en ce t h at t h e reas o n fo r rem o v al

was u n rel at ed t o t h e ju ro r’ s v i ew o f th e ev i d en ce.” Jo n es

, 3 1 4 Ga. 2 2 5 (2 ) (b ).

Co n s eq u en t l y

, “ th e t ri al co u rt ’ s b as i s fo r d is m i ss i n g [J u ro r W hi t e] was u ns o un d ” an d

h er rem o v al was an ab us e o f d i s cret i o n

. Mo o n

, 3 12 Ga. at 4 9 (2 ) (b ).

W e are n ot p er s u a d e d b y t h e s t at e’ s arg u m en t t h at t h is erro r was harm l es s

.

“ [R]e m o v i n g a d i ss en t i n g ju ro r w h en t h e ju ry i s d ead l ock ed ri s k s v i o l at i n g a

d efen d an t ’ s ri gh t t o a u n a n i m o u s v erd i ct [.] ” Mo o n

, 3 1 2 Ga. at 3 7 (2 ). T he s t at e’ s

as s ert i o n t h at t h e err or o n ly affect ed t wo o f Nel s o n ’ s co -d efen d an ts res t s o n

s p ecu l at i o n as t o wh at wo u ld h av e h ap p en ed h ad J u ro r W h i t e rem ai n ed o n t h e ju ry

.

Th e s t at e ci t es n o au t h o ri t y

, an d we h av e f o u n d n o n e

, th at perm it s a h arm l es s erro r

9an al y s i s wh en a t ri al co urt has i m p ro p erl y rem o v ed a ju ro r aft er d el i b erat i o n s h av e

b eg un

. To t he co n t rary

, o u r Su p rem e C o u r t h as h el d t h at t h i s ty p e of erro r i s

“ p res u m ed h arm fu l .” Id

. at 3 1. See S t a t e v. Ar n ol d

, 28 0 Ga. 4 8 7

, 4 89 (6 29 SE2 d 8 0 7 )

(2 0 0 6) (“ Di s m i s s al o f a ju ro r wi t ho u t an y fact u al su p p o r t o r fo r a l eg al ly i rrel ev an t

reas on is p reju d i ci al .”); s ee al s o Mi l l s

, 3 0 8 G a

. a t 5 60 (2 ). “ Becau s e t h e t ri al co u rt

ab u sed [h i s ] d is cret i on i n rem ov i n g [J u ro r W h i t e] fro m t he j u ry

, we co n cl u d e t h at

[Nel s o n ’ s ] co n v i c t i o ns m u s t b e rev ers ed

. ” Jo n es

, 31 4 Ga. at 2 3 1 (2 ) (b ). Acco rd

Mo o n , 3 1 2 Ga. at 5 0 (2 ) (b ).

3

. Ret r i al

Al t h ou g h Nel s o n d o e s n o t co n t es t t h e leg al s u ffi ci en cy of t h e ev i d en ce

s u p p ort i n g h er co nv i ct i o n

, we n ev ert h el es s co n s i der w h et h er t h e ev id en ce p res en t ed

at t ri al w as s u ffi ci en t t o p erm i t N e l s o n t o b e ret ri ed

. See O’Br i en v. S ta te

, 3 6 6 Ga.

Ap p . 2 4 8 , 2 5 0 n . 1 (8 8 1 SE2 d 7 1 0 ) (2 0 2 2 ). Hav i n g rev i ewed t h e reco rd i n t h e l i g ht

m o st fav o rab l e t o t h e v erd i ct s, we co n cl u de t h at “ t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed at t ri al an d

s u m m ari zed ab o v e was su ffi ci en t t o au th o ri ze a rat i o n al ju ry t o fi n d [Nel s o n ] g ui l t y

b ey o n d a reas on ab l e d o u b t o f t h e cri m es fo r wh ich [s h e] was fo u n d g ui l t y

. See

Ja cks o n v. Vi r

g i n i a

, 4 4 3 U. S. 3 0 7

, 3 1 9 (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 97 9 ).” Mi l l s

,

3 0 8 Ga. at 5 5 9 (1 ). So Nel s on m ay b e ret ri ed

.

104

. Rema in i n g en u mer a t i o n s o

f er r o r

Nel s o n as s ert s s ev eral o t h er en u m erat i o n s o f erro r, reg ard in g w h et h er t h e t ri al

co u rt s h ou l d h av e g ran t ed Nel s o n a m i s t ri al i n co n n ect i o n wi t h th e ju ry d el i b erat i o n

i s su e an d wh et h er t h e t ri al co u rt s h o u l d h av e t ak en act io n i n res po n s e t o an al l eg ed

co n fl i ct o f in t eres t i n d efen s e co u n s el ’ s jo i nt rep res en t at i o n o f al l fo u r co -d efen d an t s

wh i ch aro s e o u t o f th e j u ro r d el i b erat io n i s s u e. Th es e cl ai m s are u n l i k el y t o recu r o n

ret ri al

, an d wo u ld ap p ear in a d i fferen t fo rm i f t hey d o recu r

, s o we d o n o t ad d res s

t h em

.

Ju d g men t r ever sed . Br o wn a n d Ma r

kl e, JJ., co n cu r

.

11