FI FTH DI VI SI ON REESE, P. J.

, M A RKLE and COLVI 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.

P le a s e r e fe r to the S upr e m e C our t of G e or gia Judic ia l

E m e r ge nc y Or de r o f M a r c h 1 4

, 2 0 2 0 for fur the r infor m a tion a t (https ://w w w

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

M ay 22, 2020



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A0 52 6 . PURNELL v . THE STATE.

R E E S E
, Pres i di n g J u d g e.

Ian M i ch ael Pu rn el l was co n v i ct ed o f b u rg l ary i n t h e fi rs t d eg ree. On ap p eal

,

Pu rn el l arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n decl i ni n g t o s t ri k e t h e v en i re. Th e St at e

as k ed each o f th e p an el m em b ers i f an y o n e had b een a v i c t i m o f a cri m e, an d t wo

p o t en t i al ju ro rs an s wered t h e q u es t i o n i n t h e af f ir m a tive an d ex pres s ed d i s sat i s fact i o n

wi t h t h e s en t en ces t h e p erp et rat o rs recei v ed

. Fo r t h e reas o n s s et fo rt h i n fra, we affi rm

.

Pri o r t o t ri al

, t h e S t a t e i n fo rm ed t h e co u rt an d Pu rn el l o f it s i n ten t to s eek a

reci di v i s t s en t en ce u n d er OCGA § 1 7 -1 0 -7

. T h e St at e su b s eq u en t ly m o v ed i n l i m i n e

t o ex cl u d e an y referen ce to t h e s en t e n c e P u rn el l was faci n g i f co n v i ct ed

. Th e co u rt

g ran t ed t h e m o t i on , n o t i ng t h at Pu rn el l h a d c o n c e d ed t h at an y referen ce t o h i sp o t en t i al s en ten ce w o ul d b e i m p ro p er. Th e co u rt al l o wed

, h o wev er, t es ti m o n y an d

ev i d en ce rel at ed t o t h e p lea ag reem en t b et ween Pu rn el l’ s co -d efen dan t an d t h e St at e.

Du ri n g v o i r d i re, t h e St at e as k ed t he ju ry p an el wh et h er an y o n e h ad b een t h e

v i ct i m of a cri m e. On e of t h e p o t en t i al j u ro rs an s w ered : “ Back in 2 0 1 0

, m y h o u s e was

b ro k en i n t o an d t h ey t o o k ju st ab o u t ev ery t h in g o ut o f i t

. It was t h ree g en t l em en .” Th e

p o t en t i al ju ro r co n t i n u ed t h at s h e was n o t s at i s fi ed wi t h t h e cri m i n al pro c e s s , a n d

n o t ed t h at t h e defen dan t s h ad recei v ed “ t en y ears an d th ey s erv ed t wo an d t h ey ’ re s t i l l

i n t he t en y ears .”

Pu rn el l m o ved fo r a m i s t ri al o u t s i d e th e p res en ce o f t h e ju ry

. Pu rn el l arg u ed

t h at t h e ju ro r’ s an s wer h ad t ai n t ed t h e ju ry p o o l b ecau se i t m e n t i o n ed a p o t en t i al

s en t en ce fo r b u rg l ary

. Th e St at e res p o n d ed t h at t h e an s wer h ad n ot affect ed t h e o t h er

ju ro rs ’ ab i l i t y to h ear t h e cas e an d di d n o t referen ce a p o t en t i al s en t en ce fo r Pu rn el l

.

Th e St at e n o ted t h at

, i f t h e ju ry h ad b een t ai n t ed

, t h e co u rt co ul d b ri n g i n an o t h er ju ry

p o o l an d res t art t h e p ro ces s

. T h e co u rt co n tem p l at ed a cu rat i v e i n s tru ct i o n , b ut

u l t i m at el y deci d ed t o d en y Pu rn el l ’s m o t i o n w i t ho u t i s su i n g a cu rat i v e i ns t ru ct i o n

b ecau s e t h ere was n o ev i d en ce t h e an swer h ad i n fl u en ced t h e o t h er ju ro rs

.

Th e St at e co nt in u ed t o as k p o t en t i al ju ro rs wh et her an y o f t hem h ad b een t h e

v i ct i m o f a cri m e. An o th er po t en t i al ju ro r an s wered th at s he h ad b een t h e v i ct i m o f

2an “ es p eci al l y ag g rav at ed as s au l t an d at t em p t ed m u rd er an d th ey

— t h e St at e wo rk ed

o u t a pl ea o f t h i rt y y ears , b u t t h en h e was p aro l ed i n s ev en .” Th e ju ro r s t at ed t h at s h e

w a s n o t s at i s fi ed w i t h t he o u t co m e b ecau s e t he d efen d an t was ev en t u al l y p aro l e d :

“ Th e fi rs t t im e h e cam e u p aft er s i x y ears , t hey d en i ed p aro l e, b u t t h en t h e s eco n d

—

t h e n ex t y ear h e cam e u p ag ai n an d was rel eas ed .” Pu rn e l l ren ewed hi s p rev i ou s

m o ti o n fo r a m i s tri al

, wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt den i ed

, b u t t he co u rt al l o wed a co n t i n u i n g

o b ject i on

. N ei t h er o f t he p ot en t i al ju ro rs wh o co m m en t e d o n a s en t en ce o r p aro l e

s erv ed o n Pu rn el l’ s ju ry

.

Du ri n g t h e ju ry

ch arg e at t h e co n cl u s io n o f t ri al

, t h e co u rt i n s t ru ct ed t h e ju ry

as t o t he St at e’ s bu rd en o f p ro o f, t h e p res u m p t io n o f i n n o cen ce, an d t h e d efi n i t i o n o f

reas on ab l e d o u b t

. T h e co u rt ad d i t i o nal l y i ns t ru ct ed : “ Yo u are o n l y co n cern ed wi th

wh et h er t h e St at e h as carri ed i t s b u rd en o f p ro vi n g t h e g u i l t o f t he d efen d an t b ey o n d

a reas on ab l e d o ub t

. Yo u are n o t t o co n cern y o u rs el v es wi t h p u n i s h m en t .” Aft er t h e

ch arg e, Pu rn el l ren ewed hi s o b ject i o n as t o t h e co u rt ’ s fai l u re t o g i v e a l i m i t i n g

i n s t ru ct i o n d u ri ng vo i r d i re. Th e co u rt o v erru l ed t h e o b ject io n

. Th e ju ry ret u rn ed a

g u i l t y v erd i ct

.

Pu rn el l fi l ed a m ot i o n n ew t ri al

, arg u i ng t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n den y i n g h i s

m o ti o n fo r m i s t ri al aft er t he co m m en t s fro m t h e t wo p o t en t ial ju ro rs

. T h e t ri al co u rt

3d en ied t he m o t io n , fi n d i n g t h at th e co m m en t s were n ot in h eren t l y p reju d i ci al an d t h at

t h e co u rt ha d cu red an y h arm t h ro u g h i t s i n s t ru ct i o n s t o t h e ju ry

. Th i s ap p eal

fo l l o w ed

.

We rev i ew i s s u es reg ard i n g ju ry p an el d i s m i s s al fo r an ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n

. 1

“ [I] n th i s area as i n ot h er areas o f v o i r d i re p ract i ce, ap p el l at e co ur ts s h o u l d g i v e

s u b s t an t i al d eferen ce t o t h e d eci s i o n s m ad e b y t ri al j u d ges , wh o o v ers ee v oi r d i re o n

a reg u l ar b as i s , are m ore fam il i ar wi t h t h e d et ai l s an d n u an ces o f t h ei r cas es , an d can

o b s erv e t h e p art i es ’ an d t h e p ro s pect i v e j u ro rs ’ d em e a n o r.” 2 W i t h t h es e g u i d i n g

p ri n ci p l es i n m i n d , we n o w t u rn t o Pu rn el l’ s s p eci fi c cl ai m o f erro r.

In h i s so l e en u m erat ed erro r o n ap p eal

, Pu rn el l arg u es th at t h e t ri al co u rt erred

i n den y i n g h i s m ot i o n fo r a m i s t ri al aft er t wo p o t en t ial j u ro rs co m m en t ed o n

p u n i s h m en t an d p aro l e. He co n t en d s t h at t h e co m m en t s were p reju di ci al b ecau s e t h ey

d i s t ract ed t h e ju ry

fro m co n s i d eri n g t h e l es s er i n cl u ded o ffen s e o f t h eft b y t ak i n g

.

As an i n i t i al m at t er, “ [ t ]h e t i m e fo r m ak i n g a m o t i o n fo r m i s t ri al i s n o t ri p e

u n t i l t he cas e h as b eg u n , an d t h e t ri al d o es n o t b eg i n u n t i l t he ju ry h as b een i m p an el ed

1 See Les t er

v. S t a t e , 3 4 3 Ga. Ap p

. 6 1 8 , 6 2 3 (2 ) (8 07 SE2 d 9 2 2 ) (2 0 1 7 ).

2 Her r i n g to n v. S t a t e , 30 0 Ga. 1 4 9

, 1 5 2 (3 ) (7 9 4 SE2 d 1 4 5 ) (2 0 1 6) (p u n ct u at i o n

an d ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

4an d swo rn .” 3 In res p o n se to p reju d i ci al co m m en t s b e f

o r e t h e v en i re, t h e p ro p er

p ro ced ural v eh i cl e is a “ ch al l en g e to t he p o l l ” o r a m o t i o n t o s t ri k e t he p an el an d

i m p an el n ew ju ro rs w h o h ad n o t h eard t h e rem ark

. 4 “ Ho wev er, wh ere t h e cl ear i m p o rt

o f t h e m o t i on i s th at t h e ju ry pan el b e ex cu s ed an d an o t h er p an el be m ad e av ai l ab l e,

t h e defen d an t ’ s u s e o f i n co rrect n o m e n c l at u re m ay b e d i s reg ard ed .” 5 Here, Pu rn el l

s o u g ht t o s tri ke th e v en i re an d res t art t h e p ro ces s

. Th u s , d es p i t e t h e n o m en cl at u re o f

t h e m o t i o n , t h e t ri al co u rt ap p ro p ri at el y co n s i d ered t h e m eri ts o f Pu rn el l ’ s m o t i o n fo r

m i s t ri al

. 6

In d et erm in i n g w h et h er a t ri al c o u r t i s r eq u i red to ex cu s e a ju ry

p an el fo r rem ark s m ad e d u ri n g v o ir d i re, t h e i n q u i ry i s wh e t h er th e

rem ark s were i n h eren t l y p reju d i ci al an d d ep ri v ed [t h e defen d an t ] o f h i s

ri gh t to b eg i n h i s t r i al wi t h a ju ry free fro m ev en a s u s pi ci on o f

p reju d g m en t o r fi x ed o pi n i o n

. If s o , t h en t h e t ri al co u r t ’s f a i l u re t o

ex cu s e t h e p an el co n st i t ut es an ab us e o f d i s cret io n

. 7

3 Sh ar p e v. S t a t e , 2 7 2 Ga. 68 4

, 6 8 7 (5 ) (5 3 1 SE2 d 8 4) (2 0 0 0 ) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

4 Id

.

5 Her r i n g t o n , 3 0 0 Ga. at 1 5 3 (4 ) (ci t at i o n an d p un ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

6 See i d

.

7 Jo h n s o n v. S ta te

, 3 4 0 Ga. Ap p

. 42 9

, 4 35 (3 ) (7 9 7 SE2 d 6 66 ) (2 0 1 7 ) (ci t at i o n

an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

5Ad d i t i o n al l y ,

[g ] en eral l y , d i s m i ss al o f a ju ry p an el i s req u i red wh en , du ri n g v o ir d i re,

a p ro s p ect i v e j u ro r rel ay s i n fo rm at i on th at i s s p eci fi c t o t h e d efen d an t

an d g erm an e t o th e cas e fo r wh ich t h e defen d an t i s o n t ri al

. Di s m is sal i s

n o t req u i red

, ho wev er, wh en th e s t at em en t s es t ab l i s h o n l y g os s am er

p o s s i b i l i t ies of p reju d i ce. 8

In t h i s cas e, t h e p o t en t i al ju ro rs ’ co m m en t s o n s en t en ci n g an d paro l e were n ot

i n h eren t l y

p reju di ci al . Th e co m

m en t s d i d n ot rel at e t o Pu rn el l s p eci fi cal ly an d “ d id

n o t i m p l y t h at [Pu rn el l ] was g u i l t y o f t h e cri m e wi t h wh ich h e was ch arg ed

. ” 9

M o reo v er, t h e t ri al co u rt i ns t ru ct ed t h e ju ry t h at i t was n o t t o co n cern i t s el f w i th

p u n i s h m en t

, “ an d q u al ifi ed ju ro rs u n d er o at h are p res u m ed t o fo l l o w t h e i n s t ru ct i on s

8 Id

.

9 Lo g a n v. S t a te

, 2 6 5 Ga. Ap p

. 1 3 4

, 1 3 7 (3 ) (5 9 3 SE2 d 1 4 ) (2 0 0 3 ). Co m p are,

e.g ., Hen g v. S ta t e , 2 5 1 Ga. A p p. 2 7 4

, 2 7 8 -2 79 (4 ) (5 5 4 SE2 d 2 4 3) (2 0 01 ) (t ri al co u rt
d i d n o t ab u s e i ts di s cret io n i n d ecl i ni n g t o s t ri k e t h e en t i re p an el aft er a j u r o r

co m m en t ed t h a t t h e d efen d an t “ l oo k ed li k e a p u n k ” an d “ [cam e] ov er h ere an d

co m m i t [ t e d] cri m es ”), wi t h S i n ya r d v. S t a t e , 2 4 3 Ga. Ap p

. 2 1 8

, 2 2 1 (2 ) (5 3 1 SE2 d

1 4 0 ) (2 0 0 0 ) (ju ro r co m

m en t t h at a fri en d h ad been ch eat e d b y t h e d efen d an t was i n h eren t l y p reju d i ci al an d req u i red t h e t r i al co u rt t o s t ri k e t h e ju ry p an el in

d efen d an t ’ s t ri al fo r t h eft b y co n v ers io n ).

6g i v en b y t h e t ri al co u rt

. ” 1 0 Acco rd in g l y , t h e t ri al co u rt d id n o t ab u s e i t s d i s cret i o n in

d en y i n g Pu rn el l ’ s m o t i o n fo r m i s t ri al an d d ecl i n i n g t o s t ri k e t h e ju ry p an el

.

Pu rn el l ad d i t i o n al l y arg ue s tha t the S ta te w a s e s t o p p ed fro m o p p os i n g Pu rn el l ’ s

m o ti o n fo r a m i s t ri al b ecau s e t h e St at e s ou g h t an d recei v ed a m o t i o n i n l im i n e ru l i n g

ex cl u d i n g d i s cu s s io n reg ard i ng Pu rn el l ’ s p ot en t i al sen t en ce. W h i l e Pu rn el l co n t en d s

t h at t h e es t o p p el was fro m a “ reco rd o r ju d g m en t u n rev ers ed ” u n der OCGA § 2 4 -1 4

-

2 6 (b ) (1 ), 1 1 h i s arg u m en t s are m o re ak i n t o ju d i ci al es t o pp el . Un d er t h e d o ct ri n e o f

ju d i ci al es t o p p el

, “ [w] here a p art y as s u m es a cert ai n p o s it i o n i n a l eg al p ro ceed i n g,

an d su cceed s i n m ai n t ai n in g t h at p os i ti o n, h e m ay n o t t hereaft er, s i m p l y b ecau s e h i s

i n t eres t s hav e ch an g ed

, as s u m e a co n t rary po s it i o n , es peci al l y i f i t be t o t h e p reju d i ce

o f t h e p art y

wh o h as acq u ies ced i n t h e p o s it io n fo rm erl y t ak en b y h i m .” 1 2

1 0 S t a t e v. Jo h n s o n , 2 8 0 Ga. 5 1 1

, 5 1 3 (6 3 0 SE2 d 3 7 7 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

1 1 See OCGA § 24 -1 4 -2 6 :

(a) Co n cl u s i v e p res u m

pt i o ns o f l aw are t erm ed es to p p el s ; av erm en t s to

t h e c ontr ary o f s u ch p res u m p t i on s s h al l n o t b e al lo wed

. E s to p p el s are n ot

g en eral l y fav ored

. (b ) Es t o p pel s i n cl u d e p res u m p t i o n s i n fav o r o f: (1 ) A reco rd o r ju d g m en t u n rev ers ed [.]

1 2 Ro b er t s v. St a t e , 2 7 8 Ga. 61 0

, 6 1 1 -6 1 2 (6 04 SE2 d 7 8 1 ) (2 0 0 4 ) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

7In a cri m in al p ro s ecu t i o n , “ ap p l i cat i o n o f t h e do ct ri n e o f ju d i ci al es t o p p el i s

i n ap p ro p ri at e.” 1 3 “ [J ] u d i ci al es t o p pel s h o u l d n o t b e ap p l i ed i n cri m i n al p ro ceed i ng s

a g ai n s t ei t h er th e St at e o r t h e d efen d an t

. ” 1 4 Reg ard l es s, t h e St at e d i d n o t ad o p t a

co n trary p o s i t i on t o i ts m o t i o n in l i m i n e becau s e i t d i d no t s o l i ci t or cap i t al ize o n t h e

p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs ’ co m m en ts

. 1 5 Acco rd i n g l y , t h e St at e was n ot es t o p p ed fro m

o p p o s i n g Pu rn el l ’ s m o t i o n fo r m i s t ri al

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Ma r

kl e a n d Co l vi n , JJ., co ncu r

.

1 3 Ro b er t s , 2 78 Ga. at 6 1 3

.

1 4 Id . at 61 2 -6 1 3

.

1 5 See Per i o d Ho mes v. Wa l l i ck

, 27 5 Ga. 48 6

, 4 8 8-4 8 9 (2 ) (5 6 9 SE2 d 5 0 2 ) (2 0 0 2).

8