GA Code § 15-12-164 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 15 - Courts|Chapter 12 - Juries|Article 5 - Trial Juries|Part 2 - Juries in Felony Cases|§ 15-12-164. Questions on Voir Dire; Setting Aside Juror for Cause

  On voir dire examination in a felony trial, the jurors shall be asked the following questions:   "Have you, for any reason, formed and expressed any opinion in regard to the guilt or innocence of the accused?" If the juror answers in the negative, the question in paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be propounded to him;   "Have you any prejudice or bias resting on your mind either for or against the accused?" If the juror answers in the negative, the question in paragraph (3) of this subsection shall be propounded to him;   "Is your mind perfectly impartial between the state and the accused?" If the juror answers this question in the affirmative, he shall be adjudged and held to be a competent juror in all cases where the authorized penalty for the offense does not involve the life of the accused; but when it does involve the life of the accused, the question in paragraph (4) of this subsection shall also be put to him;   "Are you conscientiously opposed to capital punishment?" If the juror answers this question in the negative, he shall be held to be a competent juror.     Either the state or the accused shall have the right to introduce evidence before the judge to show that a juror's answers, or any of them, are untrue. It shall be the duty of the judge to determine the truth of such answers as may be thus questioned before the court.   If a juror answers any of the questions set out in subsection (a) of this Code section so as to render him incompetent or if he is found to be so by the judge, he shall be set aside for cause.   The court shall also excuse for cause any juror who from the totality of the juror's answers on voir dire is determined by the court to be substantially impaired in the juror's ability to be fair and impartial. The juror's own representation that the juror would be fair and impartial is to be considered by the court but is not determinative.    (Laws 1843, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 843; Ga. L. 1853-54, p. 86, § 1; Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 229, §§ 9, 10; Code 1863, §§ 4569, 4570; Code 1868, §§ 4589, 4590; Code 1873, §§ 4682, 4683; Code 1882, §§ 4682, 4683; Penal Code 1895, §§ 975, 976; Penal Code 1910, §§ 1001, 1002; Code 1933, §§ 59-806, 59-807; Ga. L. 1979, p. 1047, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 20, § 6/HB 170; Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 1-58/HB 415.)   Editor's notes.   - Ga. L. 2005, p. 20, § 1/HB 170, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Criminal Justice Act of 2005.'"   Ga. L. 2005, p. 20, § 17/HB 170, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section shall be applicable to all trials which commence on or after July 1, 2005.   Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 1-1/HB 415, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Jury Composition Reform Act of 2011.'"   Law reviews.   - For comment on Tumlin v. State, 88 Ga. App. 713, 77 S.E.2d 555 (1953), see 16 Ga. B.J. 346 (1954). For comment discussing constitutionality of disqualification of jurors in murder trial for general objection to death penalty in light of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S. Ct. 1770, 20 L. Ed. 2d 776 (1968), see 3 Ga. L. Rev. 234 (1968). For comment on Alderman v. State, 241 Ga. 496, 246 S.E.2d 642, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 991, 99 S. Ct. 593, 58 L. Ed. 2d 666 (1978), see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 349 (1979).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   ANALYSIS    General Consideration   Formation of Opinion as to Guilt or Innocence   Existence of Prejudice or Bias   Impartiality   Opposition to Capital Punishment   Conduct of Voir Dire    RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Jury, § 167 et seq.   C.J.S.   - 50A C.J.S., Juries, §§ 412 et seq., 473, 483 et seq.   ALR.    - Betting on result as disqualifying juror, 2 A.L.R. 813.    Membership in secret order or organization for the suppression of crime as proper subject of examination, or ground of challenge, of juror, 31 A.L.R. 411; 158 A.L.R. 1361.    Excusing qualified juror drawn in criminal case as ground of complaint by defendant, 96 A.L.R. 508.    Prejudice against certain type of defense as ground of challenge for cause of juror in criminal case, 112 A.L.R. 531.   Right of counsel in criminal case personally to conduct the voir dire examination of prospective jurors, 73 A.L.R.2d 1187.   Disclosure in criminal case of juror's political, racial, religious, or national origin prejudice against accused or witnesses as ground for new trial or reversal, 91 A.L.R.2d 1120.   Propriety and effect of asking prospective jurors hypothetical questions, on voir dire, as to how they would decide issues of case, 99 A.L.R.2d 7.   Juror's presence at or participation in trial of criminal case (or related hearing) as ground of disqualification in subsequent criminal case involving same defendant, 6 A.L.R.3d 519.   Beliefs regarding capital punishment as disqualifying juror in capital case - post-Witherspoon cases, 39 A.L.R.3d 550.   Propriety, on voir dire in criminal case, of inquiries as to juror's possible prejudice if informed of defendant's prior convictions, 43 A.L.R.3d 1081.   Jury: membership in racially biased or prejudiced organization as proper subject of voir dire inquiry or ground for challenge, 63 A.L.R.3d 1052.   Juror's voir dire denial or nondisclosure of acquaintance or relationship with attorney in case, or with partner or associate of such attorney, as ground for new trial or mistrial, 64 A.L.R.3d 126.   Similarity of occupation between proposed juror and alleged victim of crime as affecting juror's competency, 71 A.L.R.3d 974.   Racial or ethnic prejudice of prospective jurors as proper subject of inquiry or ground of challenge on voir dire in state criminal case, 94 A.L.R.3d 15.   Religious belief, affiliation, or prejudice of prospective jurors as proper subject of inquiry or grounds for challenge on voir dire, 95 A.L.R.3d 172.   Validity and construction of statute or court rule prescribing number of peremptory challenges in criminal cases according to nature of offense or extent of punishment, 8 A.L.R.4th 149.   Necessity for presence of judge during voir dire examination of prospective jurors in state criminal case, 39 A.L.R.4th 465.   Juror's reading of newspaper account of trial in state criminal case during its progress as ground for mistrial, new trial, or reversal, 46 A.L.R.4th 11.   Cure of prejudice resulting from statement by prospective juror during voir dire, in presence of other prospective jurors, as to defendant's guilt, 50 A.L.R.4th 969.   Professional or business relations between proposed juror and attorney as ground for challenge for cause, 52 A.L.R.4th 964.   Fact that juror in criminal case, or juror's relative or friend, has previously been victim of criminal incident as ground of disqualification, 65 A.L.R.4th 743.   Propriety of inquiry on voir dire as to juror's attitude toward or acquaintance with literature dealing with amount of damage awards, 63 A.L.R.5th 285.   Examination and challenge of federal case jurors on basis of attitudes toward homosexuality, 85 A.L.R. Fed. 864.   Jury Selection and Voir Dire in Criminal Cases, 76 Am. Jur. Trials 127.