GA Code § 15-12-130.1 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 15 - Courts|Chapter 12 - Juries|Article 5 - Trial Juries|Part 1 - In General|§ 15-12-130.1. Competence and Qualifications of Prospective Jurors in Superior Court to Serve in Other Courts of Concurrent Jurisdiction; Applicability

  On and after July 1, 2012, in any county of this state where there is located any court or courts having county-wide jurisdiction concurrent with the superior courts of this state to try any, all, or any type of case not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the superior courts of this state, any prospective trial juror chosen and summoned for service in the trial of civil and criminal cases in the superior court of such county shall be legally competent and qualified to serve as a prospective juror in any such other court or courts located in the county for the same period of time as he or she is competent and qualified to serve as a prospective trial juror in the superior court of the county.   Subsection (a) of this Code section shall be applicable only if an order is entered by the judges of the affected courts identifying the courts in which prospective jurors may serve.     (Code 1981, §15-12-130.1, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 1-51/HB 415.)   Editor's notes.   - 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 annual survey article discussing developments in criminal law, see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 209 (1999).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Editor's notes.   - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-130 are included in the annotations for this Code section.   Jurors selected for service in state court.    - Defendant demonstrated no harm resulting from the use of jurors who had been summoned for service in the state court and were seated for service in the superior court in defendant's case. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Yancey, 188 Ga. App. 8, 371 S.E.2d 883 (1988), aff'd, 258 Ga. 802, 375 S.E.2d 39 (1989), overruled on other grounds, Martin v. Williams, 263 Ga. 707, 438 S.E.2d 353 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-130).   Lack of prosecution.    - Jurors impaneled in county superior court were qualified to try the defendant in the state court of the county and, thus, the defendant was entitled to discharge and acquittal when defendant was not tried during the term in which defendant's demand for trial was made. Scott v. State, 206 Ga. App. 17, 424 S.E.2d 325 (1992) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-130).   Speedy trial.    - For purposes of a state court prosecution, a term in which superior court jurors were impaneled did not apply to a speedy trial determination since the jurors were not qualified to serve as state court jurors because the summons sent to the jurors referred only to the superior court. George v. State, 229 Ga. App. 632, 494 S.E.2d 526, aff'd, 269 Ga. 863, 505 S.E.2d 743 (1998) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-130).    Demand for speedy trial is not effective during a term when jurors have been impaneled for superior court but not state court unless the requirements of subsection (b) of former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-130 were satisfied. George v. State, 269 Ga. 863, 505 S.E.2d 743 (1998) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-130).    Because defendant failed to follow the procedures of former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-130(b) by showing that jurors were impaneled and qualified to try defendant's case during the relevant time period after the defendant filed the speedy trial demand, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for discharge and acquittal. Cown v. State, 259 Ga. App. 8, 576 S.E.2d 20 (2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-130).    Cited in Dean v. State, 177 Ga. App. 678, 340 S.E.2d 647 (1986) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-130).