Court Opinion

ID: 9847040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:52:44.744651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:59.463303
License: Public Domain

Barnes, Judge,
concurring specially.
I fully concur in the result in this case, because in light of the attorneys’ thorough questioning of these jurors, the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss them for cause. I write separately to emphasize that the trial court’s talismanic questions alone were insufficient to rehabilitate these jurors. The trial court asked the *615first juror if she “could sit on the jury, listen to the evidence, make up your own mind about the facts in the case and take the law the Court gives you in charge and that fairly and impartially?” It then asked the second juror, ‘You stated that you could be fair and impartial in this case and you could set aside any personal feelings about what happened to your son and judge this case on its merits and the law that the Court charged you and the evidence as you find it to be; is that correct?” Both jurors responded, not surprisingly, in the affirmative.
Decided September 27, 2002.
Edwin J. Wilson, for appellant.
Daniel J. Porter, District Attorney, Jennifer Kolman, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
The Supreme Court of Georgia recently held that, when a prospective juror has a close relationship with a party, “the trial court must do more than ‘rehabilitate’ the juror through the use of any talismanic question.” Kim v. Walls, 275 Ga. 177, 178 (563 SE2d 847) (2002). The same should hold true for a prospective juror who shows bias. “[T]he effect of the court’s questions in this case about laying aside her [bias] was more an instruction on the desired answer than a neutral attempt to determine the juror’s impartiality.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cannon v. State, 250 Ga. App. 777, 780 (1) (552 SE2d 922) (2001), overruled in part on other grounds, Jackson v. State, 254 Ga. App. 562, 566-567 (4) (562 SE2d 847) (2002). Trial courts must do more than ask the formulaic question of whether a juror can be fair and impartial, because “a juror may be found disqualified even though he insists he is not biased; therefore, the juror’s opinion of his qualification is by no means determinative.” Jones v. State, 232 Ga. 324, 330 (206 SE2d 481) (1974).
For these reasons I respectfully concur specially.