Court Opinion

ID: 9611614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:58:36.034101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:15.489276
License: Public Domain

Hunstein, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority holds that the trial court erred in refusing to strike juror Smith for principal cause based on its conclusion that juror Smith was a “full-time military policeman with arrest power [who] did not meet any of the exceptions to th[e] automatic disqualification rule.” Majority Opinion at 783 (1). Because such a conclusion is not supported by the record and unjustifiably expands our holding in Hutcheson v. State, 246 Ga. 13 (1) (268 SE2d 643) (1980), I respectfully dissent.
This Court has recognized the importance of a citizen’s right to participate in jury service in that it
“affords ordinary citizens a valuable opportunity to participate in a process of government, an experience fostering, one hopes, a respect for law.” [Cit.] Indeed, with the exception of voting, for most citizens the honor and privilege of jury duty is their most significant opportunity to participate in the democratic process.
Lewis v. State, 262 Ga. 679, 680 (424 SE2d 626) (1993), quoting Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S. 400, 407 (111 SC 1364, 113 LE2d 411) (1991). Thus, as a general rule, we have not automatically deprived citizens of their right to sit as jurors unless a presumption of bias is clearly established. Hutcheson, supra at 14. In Hutcheson, we held that full-time police officers must be excused if challenged for principal cause because
[i]t is inherent in the nature of police duties and the closeness with which such officers are identified with criminal procedures that questions regarding possible bias, fairness, prejudice or impermissible influence upon jury deliberations inevitably arise.
Id., 246 Ga. at 14 (1). Because the right to participate in jury service is so important, however, we have consistently refused to extend the rule in Hutcheson to persons less connected with law enforcement than full-time police officers or to those whose employment is not so closely identified with the case before the court or general criminal procedures “that questions regarding possible bias, fairness, prejudice or impermissible influence upon jury deliberations inevita*790bly arise.” See id. Applying the rule of Hutcheson, we have refused to automatically and arbitrarily disqualify a sworn part-time police officer based on the limited nature of his duties, Denison v. State, 258 Ga. 690 (4) (373 SE2d 503) (1988), and have held that a full-time active-duty military police officer temporarily serving as a drill sergeant was not automatically disqualified based on the absence of evidence raising a suspicion that he was biased against the defendant. Cargill v. State, 255 Ga. 616 (6) (340 SE2d 891) (1986). We also have held that Hutcheson did not apply to a former part-time police officer who, at the time of trial, served as a reserve police officer called to duty when help was needed. Wilson v. State, 250 Ga. 630 (4) (a) (300 SE2d 640) (1983).
Although relying on Denison, Cargill, and Wilson to support its conclusion that juror Smith is automatically disqualified from jury service, the majority fails to distinguish these cases from the facts of this case. I find they cannot be distinguished. Under the law of this State, juror disqualification or bias must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to strike the juror for cause. Jordan v. State, 247 Ga. 328, 339 (6) (276 SE2d 224) (1981). The only record evidence concerning juror Smith indicates he was employed full-time as a readiness officer for a military police unit with the National Guard; he has been called to active duty on six occasions in the past seven years for flood control and weather emergency situations; and either he or others within his National Guard unit possess the power to arrest while maintaining military law and order. Based on the record evidence, there is nothing to suggest either that Smith’s rare deployments to establish military law and order or his routine duties as a readiness officer, which were not explored on the record, raise inevitable questions of bias, prejudice, or undue influence upon jury deliberations.2 See Hutcheson, supra at 14. Indeed, the sparse record evidence in this case indicates that juror Smith’s military law enforcement duties were even more limited in nature and substantially less frequent than the jurors we held not to be automatically disqualified in Denison, supra, Cargill, supra, and Wilson, supra. Accordingly, I would find that Terrell failed to satisfy his burden of *791establishing that juror Smith was subject to automatic disqualification based on his employment with the National Guard.3
Decided November 1, 1999
Reconsideration denied December 17, 1999.
Strauss & Walker, John T. Strauss, Tanya Greene, for appellant.
Alan A. Cook, District Attorney, Thurhert E. Baker, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paige R. Whitaker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
The majority has failed to justify its decision to deprive juror Smith of his right not to be excluded from a jury on account of his National Guard duties. See Lewis, supra. The record uncontrovertedly shows no evidence of actual bias by juror Smith and neither case law nor the facts of this particular case supports the majority’s expansion of Hutcheson so as to manufacture a presumption of bias on the part of a National Guard readiness officer called to temporary active duty only six times over the past seven years. Therefore, because the trial court did not err by refusing to strike juror Smith for principal cause, I would affirm that ruling and thus must respectfully dissent to the majority’s reversal of the judgment in this case.

 During a less than thorough voir dire, juror Smith was asked about his service with the National Guard. He responded that he had been in the Guard for fourteen years and had been called to active duty for flood control and similar projects on six occasions over the last seven years. In the only other question pertaining to his service in the National Guard he was asked, “Have you ever worked in your capacity with the Military Police in a military jail setting?” He responded, “See when we do an arrest, we’re combating things, military law and order, we do imprisonment and a lot of times works with the jail, and also we do air security and station patrol.” At no time was juror Smith asked about his full-time duties as a readiness officer, whether he himself had arrest powers, or whether he thought he could be fair and impartial in deciding the case.

 Of course, had Terrell asked questions of juror Smith during voir dire which exposed any bias or prejudice, juror Smith would have been subject to a challenge for cause. See Jordan v. State, 247 Ga. at 338.