Court Opinion

ID: 9582129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:22:53.789678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:28.419894
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent as to Division 4. Although the juror initially indicated that he would give equal attention to the testimony of all the witnesses and would base his decision upon the evidence and disregard any present knowledge that he had of the witness, whom he considered to be “a pretty honest fellow,” subsequent questioning by defense counsel as to his bias in favor of Officer Smith’s testimony was shown when he replied, “I would just believe Mr. Smith, whatever he said, I would give credibility to what he said.” Counsel then pursued the issue by asking, “But you are telling me that you *609would believe Mr. Smith because of your having met him before and plus you know him?” The witness replied, “I believe I would.” The court did not question the juror further as to his ability to base his decision upon the evidence.
As in Bradham v. State, 243 Ga. 638 (256 SE2d 331) (1979), Strong had to use all of his peremptory strikes before the jury was selected. “It is well established in Georgia that peremptory strikes are invaluable. When a defendant in a felony trial has to exhaust his peremptory strikes to excuse a juror who should have been excused for cause the error is harmful.” Id. at 639. In Bradham, the court in reversing a Court of Appeals decision at 148 Ga. App. 89 (250 SE2d 801) (1978), held that the trial court erred in failing to excuse a juror for cause. The juror stated that he could be impartial, but when questioned by defense counsel stated that he had three sons who were law enforcement officers in another county and he would be inclined to give more credence to a police officer’s testimony than a non-police witness. After this statement there was apparently no further questioning of the juror. See also Cox v. State, 248 Ga. 713, 714 (285 SE2d 687) (1982) which noted that the response in Bradham “clearly elicited bias in favor of the prosecution.”
The Bradham case is distinguishable from Foster v. State, 248 Ga. 409 (283 SE2d 873) (1981) where a prospective juror expressed grief at the death of the police chief and indicated that he would tend to believe the testimony of two law enforcement officers whom he had known all his life over that of another person he did not know. When questioned by the court as to his prejudice in favor of one of the officers and whether he would take anything the officer said as true without considering the other person’s testimony, the juror replied that had not been his intent. The juror further stated that he could fairly and impartially evaluate the testimony he would hear. In Foster, the court held that the court had a wide discretion in deciding whether a juror should be excused for cause and the fact that a juror has formed an opinion about the credibility of a witness does not require the court to excuse him for cause. Taylor v. State, 243 Ga. 222 (253 SE2d 191) (1979); Tennon v. State, 235 Ga. 594 (220 SE2d 914) (1975).
In the present case, the situation is almost identical with that in Bradham. Despite his claim to impartiality, the witness’ subsequent responses indicated that he was not unbiased. Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to excuse the juror for cause.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Shulman concurs in this dissent.