Court Opinion

ID: 9570458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:23:23.789049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:52.400349
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the opinion of the Court of *180Appeals in this case should not be read as establishing a per se rule excluding a class of jurors who have an employment relationship with a party to the lawsuit. I can join the majority because its opinion does not purport to change the rule that “a trial court should not be prohibited from asking prospective jurors questions which might lead to their rehabilitation. [Cit.]” Beasley v. State, 269 Ga. 620, 625-626 (14) (502 SE2d 235) (1998).
Decided May 13, 2002.
McCall, Finney & Phillips, Walter E. McCall, Paul G. Phillips, for appellant.
Mathis, Cannon & Cormack, Billy C. Mathis, Jr., Del Percilla, Jr., for appellee.
Webb, Carlock, Copeland, Sender & Stair, Thomas S. Carlock, Butler Wooten Overby Fryhofer Daughtery, James E. Butler, Jr., Joel O. Wooten, Jr., Thomas W. Malone, amici curiae.