Court Opinion

ID: 9583735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:41:40.91058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:55.534270
License: Public Domain

Adams, Judge,
concurring specially.
I fully concur in this opinion, but write separately with regard to Division 2. While I agree with the reasoning in this Division, I note that when the trial court excused the juror, the jury had already been sworn and there is nothing in the record indicating that the juror was replaced. The parties stipulated in the pre-trial order that the case would be tried by 12 jurors, and that no alternate jurors would be selected. They further stipulated that the trial court could excuse two jurors for good cause, but that the case would not proceed to verdict with less than ten jurors. Accordingly, the trial court’s authority to *895proceed with an 11-member jury arose solely from this stipulation, as it had no authority to proceed with less than 12 members in the absence of such a stipulation or waiver. See Ga. Const., Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XI; Hague v. Pitts, 262 Ga. 777 (425 SE2d 636) (1993).
Decided August 15, 2003
Reconsideration denied August 27, 2003
Fulp & Holt, Carl G. Fulp III, for appellant.
Reinhardt, Whitley, Wilmot & Summerlin, Glenn Whitley, for appellee.