Court Opinion

ID: 9850987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:05:27.515057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:46.679851
License: Public Domain

Undercoeler, Justice,
dissenting. I dissent from the ruling made in Division 3 of the majority opinion and from the judgment of reversal. In Gambo v. Dugas & Son, 145 Ga. 614 (3) (89 SE 679), after the jury had the case under consideration, the court in its re-charge to the jury stated: “It is your duty to agree on a verdict in this case. The case has been fully and completely tried. You are just as competent as any jury would be of disposing of it. I say to you, gentlemen, it is no credit to a juror to stand out, in a pure spirit of stubbornness, because he has taken a position. It is the duty of every juror to consult with every other juror and reach a mutual understanding in the case.” It was held that this charge pressed the jury to the utmost line permissible, and to the very verge of error, and that though it was better for the trial judge to be more conservative in such matters, under the facts of the case and under former rulings of this court, the re-charge did not necessitate a reversal. In Golatt v. State, 130 Ga. 18 (3) (60 SE 107) this court held that a re-charge to the jury in the following words was not error: “that no juror should 'stick out’ in a spirit of stubbornness; that it was no credit to a juror to do that; but that if any juror had honest, abiding convictions which he found impossible to recon*387cile, after due consultation with the other jurors, ‘let him stand by them’; and that it was the duty of the jurors to confer together and make an honest effort to agree.” The motion for mistrial in the instant case was based solely on the remark by the court that “some of the jurors were being unreasonable, stubborn.”
“The trial judge may properly admonish the jury as to the propriety and importance of agreeing on a verdict, and may urge them to make every effort to harmonize their views and to agree on a verdict consistent with their consciences, care being taken not to suggest what verdict is proper, or to give instructions having a tendency to coerce the jury into agreeing on a verdict, or inviting them to disagree. The judge may urge, as reasons for agreeing on a verdict, the time and expense involved in the trial, and the time and expense which a new trial will entail.” Yancey v. State, 173 Ga. 685, 692 (160 SE 867). There was a dissent filed in the Yancey case but this ruling was approved by a full bench decision of this court in McLendon v. State, 205 Ga. 55, 67 (52 SE2d 294).
In my opinion the trial judge did not make any suggestion tending to coerce any particular group of the jurors to agree with the others and I do not believe that reversible error was committed by him. Hyde v. State, 196 Ga. 475, 492 (26 SE2d 744) contains many citations on this subject.