Court Opinion

ID: 9853975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:58:38.62474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:26.134831
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the judgment affirming the conviction of Sears. As to *768the sentencing phase, however, I cannot agree that the trial court erred in prohibiting counsel from contacting jurors. In my opinion, therefore, a remand is not necessary and both the judgment of conviction and the death sentence entered by the trial court should be affirmed.
As the majority points out, the general rule in this state is that jurors are incompetent to impeach their own verdict. OCGA § 17-9-41; Oliver v. State, 265 Ga. 653, 654 (3) (461 SE2d 222) (1995). This rule applies in death penalty cases. Spencer v. State, 260 Ga. 640, 643 (3) (398 SE2d 179) (1990); Hall v. State, 259 Ga. 412, 414 (3) (383 SE2d 128) (1989). This court has recognized constitutional limitations to the rule only in rare circumstances, where members of the jury intentionally gather extrajudicial and prejudicial evidence and communicate such information to the other jurors, or where non-jurors have interfered with the jury’s deliberations. Spencer v. State, supra at 643 (3); Watkins v. State, 237 Ga. 678, 685 (229 SE2d 465) (1976). “The rule is deeply rooted in Georgia law and promotes important public policy considerations.” Oliver v. State, supra at 654 (3).
The rule discourages post-verdict harassment of jurors, enhances verdict finality and certainty, encourages free and open discussion among jurors during deliberations, and insulates jury value judgments from judicial review.
Spencer v. State, supra at 643 (3).
Similarly, prohibiting post-verdict interviews protects the jury from post-verdict misconduct and the courts from time-consuming and futile proceedings, and reduces the “chances and temptations” for tampering with the jury. Haeberle v. Texas Intl. Airlines, 739 F2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1984); Wilkerson v. Amco Corp., 703 F2d 184, 185 (5th Cir. 1983). Thus, I do not believe that this Court should disturb a trial court’s decision to prohibit juror interviews “for the purpose of obtaining evidence of improprieties in the deliberations unless specific evidence of misconduct was shown by testimony or affidavit.” Haeberle v. Texas Intl. Airlines, supra. See also United States v. Riley, 544 F2d 237, 242 (5th Cir. 1976).
Courts simply will not denigrate jury trials by afterwards ransacking the jurors in search of some ground, not previously supported by evidence, for a new trial.
United States v. Riley, supra at 242. The majority expresses concern .that appellate counsel not be precluded “from exploring appropriate avenues of challenge.” In my opinion, however, the majority is requiring the trial court to permit appellate counsel to launch “a ‘fishing *769expedition’ in the hope of impeaching the verdict.” Big John, B.V. v. Indian Head Grain Co., 718 F2d 143, 150 (5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, I respectfully dissent to the majority’s implicit vacation of the death sentence and the remand of the case for further proceedings in the trial court.
Decided December 3, 1997 —
Reconsiderations denied December 19, 1997.
Carlton C. Carter, J. Michael Treadaway, Ray Gary, Jr., Tanya Greene, for appellant.
Thomas J. Charron, District Attorney, Debra H. Bernes, Nancy I. Jordan, Jack E. Mallard, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paige R. Whitaker, Wesley S. Homey, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.