valid basis challenge in Georgia

2010See also Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 ( 428 SE2d 786 ) (1993) (holding that “new trials will not be granted unless the movant can demonstrate that: a juror failed to answer or to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause”) (punctuation omitted). 9 Gainesville Radiology Group, 263 Ga. at 94, n. 3 . 10 See Isaacs, 259 Ga. at 740 (44) (e) (juror was not dishonest in failing to disclose that she was molested as a child on her juror questionnaire because “she ha

2010See also Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 ( 428 SE2d 786 ) (1993) (holding that “new trials will not be granted unless the movant can demonstrate that: a juror failed to answer or to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause”) (punctuation omitted). 9 Gainesville Radiology Group, 263 Ga. at 94, n. 3 . 10 See Isaacs, 259 Ga. at 740 (44) (e) (juror was not dishonest in failing to disclose that she was molested as a child on her juror questionnaire because “she ha

2024To obtain a new trial on the ground that a juror did not give a correct response to a question posed on voir dire or in a jury questionnaire, a party “must show that the juror failed to answer the question truthfully and that a correct response would have been a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Sears v. State, 270 Ga. 834, 840 (2) (514 SE2d 426) (1999).

2024To obtain a new trial on the ground that a juror did not give a correct response to a question posed on voir dire or in a jury questionnaire, a party “must show that the juror failed to answer the question truthfully and that a correct response would have been a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Sears v. State, 270 Ga. 834, 840 (2) (514 SE2d 426) (1999).

2024See Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 ( 428 SE2d 786 ) (1993) (relying on McDonough Power Equipment Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 ( 104 SCt 845 , 78 LE2d 663) (1984), to hold that “new trials will not be granted unless the movant can demonstrate that: ‘a juror failed to answer [or to answer] honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause’”).

2024See Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 ( 428 SE2d 786 ) (1993) (relying on McDonough Power Equipment Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 ( 104 SCt 845 , 78 LE2d 663) (1984), to hold that “new trials will not be granted unless the movant can demonstrate that: ‘a juror failed to answer [or to answer] honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause’”).

2017Appellant asserts a defendant is entitled to a new trial based on juror misconduct if the defendant is able to demonstrate that “(1) the juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire and (2) a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” See Glover v. State, 274 Ga. 213, 214 (2) ( 552 SE2d 804 ) (2001).

2017Appellant asserts a defendant is entitled to a new trial based on juror misconduct if the defendant is able to demonstrate that “(1) the juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire and (2) a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” See Glover v. State, 274 Ga. 213, 214 (2) ( 552 SE2d 804 ) (2001).

1998Pretermitting the fact that voir dire is not included in the record before us and, therefore, Calloway has not carried his burden to show error by the record, Peacock v. Campbell, 223 Ga. App. 620 ( 478 SE2d 409 ) (1996), we conclude that even accepting Calloway’s recitation of what happened with juror Harris, there was no error. “ ‘In order to obtain a new trial, [Calloway] must show that the juror failed to answer honestly a material question and that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.’ Gardiner v. State, 264 Ga. 329, 333 (3) ( 444 SE2d 300 ) (1

1998Pretermitting the fact that voir dire is not included in the record before us and, therefore, Calloway has not carried his burden to show error by the record, Peacock v. Campbell, 223 Ga. App. 620 ( 478 SE2d 409 ) (1996), we conclude that even accepting Calloway’s recitation of what happened with juror Harris, there was no error. “ ‘In order to obtain a new trial, [Calloway] must show that the juror failed to answer honestly a material question and that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.’ Gardiner v. State, 264 Ga. 329, 333 (3) ( 444 SE2d 300 ) (1

2024See Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 ( 428 SE2d 786 ) (1993) (relying on McDonough Power Equipment Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 ( 104 SCt 845 , 78 LE2d 663) (1984), to hold that “new trials will not be granted unless the movant can demonstrate that: ‘a juror failed to answer [or to answer] honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause’”).

2024See Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 ( 428 SE2d 786 ) (1993) (relying on McDonough Power Equipment Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 ( 104 SCt 845 , 78 LE2d 663) (1984), to hold that “new trials will not be granted unless the movant can demonstrate that: ‘a juror failed to answer [or to answer] honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause’”).

2005To obtain a new trial when a juror gives an inaccurate response during voir dire, “a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Grogan v. State, 230 Ga. App. 876, 878 ( 497 SE2d 589 ) (1998).

2005To obtain a new trial when a juror gives an inaccurate response during voir dire, “a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Grogan v. State, 230 Ga. App. 876, 878 ( 497 SE2d 589 ) (1998).

2019Indeed, in order for a defendant to be entitled to a new trial because of voir dire examination, the defendant has to show both that the juror failed to answer honestly a material question, and that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.12 required to uphold a conviction.). 12 Green v. State, 295 Ga. 108, 111 (2) ( 757 SE2d 856 ) (2014) (citations omitted). 8 During the trial, the prosecutor notified the trial court judge that he had just learned that the juror knew Officer Johnson.

2019Indeed, in order for a defendant to be entitled to a new trial because of voir dire examination, the defendant has to show both that the juror failed to answer honestly a material question, and that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.12 required to uphold a conviction.). 12 Green v. State, 295 Ga. 108, 111 (2) ( 757 SE2d 856 ) (2014) (citations omitted). 8 During the trial, the prosecutor notified the trial court judge that he had just learned that the juror knew Officer Johnson.

1996We also find de novo that the evidence at the pretrial hearing is sufficient to support the findings of fact of the trial court inherent in its determination that the juror’s version of events were credible. “ Tn order to obtain a new trial, [appellant] must show that the juror[ ] failed to answer honestly a material question and that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.’ ” Maxwell v. State, 218 Ga. App. 780, 781 (1) ( 463 SE2d 517 ).

1996We also find de novo that the evidence at the pretrial hearing is sufficient to support the findings of fact of the trial court inherent in its determination that the juror’s version of events were credible. “ Tn order to obtain a new trial, [appellant] must show that the juror[ ] failed to answer honestly a material question and that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.’ ” Maxwell v. State, 218 Ga. App. 780, 781 (1) ( 463 SE2d 517 ).

2024See Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 93 (428 SE2d 786) (1993) (relying on McDonough Power Equipment Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 (104 SCt 845, 78 LE2d 663) (1984), to hold that “new trials will not be granted unless the movant can demonstrate that: ‘a juror failed to answer [or to answer] honestly a material question on voir dire, U.S. 40, 44-48 (II) (135 SCt 521, 190 LE2d 422) (2014) (holding that Federal Rule 606 (b)’s preclusion applies to claims for a new trial made on the ground that a juror lied during voir dire and prohibits the use of evidence of deliberations

2024In this context the ruling 385-86 (2) (“Rule 606 (b) is borrowed from the Federal Rules of Evidence,” and “[w]hen Georgia courts consider the meaning of provisions borrowed from the Federal Rules of Evidence, they are guided by the decisions of the federal appeals courts construing and applying the Federal Rules, especially the Eleventh Circuit.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 17 on the motion for new trial was committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, it was the trial court’s role as the fact-finder to determine issues of credibility and resolve any inconsistencies in the ad

2024In this context the ruling 385-86 (2) (“Rule 606 (b) is borrowed from the Federal Rules of Evidence,” and “[w]hen Georgia courts consider the meaning of provisions borrowed from the Federal Rules of Evidence, they are guided by the decisions of the federal appeals courts construing and applying the Federal Rules, especially the Eleventh Circuit.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 17 on the motion for new trial was committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, it was the trial court’s role as the fact-finder to determine issues of credibility and resolve any inconsistencies in the ad

2024In this context the ruling 385-86 (2) (“Rule 606 (b) is borrowed from the Federal Rules of Evidence,” and “[w]hen Georgia courts consider the meaning of provisions borrowed from the Federal Rules of Evidence, they are guided by the decisions of the federal appeals courts construing and applying the Federal Rules, especially the Eleventh Circuit.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 17 on the motion for new trial was committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, it was the trial court’s role as the fact-finder to determine issues of credibility and resolve any inconsistencies in the ad

2022Id.; accord Downey v. State, 298 Ga. 568, 571 (3) ( 783 SE2d 622 ) (2016).

2022Id.; accord Downey v. State, 298 Ga. 568, 571 (3) ( 783 SE2d 622 ) (2016).

2021The juror further testified that he and 6 Bradley were not close friends and did not socialize outside of work, and that he had no knowledge of her reputation as a mother.2 In its order denying Tyson’s motion for new trial, the trial court specifically found that the juror “disclosed his knowledge and work relationship with the victim’s mother.” As Tyson acknowledges, in order to obtain a new trial based on juror misconduct in voir dire, he must show that “(1) the juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire and (2) a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a

2021The juror further testified that he and 6 Bradley were not close friends and did not socialize outside of work, and that he had no knowledge of her reputation as a mother.2 In its order denying Tyson’s motion for new trial, the trial court specifically found that the juror “disclosed his knowledge and work relationship with the victim’s mother.” As Tyson acknowledges, in order to obtain a new trial based on juror misconduct in voir dire, he must show that “(1) the juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire and (2) a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a

2010Id., citing Ross v. Edwards, 253 Ga. App. 773 (1) ( 560 SE2d 343 ) (2002). 14 Spanos also opined that Leibel breached the standard of care by failing to timely file a Rule 59 (e) motion for reconsideration of the federal trial court’s order and by filing an untimely notice of appeal. 15 274 Ga. App. 323 ( 617 SE2d 606 ) (2005) (physical precedent only). 16 (Punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Id. at 326 (1). 17 (Punctuation omitted.) Id. 18 See Zwiren v. Thompson, 276 Ga. 498, 500-501 ( 578 SE2d 862 ) (2003) (“In order to establish proximate cause by a preponderance of the evidence in a m

2010Id., citing Ross v. Edwards, 253 Ga. App. 773 (1) ( 560 SE2d 343 ) (2002). 14 Spanos also opined that Leibel breached the standard of care by failing to timely file a Rule 59 (e) motion for reconsideration of the federal trial court’s order and by filing an untimely notice of appeal. 15 274 Ga. App. 323 ( 617 SE2d 606 ) (2005) (physical precedent only). 16 (Punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Id. at 326 (1). 17 (Punctuation omitted.) Id. 18 See Zwiren v. Thompson, 276 Ga. 498, 500-501 ( 578 SE2d 862 ) (2003) (“In order to establish proximate cause by a preponderance of the evidence in a m

2010See also Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 ( 428 SE2d 786 ) (1993) (holding that “new trials will not be granted unless the movant can demonstrate that: a juror failed to answer or to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause”) (punctuation omitted). 9 Gainesville Radiology Group, 263 Ga. at 94, n. 3 . 10 See Isaacs, 259 Ga. at 740 (44) (e) (juror was not dishonest in failing to disclose that she was molested as a child on her juror questionnaire because “she ha

2010See also Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 ( 428 SE2d 786 ) (1993) (holding that “new trials will not be granted unless the movant can demonstrate that: a juror failed to answer or to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause”) (punctuation omitted). 9 Gainesville Radiology Group, 263 Ga. at 94, n. 3 . 10 See Isaacs, 259 Ga. at 740 (44) (e) (juror was not dishonest in failing to disclose that she was molested as a child on her juror questionnaire because “she ha

2010See also Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 ( 428 SE2d 786 ) (1993) (holding that “new trials will not be granted unless the movant can demonstrate that: a juror failed to answer or to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause”) (punctuation omitted). 9 Gainesville Radiology Group, 263 Ga. at 94, n. 3 . 10 See Isaacs, 259 Ga. at 740 (44) (e) (juror was not dishonest in failing to disclose that she was molested as a child on her juror questionnaire because “she ha

2010See also Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 ( 428 SE2d 786 ) (1993) (holding that “new trials will not be granted unless the movant can demonstrate that: a juror failed to answer or to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause”) (punctuation omitted). 9 Gainesville Radiology Group, 263 Ga. at 94, n. 3 . 10 See Isaacs, 259 Ga. at 740 (44) (e) (juror was not dishonest in failing to disclose that she was molested as a child on her juror questionnaire because “she ha

2009See generally id. (nothing in record showed that appellant prejudiced by any false answer given during voir dire); see also Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 ( 428 SE2d 786 ) (1993) (even where defendant proves that sworn juror answered untruthfully, reversal is not warranted unless defendant can also prove a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause).

2009See generally id. (nothing in record showed that appellant prejudiced by any false answer given during voir dire); see also Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 , 428 S.E.2d 786 (1993) (even where defendant proves that sworn juror answered untruthfully, reversal is not warranted unless defendant can also prove a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause).

2005“Merely knowing the victim is not a sufficient ground to strike ajurorfor cause.” (Citation omitted.) Brumelow v. State, 239 Ga. App. 119, 121 (2) ( 520 SE2d 776 ) (1999).

2005“Merely knowing the victim is not a sufficient ground to strike ajurorfor cause.” (Citation omitted.) Brumelow v. State, 239 Ga. App. 119, 121 (2) ( 520 SE2d 776 ) (1999).

1999(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Poole v. State, 262 Ga. 668, 670 (2) ( 424 SE2d 275 ) (1993).

1999(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Poole v. State, 262 Ga. 668, 670 (2) ( 424 SE2d 275 ) (1993).

1999Royal v. State, 266 Ga. 165, 166 (2), 465 S.E.2d 662 (1996); Gardiner v. State, 264 Ga. 329, 333 (3), 444 S.E.2d 300 (1994); Isaacs v. State, 259 Ga. 717, 740 (44)(e), 386 S.E.2d 316 (1989).

1999Royal v. State, 266 Ga. 165, 166 (2), 465 S.E.2d 662 (1996); Gardiner v. State, 264 Ga. 329, 333 (3), 444 S.E.2d 300 (1994); Isaacs v. State, 259 Ga. 717, 740 (44)(e), 386 S.E.2d 316 (1989).

1994The reason for the rule is to eliminate those jurors whose impartiality may be called into question by the existence of a business relationship whereby the juror could be motivated by financial concerns, and to avoid forcing jurors into the position of choosing between adherence to an oath of impartiality and the pecuniary interests of a party with whom the juror has a business relation.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Walker v. State, 206 Ga. App. 81, 82 (3) ( 424 SE2d 364 ) (1992).” Grady Tractor Co. v. First Nat.

1994The reason for the rule is to eliminate those jurors whose impartiality may be called into question by the existence of a business relationship whereby the juror could be motivated by financial concerns, and to avoid forcing jurors into the position of choosing between adherence to an oath of impartiality and the pecuniary interests of a party with whom the juror has a business relation.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Walker v. State, 206 Ga. App. 81, 82 (3) ( 424 SE2d 364 ) (1992).” Grady Tractor Co. v. First Nat.