erroneous allowing challenge in Georgia

2013The erroneous allowing of a challenge for cause affords no ground of complaint if a competent and unbiased jury is finally selected.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Felton v. State, 270 Ga. App. 449, 451 (1) ( 606 SE2d 649 ) (2004); see also Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63, 71 (4) ( 694 SE2d 316 ) (2010).

2013The erroneous allowing of a challenge for cause affords no ground of complaint if a competent and unbiased jury is finally selected.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Felton v. State, 270 Ga. App. 449, 451 (1) ( 606 SE2d 649 ) (2004); see also Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63, 71 (4) ( 694 SE2d 316 ) (2010).

2013The erroneous allowing of a challenge for cause affords no ground of complaint if a competent and unbiased jury is finally selected.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Felton v. State, 270 Ga. App. 449, 451 (1) ( 606 SE2d 649 ) (2004); see also Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63, 71 (4) ( 694 SE2d 316 ) (2010).

2013The erroneous allowing of a challenge for cause affords no ground of complaint if a competent and unbiased jury is finally selected.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Felton v. State, 270 Ga. App. 449, 451 (1) ( 606 SE2d 649 ) (2004); see also Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63, 71 (4) ( 694 SE2d 316 ) (2010).

2021See also Wells v. State, 261 Ga. 282, 282 (404 SE2d 106) (1991) (“A party to a lawsuit has no vested interest in having any particular juror to serve; he is entitled only to a legal and impartial jury.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 12 During the first bench conference related to Juror Q.P., Appellant’s trial counsel mentioned Appellant’s writing down the names of prospective jurors whom he knew, suggesting some interaction between Appellant and his counsel during the jury selection process; there also would have been opportunities throughout the process, including during the 26-minute

2021See also Wells v. State, 261 Ga. 282, 282 (404 SE2d 106) (1991) (“A party to a lawsuit has no vested interest in having any particular juror to serve; he is entitled only to a legal and impartial jury.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 12 During the first bench conference related to Juror Q.P., Appellant’s trial counsel mentioned Appellant’s writing down the names of prospective jurors whom he knew, suggesting some interaction between Appellant and his counsel during the jury selection process; there also would have been opportunities throughout the process, including during the 26-minute

2021See Trim v. Shepard, 300 Ga. 176, 179 (794 SE2d 114) (2016) (“[E]ven if a trial court abused its discretion in striking a prospective juror for cause, ‘the erroneous allowing of a challenge for cause [ordinarily] affords no ground of complaint if a competent and unbiased jury is finally selected.’” (citation omitted)).

2021See Trim v. Shepard, 300 Ga. 176, 179 (794 SE2d 114) (2016) (“[E]ven if a trial court abused its discretion in striking a prospective juror for cause, ‘the erroneous allowing of a challenge for cause [ordinarily] affords no ground of complaint if a competent and unbiased jury is finally selected.’” (citation omitted)).

2016Finally, the law was settled at the time of Simon that, even if a trial court abused its discretion in striking a prospective juror for cause, “the erroneous allowing of a challenge for cause [ordinarily] affords no ground of complaint if a competent and unbiased jury is finally selected.” 4 Bryant v. State, 288 Ga. 876, 881 (4) (e) ( 708 SE2d 362 ) (2011) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2016Finally, the law was settled at the time of Simon that, even if a trial court abused its discretion in striking a prospective juror for cause, “the erroneous allowing of a challenge for cause [ordinarily] affords no ground of complaint if a competent and unbiased jury is finally selected.” 4 Bryant v. State, 288 Ga. 876, 881 (4) (e) ( 708 SE2d 362 ) (2011) (citation and punctuation omitted).