O.C.G.A. § 15-12-122 (2019)

Annotations

Cross references. - Limitations on the number of persons required to constitute a jury in superior court, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XI. Stipulation by parties to civil action that trial may be conducted with any number of jurors less than that fixed by statute, and as to designation of alternate jurors, § 9-11-47.

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1985, ‘‘twelve’’ was changed to ‘‘12’’ in the last sentence of subsection (b) of this Code section. Law reviews. - For note on the 2002 amendment of this Code section, see 19 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 68 (2002).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality of six-person limitation. - Six-person limitation in

O.C.G.A. § 15-12-122 for petit juries in civil actions seeking recoveries of less

than $5,000.00 (now $10,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs, does not deny equal protection of the laws. Wall v. Citizens & S. Bank, 247 Ga. 216, 274 S.E.2d 486 (1981). Effect of request for six-person jury. - An attorney, when asked by the court whether the attorney wanted a 12-person jury, responded that the attorney wanted a six-person jury, that statement was tantamount to an acknowledgment that the client’s claim was for less than $10,000. Super Disct. Mkts., Inc. v. Kubitz, 197 Ga. App. 224, 398 S.E.2d 252 (1990). Request for 12-person jury. - Trial court should grant the request for a 12-person jury unless the record affirmatively shows that the claim is for less than $10,000. Super Disct. Mkts., Inc. v. Kubitz, 197 Ga. App. 224, 398 S.E.2d 252 (1990). Since the record did not affirmatively show that a claim was for less than $10,000, the trial court erred in not granting appellants’ request for a 12-person jury. B.C.B. Co. v. Troutman, 200 Ga. App. 671, 409 S.E.2d 218 (1991). State court is not required to accommodate an oral request for a 12-person jury. Wolf Properties, Inc. v. Rissus Corp., 232 Ga. App. 218, 501 S.E.2d 597 (1998). In a civil case because the defendants are not entitled to separate trials each is not entitled to strike the full number of jurors but all must join in striking the jury. Pool v. Gramling, Spalding & Co., 88 Ga. 653, 16 S.E. 52 (1891); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 181 Ga. 55, 181 S.E. 755 (1935). Realignment of parties. - Trial court did not abuse the court’s broad discretion in realigning two parties, plaintiffs in the consolidated third-party action, as parties plaintiff for the purpose of allocating peremptory challenges. Naimat v. Shelbyville Bottling Co., 240 Ga. App. 693, 524 S.E.2d 749 (1999). Interpleading defendants. - This section authorizes only 12 strikes and makes no provision whereby interpleading defendants may consume all 12 strikes. Collins v. Cooper, 145 Ga. App. 559, 244 S.E.2d 95 (1978). Number of strikes when defendant fails to appear. - When the defendant

fails to appear for the trial on damages, and the court permits the plaintiff to exercise strikes forfeited by the defaulting party, permitting the plaintiff to exercise twice the number of peremptory strikes to which the plaintiff was otherwise entitled under subsection (b) of this section in selecting a jury of 12, reversal of the court’s ruling was required. Tri-State Culvert Mfg., Inc. v. White, 151 Ga. App. 529, 260 S.E.2d 550 (1979). Number of strikes in consolidated case. - If several cases pending against an estate are consolidated in one proceeding against a receiver therefor, the parties so joined have a right to only six strikes in selecting a jury. Ellis v. Geer, 36 Ga. App. 519, 137 S.E. 290 (1927). Challenge to manner in which jury panel is drawn must be made before verdict, no matter when it is discovered. Toole v. I.T.T. Grinnell Corp., 156 Ga. App. 591, 275 S.E.2d 97 (1980). Challenge to striking of jury not to be raised for first time on appeal. - If a jury is stricken in the absence of counsel in a civil case, and counsel appears thereafter and engages in the trial, conceding that such absence is on account of leave by the court, and no objection is made to such jury so selected on account of such leave, but if the first complaint thereto appears in a motion for new trial, the Court of Appeals will not reverse the judgment of the court below on assignment of error to the overruling of such motion for new trial. Holtsinger v. Scarborough, 71 Ga. App. 318, 30 S.E.2d 835 (1944). No exhaustion of peremptory strikes required to show harm. - In a medical malpractice case, the appellate court erred by concluding that the plaintiff could not prove the plaintiff was harmed by the trial court’s refusal to strike four allegedly biased jurors because the plaintiff did not show that the plaintiff had been forced to exhaust the plaintiff ’s peremptory strikes to eliminate those jurors because the rule in Harris, not requiring exhaustion of peremptory strikes as a condition of establishing harm to criminal cases also applies in civil cases. Stolte v. Fagan, 291 Ga. 477, 731 S.E.2d 653 (2012). Waiver of right to list. - Right to list is waived if counsel fails to direct atten-

tion of court to omission. Schumpert v. State, 9 Ga. App. 553, 71 S.E. 879 (1911). If regular number of strikes are exceeded and jury is reduced to 11, last one stricken should be restored. Pool v. Gramling, Spalding & Co., 88 Ga. 653, 16 S.E. 52 (1891). Cited in Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co. v. Ingram, 135 Ga. 696, 70 S.E. 234 (1911); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Scarboro, 42

Ga. App. 423, 156 S.E. 726 (1930); Lingo v. State, 224 Ga. 333, 162 S.E.2d 1 (1968); First Fid. Ins. Corp. v. Busbia, 128 Ga. App. 485, 197 S.E.2d 396 (1973); Wall v. Benningfield, 237 Ga. 173, 227 S.E.2d 13 (1976); Johnson v. Jackson, 140 Ga. App. 252, 230 S.E.2d 756 (1976); Mercer v. Braswell, 140 Ga. App. 624, 231 S.E.2d 431 (1976); White v. Cline, 174 Ga. App. 448, 330 S.E.2d 386 (1985).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Provision for six person jury not limited to tort actions. - This section, in providing for a six person jury in civil cases when the claim for damages is less than $5,000.00 (now $10,000.00), is applicable to any cause of action when damages

are claimed and the sum does not exceed $5,000.00 (now $10,000.00), irrespective of whether the claim is based in tort or otherwise. 1975 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U75-58.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Jury, §§ 104, 105. C.J.S. - 50A C.J.S., Juries, § 311 et seq. ALR. - Power of court to exclude from panel or venire for particular case all persons belonging to a class membership in which may be supposed to involve bias or prejudice, 105 ALR 1527. Validity and effect of plan or practice of consulting preferences of persons eligible for jury service as regards periods or times

of service or character of actions, 112 ALR 995. Effect of, and remedies for, exclusion of eligible class of persons from jury list in civil case, 166 ALR 1422. Prejudicial effect of reference on voir dire examination of jurors to settlement efforts or negotiations, 67 ALR2d 560. Jury: number of peremptory challenges allowable in civil case where there are more than two parties involved, 32 ALR3d 747.