O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
In the examination of individual jurors by counsel for the parties in civil and criminal cases, as provided in Code Section 15-12-164, applicable to felonies, and Code Section 15-12-133, applicable to all cases, it shall be the duty of the court, upon the request of either party, to place the jurors in the jury box in panels of 12 at a time, so as to facilitate their examination by counsel.
History
(Code 1933, § 59-720, enacted by Ga. L. 1956, p. 64, § 1.)
Annotations
Law reviews. - For annual survey of criminal law, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 129 (1986). For article, ‘‘Voir Dire in the #LOL Society: Jury Selection Needs Drastic Up-
dates to Remain Relevant in the Digital Age,’’ see 47 J. Marshall L. Rev. 459 (2014).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Purpose of O.C.G.A. § 15-12-131 is to facilitate the determination of the impartiality of jurors, their ability to treat the cause on the merits with objectivity and freedom from bias and prior inclination. Mathis v. State, 176 Ga. App. 362, 336 S.E.2d 299 (1985). Section does not provide for judicial discretion. - Court’s duty to place jurors in box is triggered upon request by either party that the court do so. Lett v. State, 160 Ga. App. 476, 287 S.E.2d 384 (1981). Since O.C.G.A. § 15-12-131 does not provide for judicial discretion in the matter, the denial of defendant’s request to voir dire prospective jurors in the jury box was in error. Mathis v. State, 176 Ga. App. 362, 336 S.E.2d 299 (1985). Size of panels. - Oath is administered by panels of 12 and voir dire questions are propounded to panels of 12; defendant can question them in panels of 12 or individually but not en masse to the entire group of 48 jurors at one time. Lahr v. State, 239 Ga. 813, 238 S.E.2d 878 (1977).
Conducting the examination in panels of 12, each segregated from the others without being seated in the jury box seriatim, is not reversible error. Brown v. State, 218 Ga. App. 469, 462 S.E.2d 420 (1995). Refusal to put jury in jury box. - Any harm caused by the judge’s refusal to put the jury in the jury box upon request was cured by calling a recess and placing the jurors in the boxes along the sides of the courtroom. Raven v. State, 256 Ga. 366, 349 S.E.2d 383 (1986). There was no error from the trial court seating jurors in panels of 12 in the jury box and on benches behind defense counsel’s table. Jones v. State, 217 Ga. App. 722, 458 S.E.2d 894 (1995). Cited in Reid v. State, 129 Ga. App. 657, 200 S.E.2d 454 (1973); Walls v. State, 161 Ga. App. 235, 291 S.E.2d 15 (1982); Ivester v. State, 252 Ga. 333, 313 S.E.2d 674 (1984); Perez v. State, 258 Ga. 343, 369 S.E.2d 256 (1988); Nichols v. State, 198 Ga. App. 323, 401 S.E.2d 338 (1991); Oliver v. State, 207 Ga. App. 681, 428 S.E.2d 681 (1993).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Jury, § 108.
Notes of Decisions
Wainwright v. State, 823 S.E.2d 749 (Ga. 2019).
· cites it 4× “" OCGA § 15-12-131. In accordance with that rule, we have held that "upon a party's request, the trial court is required to put the jurors in the jury box in groups of 12 for examination of individual jurors because the statute does not provide for the exercise of judicial…”
Hammond v. State, 542 S.E.2d 498 (Ga. 2001).
· cites it 3× “(a) Appellant takes issue with the trial court’s denial of defense counsel’s request that the general as well as the individual voir dire questions be propounded to the venirepersons while seated in the jury box in panels of 12.”
Brown v. State, 462 S.E.2d 420 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 6× “Also enumerated as error is the denial of Brown’s motion to conduct voir dire in panels of 12 as being in violation of OCGA § 15-12-131. It is not argued that this procedure constituted harmful error.”
Ivester v. State, 313 S.E.2d 674 (Ga. 1984).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 15-12-131 (Code Ann. § 59-720). The appellant was given full opportunity to individually examine each juror.”
Mathis v. State, 336 S.E.2d 299 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “OCGA § 15-12-131 provides that “[i]n the examination of individual jurors by counsel for the parties in civil and criminal cases .”
Jones v. State, 458 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Jones ap *723 peals, bringing the following enumerations of error.”
Oliver v. State, 428 S.E.2d 681 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 15-12-131; Mathis v. State, 176 Ga.”
Perez v. State, 369 S.E.2d 256 (Ga. 1988).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 15-12-131 provides: “[I]t shall be the duty of the court, upon the request of either party, to place the jurors in the jury box in panels of 12 at a time, so as to facilitate their examination by counsel.”
Nichols v. State, 401 S.E.2d 338 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Appellant Atha enumerates as error a purported violation of OCGA § 15-12-131. A review of the record clearly demonstrates that this enumeration of error is without merit.”
Wainwright v. State (Ga. 2019).
· cites it 2× “But even assuming that the request included individual voir dire—a request that the court should have granted under OCGA § 15-12-131— we conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the inclusion of two additional jurors in the panels during individual voir dire did not…”
Nygaard v. Matheny, 615 S.E.2d 772 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 15-12-131 provides: “In the examination of individual jurors by counsel for the parties in civil and criminal cases .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.