O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-12-138 (2019)

Oath of jury panel

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

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.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Each panel of the trial jury shall take the following oath: ‘‘You shall well and truly try each case submitted to you during the present term and a true verdict give, according to the law as given you in charge and the opinion you entertain of the evidence produced to you, to the best of your skill and knowledge, without favor or affection to either party, provided you are not discharged from the consideration of the case submitted. So help you God.’’

History

(Orig. Code 1863, §§ 3834, 3838; Code 1868, §§ 3855, 3860; Ga. L. 1869, p. 139, § 6; Code 1873, §§ 3927, 3933; Code 1882, §§ 3927, 3933; Penal Code 1895, § 856; Penal Code 1910, § 860; Code 1933, § 59-706.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Return of verdict. - In all civil cases, the jury is required to return a verdict according to law as given to the jury in the charge by the court. Eiberger v. Martel Elec. Sales, Inc., 125 Ga. App. 253, 187 S.E.2d 327 (1972). Jury is not responsible for consequences of the jury’s verdict, but is responsible for the truth of the jury’s verdict. McFall v. State, 101 Ga. App. 44, 112 S.E.2d 691 (1960). Oath in criminal cases. - Former Penal Code 1895, § 979 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-12-139) and not former Penal Code 1895, § 856 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-12-138) prescribed the oath in criminal cases. Taylor v. State, 121 Ga. 348, 49 S.E. 303 (1904); Merritt v. State, 152 Ga. 405, 110 S.E. 160 (1921). Jurors are under oath pending entire proceeding of trial including publication of the verdict. Pan-American Wall Paper & Paint Co. v. Tudor, 81 Ga. App. 417, 59 S.E.2d 12 (1950). Oath need not be made before motion. - In a civil case, there can be no procedural requirement that a Batson motion (motion under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d

69 (1986)) be made prior to the trial jury being sworn because no statute requires the administration of a separate oath subsequent to selection of a trial jury in a civil action. Strozier v. Clark, 206 Ga. App. 85, 424 S.E.2d 368 (1992). Oath need not be administered to jurors one at a time. Williams v. State, 31 Ga. App. 173, 120 S.E. 131 (1923). Objection after verdict to form of oath will be denied. Candler v. Hammond, 23 Ga. 493 (1857). Timeliness of jury selection challenge for discrimination. - Challenges to the alleged use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges in a civil trial should be raised no later than would preserve the opportunity to correct any violation without resetting the trial, and because challenges brought before the administration of the oath to a jury panel may be premature, a challenge brought after the jury was selected and certain members released was made relatively, and permissively, promptly within the course of the proceedings. Calhoun v. Purvis, 206 Ga. App. 565, 425 S.E.2d 901 (1992). Cited in Werk v. Big Bunker Hill Min-

ing Corp., 193 Ga. 217, 17 S.E.2d 825 (1941); Grasham v. Southern Ry., 111 Ga. App. 158, 141 S.E.2d 189 (1965); Barner v. State, 139 Ga. App. 50, 227 S.E.2d 874 (1976); Gober v. State, 247 Ga. 652, 278

S.E.2d 386 (1981); Gilreath v. State, 247 Ga. 744, 279 S.E.2d 650 (1981); Aldridge v. State, 158 Ga. App. 719, 282 S.E.2d 189 (1981); Taylor v. State, 264 Ga. App. 665, 592 S.E.2d 148 (2003).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Jury, § 191 et seq.

C.J.S. - 50A C.J.S., Juries, § 520.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1990–2003 · leading case: Taylor v. State, 592 S.E.2d 148 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Taylor v. State, 592 S.E.2d 148 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “It is important to note that the oath required by OCGA § 15-12-138 was given in this case and it is this oath that courts have found to be jurisdictional, stating that it must be given in order to render a conviction "binding and conclusive.”

Strozier v. Clark, 424 S.E.2d 368 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, in a civil case there can be no procedural requirement that a Batson motion be made prior to the trial jury being sworn, because no statute requires the administration of a separate oath subsequent to selection of a trial jury in a civil action.”

Calhoun v. Purvis, 425 S.E.2d 901 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “In civil cases an oath is administered to each jury panel under OCGA § 15-12-138. Since this occurs prior to the final selection of jurors, a challenge at that time may be premature.”

Millis v. State, 397 S.E.2d 71 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Finally, appellant enumerates as error the trial court’s failure to charge the jury pursuant to OCGA § 15-12-138 which is the oath of the jury panel in civil 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.