...cused for cause the error is harmful.' " (quoting Bradham, 243 Ga. at 639 (3), 256 S.E.2d 331 ) ). But Kirkland also relied on this Court's reasoning in Harris v. State, 255 Ga. 464, 465 (2), 339 S.E.2d 712 (1986), including its construction of OCGA § 15-12-160 (now OCGA § 15-12-160.1 ), to accept the seemingly-unqualified notion that "an accused is entitled to a full panel of qualified jurors (that is, jurors not subject to being excused for cause) to which to direct his peremptory strikes." Kirkland, 274 Ga....

...at 166 (2), 587 S.E.2d 39, depends on Harris. In Harris, this Court held as follows: The defendant's use of his peremptory strikes will ... no longer play a role in our evaluation of the harm caused by the refusal to strike an unqualified juror. A defendant is entitled to a panel of forty-two qualified jurors. OCGA § 15-12-160 [now OCGA § 15-12-160.1 ].......

...rsons who are competent jurors as may be necessary to provide a full panel. In making up the panel or successive panels, the presiding judge shall draw the tales jurors from the jury box of the county and shall order the sheriff to summon them. OCGA § 15-12-160 (as in effect in 1986 and now appearing in substantially the same form in OCGA § 15-12-160.1 ) (emphasis supplied)....

...See Harris, 255 Ga. at 465 (2), 339 S.E.2d 712 (citing Blankenship v. State, 247 Ga. 590, 597, 277 S.E.2d 505 (1981) (Gregory, J., concurring specially), Wilcox v. State, 250 Ga. 745, 759, 301 S.E.2d 251 (1983) (Gregory, J., concurring specially), and OCGA § 15-12-160 (now OCGA § 15-12-160.1 ) ). **704In assessing the correctness of our holding in Harris and, in turn, our holding in Fortson, we first follow the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in concluding that there is no basis under the Constitution of the United States for those holdings....

...ven quoted. Contrary to the assertion in Harris, this statute never requires that the "42 jurors from which the defense and state may strike jurors" be without defects in their qualifications and that any such defects are presumptively harmful. OCGA § 15-12-160 (now OCGA § 15-12-160.1 )....

...ire omniscience. The defendant's use of his peremptory strikes will thus no longer play a role in our evaluation of the harm caused by the refusal to strike an unqualified juror. A defendant is entitled to a panel of forty-two qualified jurors. OCGA § 15-12-160....

...That is because "[a]n accused is entitled to a full panel of qualified jurors (that is, jurors not subject to being excused for cause) to which to direct his peremptory strikes." Cannon v. State, 250 Ga.App. 777, 781(1), 552 S.E.2d 922 (2001). See also OCGA § 15-12-160; Harris v....

...o alter, deliberately or inadvertently, the representative nature of the jury lists. [Cit.]” English v. State, supra. Finally, “[t]he jury panels which were put upon the accused contained [101] veniremen, substantially more than required by OCGA § 15-12-160.” Hall v....

...139(13), 344 S.E.2d 644 (1986). 6. Thomason contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to shuffle the jury venire, relying on law from other jurisdictions. Nothing under Georgia law, however, requires a shuffling of the jury venire. See OCGA § 15-12-160 et seq....

...presentative nature of the jury lists. [Cit.]” English v. State, 290 Ga. App. 378, 383 (3) (b) (659 SE2d 783) (2008). Finally, “[t]he jury panels which were put upon the accused contained [115] veniremen, substantially more than required by OCGA § 15-12-160.” Hall v....

...This enumeration is without merit. 3. Hall contends that the trial court’s general policy of excusing veniremen upon request denied to him a fair trial. The jury panels which were put upon the accused contained fifty-five veniremen, substantially more than required by OCGA § 15-12-160....

...juror who should have been excused for cause the error is harmful.’” (quoting Bradham, 243 Ga. at 639 (3)). But Kirkland also relied on this Court’s reasoning in Harris v. State, 255 Ga. 464, 465 (2) (339 SE2d 712) (1986), including its construction of OCGA § 15-12-160 (now OCGA § 15-12- 160.1), to accept the seemingly-unqualified notion that “an accused is entitled to a full panel of qualified jurors (that is, jurors not subject to being excused for cause) to which to direct his peremptory strikes.” Kirkland, 274 Ga....

... The defendant’s use of his peremptory strikes will . . . no longer play a role in our evaluation of the harm caused by the refusal to strike an unqualified juror. A defendant is entitled to a panel of forty-two qualified jurors. OCGA § 15-12-160 [now OCGA § 15-12-160.1]....

...are competent jurors as may be necessary to provide a full panel.  In making up the panel or successive panels, the presiding judge shall draw the tales jurors from the jury box of the county and shall order the sheriff to summon them. OCGA § 15-12-160 (as in effect in 1986 and now appearing in substantially the same form in OCGA § 15-12-160.1) (emphasis supplied). See Harris, 255 Ga. at 465 (2) (citing Blankenship v. State, 247 Ga. 590, 597 (277 SE2d 505) (1981) (Gregory, J., concurring specially), Wilcox v. State, 250 Ga. 745, 759 (301 SE2d 251) (1983) (Gregory, J., concurring specially), and OCGA § 15-12-160 (now OCGA § 15-12-160.1)). In assessing the correctness of our holding in Harris and, in turn, our holding in Fortson, we first follow the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in concluding that there is no basis under the Constitution of the United States for those holdings....

...quoted. Contrary to the assertion in Harris, this statute never requires that the “42 jurors from which the defense and state may strike jurors” be without defects in their qualifications and that any such defects are presumptively harmful. OCGA § 15-12-160 (now OCGA § 15-12-160.1)....