O.C.G.A. § 15-12-161 (2019)
Clerk to provide names of prospective jurors and identifying information to prosecutor and accused
The clerk shall provide the prosecuting attorney and the accused with the names and identifying information relative to prospective jurors for the case being tried.
History
(Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 229, § 4; Code 1863, § 4566; Code 1868, § 4586; Code 1873, § 4679; Code 1882, § 4679; Penal Code
1895, § 971; Penal Code 1910, § 997; Code 1933, § 59-802; Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 1-57/HB 415.)
Annotations
Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 1-1/HB 415, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: ‘‘This Act shall be
known and may be cited as the ‘Jury Composition Reform Act of 2011.’ ’’
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Jurors must be legally impaneled. Cunneen v. State, 96 Ga. 406, 23 S.E. 412 (1895). There is no particular ceremony or form of words required to put the jury upon the defendant when the panel of jurors is ‘‘put upon the accused.’’ Walls v. State, 161 Ga. App. 235, 291 S.E.2d 15 (1982). Putting on of panel may be waived expressly or by implication. Cochran v. State, 62 Ga. 731 (1879); Ruden v. State, 72 Ga. 567 (1884); Vaughn v. State, 88 Ga. 731, 16 S.E. 64 (1892). Second panel of jurors is not required. Chewning v. State, 18 Ga. App. 11, 88 S.E. 904 (1916); Amerson v. State, 18 Ga. App. 176, 88 S.E. 998 (1916). Time for challenge. - Challenge to an array must be made when the array is put upon the defendant. Mitchell v. Hopper, 538 F. Supp. 77 (S.D. Ga. 1982), supplemented by 564 F. Supp. 780 (S.D. Ga. 1983), aff ’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Ross v. Kemp, 756 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir. 1985), aff ’d in part sub nom. Mitchell v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 886 (11th Cir. 1985), rev’d in part sub nom. Spencer v. Kemp, 781 F.2d 1458 (11th Cir. 1986), cert. denied 483 U.S. 1026, 107 S. Ct. 3248, 97 L. Ed. 2d 774 (1987). Defense that jury not properly put upon defendant. - Defendant may not, after conviction, urge defense that jury
was not properly put upon the defendant. Cumming v. State, 155 Ga. 346, 117 S.E. 378 (1923). Jury not purged before selection process begins. - In felony case, it is not error for the court to refuse a motion to purge the jury as to disqualification before beginning to select the jury for trial, the statutes on the subject as applied to felony cases being different from those in reference to civil and misdemeanor cases. Gossett v. State, 203 Ga. 692, 48 S.E.2d 71 (1948), appeal dismissed, 214 Ga. 840, 108 S.E.2d 272 (1959). Excusals before voir dire held proper. - There was no merit to a defendant’s claim that it was error to excuse two jurors before voir dire because the jurors happened to be part of the original panel of potential jurors and thus should have been ‘‘put upon’’ the defendant; a defendant was entitled to an array of properly drawn, impartial jurors to which the defendant could direct peremptory challenges, and the defendant had been afforded this right. Jackson v. State, 288 Ga. App. 339, 654 S.E.2d 137 (2007), cert. denied, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 332 (Ga. 2008). Cited in Rawlings v. State, 163 Ga. 406, 136 S.E. 448 (1926); Felker v. Johnson, 53 Ga. App. 390, 186 S.E. 144 (1936); Williams v. State, 232 Ga. 203, 206 S.E.2d 37 (1974); Spencer v. Hopper, 243 Ga. 532, 255 S.E.2d 1 (1979).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Jury, § 101 et seq.