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.
Statute text
Any person who has been convicted of a felony in a state or federal court who has not had his or her civil rights restored and any person who has been judicially determined to be mentally incompetent shall not be eligible to serve as a trial juror.
History
(Code 1981, § 15-12-40, enacted by Ga. L. 2012, p. 173, § 3-1/HB 665.)
Annotations
Effective date. - This Code section became effective July 1, 2012.
Cross references. - Registration of voters and compilation of official registered voters' lists, § 21-2-210 et seq.
Editor's notes. - This Code section formerly pertained to the compilation, maintenance, and revision of jury lists. The former Code section was based on Ga. L. 1878-79, p. 27, § 2; Ga. L. 1878-79, p. 34, § 1; Ga. L. 1880-81, p. 124, § 1; Code 1882, §§ 3910b, 3910d; Ga. L. 1887, p. 31, § 1; Ga. L. 1892, p. 61, § 1; Penal Code 1895, §§ 815, 818; Ga. L. 1897, p. 40, § 1; Ga. L. 1899, p. 44, § 1; Penal Code 1910, §§ 816, 819; Code 1933, § 59-106; Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 284, § 1; Ga. L. 1955, p. 247, § 1; Ga. L. 1967, p. 251, § 1; Ga. L. 1968, p. 533, § 1; Ga. L. 1973, p. 484, § 1; Ga. L. 1976, p. 438, § 1; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1611, § 1; Ga. L. 1979, p. 3, § 1; Ga. L. 1985, p. 149, § 15; Ga. L. 1985, p. 1511, § 2; Ga. L. 1987, p. 953, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 1575, § 1; Ga. L. 1988, p. 13, § 15; Ga. L. 1989, p. 427, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 1292, § 4; Ga. L. 1999, p. 890, § 1; Ga. 2001, Ex. Sess., p. 318, §§ 1-1, 2-1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 334, § 5-3/HB 501; Ga. L. 2006, p. 897, § 1/HB 1417; Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 1-15/HB 415 and was repealed by its own terms effective July 1, 2012.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Editor's notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under former Code 1933, § 59-106 and former Code Section 15-12-40 are included in the annotations under this Code section.
Fourteenth Amendment protects all citizens. - United States Const., amend. 14 protects all and not some citizens as to discrimination in jury selection. Simmons v. Jones, 317 F. Supp. 397 (S.D. Ga. 1970), rev'd on other grounds, 478 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1973) (decided under former Code 1933, § 59-106).
Jury service is a duty rather than a right. - Jury service is not a right or privilege but is a burden which the state summons certain of the state's citizens to bear. Simmons v. Jones, 317 F. Supp. 397 (S.D. Ga. 1970), rev'd on other grounds, 478 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1973) (decided under former Code 1933, § 59-106).
Presumption that jurors able to correctly analyze facts. - Jurors are expected to bring into the box not only uprightness, but also intelligence, and there ought to be a presumption that jurors, through the use of the intelligence which the jurors are required to have in order to be qualified to be jurors, are able to correctly analyze the evidence and determine the facts, shown by such evidence, to have occurred. Purcell v. Hill, 111 Ga. App. 256, 141 S.E.2d 153 (1965) (decided under former Code 1933, § 59-106).
Competency of juror. - Defendant did not show that juror was incompetent to serve merely because the juror gave an incoherent answer the first time the juror was polled about the defendant's verdict; thus, denial of the defendant's motion for a new trial was proper. Creed v. State, 255 Ga. App. 425, 565 S.E.2d 480 (2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-40).
Cited in Ellington v. State, 292 Ga. 109, 735 S.E.2d 736 (2012), overruled in part by Willis v. State, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 685 (Ga. 2018).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
60
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case:
West v. State, 313 S.E.2d 67 (Ga. 1984).
West v. State, 313 S.E.2d 67 (Ga. 1984).
· cites it 28× “Appellant alleges a violation of OCGA § 15-12-40 (a) (1) (Code Ann. § 59-106), which specifies the responsibilities of the board of jury commissioners in compiling, maintaining and revising jury lists, as follows: "In composing such list the commissioners shall select a fairly…”
Morrow v. State, 532 S.E.2d 78 (Ga. 2000).
· cites it 20× “[1] Pre-Trial Issues 1. Morrow claims that Hispanics were underrepresented in the composition of the 1994 grand jury pool, and the 1999 traverse jury pool in violation of the Sixth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, OCGA § 15-12-40, and the Unified Appeal Procedure.”
Parks v. State, 330 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. 1985).
· cites it 16× “On the other hand, the testimony shows that the significant underrepresentation of young persons on the grand jury list is the result of an attempt by the jury commissioners to comply with the directive of OCGA § 15-12-40 that only the "most experienced" traverse jurors be…”
Al-Amin v. State, 597 S.E.2d 332 (Ga. 2004).
· cites it 8× “” 4 A computer was instructed to pick names of potential grand jurors from the voter registration list based on race, gender, and age in order to comply with the five percentage point requirements of UAP II (E).”
Bryant v. State, 708 S.E.2d 362 (Ga. 2011).
· cites it 8× “Rather, he claims that African-American persons who were age 55 years old or older and Hispanic persons were under-represented in the composition of the grand jury pool in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and OCGA § 15-12-40 as a result of the county's forced…”
Williams v. State, 699 S.E.2d 25 (Ga. 2010).
· cites it 16× “We considered Ramirez's claim under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, under the fair cross-section guarantee of the Sixth Amendment, and under OCGA § 15-12-40, and we found no error. We now apply that same pattern of analysis to appellant's claim, and we…”
Cook v. State, 340 S.E.2d 891 (Ga. 1986).
· cites it 8× “367 ( 306 SE2d 905 ) (1983), and the rule itself provides, in the last sentence thereof, that it "shall not be construed to deprive the defendant of any rights that he may have under the constitutions of the United States and the State of Georgia or under OCGA § 15-12-40." 252…”
Willis v. State, 820 S.E.2d 640 (Ga. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Willis argues that the trial court erred by rejecting his claim alleging that Fulton County failed to incorporate both voter registration and driver services records in its jury lists as required by the former version of *652 OCGA § 15-12-40. However, this Court's review of the…”
DeYoung v. State, 493 S.E.2d 157 (Ga. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Nor does death penalty qualification of jurors violate the right under OCGA § 15-12-40 (a) (1), to an impartial jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community.”
Ballenger Paving Co. v. Gaines, 499 S.E.2d 722 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 10× “(a) Ballenger first argues the jury list was illegally revised to add the 1,933 names, for OCGA § 15-12-40 (a) (3) prohibits adding names until the list is completely exhausted or until a revised list has been properly created.”
Ingram v. State, 323 S.E.2d 801 (Ga. 1984).
· cites it 4× “In counties using a nonmechanical method to select jurors, OCGA § 15-12-40 (a) (1) provides that the board of jury commissioners “shall select a fairly representative cross section of the intelligent and upright citizens of the county from the official registered voters’ list.”
Grant v. State, 824 S.E.2d 255 (Ga. 2019).
· cites it 4× “In making his statutory claim, Appellant cites former OCGA § 15-12-40 in his brief. OCGA § 15-12-40 was no longer in effect at the time of Grant's November 2012 trial and does not apply to this case.”
— 15-12-40(a) — 1 case
— 15-12-40(a)(1) — 1 case
DeYoung v. State, 493 S.E.2d 157 (Ga. 1997).
“Nor does death penalty qualification of jurors violate the right under OCGA § 15-12-40 (a) (1), to an impartial jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community.”
— 15-12-40(b) — 1 case
— 15-12-40(b)(4) — 1 case
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.