Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Laws 1799, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 547; Ga. L. 1869, p. 139, § 5; Code 1873, § 3914; Code 1882, § 3914; Penal Code 1895, § 812; Penal Code 1910, § 812; Code 1933, § 59-202; Ga. L. 1967, p. 590, § 1; Ga. L. 1978, p. 906, § 1; Ga. L. 1979, p. 676, § 1; Ga. L. 1994, p. 607, § 3; Ga. L. 2001, p. 4, § 15; Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 1-27/HB 415.)
- 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.'"
- Findings of grand jury composed of over 23 persons are void. Evans v. State, 17 Ga. App. 120, 86 S.E. 286 (1915).
- Trial court did not err in failing to grant the defendant a new trial on the ground that the grand jury was composed of 25 people in violation of O.C.G.A. § 15-12-61(a) since the claim was waived, and the trial court found as a fact that the grand jury was properly comprised. Daly v. State, 285 Ga. App. 808, 648 S.E.2d 90 (2007), cert. denied, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 659 (Ga. 2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1039, 128 S. Ct. 2441, 171 L. Ed. 2d 241 (2008).
- Although alternate jurors were substituted during the January term of court, the defendant pointed to no evidence that the January grand jury was ever formally discharged from the jury's duties prior to the end of the grand jury's term, thus, it continued to act within the jury's term of court and remained empowered to act until the last day of the jury's term and did not need to be re-sworn prior to returning to the defendant's second indictment. Durden v. State, 299 Ga. 273, 787 S.E.2d 697 (2016).
- If the indictment showed that all 23 grand jurors voted on the indictment when, in fact, two of the grand jurors were not present and did not vote, the criteria of O.C.G.A. § 15-12-61 was met since the defendant did not show that more than two of the 23 persons on the grand jury did not vote, and it was assumed that the remaining 21 members voted to find a bill of indictment. Ellis v. State, 181 Ga. App. 630, 353 S.E.2d 822 (1987).
Cited in Davis v. State, 72 Ga. App. 347, 33 S.E.2d 728 (1945); Woodring v. State, 130 Ga. App. 247, 202 S.E.2d 696 (1973); Echols v. State, 255 Ga. 311, 338 S.E.2d 259 (1986).
- 38 Am. Jur. 2d, Grand Jury, § 13.
- 38A C.J.S., Grand Juries, § 55.
- Validity of indictment as affected by substitution or addition of grand jurors after commencement of investigation, 2 A.L.R.4th 980.
Total Results: 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-06-20
Citation: 299 Ga. 273, 787 S.E.2d 697, 2016 WL 3390425, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 428
Snippet: 220, 221 (430 SE2d 583) (1993). Further, OCGA § 15-12-61 (a) allows for three alternate grand jurors to
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1986-01-07
Citation: 255 Ga. 311, 338 S.E.2d 259
Snippet: indictment was legally constituted pursuant to OCGA § 15-12-61 (a), which provides: “A grand jury shall consist