O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-12-66.1 (2019)

Insufficient number of persons to complete panel of grand jurors

✓ 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

When from challenge or from any other cause there are not a sufficient number of persons in attendance to complete the empaneling of grand jurors, the presiding judge shall order the clerk to choose at random from the names of persons summoned as trial jurors a sufficient number of prospective grand jurors necessary to complete the grand jury. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed as barring the court from taking any action against a person who has been summoned to appear as a juror as provided in Code Section 15-12-10.

History

(Code 1981, § 15-12-66.1, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 1-35/HB 415; Ga. L. 2014, p. 862, § 13/HB 1078.)

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 Editor’s note. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under former Code 1933, § 59-207 and O.C.G.A. § 15-12-66 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Juror having deficiency propter defectum may be rendered specially competent by failure of parties to challenge. Lindsey v. State, 57 Ga. App. 158, 194 S.E. 833 (1938) (decided under former Code 1933, § 59-207). Selection of jurors whose names

were not drawn from jury box. - If the sheriff, without the knowledge and consent of the movants, selected as jurors certain persons whose names were not drawn from the jury box as required, such point cannot be successfully raised for the first time after the verdict. Thomasson v. Hudmon, 185 Ga. 753, 196 S.E. 462 (1938) (decided under former Code 1933, § 59-207). Cited in Sanders v. State, 151 Ga. App. 590, 260 S.E.2d 504 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 59-207).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Jury, § 123.

C.J.S. - 50A C.J.S., Juries, § 328.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: State v. Towns, 307 Ga. 351 (Ga. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Towns, 307 Ga. 351 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 24× “Unsure whether the efforts of the sheriff would prove successful, the presiding judge also directed the clerk to supplement the number of prospective grand jurors with persons who had been summoned to appear for service as petit jurors, a procedure that is authorized by OCGA §…”

Moody v. State, 888 S.E.2d 109 (Ga. 2023). · cites it 4× “In Towns, we also noted that, although “the persons summoned for service as petit jurors were selected at random from the master jury list,” the clerk relied on her own personal knowledge about the prospective petit jurors in selecting two of them to be summoned for a grand jury…”

Sinkfield v. State, 858 S.E.2d 703 (Ga. 2021). · cites it 4× “351, 355 (834 SE2d 839) (2019) (emphasis in original) (affirming dismissal of the indictment where two grand jurors were chosen in violation of the randomness requirement in OCGA § 15-12-66.1). See also Harper v. State, 283 Ga.”

Martarius Bell v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “Bell’s argument is that if the trial court had sent deputies to make their own decisions about whom to track down and bring to court, the randomness requirement of OCGA § 15-12-66.1 would have been violated.”

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.