Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448When 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.
(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.)
The 2014 amendment, effective April 29, 2014, substituted the present provisions of this Code section for the former provisions, which read: "On and after July 1, 2012, when from challenge or from any other cause there are not a sufficient number of persons in attendance to complete the panel of jurors, the clerk shall choose prospective trial jurors from the county master jury list and summon the jurors so chosen."
- 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.'"
- 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).
- 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).
- 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Jury, § 123.
- 50A C.J.S., Juries, § 328.
Total Results: 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-05-16
Snippet: violating the “random[ness]” requirement of OCGA § 15-12-66.1. Id. at 354 (2). Moody’s alleged violation
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-05-17
Snippet: violation of the randomness requirement in OCGA § 15-12-66.1). See also Harper v. State, 283 Ga. 102, 104