O.C.G.A. § 15-12-70 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Code section defines qualification of grand jurors respecting their duty to investigate and make presentments or return indictments for commission of penal offenses. Hobbs v. Peavy, 210 Ga. 671, 82 S.E.2d 224 (1954). Section does not seek to change law on subject of disqualification of grand jurors otherwise than to reduce degree of relationship which disqualifies grand juror from the ninth to the sixth degree; the statute does not purport to say how such disqualification shall be raised, nor does the statute indicate the result if one so disqualified actually serves. Farrar v. State, 187 Ga. 401, 200 S.E. 803 (1939). Grand juror related within prohibited degree. - Even if a grand juror was related within the prohibited degree to the party interested in the indictment and should be disqualified, a plea in abatement did not lie given that the grand jury was an accusatory or prosecutorial body. Brown v. State, 295 Ga. 240, 759 S.E.2d 489 (2014). Relationship of grand juror within sixth degree to party interested in indictment affords no ground for plea in abatement to indictment; and this rule is not changed by this section. Farrar v. State, 187 Ga. 401, 200 S.E. 803 (1939); Williams v. State, 107 Ga. App. 794, 131 S.E.2d 567 (1963); Phillips v. State, 167 Ga. App. 260, 305 S.E.2d 918 (1983);

Black v. State, 264 Ga. 550, 448 S.E.2d 357 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021, 115 S. Ct. 1368, 131 L. Ed. 2d 223 (1995). Hearsay evidence admissible to prove pedigree and relationship if confined to general knowledge. Wynn v. State, 181 Ga. 660, 183 S.E. 923 (1935). Time for raising issue of disqualification. - Issue of disqualification of a juror should be raised prior to indictment or at the earliest practical opportunity thereafter. Sowers v. State, 194 Ga. App. 205, 390 S.E.2d 110 (1990). Although a defendant’s estranged spouse was on the grand jury that indicted the defendant, disqualification of the spouse as a juror did not afford grounds for the dismissal of the charge or the grant of a new trial, even though the parties were ignorant of the defect until after the verdict. The issue of disqualification of a juror should have been raised prior to indictment or at the earliest practical opportunity thereafter. Decoteau v. State, 302 Ga. App. 451, 691 S.E.2d 328 (2010). Disqualification not ground for dismissal of charge or new trial. - Disqualification of a grand juror propter affectum, that is, for bias or prejudice, does not afford grounds for the dismissal of the charge or the grant of a new trial even though the parties were ignorant of the defect until after the verdict. Sowers v. State, 194 Ga. App. 205, 390 S.E.2d 110 (1990).

District attorney was not a party interested in the result of the case or matter. - Since appellant’s motion to quash appellant’s indictment was predicated upon the disqualification of a grand juror who was the district attorney’s aunt and had served on the grand jury that returned the indictment against appellant, and the trial court denied the motion to quash but certified the court’s order for immediate review, the district attorney was not a ‘‘party interested in the result of the case or matter’’ so as to disqualify the aunt from serving as a grand juror pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-12-70. Bolds v. State, 195 Ga. App. 586, 394 S.E.2d 593 (1990).

Ineffective assistance of counsel not found. - Defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to conduct a proper pretrial investigation as defendant failed to show that a grand juror was not qualified because the grand juror was a convicted felon; further, even if a grand juror was the father of a prosecution witness, defendant failed to show prejudice as the disqualification of a grand juror under O.C.G.A. § 15-12-70 was not a viable ground for quashing an indictment. Stevenson v. State, 272 Ga. App. 335, 612 S.E.2d 521 (2005).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 38 Am. Jur. 2d, Grand Jury, § 11. C.J.S. - 38A C.J.S., Grand Juries, §§ 11, 22 et seq. ALR. - Right to introduce extrinsic evidence in support of challenge to juror for cause, 65 ALR 1056.

Challenge of proposed juror for implied bias or interest because of relationship to one who would be subject to challenge for that reason, 86 ALR 118.