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.
Repealed by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 33/HB 24, effective January 1, 2013.
Annotations
Editor’s notes. - This Code section was based on Civil Code 1895, § 5338; Civil Code 1910, § 5933; Code 1933, § 110-109. Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101/HB 24, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that this Act shall apply to any motion made or hearing or trial commenced on or after January 1, 2013.
Ga. L. 2016, p. 864, § 17/HB 737, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, purported to designate this reserved Code section as repealed; however, due to the pre-existing designation of this Code section as repealed, this amendment has not been given effect.
ARTICLE 4 MOTIONS IN ARREST Cross references. - Appeal by state from order, decision, or judgment arrest-
ing judgment of conviction on legal grounds, § 5-7-1.
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Appealability of order arresting judgment in criminal case, 98 A.L.R.2d 737. Preconviction procedure for raising con-
tention that enforcement of penal statute or law is unconstitutionally discriminatory, 4 A.L.R.3d 404.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
52
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case:
Turpin v. Todd, 493 S.E.2d 900 (Ga. 1997).
Turpin v. Todd, 493 S.E.2d 900 (Ga. 1997).
· cites it 36× “" OCGA § 17-9-41. This rule applies in death penalty cases.”
Humphreys v. State, 694 S.E.2d 316 (Ga. 2010).
· cites it 8× “However, because the proposed affidavit of the juror does not fall within any exception to OCGA § 17-9-41 (providing that jurors' affidavits "may be taken to sustain but not to impeach their verdict"), the trial court correctly declined to consider it.”
Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144 (11th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 4× “The state habeas court ruled that the jurors’ affidavits were inadmissible under O.C.G.A. § 17-9-41 because the affidavits sought to impeach the jury’s verdict and did not fall within any exception to the rule.”
Roebuck v. State, 586 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. 2003).
· cites it 8× “OCGA § 17-9-41; Oliver v. State, 265 Ga. 653, 654 (3), 461 S.”
Sears v. State, 493 S.E.2d 180 (Ga. 1997).
· cites it 8× “As to the sentencing phase, however, I cannot agree that the trial court erred in prohibiting counsel from contacting jurors.”
Lewis v. State, 549 S.E.2d 732 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “But OCGA § 17-9-41 provides: “The affidavits of jurors may be taken to sustain but not to impeach their verdict.”
Murphy v. State, 787 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. 2016).
· cites it 2× “9 Under the law in effect at that time, as a general rule, jurors were not allowed to impeach their own verdict, and for this reason, judges could, in most circumstances, act within their discretion and decline to consider juror affidavits offered for the purpose of impeaching a…”
Henley v. State, 678 S.E.2d 884 (Ga. 2009).
· cites it 4× “” 7 The trial court recognized its authority to consider the juror affidavit under the exception to the rule of OCGA § 17-9-41 but declined to do so. At bottom, the trial court did not find the spare two-page affidavit credible.”
Glover v. State, 552 S.E.2d 804 (Ga. 2001).
· cites it 4× “[8] See OCGA § 17-9-41. [9] See Spencer v. State, 260 Ga.”
Perryman v. Rosenbaum, 423 S.E.2d 673 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Spencer is a criminal case, and although it was interpreting OCGA § 17-9-41, which is identical to OCGA § 9-10-9, we recognize that the necessity for protection of jurors from harassment or other unlawful inducement, the need for certainty of verdicts, the need to foster open…”
Spencer v. State, 398 S.E.2d 179 (Ga. 1990).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 17-9-41. Exceptions are made to this rule in cases where extrajudicial and prejudicial information has been brought to the jury’s attention improperly, or where non-jurors have interfered with the jury’s deliberations.”
Eddie Albert Crawford v. Frederick Head, 311 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2002).
“” O.C.G.A. § 17-9-41. Moreover, the affidavits are irrelevant because they do not tend to show that anything improper took place in the jury room.”
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.