Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Hutter
Citations: 307 S.E.2d 910; 251 Ga. 615; 1983 Ga. LEXIS 903Docket: 40016
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia; October 19, 1983; Georgia; State Supreme Court
Hutter was convicted of molesting his twelve-year-old stepdaughter, but the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, leading to the Supreme Court of Georgia granting certiorari. During voir dire, Hutter's defense counsel objected to the trial court's limitations on individually questioning jurors about potential prejudices related to having children. The trial court allowed the defense to ask the panel collectively, requiring jurors to indicate their responses by raising hands, but did not permit individual questioning of each juror. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals' finding that Hutter was denied the right to examine all jurors individually before striking any, clarifying that he was only restricted from asking questions to each juror in a sequence. The court emphasized that OCGA 15-12-133 entitles both parties in criminal cases to inquire about individual jurors' interests or biases before challenges are made. The court concluded that Hutter was still afforded the opportunity to assess the jurors collectively, fulfilling the procedural requirements outlined in the statute. The statute emphasizes the right to an individual response rather than a response to individual questions. The trial court holds discretion in determining whether questions are posed by a party or the court itself and can mandate that questions be presented to all jurors simultaneously rather than individually, as long as the questions are framed to elicit individual responses prior to any challenges. The examination of jurors is overseen by the trial court, which has broad discretion regarding question approval, and its decisions will not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. In this case, the trial court's method effectively obtained individual responses from each juror, leading to a decision that there was no error, resulting in a judgment reversal. The ruling was supported by the majority of Justices, with dissent from Hill, C. J., Clarke, and Gregory, JJ.