2020 Georgia Code
Title 15 - Courts
Chapter 12 - Juries
Article 5 - Trial Juries
Part 1 - In General
§ 15-12-122. Demand of Jury Panels From Which to Select Jury in Civil Actions in the State Courts and the Superior Courts

1. 1. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this Code section, in all civil actions in the state courts, each party may demand a full panel of 12 competent and impartial jurors from which to select a jury. When one or more of the regular panel of trial jurors is absent or for any reason disqualified, the judge, at the request of counsel for either party, shall cause the panel to be filled by additional competent and impartial jurors to the number of 12 before requiring the parties or their counsel to strike a jury. In all cases the parties or their attorneys may strike alternately, with the plaintiff exercising the first strike, until a jury of six persons is impaneled to try the case.
   2. In all civil actions in the state courts in which the claim for damages is greater than $25,000.00, either party may demand in writing prior to the commencement of the trial term that the case be tried by a jury of 12. If such a demand is made, the judge shall follow the procedures for superior courts of subsection (b) of this Code section.
2. In all civil actions in the superior courts, each party may demand a full panel of 24 competent and impartial jurors from which to select a jury. When one or more of the regular panel of trial jurors is absent or for any reason disqualified, the judge, at the request of counsel for either party, shall cause the panel to be filled by additional competent and impartial jurors to the number of 24 before requiring the parties or their counsel to strike a jury. In all cases the parties or their attorneys may strike alternately, with the plaintiff exercising the first strike, until a jury of 12 persons is impaneled to try the case.

(Ga. L. 1869, p. 139, § 6; Code 1873, § 3932; Code 1882, § 3932; Penal Code 1895, § 853; Penal Code 1910, § 857; Code 1933, § 59-703; Ga. L. 1975, p. 1331, § 1; Ga. L. 1985, p. 1511, § 4; Ga. L. 1995, p. 1292, § 7; Ga. L. 2002, p. 803, § 1; Ga. L. 2004, p. 631, § 15.)

- Limitations on the number of persons required to constitute a jury in superior court, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XI.

Stipulation by parties to civil action that trial may be conducted with any number of jurors less than that fixed by statute, and as to designation of alternate jurors, § 9-11-47.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1985, "twelve" was changed to "12" in the last sentence of subsection (b) of this Code section.

- For note on the 2002 amendment of this Code section, see 19 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 68 (2002).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Constitutionality of six-person limitation.

- Six-person limitation in O.C.G.A. § 15-12-122 for petit juries in civil actions seeking recoveries of less than $5,000.00 (now $10,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs, does not deny equal protection of the laws. Wall v. Citizens & S. Bank, 247 Ga. 216, 274 S.E.2d 486 (1981).

- An attorney, when asked by the court whether the attorney wanted a 12-person jury, responded that the attorney wanted a six-person jury, that statement was tantamount to an acknowledgment that the client's claim was for less than $10,000. Super Disct. Mkts., Inc. v. Kubitz, 197 Ga. App. 224, 398 S.E.2d 252 (1990).

- In a maritime negligence case brought by a passenger against a gambling ship, assuming that there was any error in the trial court's requiring the ship owner to use all six of its strikes, the owner failed to show any harm; the owner surmising that selecting a different set of jurors may have changed the result of the trial was not sufficient to demonstrate harm. Golden Isles Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Lowie, 350 Ga. App. 1, 827 S.E.2d 703 (2019).

- Trial court should grant the request for a 12-person jury unless the record affirmatively shows that the claim is for less than $10,000. Super Disct. Mkts., Inc. v. Kubitz, 197 Ga. App. 224, 398 S.E.2d 252 (1990).

Since the record did not affirmatively show that a claim was for less than $10,000, the trial court erred in not granting appellants' request for a 12-person jury. B.C.B. Co. v. Troutman, 200 Ga. App. 671, 409 S.E.2d 218 (1991).

State court is not required to accommodate an oral request for a 12-person jury. Wolf Properties, Inc. v. Rissus Corp., 232 Ga. App. 218, 501 S.E.2d 597 (1998).

In a civil case because the defendants are not entitled to separate trials each is not entitled to strike the full number of jurors but all must join in striking the jury. Pool v. Gramling, Spalding & Co., 88 Ga. 653, 16 S.E. 52 (1891); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 181 Ga. 55, 181 S.E. 755 (1935).

- Trial court did not abuse the court's broad discretion in realigning two parties, plaintiffs in the consolidated third-party action, as parties plaintiff for the purpose of allocating peremptory challenges. Naimat v. Shelbyville Bottling Co., 240 Ga. App. 693, 524 S.E.2d 749 (1999).

- This section authorizes only 12 strikes and makes no provision whereby interpleading defendants may consume all 12 strikes. Collins v. Cooper, 145 Ga. App. 559, 244 S.E.2d 95 (1978).

- When the defendant fails to appear for the trial on damages, and the court permits the plaintiff to exercise strikes forfeited by the defaulting party, permitting the plaintiff to exercise twice the number of peremptory strikes to which the plaintiff was otherwise entitled under subsection (b) of this section in selecting a jury of 12, reversal of the court's ruling was required. Tri-State Culvert Mfg., Inc. v. White, 151 Ga. App. 529, 260 S.E.2d 550 (1979).

- If several cases pending against an estate are consolidated in one proceeding against a receiver therefor, the parties so joined have a right to only six strikes in selecting a jury. Ellis v. Geer, 36 Ga. App. 519, 137 S.E. 290 (1927).

Challenge to manner in which jury panel is drawn must be made before verdict, no matter when it is discovered. Toole v. I.T.T. Grinnell Corp., 156 Ga. App. 591, 275 S.E.2d 97 (1980).

- If a jury is stricken in the absence of counsel in a civil case, and counsel appears thereafter and engages in the trial, conceding that such absence is on account of leave by the court, and no objection is made to such jury so selected on account of such leave, but if the first complaint thereto appears in a motion for new trial, the Court of Appeals will not reverse the judgment of the court below on assignment of error to the overruling of such motion for new trial. Holtsinger v. Scarborough, 71 Ga. App. 318, 30 S.E.2d 835 (1944).

- Right to list is waived if counsel fails to direct attention of court to omission. Schumpert v. State, 9 Ga. App. 553, 71 S.E. 879 (1911).

If regular number of strikes are exceeded and jury is reduced to 11, last one stricken should be restored. Pool v. Gramling, Spalding & Co., 88 Ga. 653, 16 S.E. 52 (1891).

Cited in Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co. v. Ingram, 135 Ga. 696, 70 S.E. 234 (1911); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Scarboro, 42 Ga. App. 423, 156 S.E. 726 (1930); Lingo v. State, 224 Ga. 333, 162 S.E.2d 1 (1968); First Fid. Ins. Corp. v. Busbia, 128 Ga. App. 485, 197 S.E.2d 396 (1973); Wall v. Benningfield, 237 Ga. 173, 227 S.E.2d 13 (1976); Johnson v. Jackson, 140 Ga. App. 252, 230 S.E.2d 756 (1976); Mercer v. Braswell, 140 Ga. App. 624, 231 S.E.2d 431 (1976); White v. Cline, 174 Ga. App. 448, 330 S.E.2d 386 (1985).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Provision for six person jury not limited to tort actions.

- This section, in providing for a six person jury in civil cases when the claim for damages is less than $5,000.00 (now $10,000.00), is applicable to any cause of action when damages are claimed and the sum does not exceed $5,000.00 (now $10,000.00), irrespective of whether the claim is based in tort or otherwise. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U75-58.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Jury, §§ 104, 105.

- 50A C.J.S., Juries, § 311 et seq.

- Power of court to exclude from panel or venire for particular case all persons belonging to a class membership in which may be supposed to involve bias or prejudice, 105 A.L.R. 1527.

Validity and effect of plan or practice of consulting preferences of persons eligible for jury service as regards periods or times of service or character of actions, 112 A.L.R. 995.

Effect of, and remedies for, exclusion of eligible class of persons from jury list in civil case, 166 A.L.R. 1422.

Prejudicial effect of reference on voir dire examination of jurors to settlement efforts or negotiations, 67 A.L.R.2d 560.

Jury: number of peremptory challenges allowable in civil case where there are more than two parties involved, 32 A.L.R.3d 747.