Banfield v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Banfield v. State

471 S.E.2d 16, 221 Ga. App. 156, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 1787, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 374

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 4, 1996

DocketA96A0581

StatusPublished

This text of 471 S.E.2d 16 (Banfield v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banfield v. State, 471 S.E.2d 16, 221 Ga. App. 156, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 1787, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 374 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Ruffin, Judge.

Wilmer Banfield and a co-defendant were indicted for possession of cocaine. The cases were severed for trial, and Banfield was convicted of the offense. He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial. In his sole enumeration of error, Banfield contends the trial court erred in excusing for cause a prospective juror who was the father of his co-defendant. We disagree. Under Cambron v. State, 164 Ga. 111 (1) (137 SE 780) (1927), the relative of a co-defendant not on trial is not competent to serve as a juror in the trial of the case.

The pristine status of a prospective jury should not be compromised by the presence of a relative of a co-defendant on the jury panel. As well intentioned as a juror may be, the delicate balance between subjectivity and objectivity may be skewed to one extreme or the other. The prismal perception is that human nature should not be subjected to such chance. We should be governed by the rule of reason rather than the rule of rapture. Moreover, while we embrace trial by a jury of one’s peers, we have not yet come to embrace trial by a jury of one’s relatives, including, as it were, a relative of one’s co-defendant. Concluding that the trial judge did not err, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Johnson, J., concur. [157]*157Decided April 4, 1996 Reconsideration denied April 16, 1996 Randall M. Clark, for appellant. Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, Charles D. Howard, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ruffin, Judge.

Wilmer Banfield and a co-defendant were indicted for possession of cocaine. The cases were severed for trial, and Banfield was convicted of the offense. He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial. In his sole enumeration of error, Banfield contends the trial court erred in excusing for cause a prospective juror who was the father of his co-defendant. We disagree. Under Cambron v. State, 164 Ga. 111 (1) (137 SE 780) (1927), the relative of a co-defendant not on trial is not competent to serve as a juror in the trial of the case.

The pristine status of a prospective jury should not be compromised by the presence of a relative of a co-defendant on the jury panel. As well intentioned as a juror may be, the delicate balance between subjectivity and objectivity may be skewed to one extreme or the other. The prismal perception is that human nature should not be subjected to such chance. We should be governed by the rule of reason rather than the rule of rapture. Moreover, while we embrace trial by a jury of one’s peers, we have not yet come to embrace trial by a jury of one’s relatives, including, as it were, a relative of one’s co-defendant. Concluding that the trial judge did not err, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Johnson, J., concur. [157]*157Decided April 4, 1996 Reconsideration denied April 16, 1996 Randall M. Clark, for appellant. Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, Charles D. Howard, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 S.E.2d 16, 221 Ga. App. 156, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 1787, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banfield-v-state-gactapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack