Shalita Jackson Harris v. State

Opinion

THIRD DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., REESE and BROWN, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

December 7, 2022

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A21A0531. HARRIS v. THE STATE.

REESE, Judge.

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of Georgia. In the

original case, Harris v. State,1 (“Harris I”) Shalita Harris appealed the trial court’s

denial of her motion for a new trial after a Houston County jury found her guilty of

homicide by vehicle in the first degree and reckless driving. We affirmed the trial

court’s ruling.

In Harris v. the State,2 (“Harris II”) the Supreme Court of Georgia granted

certiorari to consider whether we erred in concluding that Harris’s claim of juror

misconduct was not sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. The Supreme Court

1 360 Ga. App. 695 (859 SE2d 587) (2021). 2 314 Ga. 51 (875 SE2d 649) (2022). concluded that the trial court erred by failing to apply the proper legal standards,

specifically that it did not “accord a presumption of prejudice to Harris upon its

finding that jurors engaged in improper extrajudicial research with the potential to

deprive Harris of due process.”3 It also held that the trial court erred in applying the

wrong standard of proof in assessing prejudice, even though it recognized that it was

the State’s burden to show that juror misconduct was non-prejudicial.4 The Supreme

Court of Georgia stated that the trial court should have applied “the ‘beyond a

reasonable doubt’ standard that applies to most constitutional errors, including errors

arising from juror misconduct.”5

The Supreme Court also held that a juror obtaining extrajudicial sentencing

information is not always harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.6 As the Supreme

Court stated, “[a]lthough we do not hold that a juror’s obtaining extrajudicial

information is always prejudicial, the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that such

3 Id. at 55 (2). 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Harris, 314 Ga. at 58 (2).

2 information could never be so inherently prejudicial as to require a new trial.”7 The

Supreme Court vacated our opinion and directed us “to remand the case to the trial

court to determine in the first instance whether, applying the principles of law set out

[in the Supreme Court’s opinion], Harris’s motion for a new trial based on juror

misconduct should be granted.”8

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. Doyle, P. J., and Brown,

J., concur.

7 Id. 8 Id.