Tyson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tyson v. State

278 S.E.2d 150, 157 Ga. App. 569, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1916

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 18, 1981

Docket61558

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 S.E.2d 150 (Tyson 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

Tyson v. State, 278 S.E.2d 150, 157 Ga. App. 569, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1916 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Presiding Judge.

Ricky Lee Tyson appeals from his conviction of burglary following the denial of his motion for a new trial. He contends that the trial court erred in failing to administer the oath to the jury panel prior to voir dire and permitting the Assistant District Attorney who tried the case to administer it over his objection. Held:

1. This case is controlled adversely to the state by this court’s ruling in Ates v. State, 155 Ga. App. 97 (270 SE2d 455) (1980), wherein this court held that Code Ann. § 59-704.1 mandates that the oath to each panel be administered by the trial judge. Permitting the prosecuting arm of the state to administer the oath is presumptively prejudicial and as stated in Ates, supra, at 98, “we are unable to determine the prejudice that may form in the jurors’ minds when the oath is administered by the [District Attorney].”

2. As this case must be remanded for retrial, it is not necessary to rule upon the remaining enumerations of error which are all based upon evidentiary matters and requests for charge.

Judgment reversed.

Banke and Carley, JJ, concur.

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

Deen, Presiding Judge.

Ricky Lee Tyson appeals from his conviction of burglary following the denial of his motion for a new trial. He contends that the trial court erred in failing to administer the oath to the jury panel prior to voir dire and permitting the Assistant District Attorney who tried the case to administer it over his objection. Held:

1. This case is controlled adversely to the state by this court’s ruling in Ates v. State, 155 Ga. App. 97 (270 SE2d 455) (1980), wherein this court held that Code Ann. § 59-704.1 mandates that the oath to each panel be administered by the trial judge. Permitting the prosecuting arm of the state to administer the oath is presumptively prejudicial and as stated in Ates, supra, at 98, “we are unable to determine the prejudice that may form in the jurors’ minds when the oath is administered by the [District Attorney].”

2. As this case must be remanded for retrial, it is not necessary to rule upon the remaining enumerations of error which are all based upon evidentiary matters and requests for charge.

Judgment reversed.

Banke and Carley, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 S.E.2d 150, 157 Ga. App. 569, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyson-v-state-gactapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack