Davis v. State, 306 Ga. 764

On Feb. 2, 2012, four intruders entered the Jackson home during a burglary; 15‑year‑old Nicolas Jackson II was shot and killed. Davis was one of the four who entered or accompanied those who did.
Police stopped the getaway van minutes later; officers recovered four handguns, a stolen laptop from the Jackson residence, and gunshot residue on Davis and three others. Two co‑defendants ran but were captured.
Davis testified he remained in the van and only handled a gun briefly when it was passed to him; others testified he entered the house with a firearm.
Davis was tried separately (after an earlier severance), convicted of felony murder (predicated on aggravated assault), armed robbery, burglary, and related counts, and received life without parole plus consecutive and concurrent terms as noted in the opinion.
At voir dire, prospective Juror 36 disclosed a recent family death and answered affirmatively to a hardship question; the prosecutor also questioned her about family members’ arrests and perceived hostility to law enforcement. The State moved to strike her for cause; the trial court excused her based on hardship. Davis objected and raised the issue on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial court erred by striking a prospective juror over defense objection	Davis: Court questioned juror about topics outside OCGA §15‑12‑164(a) and excused her because of bias against law enforcement, not true hardship	State: Juror disclosed a recent death and likely funeral travel; plus answers/body language suggested bias — court properly excused for hardship and had discretion	Affirmed — trial court properly excused Juror 36 for undue hardship; voir dire questions in statute are mandatory but not exclusive and court has discretion to inquire and excuse for hardship
Sufficiency of the evidence	(No challenge by Davis)	State: evidence (presence, GSR, stolen property, guns, witnesses) supports convictions	Court reviewed sua sponte and held the evidence was legally sufficient to support convictions

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
Navarrete v. State, 283 Ga. 156 (jury may infer common criminal intent from presence and conduct with co‑perpetrators)
Morrow v. State, 272 Ga. 691 (scope of voir dire lies within trial court discretion)
Croft v. State, 73 Ga. App. 318 (voir dire is not limited to questions enumerated in statutory list)
Stewart v. State, 277 Ga. 768 (trial court may excuse juror for undue hardship, e.g., recent death)
Walker v. Hagins, 290 Ga. 512 (decision to excuse juror for hardship is within trial court’s discretion)