DESANTOS v. the STATE.
813 S.E.2d 782
Ga. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Jorge DeSantos was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated child molestation and one count of child molestation for acts against an 11‑year‑old boy alleged to have occurred on three occasions.
- DeSantos’ defense was that the victim had been coached by his grandmother to fabricate the allegations for retaliatory reasons.
- During individual voir dire, Juror No. 22 disclosed he had younger brothers close in age to the victim and stated repeatedly that the matter "hits home" and that he would be "biased" and had "kind of jumped to conclusions."
- The prosecutor and court questioned the juror; Juror No. 22 said he would “try” to be fair but twice stated he would still be biased and that it would be hard to be impartial.
- Defense moved to strike Juror No. 22 for cause; the trial court reserved ruling, then denied the challenge and kept the juror on the panel over defense objection.
- Appellate court reversed and remanded for new trial, holding the trial court abused its discretion by failing to strike the juror for cause and that requiring DeSantos to use a peremptory to remove the juror denied him a full panel of qualified jurors.
Issues
| Issue | DeSantos' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to strike Juror No. 22 for cause | Juror stated he would be biased and had already jumped to conclusions; his answers showed he could not set aside prejudice | Juror said he would try to be fair and could follow the law; discretion favored keeping juror | Reversed: court abused discretion; juror’s answers did not demonstrate ability to lay aside bias, so juror should have been excused for cause |
| Whether improper questioning by the State required reversal | (Raised below but rendered moot by juror ruling) | (Responded below) | Moot due to first issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. State, 279 Ga. 756 (trial court discretion on striking juror) (cited for standard that striking juror for cause is within trial court’s discretion)
- Menefee v. State, 270 Ga. 540 (juror prejudice and inability to set aside bias require excusal) (explains that follow‑up questioning must elicit an affirmative ability to be impartial)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict) (standard for sufficiency review cited)
- Maxwell v. State, 282 Ga. 22 (rehabilitation questioning insufficient to cure expressed bias) (used to support that juror’s inability to lay aside prejudice requires excusal)