Mitchum v. State, 306 Ga. 878

Robert Earl Mitchum was convicted of felony murder after an October 1999 jury trial; this Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal in Mitchum v. State.
Fifteen years later (Feb. 2016) Mitchum filed a pro se extraordinary motion for new trial, supported by affidavits claiming jurors ate meals with the trial judge, a senior judge, the prosecutor, and defense counsel during voir dire and while deliberating.
The affidavits (Bobby Dean Collins and Judy Ann Collins) alleged the meetings occurred at a local restaurant; Mitchum framed his motion as alleging constitutional deprivations (due process, impartial jury, conflict-free counsel).
The trial court denied the extraordinary motion without a hearing in Sept. 2018; Mitchum obtained discretionary review in the Georgia Supreme Court.
The Court examined whether post-appeal challenges based on alleged improper jury communications must be pursued by habeas corpus (per the 1967 Habeas Corpus Act) or may be brought in an extraordinary motion for new trial, and concluded constitutional claims belong in habeas; it vacated the denial and remanded with direction to dismiss the extraordinary motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mitchum)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether post-appeal claims of improper jury communications can be pursued via an extraordinary motion for new trial	The late-filed motion presents newly discovered evidence of improper communications warranting an extraordinary new trial	Constitutional claims asserting deprivation of rights must be raised in habeas corpus under the 1967 Act	Held: Constitutional-deprivation claims alleging improper jury communications must be pursued in habeas corpus, not by extraordinary motion for new trial
Whether the alleged communications qualify as "newly discovered evidence" affecting guilt or innocence	The communications show trial unfairness and justify an extraordinary motion	The alleged communications do not concern evidence of guilt/innocence and thus are not newly discovered evidence for a new-trial motion	Held: The allegations do not constitute newly discovered evidence bearing on guilt/innocence and so do not support an extraordinary motion on that ground
Proper disposition by the trial court when the remedy lies in habeas	Mitchum sought relief on the merits	State argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain constitutional claims in an extraordinary motion	Held: Trial court erred in denying the motion; the Supreme Court vacated that denial and remanded with direction to dismiss the extraordinary motion so Mitchum may pursue habeas if appropriate

Mitchum v. State, 274 Ga. 75 (2001) (direct appeal affirming conviction)
Dick v. State, 248 Ga. 898 (1982) (newly discovered evidence may support extraordinary motion for new trial)
Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488 (1980) (requirements for granting new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
Ford Motor Co. v. Conley, 294 Ga. 530 (2014) (standards and limits for extraordinary motions)
Harris v. State, 150 Ga. 680 (1920) (older precedent allowing extraordinary new trial for improper jury communication)
King v. State, 174 Ga. 432 (1932) (discussing new trial for jury communication)
Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (1966) (improper extrajudicial communications implicate Sixth Amendment fair-trial rights)
Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965) (outside communications with jurors can violate due process)
Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820 (1997) (habeas review of improper juror communications)
Hanifa v. State, 269 Ga. 797 (1998) (ex parte communications between judge and jury are improper)