State v. Clements, 289 Ga. 640

Derrick Clements was charged with malice murder and related offenses for the 1997 killing of Tanika Stevenson; he was acquitted of malice murder but convicted of felony murder, armed robbery, kidnapping with bodily injury, entering an automobile with intent to commit theft, and possession of a firearm during a felony.
A timely motion for new trial was filed in 1999; the trial court granted the motion on some grounds and denied on others in 2010, prompting interlocutory appeals.
The successor judge granted a new trial on the special ground of juror bias after finding juror Henderson’s remarks showed potential exposure of her husband to consequences from the verdict.
The presiding judge had previously concluded Henderson could be fair and impartial despite a disclosure about her husband’s job; Henderson’s voir dire was limited and she stated she could be impartial.
The Georgia Supreme Court ultimately reversed the grant of a new trial on juror bias (S11A0628) but affirmed the corresponding ruling on other issues (S11X0699), reinstating the convictions for felony murder, kidnapping with bodily injury, entering an automobile with intent to commit a theft, and possession of a firearm during a felony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror bias: standard of review and abuse of discretion	State argues successor judge erred in granting new trial for bias.	Clements contends bias warranted new trial.	New trial reversed; bias finding incorrect.
Sufficiency of evidence for entering an automobile with intent to commit theft	State asserts sufficient evidence from ATM withdrawals and related facts.	Clements contends insufficiency.	Sufficient evidence to support conviction.
Sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping with bodily injury under Garza factors	State argues Garza factors met; movement supported by evidence.	Clements argues Garza factors not satisfied.	Sufficient evidence to support kidnapping with bodily injury.
Harmlessness of juror misconduct under non-merits discussion	State asserts misconduct was inconsequential if no discussion of merits occurred.	Clements argues misconduct required reversal.	Misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Trial court orientation statements about appellate courts	State contends orientation statements were error but not reversible.	Clements argues error affected fairness.	Error, but not reversible; no due-process prejudice shown.

Lamons v. State, 255 Ga. 511 (Ga. 1986) (some juror irregularities are inconsequential if no harm shown)
Henry v. State, 265 Ga. 732 (Ga. 1995) (unauthorized juror contact without discussion of merits may be harmless)
Holcomb v. State, 268 Ga. 100 (Ga. 1997) (substantial evidence of no harm from juror misconduct)
Sims v. State, 266 Ga. 417 (Ga. 1996) (discussion not involving merits can be non-reversible error)
Ledford v. State, 289 Ga. 70 (Ga. 2011) (no abuse of discretion for juror without fixed opinion)
Cummings v. State, 280 Ga. 831 (Ga. 2006) (presiding judge's voir dire assessment of impartiality reviewed for abuse)
Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 (Ga. 2008) (Garza factors for asportation in kidnapping)
Brown v. State, 288 Ga. 902 (Ga. 2011) (asportation sufficient where Garza factors largely met)
Gibson v. State, 288 Ga. 617 (Ga. 2011) (trial court remarks about exhibits can be reversible error)
Shadron v. State, 275 Ga. 767 (Ga. 2002) (instructional charges reviewed; preservation of presumption of innocence)