Legal Opinion

Lockridge v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided November 15, 1990No. S90G0716PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hunt, Justice.

The central issue in this granted certiorari is whether the miscon duct of a bailiff and juror requires a new trial notwithstanding the trial court’s finding the defendant was not harmed. In Lockridge v. State, 194 Ga. App. 487 (390 SE2d 853) (1990), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the prosecution carried its burden of showing that the defendant was not harmed by the bailiff’s improper remark.

After the jury had been chosen, the trial court admonished the jurors not to discuss the case with anyone and to report any violations of that admonishment…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Monroe v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1848
  2. Shaw v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1889
  3. Lamons v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1986
  4. Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1962
  5. Martin v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1978

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Turpin v. ToddSupreme Court of Georgia · 1997
  2. Holcomb v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1997
  3. Henry v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1995
  4. Sims v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1996
  5. Underwood v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1995

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API