Sadat-Moussavi v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defense's motion to strike for cause a prospective juror who initially stated that the defendant would have to prove that he was not guilty, because the juror said she could be fair and impartial after the prosecutor fully explained that the indictment contained just allegations and the state had to prove those allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury found Mohammad Sadat-Moussavi guilty of six counts of aggravated assault, one count of pointing a firearm at another, one count of false imprisonment, one count of terroristic threats, two counts of aggravated battery, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. On appeal from the denial of his motion for new trial, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to strike a prospective juror for cause. We disagree and affirm. The record reflects that after reading the bill of indictment to the prospective jurors, the trial court asked the statutory voir dire questions set out in OCGA § 15-12-164 a. Juror No. 28 gave an affirmative response to the statutory question regarding whether any of the prospective jurors had any prejudice or bias either for or against the accused. See OCGA § 15-12-164 a 2.

During individual voir dire, the prosecutor asked Juror No. 28 why she had indicated that she was prejudiced or biased. Juror No. 28 replied, “After you read the counts, what was in them, I just feel like if you had the gun and someone was shot, how could you say you are not guilty.” The prosecutor responded by explaining that the indictment was “just allegations” and that the State had the burden to prove those allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor then asked the juror whether she still felt that she was biased, and Juror No. 28 responded, “Yeah. Because —I mean, they said it was robbery and he had a weapon. I mean, he had the weapon, the guy was shot. Yes, you have to prove it. But the facts are still there as far as I know from what she read that he had a weapon and the person was shot.” The prosecutor then reiterated that “the indictment itself is just allegations, there are no facts” and asked whether, “given that, do you feel that you could listen to the evidence that will come from that stand and render a verdict” Juror No. 28 answered, “Yes.”

Sadat-Moussavi v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report