The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case, and in State v. Nejad ,1 reversed the judgment of this Court. Therefore, we vacate our earlier opinion2 and adopt the judgment of the Supreme Court as our own. Furthermore, we address the remaining enumeration of error raised by appellant and, as set forth below, conclude that it lacks merit. The facts of this case are set forth fully in Nejad I .3 As stated therein, Ali Nejad was convicted of rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon two counts, and aggravated battery two counts.4 In his remaining enumeration of error, Nejad argues that he is entitled to a new trial because one of the jurors failed to disclose during voir dire that she was a rape victim but revealed that fact to her fellow jurors during jury deliberations. We disagree.
The record shows that during voir dire, the following question was posed: Now, ladies and gentlemen, how many of you have been the victim of a crime or you’ve had a close family member or close friend the victim of a crime where you were very much involved or interested in what the outcome of their charges were If any of you are in that category, tell me and this will be -if you perceive it to have been a crime, then we want to know about it, okay The juror at issue stated, “My goddaughter was molested by my ex. He’s serving 20 years in State of Georgia now.” After sentencing, counsel spoke with members of the jury and learned that this juror had been the victim of a rape and had not reported the crime and that she had shared this experience with the jury during deliberations. The juror was then sworn as a witness and testified that she thought she had revealed that she had been raped during voir dire and she did not think that she would get picked for the jury for that reason;5 that she had been raped by her husband 20 years earlier but had not reported it because she did not think it was rape; that she tearfully volunteered this information during deliberations when the jury was discussing the fact that one of the victims in the instant case did not immediately report the attack; that her experience had no impact on the decision she made in the trial; that she believed that she had been a fair and impartial juror and considered all of the evidence; and that the jury had debated the case vigorously and had decided the case based on the evidence.
