Richard Scott Harper was charged with the murder of Thad Reynolds and with related crimes, and the State gave notice of its intent to seek the death penalty. This Court granted interim review and directed the parties to address the following two questions: 1 whether the trial court erred in denying a challenge to the grand jury on the ground that someone other than the person intended to be summoned served on the grand jury; and 2 whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of Harper’s desk at work. 1. The record shows that a grand jury summons was issued to “William A. Conner” at a certain address. The summons did not list a birth date. It was received by William A. Conner, Sr. , who lived at the address on the summons, and he actually served on the grand jury. Both the grand jury list created by the jury commission and the list of jurors appended to the trial court’s order to summon jurors for this case listed only a “William A. Conner” with the birth date of April 12, 1977, which is the birth date of William A. Conner, Jr. Testimony in the trial court showed that William A. Conner, Jr., had moved away from the county at least ten years earlier, but maintained a “permanent address” in the county at his sister’s house, which had a different address than that to which the jury summons was directed. The testimony was clear that William A. Conner, Jr., had never lived at the address appearing in the jury commission’s records, the order to summon jurors, and the jury summons. The director of the jury management office testified that she believed the wrong person had served on the grand jury. However, it is not completely clear from the record whether she was right, as it is possible that the address listed on the jury summons and in the jury commission’s records was correct and that the birth date in those records was incorrect. The trial court’s order addressing this issue assumed for the purpose of its analysis that the wrong person served on the grand jury. The trial court also found that the juror who served was otherwise qualified to serve. See OCGA § 15-12-60.
Assuming that the wrong person actually served on the grand jury, a timely challenge would be valid. Turner v. State , 78 Ga. 174, 180 2 1886. The holding of Turner is consistent with Bazemore v. State , 28 Ga. App. 556 112 SE 160 1922, which held that reversal is required where a timely claim demonstrates that someone not on the grand jury list served on the grand jury. See also Estep v. State , 129 Ga. App. 909, 914 5 201 SE2d 809 1973 citing Bazemore and Turner .
