Ford v. State

Following a trial by jury, Rafeal J. Ford was convicted of armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and possession of cocaine. On appeal he contends the trial court erred by failing to excuse three jurors, by denying his motion to suppress identification testimony, and by replaying a video of his statement to the jury. 1. “The decision to strike a juror for cause lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Citation omitted. Torres v. State, 253 Ga. App. 318, 319-320 2 558 SE2d 850 2002.

Ford contends that jurors No. 8 and 20 should have been struck because they indicated that they were unable to communicate in English. See OCGA § 15-12-163 b. With regard to No. 8, the judge concluded that the juror “showed no visible sign of difficulty” and that in his opinion, the juror’s expressed concern with the English language was just a way to get off of the jury. With regard to juror No. 20, the judge noted that his English was clear and that he only complained about understanding legal terms. Our review of the transcript supports the judge’s conclusions and shows that the judge did not abuse his discretion with regard to these jurors. See Brantley v. State , 262 Ga. 786, 788 2 b 427 SE2d 758 1993.