A Clayton County jury convicted Jarvis Lee Hardwick of armed robbery Count 1, false imprisonment Count 2, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony Count 3 arising out of circumstances in which the defendant and his codefendant accomplice held Timothy Crawford at gunpoint in his home, robbed him of approximately $1,500, and left him handcuffed to the door of his refrigerator. The defendant was sentenced as a recidivist to life imprisonment as to Count 1, ten years to serve as to Count 2 concurrent with Count 1, and five years to serve upon Count 3 consecutive to his sentences as to Counts 1 and 2. He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, as amended. Finding his claims of error to be without merit, we affirm.
1. Defendant contends that the superior court erred by denying his motion for new trial, arguing that he was entitled to rely on the accuracy of the juror data sheet1 he was provided as reflecting that a juror had not previously served on a criminal jury in lieu of questioning the juror on the issue on voir dire.2 This court has consistently held that OCGA § 15-12-133 gives criminal defendants an absolute right to question potential jurors for the purpose of ascertaining their impartiality and capacity to treat the cause of action on the merits objectively and without bias and free from prejudgment of any sort. Whitlock v. State, 230 Ga. 700, 706 5 198 SE2d 865 1973; Allen v. State, 239 Ga. App. 899 522 SE2d 502 1999; Sanders v. State, 204 Ga. App. 37, 38 1 419 SE2d 24 1992. OCGA § 15-12-132 makes the administration of an oath to jurors mandatory to ensure their truthfulness in answering questions put to them during the voir dire of all cases. Ates v. State, 155 Ga. App. 97, 98 2 270 SE2d 455 1980. Moreover, it is settled that a new trial will not be granted as to claimed error on voir dire unless the movant can show that a juror failed to answer or to answer honestly a material question on voir dire and then can further demonstrate that a correct response would have established a valid basis for a challenge for cause. Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 428 SE2d 786 1993. While the defendant nonetheless argues that he should have a new trial for his reliance on information provided by the superior court clerk’s juror data sheet in lieu of voir dire thereon, it is clear that there is no reasonable basis for such relief. To adopt the rule the defendant urges would be to sanction the substitution of no more than an unsworn business record3 for sworn voir dire as a means of identifying potential juror prejudice. This we decline to do.
