---
title: O.C.G.A. § 15-12-164. Questions on voir dire; setting aside juror for cause.
collection: code
id: 15-12-164
cite_as: O.C.G.A. § 15-12-164 (2025)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/15-12-164
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/15-12-164.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/15-12-164/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/t15-ch12-24-(v13a)-2015-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=cbb30143_0#page=156
date: 2025
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/code/15-12.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/code/15-12-163.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/code/15-12-165.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly
heading_path: COURTS / JURIES / TRIAL JURIES / JURIES IN FELONY CASES
---

# O.C.G.A. § 15-12-164. Questions on voir dire; setting aside juror for cause.

(a) On voir dire examination in a felony trial, the jurors shall be asked the following questions:

(1) ‘‘Have you, for any reason, formed and expressed any opinion in regard to the guilt or innocence of the accused?’’ If the juror answers in the negative, the question in paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be propounded to him;

(2) ‘‘Have you any prejudice or bias resting on your mind either for or against the accused?’’ If the juror answers in the negative, the question in paragraph (3) of this subsection shall be propounded to him;

(3) ‘‘Is your mind perfectly impartial between the state and the accused?’’ If the juror answers this question in the affirmative, he shall be adjudged and held to be a competent juror in all cases where the authorized penalty for the offense does not involve the life of the accused; but when it does involve the life of the accused, the question in paragraph (4) of this subsection shall also be put to him;

(4) ‘‘Are you conscientiously opposed to capital punishment?’’ If the juror answers this question in the negative, he shall be held to be a competent juror.

(b) Either the state or the accused shall have the right to introduce evidence before the judge to show that a juror’s answers, or any of them, are untrue. It shall be the duty of the judge to determine the truth of such answers as may be thus questioned before the court.

(c) If a juror answers any of the questions set out in subsection (a) of this Code section so as to render him incompetent or if he is found to be so by the judge, he shall be set aside for cause.

(d) The court shall also excuse for cause any juror who from the totality of the juror’s answers on voir dire is determined by the court to be substantially impaired in the juror’s ability to be fair and impartial. The juror’s own representation that the juror would be fair and impartial is to be considered by the court but is not determinative.

## History

Laws 1843, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 843; Ga. L. 1853-54, p. 86, § 1; Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 229, §§ 9, 10; Code 1863, §§ 4569, 4570; Code 1868, §§ 4589, 4590; Code 1873, §§ 4682, 4683; Code 1882, §§ 4682, 4683; Penal Code 1895, §§ 975, 976; Penal Code 1910, §§ 1001, 1002; Code 1933, §§ 59-806, 59-807; Ga. L. 1979, p. 1047, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 20, § 6/HB 170; Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 1-58/HB 415.

## Editor's Notes

Ga. L. 2005, p. 20, § 1/HB 170, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: ‘‘This act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Criminal Justice Act of 2005.’’’

Ga. L. 2005, p. 20, § 17/HB 170, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section shall be applicable to all trials which commence on or after July 1, 2005.

Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 1-1/HB 415, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: ‘‘This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Jury Composition Reform Act of 2011.’’’

## Law Reviews

For comment on Tumlin v. State, 88 Ga. App. 713, 77 S.E.2d 555 (1953), see 16 Ga. B.J. 346 (1954). For comment discussing constitutionality of disqualification of jurors in murder trial for general objection to death penalty in light of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S. Ct. 1770, 20 L. Ed. 2d 776 (1968), see 3 Ga. L. Rev. 234 (1968). For comment on Alderman v. State, 241 Ga. 496, 246 S.E.2d 642, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 991, 99 S. Ct. 593, 58 L. Ed. 2d 666 (1978), see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 349 (1979).