Basulto v. State

Jose Basulto got into a bar fight in Gwinnett County, lost, and then drove his truck into three men who were walking home, killing two of them and seriously injuring the third. A jury convicted him of felony murder and aggravated assault, and he was sentenced to life without parole plus additional prison time. On appeal, Basulto's only argument was that the trial judge should have removed a juror, Juror No. 26, who came forward after being selected but before being sworn in to say he had once been arrested for a crime similar to the charges in the case and had forgotten details about his past. The juror turned out not to be a convicted felon. Basulto's lawyer asked the judge to swap him out for an alternate, but the judge refused, finding the juror had not lied on purpose and was not shown to be biased. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed, holding the trial judge acted within her discretion, and affirmed the convictions.

A trial court does not abuse its discretion by declining to remove a juror who inaccurately answered voir dire questions where the juror did not deliberately conceal information or act deceptively, and the objecting party failed to show the juror was disqualified by a felony conviction or impaired in his ability to be fair and impartial.

The ruling clarifies that Georgia trial judges have broad discretion over whether to remove a juror who discloses incomplete or mistaken information after being seated, as long as there's no proof of deliberate deception or bias, guiding how future jury disputes are handled.

Affirmed

1. Georgia law requires trial judges to dismiss for cause any juror shown to be a convicted felon without restored rights (O.C.G.A. § 15-12-163) or substantially impaired in impartiality (O.C.G.A. § 15-12-164), but Basulto conceded the juror was not a felon and never argued the juror was impaired.
2. Because the challenge came after jury selection but before trial evidence began, the court also considered O.C.G.A. § 15-12-172, which gives trial judges broad discretion to swap in an alternate juror for good cause, as long as there is a sound legal basis for doing so.
3. The trial court found as fact that the juror had not deliberately withheld information or tried to deceive anyone, and the voir dire question about being arrested or convicted of something 'more severe than DUI' was itself confusingly worded.
4. Prior case law establishes that failing to remove a juror who gives inaccurate voir dire answers is not automatically an abuse of discretion, especially absent proof the inaccuracy was deliberate or that it left the juror biased.
5. Because Basulto did not prove the juror was disqualified under the felony or impartiality statutes and did not show the judge's factual finding of non-deception was wrong, the court concluded there was no abuse of discretion in keeping the juror on the panel.

• felony murder conviction
• juror removal
• voir dire
• truck attack
• Gwinnett County