Background
Rany Logan, who had been appointed guardian and conservator for Lynette Murphy, sued Murphy’s stepson, James Heard. Logan alleged that Heard persuaded Murphy to transfer her interest in her Rome, Georgia, home to him in 2020 even though she lacked capacity after experiencing memory loss for years. Logan sought rescission of the deed and asserted claims including fraud, exploitation of a disabled adult, and exploitation of an elder person.
A jury rescinded the deed and awarded Logan $27,600 for fraud and $30,000 in punitive damages. Heard moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, arguing that the statutory civil-jury oath had not been administered and that a mistrial was required after a juror disclosed during deliberations that he had searched for Logan online and told other jurors that Logan had previously tried to take people’s property. The trial court denied the motion, and Heard appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that omitting the oath prescribed by OCGA § 15-12-138 was error, but that the omission in a civil case was a waivable irregularity rather than a non-waivable jurisdictional defect. Because Heard did not object before the verdict and identified no resulting harm, the omission did not require reversal. The court distinguished criminal cases treating an unsworn jury as a jurisdictional defect and followed Georgia precedent holding that failure to swear jurors in a civil case may be waived.
The court also held that denying a mistrial was within the trial court’s broad discretion. After learning of the internet search and comment, the trial court removed the offending juror, seated an alternate who had not heard the comment, and questioned each remaining juror individually. Each said that the comment could be disregarded and that the case could be decided impartially from the trial evidence. The trial judge credited those assurances based in part on the jurors’ demeanor, and Heard presented no evidence that the remaining jurors could not remain impartial.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to administer Georgia’s prescribed trial-jury oath in a civil case is error, but the objection may be waived if it is not raised before the verdict.
- The criminal rule treating a completely omitted jury oath as a non-waivable jurisdictional defect does not control civil cases.
- A trial court may address a juror’s improper outside research by removing that juror, seating an unaffected alternate, and confirming that the remaining jurors can disregard the comment and decide the case solely on the evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Georgia treats an omitted jury oath differently in civil and criminal proceedings. Civil litigants must raise an oath-related defect promptly and cannot ordinarily wait until after an adverse verdict to object.
It also illustrates the substantial discretion trial judges have to remedy juror misconduct without declaring a mistrial when a targeted inquiry supports the remaining jurors’ impartiality and the improper information did not prejudice the complaining party.