MCFADDEN, P. J., RAY and RICKMAN, JJ.
jury convicted Jorge DeSantos of two counts of aggravated
child molestation and one count of child molestation,
DeSantos filed this appeal from the denial of his amended
motion for new trial. He contends that the trial court erred
by failing to excuse Juror No. 22 for cause and by allowing
the State to ask improper questions of witnesses. For the
reasons that follow, we reverse and remand the case for a new
the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's
verdict,  the evidence shows that DeSantos
befriended the victim, an 11-year-old boy, by giving him
numerous gifts, taking him shopping, and offering to take him
on vacation. During this time, DeSantos molested the victim
on two occasions at DeSantos's residence and once in a
retail store dressing room. At trial, DeSantos presented as a
defense the theory that the victim's grandmother had
coached the child to make up the molestation as an act of
revenge because DeSantos had refused to marry the
victim's mother, which would have provided her an avenue
to citizenship. DeSantos presented numerous character
witnesses, as well as a witness intended to impeach the
testimony of the victim's grandmother. The jury rejected
this theory and found DeSantos guilty on all counts.
DeSantos argues that the trial court erred by not excusing
Juror No. 22 for cause. It is certainly true that
"[w]hether to strike a juror for cause is within the
discretion of the trial court and the trial court's
rulings are proper absent some manifest abuse of
discretion." (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)
Lewis v. State, 279 Ga. 756, 760 (3) (a) (620 S.E.2d
778) (2005). Further, for a juror to be stricken for cause,
it must be established that the juror holds an opinion on
guilt or innocence that is so fixed that the juror will be
unable to set that opinion aside and decide the case based on
the evidence or the trial court's charge at trial.
Menefee v. State, 270 Ga. 540, 542 (2) (512 S.E.2d
275) (1999). However, DeSantos argues that because Juror No.
22 expressed bias and prejudgment, and was never
rehabilitated, the trial court erred in refusing to remove
the juror. We agree.
voir dire, prospective jurors were told that the case
involved allegations that the defendant had molested an
11-year-old boy three times between November 1, 2013, and
January 31, 2014. The following exchange took place during
individual voir dire after Juror No. 22 revealed that he had
8- and 12-year-old brothers, who were similar in age to the
State: And, [Juror No. 22], is there anything that you can
think of that would prevent you from being fair and
impartial in this case?
Juror: Well, kind of just having my younger brothers, like
how close to them [sic]. I feel like that's kind of
just like something that like hits home, I guess.
State: Okay. So you - the fact that you have younger
brothers that are kind of around the same age as the
potential victim, you think would make it a little hard to
listen - to kind of hear what some of the facts are?
State: But you would agree with me that every
situation's different, right? And that people are
Juror: Yeah, I guess.
State: [ . . . ] But what we - what we want to know if you
can do is if you can listen to the evidence as it's
presented in the courtroom and make a decision based on
that evidence that you hear from the witness stand and then
apply [it] to the law the judge gives you. Is that
something you feel like you could do?
Juror: I mean, I feel like I'd still be a little
biased towards ...