initially voted to convict on the second count at the beginning of deliberations. Nevertheless, upon further questioning, she responded affirmatively when asked whether she did vote to convict (i.e., in the past tense and, thus, in the jury room), whether she ultimately agreed with the verdict in its entirety, and whether she did so freely and voluntarily. And given her subsequent affirmations of the verdict, the juror’s initial equivocation regarding the second count does not support an inference that the verdict was less than unanimous. Accordingly, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury to continue its deliberations. For all of the foregoing reasons, Moton’s convictions are affirmed. Decided May 5, 2015. The McReynolds Law Firm, Jule McReynolds, Jr SE2d 899) (2002) (<HOLDING>); see generally OCGA § 24-14-8 (“The testimony
holding evidence was sufficient to support conviction for public indecency when after an altercation in a parking lot defendant stood in front of the car exposed his penis shook it and told a woman to suck it holding that claimant was entitled to workers compensation because he was injured in a parking lot which was leased by his employer holding that sufficient evidence existed to support conviction for public indecency by a lewd exposure of sexual organs when a witness noticed defendant masturbating on a bench outside of a shopping mall and could clearly see his exposed penis holding that the prisoner should have been allowed to choose whether to leave his car parked in a public parking lot holding that an injury occurring in a parking lot which was leased but not controlled by an employer was compensable because the employer instructed its employees to park in that lot