Id. at 512–513, 340 S.E.2d 183. Citing Shaw, the Court held that “a conclusive statement by the juror that she was not influenced [by the contact] is insufficient to prove lack of harm” to the defendant, such that even if the officer and the juror “acted with the best intentions,” a new trial was necessary. Id. at 513, 340 S.E.2d 183. More recently, in Mullins v. State, 241 Ga.App. 553, 525 S.E.2d 770 (1999), this Court reversed a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion for mistrial where there was some evidence that one of two deliberating jurors had expressed agreement with an acquaintance's expression that the defendants “would not be in court if they were not guilty.” Id. at 555(2), 525 S.E.2d 770.

Cooke v. State, 230 Ga. App. 326, 327 ( 496 SE2d 337) (1998). Accord Mullins v. State, 241 Ga. App. 553, 556 (2) ( 525 SE2d 770) (1999) (whole court) (jury misconduct was so prejudicial as to warrant mistrial). 266 Ga. 417 ( 467 SE2d 574) (1996).

He claims that after he established the irregularity, the State failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice that arose in his favor and the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial. See Mullins v. State, 241 Ga. App. 553, 555-557 (2) ( 525 SE2d 770) (1999). After the jury was selected and impaneled, Harris's sister informed the court about a conversation that she overheard in the ladies' restroom during a break.

Sanders v. State, 243 Ga. App. 216, 217 (1) ( 534 SE2d 78) (2000).Mullins v. State, 241 Ga. App. 553, 554 (1) ( 525 SE2d 770) (1999).Johnson v. State, 271 Ga. 375, 382 (13) ( 519 SE2d 221) (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1172 ( 120 SC 1199, 145 LE2d 1102) (2000).

161 Ga. App. 631 ( 295 S.E.2d 843) (1982), rev'd on other grounds Johnson v. Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., 250 Ga. 83 ( 295 S.E.2d 841) (1982). See e.g., Mullins v. State, 241 Ga. App. 553, 554-555(1) ( 525 S.E.2d 770) (1999). 4. Moran challenges the admissibility of the Intoxilyzer test results on the ground that the State failed to show a justifiable reason for the underlying traffic stop.

The State rebutted the presumption of harm here, and we find no error. The opinion in Mullins v. State, 241 Ga. App. 553, 555-557 (2) ( 525 S.E.2d 770) (1999), does not require a different result. InMullins, the jurors were approached by an acquaintance who said the defendants would not be on trial if they were not guilty. The jurors initially denied to the trial court that they even had the conversation, although when re-questioned they admitted that the acquaintance made the statement.

Andrews, P.J., and Ellington, J., concur. Compare Mullins v. State, ___ Ga. App. ___ (Case No. A99A1457, decided November 19, 1999) (reversing conviction where, during a recess, one juror agreed with statement of acquaintance that "the defendants would not be here if they were not guilty"). Compare Bobo v. State, 254 Ga. 146, 146-148 (1) ( 327 S.E.2d 208) (1985) (reversing conviction where two jurors went to crime scene to determine whether lighting conditions were adequate — a key issue in the case — and reported their conclusions to other jurors).