Clarke v. Grimes

Decision Date22 June 1967
Docket NumberNo. 24146,24146
Citation156 S.E.2d 91,223 Ga. 461
PartiesJohnny Lee CLARKE v. T. Ralph GRIMES.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Hester & Hester, Frank B. Hester, Richard M. Hester, Atlanta, for appellant.

Lewis R. Slaton, Sol. Gen., Paul Ginsberg, J. Walter LeCraw, Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

NICHOLS, Justice.

Johnny Lee Clarke filed the present petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Fulton County after his conviction for murder was affirmed by this court (Clarke v. State, 221 Ga. 206, 144 S.E.2d 90), and after a petition for writ of habeas corpus had been dismissed in Federal District Court and such judgment affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Clarke v. Grimes, 374 F.2d 550), because the prisoner had not exhausted his state remedies.

The petition seeks to have the conviction set aside because prospective jurors were asked on voir dire examination 'are you conscientiously opposed to capital punishment?' After hearing the trial court remanded the prisoner to custody and the appeal is from this judgment adverse to him. Held:

1. 'The writ of habeas corpus is never a substitute for a review to correct mere errors of law. McKay v. Balkcom, 203 Ga. 790, 48 S.E.2d 453, and cases cited therein. It is an available remedy to attack a void judgment. Fleming v. Lowry, 173 Ga. 894, 162 S.E. 144; Henson v. Scoggins, 203 Ga. 540, 47 S.E.2d 643; Coates v. Balkcom, 216 Ga. 564, 118 S.E.2d 376.' Sims v. Balkcom, 220 Ga. 7, 9, 136 S.E.2d 766.

2. Where it is contended that the 'make-up' of the jury is unconstitutional, challenge cannot, under the law, be made for the first time after an adverse verdict is returned. See Sims v. Balkcom, supra, and citations.

3. Where, as in the case sub judice, the defendant was represented by counsel and no objection was made to the qualification of the jury as to persons with conscientious objections to capital punishment until after verdict such objections will be deemed to have been waived.

4. Moreover, if the attack here made had been timely, alleging the unconstitutionality of the voir dire question propounded under authority of Code § 59-806(4), such attack would not have been meritorious. See Massey v. State, 222 Ga. 143, 150, 149 S.E.2d 118, and citations; Brown v. State, 223 Ga. 76(7), 153 S.E.2d 709; Cobb v. State, 222 Ga. 733(3), 152 S.E.2d 403.

(a) And the alleged expert testimony presented and relied upon by the prisoner would have been of no avail, even if timely presented, since the effect of such testimony would be to show that prospective jurors who had conscientious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty for crime were not impartial. As held by the U.S. Supreme Court: '5. As the defendants were indicted and to be tried for a crime punishable with death, these jurors who stated on voir dire that they had 'conscientious scruples in regard to the infliction of the death penalty for crime' were rightly permitted to be challenged by the government for cause. A juror who has conscientious scruples on any subject, which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Carver v. State, s. A91A1881
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 5, 1992
    ...v. State, 249 Ga. 339, 340, 290 S.E.2d 462 (1982); Green v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 650, 652, 193 S.E.2d 847 (1972); Clarke v. Grimes, 223 Ga. 461, 462, 156 S.E.2d 91 (1967). "[A]n accused cannot sit back and gamble upon the verdict and then, if dissatisfied, complain of the jury's selection proc......
  • Collins v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1979
    ...guarantees under the State and Federal Constitutions. Abrams v. State, 223 Ga. 216(13), 154 S.E.2d 443 (1967); Clarke v. Grimes, 223 Ga. 461(4), 156 S.E.2d 91 (1967); Jones v. State, 224 Ga. 283(2), 161 S.E.2d 302 (1968); Smith v. Hopper, 240 Ga. 93, 94, 239 S.E.2d 510 The first enumeration......
  • Miller v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1968
    ...correct at the time it was made. Code §§ 59-806(4) and 59-807; Abrams v. State, 223 Ga. 216(13), 154 S.E.2d 443, supra; Clarke v. Grimes, 223 Ga. 461(4), 156 S.E.2d 91. The judge also had the right to rely upon Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 12 S.Ct. 617, 36 L.Ed. 429, a case where t......
  • Moore v. Dutton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • December 16, 1968
    ...Georgia courts. (See Moore v. Dutton, Warden, 223 Ga. 585, 157 S.E.2d 267; Sims v. Balkam, 220 Ga. 7, 9, 136 S.E.2d 766; Clarke v. Grimes, 223 Ga. 461, 156 S.E.2d 91). Each holds without qualification that the jury issue is waived when not presented prior to trial. This oversimplification o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT