Blevins v. State
| Decision Date | 23 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 22821,22821 |
| Parties | James Melvin BLEVINS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Gleason & Brown, Frank M. Gleason, Rossville, for plaintiff in error.
Earl B. Self, Sol. Gen., Bobby Lee Cook, Summerville, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
James Melvin Blevins was indicted on August 22, 1963, for the murder of Carolyn Newell. The indictment charges that he murdered her on April 14, 1963, in Walker County. He was convicted of that offense without a recommendation for mercy and was sentenced to be electrocuted. His motion for a new trial was overruled and he excepted to that judgment. There are also exceptions to antecedent rulings which will be dealt with in the opinion. Held:
1. Code Ann. § 59-212, declares that 'All grand jurors in the courts of this State shall be disqualified to act or serve, in any case or matter, when such juror is related by consanguinity or affinity to any party interested in the result of the case or matter, within the sixth degree, as computed according to the civil law.' On August 21, 1963, and before the indictment was returned against this defendant, he filed a petition which he denominated as being a challenge to the array of the grand jurors who had been empaneled to serve at the August 1963 term of the Walker Superior Court. We construe his petition as being a demand that the judge inquire into and determine if any of the grand jurors then serving were disqualified to investigate and act on the murder charge pending against him because of their kinship to contributors of a reward fund which had been raised immediately subsequent to the death of Carolyn Newell and Orville Steele. It is alleged in his petition that several members of the grand jury were related within the sixth degree to some of the contributors to the reward fund and were for that reason disqualified to investigate and act on the murder charge pending against him. His petition was heard before the grand jury began its investigation of the charge against him. At such hearing he introduced as witnesses W. L. Abney, the Ordinary of Walker County, and George M. Cramer. Judge Abney testified that several people after the homicide of Carolyn Newell and Orville Steele contributed to a fund to be paid as a reward for information leading to the apprehension and conviction of the person or persons who killed them. The contributions had been delivered to him and were on deposit in the Bank of Lafayette to the joint account of himself, Sheriff Harmon of Walker County and Bascom Wilson. He had personal knowledge of only 17 persons who contributed to the fund and he named them and the amount each contributed. George M. Cramer testified he was in possession of about $100 which had been contributed by the employees of the Happy Valley Farms as a reward fund; that he and Mrs. Raymond Deberry each contributed to the fund; and that he was holding it 'for the apprehension and conviction of the party that is convicted, for the person that leads to the conviction of the person that was guilty in this case, or for the family in case no such comes up.' The judge had the grand jurors brought back to the courtroom and after swearing them inquired as to kinship between any member of the body and the 19 persons named as contributors to the reward fund by the witnesses Abney and Cramer. One member of the grand jury stated that he was a second cousin to one of the contributors and another stated that he was himself one of the contributors. The judge directed those two to leave the grand jury room while the charge against the accused was being heard and acted upon. Query: Were the members of this grand jury or any of them disqualified to act or serve on the pending murder charge against the accused if related within the prohibited degree to any of those who contributed to the reward fund or who were themselves contributors thereto? Or stated differently, was a contributor to this reward fund so interested in the result of the grand jury's investigation of the pending murder charge against the accused that his kinship within the prohibited degree to a member of the grand jury would disqualify such grand juror from acting or serving in this case? If these contributors became volunteer prosecutors of the accused, our question should be answered in the affirmative; otherwise, in the negative. This court has several times held that a contributor to a fund which is to be paid for service rendered in apprehending and prose cuting a particular person for a specified penal offense is a volunteer prosecutor of that person. See Lyens v. State, 133 Ga. 587, 66 S.E. 792; O'Berry v. State, 153 Ga. 644(2), 113 S.E. 2; Harris v. State, 188 Ga. 745(2), 750, 4 S.E.2d 651; Gossett v. State, 201 Ga. 809, 41 S.E.2d 308; Tatum v. State, 206 Ga. 171, 177(3), 54 S.E.2d 518. But in this case the evidence which the accused introduced in support of his petition shows without dispute that the fund which the contributors raised was to be paid as a reward to any person who furnished information leading to the apprehension and conviction of whoever murdered Carolyn Newell and Orville Steele regardless of who such perpetrator or perpetrators might be. The interest which the contributors had in the apprehension and conviction of the person or persons who murdered these two young people was no more than that which any good citizen would naturally have. In the circumstances of this case, we hold that the grand jurors were not disqualified to investigate and act on the charge against the accused even if they were related within the prohibited degree to one or more of the contributors to such reward fund. Nor would the action in excusing two of the grand jurors on motion of the defendant affect the finding of the remainder.
2. Prior to trial and on March 19, 1964, the defendant notified Judge Fariss that he would on his trial avail himself of the right accorded him by Art. I, Sec. I, Par. IV of the Constitution of 1945 (Code § 2-104), which provides that 'No person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend his own cause in any of the courts of this State, in person, by attorney, or both.' In connection with his notice he petitioned the court for an order granting him and his attorney the right: (1) To see, inspect, read and copy well in advance of his arraignment each and every written statement made by any witness and taken by any public official whose salary, compensation or fees are paid from the public treasury. (2) To inspect and copy written reports or statements in the possession of the solicitor general which were prepared by employees of the State Crime Laboratory of Georgia and delivered to the solicitor general. And (3) to inspect and photograph clothing or any other object removed from the bodies of the deceased persons in possession of any public official. In this petition he also alleged that he was confined in the common jail of Floyd County and prayed for an order directing the Sheriff of Walker County to return him to that county and permit him to go in company with his attorney and the Sheriff of Walker County wherever he desired to go either in Walker County or any other place in the State of Georgia for the purpose of procuring evidence for his own defense, all at the expense of the accused; or in the alternative, that he be allowed to give an appearance bond in an amount not to exceed the total sum of $5,000. There is no statute or rule of procedure of force in this State which requires a solicitor general or other prosecuting officer to make his evidence, documentary or otherwise, available to the accused or his counsel before trial, Walker v. State, 215 Ga. 128, 131(5), 109 S.E.2d 748; and the question of allowing bail to the accused in a capital felony case, and the amount to be fixed as such if allowed, is a question which addresses itself to the discretion of the trial judge, and in the circumstances of this case, we will not hold that he abused his discretion in refusing to grant bail to the accused in the total sum of $5,000 for the appearance of the accused to answer the two murder charges pending against him. There is therefore no merit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tennon v. Ricketts, 77-2356
...Miller v. State, 224 Ga. 627, 163 S.E.2d 730 (1968) (defendant arrested and had attorney before indictment); Blevins v. State, 220 Ga. 720, 141 S.E.2d 426 (1965) (defendant had attorney before indictment); Heard v. State, 210 Ga. 523, 81 S.E.2d 467 (1954) (defendant arrested and had attorne......
-
Jarrell v. State
...out that there is no statute or rule of procedure in force in Georgia governing pre-trial discovery in criminal cases. Blevins v. State, 220 Ga. 720(2), 141 S.E.2d 426; Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68(2), 179 S.E.2d 76; and Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 395, 207 S.E.2d 30, and cases cited. Wh......
-
Cauley v. State, s. 48422
...were drawn from the grand jury box (Pollard v. State, 148 Ga. 447(4), 96 S.E. 997), or were not drawn in open court (Blevins v. State, 220 Ga. 720(3), 141 S.E.2d 426), or some other reason running to the whole of the There was no challenge to the array such as is provided for in Code § 59-8......
-
Spencer v. Kemp
...by the judge drawing names from the jury box, in open court. 9 O.C.G.A. Secs. 15-12-42, 15-12-120, 15-12-62; see Blevins v. State, 220 Ga. 720, 141 S.E.2d 426, 430 (1965) (juries must be drawn in open court). The list of jurors drawn is entered upon the minutes of the clerk of the court, a ......