Brown v. State
Decision Date | 02 June 2014 |
Docket Number | No. S13G1612.,S13G1612. |
Citation | 295 Ga. 240,759 S.E.2d 489 |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Parties | BROWN v. The STATE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John C. Butters, Law Office of John C. Butters, John E. Floyd, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP, John Stuart Melvin, Asst. Dist. Atty., D. Victor Reynolds, Dist. Atty., Cobb Judicial Circuit Attorney's Office, Marietta, for appellee.
John Frank Salter, Jr., Roy E. Barnes, James Cameron Tribble, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Marietta, Anthony Charles Talbott Lake, Thomas A. Withers, Craig A. Gillen, Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC, Savannah, for appellant.
Dwight T. Brown, a former President and CEO of Cobb Electric Membership Corporation (“Cobb EMC”), was indicted on January 6, 2011, on charges of theft by taking, filing false statements, conspiracy to defraud Cobb County and the Cobb County School District, and violations of the Georgia RICO statute. These charges stemmed from allegations that Brown stole millions of dollars in “ patronage capital” from Cobb EMC's members, including Cobb County and the Cobb County School District. On March 24, 2011, the trial court quashed the indictment on the ground that it was not returned in open court and the order was affirmed on appeal. State v. Brown, 315 Ga.App. 282, 726 S.E.2d 764 (2012), aff'd, 293 Ga. 493, 748 S.E.2d 376 (2013).
Meanwhile, anticipating a second indictment, Brown filed a motion to challenge the grand jury array on May 27, 2011, in an attempt to remove Cobb EMC members from the grand jury.1 The State did not respond to the motion and no ruling was entered upon it. On July 7, 2011, the State obtained a new indictment against Brown setting forth the same charges alleged in the previous indictment, as well as additional charges of influencing and threatening witnesses.
Brown filed a motion to abate the second indictment on the ground the grand jury was composed in part of persons, i.e., Cobb EMC members, who were victims of the alleged crimes. The trial court denied Brown's plea in abatement and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Brown v. State, 322 Ga.App. 446, 745 S.E.2d 699 (2013). We granted Brown's petition for a writ of certiorari and posed this question: Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the denial of the defendant's challenge to the impartiality of the grand jurors who returned his second indictment? Our straightforward answer to this question is “no.”
In determining whether or not grand jury proceedings are biased against an accused, it is an unquestioned rule of law that members of a grand jury may not be selected in a manner that discriminates against persons of a particular race or religion. However, United States v. Knowles, 147 F.Supp. 19, 21 (1957).
Creamer v. State, 150 Ga.App. 458, 460–461, 258 S.E.2d 212 (1979). See also In re Hensley, 184 Ga.App. 625, 627–628, 362 S.E.2d 432 (1987) ()
In Georgia, our approach to grand jury challenges depends on whether the challenge is propter defectum or propter affectum. See generally Farrar v. State, 187 Ga. 401, 403, 200 S.E. 803 (1939). If propter defectum, i.e., if a grand juror lacks the capacity to serve, a timely filed plea in abatement will lie. See, e.g., State v. Dempsey, 290 Ga. 763, 764(1), 727 S.E.2d 670 (2012) ( ); Reich v. State, 53 Ga. 73 (1874) ( ). A claim of disqualification propter affectum, on the other hand, i.e., for favor or bias in a particular case, provides no ground for a plea in abatement. See Sallie v. State, 276 Ga. 506, 514(14), 578 S.E.2d 444 (2003) ( ); In re Hensley, 184 Ga.App. 625, 627(2), 362 S.E.2d 432, supra ( ). Compare Lowman v. State, 197 Ga.App. 556, 398 S.E.2d 832 (1990) ( )(decided prior to the 2009 enactment of OCGA § 15–12–137.1) with Simpson v. State, 100 Ga.App. 726, 112 S.E.2d 314 (1959) ( ).
In this case, Brown's plea in abatement claimed four grand jurors were members of Cobb EMC and presumably biased. Because this was a challenge propter affectum, Brown's motion in abatement was properly denied. See, e.g., Black v. State, 264 Ga. 550, 551(2), 448 S.E.2d 357 (1994) ( ); Fisher v. State, 93 Ga. 309, 20 S.E. 329 (1893) ( ); Lascelles v. State, 90 Ga. 347, 372–375, 16 S.E. 945 (1892) ( ); Simpson v. State, supra ( ); Garnett v. State, 10 Ga.App. 109, 72 S.E. 951 (1911) ( ).
Relying upon dicta in Bitting v. State, 165 Ga. 55, 139 S.E. 877 (1927), Brown asserts it was incumbent upon the trial court to remove members of the Cobb EMC from the grand jury. In this regard, Brown points to this language:
It would seem that the main reason why the court should remove partial grand jurors from the panel before the inquiry begins is the inexpediency of putting the public to the trouble and expense of trying an alleged defendant, unless those who are impartial are willing to accuse him on the testimony which the prosecution, or State's counsel, is able to produce against him; and further, there is incidentally the other reason that an injustice is done to the individual citizen when he is subjected to accusation of crime by those who would be more than normally willing to exalt bare unsupported suspicion into a reasonable ground for indictment and trial. For this reason it is proper that the court should in advance of the grand jury's action receive information from the defendant, from an amicus curiae, or from any other legitimate source, tending to show that certain of the grand jurors would likely be biased, and that he should purge the panel so as to make it impartial.
Id. at 63–64, 139 S.E. 877, quoting Hall v. State, 7 Ga.App. 115, 66 S.E. 390 (1909). However, the Bitting Court continued:
But when the grand jury has acted, when the formal charge has been made and published, when the trouble and expense of the preparation for trial has been incurred, when the defendant has been arraigned and asked, ‘Are you guilty or not guilty?’—when the injury that would result from the unjust accusation, if it is unjust, has been consummated, and there can be no vindication of the defendant except upon looking to the merits of the transaction, there is but a small quantum of justice, and less of expediency, in allowing him to say, ‘Delay the trial, because the State is prosecuting me on the information of prejudiced persons.’ If the accusation against the defendant is unjust and untrue, that fact can be established much more surely, satisfactorily, and quickly under the plea of not guilty than it can be by quashing the indictment, and ordering a new preliminary and inconclusive inquiry before another grand jury. Largely for these reasons, as well as for others, the courts of the country have been disinclined to allow defendants, by plea in abatement, to urge that one or more of the grand jurors who acted upon the indictment were disqualified. The tendency has been to cut off collateral inquiry, and to allow the main issue to proceed.
Thus, placed in context, it is clear that Bitting made no attempt to formulate or promulgate a precept requiring courts to remove grand jurors upon a showing of likely bias. Rather, a proper reading of Bitting and similar cases 2 demonstrates that any suggestion that a court should purge potentially partial panel members was primarily to avoid the trouble and expense associated with trying a defendant who may have been indicted without a proper legal foundation. These cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spears v. State
...not recall Spears's case specifically and did not believe that she ever knew Spears's victim, Ms. Holland. See also Brown v. State, 295 Ga. 240, 759 S.E.2d 489 (2014) (holding that the impartiality of one or more grand jurors does not render an indictment invalid). Spears claims that this g......
-
State v. Towns
...hardly be deemed to be impartial, but he is not disqualified for that reason.(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Brown v. State , 295 Ga. 240, 241-242, 759 S.E.2d 489 (2014) See also OCGA § 15-12-74 (a) ("Grand jurors have a duty to examine or make presentments of such offenses as may or s......
-
State v. Outen
...on Roberts to reach the same conclusion); Brown v. State, 322 Ga.App. 446, 447–451, 745 S.E.2d 699 (2013) (same), aff'd, 295 Ga. 240, 759 S.E.2d 489 (2014). See also Strickland v. State, 258 Ga. 764, 765, 373 S.E.2d 736 (1988) (explaining that the supersedeas pending appeal of a criminal ca......