Cash v. Smith, 25717
| Decision Date | 07 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 25717,25717 |
| Citation | 226 Ga. 318,175 S.E.2d 10 |
| Parties | John Virgil CASH v. S. Lamont SMITH, Warden. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John Virgil Cash, pro se.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Exec. Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, William R. Childers, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Appellant was convicted in the Superior Court of Fulton County on April 1, 1965, of the offense of robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. Being confined in the Georgia State Prison at Reidsville pursuant to the sentence imposed upon him, he filed in the Superior Court of Tattnall County a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which writ was issued, and upon the hearing thereof a judgment remanding him to the custody of the Warden was rendered. The case is before this court upon appeal from that judgment.
1. The appellant sought to establish his contention that the grand jury which indicted him and the petit jury which tried him were illegally constituted solely by testifying as to statistics relating to the population ratio between white people and negroes in Fulton County, which statistics admittedly were furnished to him by a named lawyer who was not present and who did not testify on the hearing. This evidence was clearly hearsay and of no probative value, and the trial court did not err in excluding it. The burden was on the applicant to establish his contention with regard to the alleged unconstitutional composition of the jury by evidence having probative value, and this he failed to do. Pickler v. Smith, 226 Ga. 109, 172 S.E.2d 696.
2. The Judge of the Superior Court found as a fact that the applicant is a white man. With respect to this finding, it is sufficient to say that the applicant was in court before the judge who was able to observe him, and though the applicant was reluctant to admit that he was in fact a white man, he nowhere testified that he was a negro. We cannot say, under these circumstances, that the trial judge was not authorized to find that he was in fact a white man. In view of this finding, the burden was on the applicant to prove purposeful discrimination and that he was prejudiced by the systematic exclusion of negroes from the jury panel which indicted and tried him. Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, 87 S.Ct. 643, 17 L.Ed.2d 599; Massey v. Smith, 224 Ga. 721, 164 S.E.2d 786.
3. It was not error for the trial judge to refuse to grant applicant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Holland, 26903
...780, (61 L.R.A. 739); Dutton v. Willis, 223 Ga. 209, 154 S.E.2d 221; and Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632 (9 Cir.).' Cash v. Smith, 226 Ga. 318(3), 175 S.E.2d 10. See also Chadwick v. Smith, 227 Ga. 753, 182 S.E.2d 896. There is no merit in this enumerated error. 9. Enumerated error 10 a......
-
Johnson v. Smith
...Ann. § 2-105). A habeas corpus proceeding is not a criminal prosecution (Croker v. Smith, 225 Ga. 529, 169 S.E.2d 787; Cash v. Smith, 226 Ga. 318, 175 S.E.2d 10), and the law does not require the court to subpoena witnesses at the request of the petitioner for habeas corpus. Neal v. Smith, ......
-
Nolley v. Caldwell
...privilege and benefit of counsel, have no application in this case. See Croker v. Smith, 225 Ga. 529(1), 169 S.E.2d 787; Cash v. Smith, 226 Ga. 318(3), 175 S.E.2d 10.' Hatton v. Smith, 228 Ga. 378(3), 185 S.E.2d 2. No question being raised in the trial court before the hearing as to the pri......
-
Phillips v. Hopper
...'Whatever may be the nature of a habeas corpus proceeding, it is not, strictly speaking, a criminal proceeding . . .' Cash v. Smith, 226 Ga. 318, 175 S.E.2d 10 (1970). We have continued to hold that a post-conviction habeas is 'not a criminal proceeding.' Sims v. Caldwell, 231 Ga. 377, 202 ......