Cox v. State, 37896
| Decision Date | 06 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 37896,37896 |
| Citation | 285 S.E.2d 687,248 Ga. 713 |
| Parties | COX v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
James B. Alexander, Alexander & Royston, Covington, for bobby cox.
J. W. Morgan, Dist. Atty., Covington, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for the State.
Bobby Cox was indicted in March, 1981, in the Superior Court of Newton County for felony murder and robbery by force. The jury found Cox guilty on both counts, and the trial court directed a verdict of not guilty of robbery by force, as it merged into the felony murder conviction. Although the district attorney sought the death penalty and the jury found that two statutory aggravating circumstances were present, the jury fixed the punishment as life imprisonment.
On appeal, Cox asserts four enumerations of error.
1. Cox alleges that the trial court erred in finding that a written, signed statement made by him and introduced into evidence was made freely and voluntarily after having been advised of his constitutional rights. Cox testified at the Jackson-Denno hearing that he was physically abused and that his confession was extracted by force. The mother of a co-defendant testified that she was at the jail and heard Cox "hollering, like he was hurting," in an upstairs room for 20-30 minutes at about the time the confession was given. Police officers testified that Cox was given Miranda warnings and that his confession was given freely and voluntarily with no physical abuse. After a lengthy hearing consuming some 40 pages of transcript, the trial judge stated that he found "the statement in question was freely and voluntarily given by the defendant after having been advised of his Miranda rights."
Young v. State, 243 Ga. 546, 548, 255 S.E.2d 20 (1979). This enumeration is without merit.
2. Cox alleges that the trial court erred in denying his motion for funds to employ an expert on the issue of age discrimination regarding his challenge to the array of the grand jury which indicted him. The trial court properly denied the motion, as we have held that young adults do not constitute a recognized class for the purpose of a challenge to the array. Barrow v. State, 239 Ga. 162, 236 S.E.2d 257 (1977).
3. Cox assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to allow counsel to ask the following question of a juror, who acknowledged that her son-in-law was a security guard: "Would you have any tendency whatsoever to believe the testimony of police officers or security guard officers over the testimony of any other witnesses?" We have repeatedly upheld the discretion of the trial court to restrict voir dire to questions dealing directly with the specific case, and to prohibit overly broad questions. Bennett v. State, 153 Ga.App. 21, 26, 264 S.E.2d 516 (1980); McNeal v. State, 228 Ga. 633(3), 187 S.E.2d 271 (1972); Hill v. State, 221 Ga. 65, 68, 142 S.E.2d 909 (1965).
The question invades the province of the jury to determine individual credibility in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. State
...Bennett v. State, 153 Ga.App. 21, 25-26, 264 S.E.2d 516 (1980); Smith v. State, 148 Ga.App. 1, 251 S.E.2d 13 (1978); Cox v. State, 248 Ga. 713(3), 285 S.E.2d 687 (1982). 1 Questions seeking to test the prospective jurors' willingness to accept defenses have been disallowed and upheld on app......
-
Walker v. State
...it improper for appellant to ask the jury pool whether they would "give [appellant's] testimony less weight." See Cox v. State, 248 Ga. 713(3), 285 S.E.2d 687 (1982) (proper to disallow question that invades province of jury to determine individual credibility in context of entire case); Ga......
-
Ganas v. State
...230 Ga. 327, 337(5)(a), 196 S.E.2d 849 (1973); Harper v. State, 222 Ga.App. 393, 393-394, 474 S.E.2d 288 (1996). 19. Cox v. State, 248 Ga. 713-714(3), 285 S.E.2d 687 (1982); Harper, supra, 222 Ga.App. at 394, 474 S.E.2d 288; Smith v. State, 148 Ga.App. 1(1), 251 S.E.2d 13 (1978). 20. Chasta......
-
Williams v. State, 65085
...court to restrict voir dire to questions dealing directly with the specific case, and to prohibit overly broad questions." Cox v. State, 248 Ga. 713(3), 285 S.E.2d 687; accord: Hill v. State, 221 Ga. 65(8), 142 S.E.2d 909; McNeal v. State, 228 Ga. 633(3), 187 S.E.2d 271. We find no abuse of......