Crumb v. State

• Docket Number: 16710.
• Decision Date: 12 July 1949
• Citation: 54 S.E.2d 639,205 Ga. 547
• Parties: CRUMB v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

54 S.E.2d 639

205 Ga. 547

CRUMB v. STATE.

No. 16710.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 12, 1949

Syllabus by the Court.

Where in a challenge to the array of traverse jurors by a Negro defendant in a criminal case, it is shown that in the county in which the case is called for trial, more than 50 per cent of the population, approximately 50 per cent of the males over 21 years of age, and approximately 33 per cent of those upon the tax digest, are Negroes, and that no Negroes were on the jury list and none had served as jurors for 30 or j0 years, and where the State made no showing to justify such exclusion, it established a violation of his rights under the 'equal protection of the law' clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

John Crumb was indicted by the grand jury of Early County at the January, 1948, term for a misdemeanor, by unlawfully pointing a weapon at another as defined in the Code, § 26-5107. The case was transferred from the Superior Court to the City Court of Blakely for trial. He was tried in that court on February 22, 1949, and convicted. In the bill of exceptions certain constitutional questions are invoked which accounts for the jurisdition of this court to review the rulings there made.

Upon the call of the case the accused filed a plea in abatement, a motion to quash the indictment, and a challenge to the array of jurors. In view of the decision to follow it becomes necessary to deal only with the challenge to the array of jurors.

Before pleading to the merits the accused filed a challenge to the array of the traverse jurors put upon him. In substance, it alleged that the accused was a member of the Negro race, that the jury commissioners of the county for a period of thirty years had placed only members of the white race on the jury list, and that a large per cent of the population, of the males over 21 years of age, and of the names on the tax digest were Negroes. That there were numerous Negro citizens of the county competent and qualified to serve as jurors but they had been systematically, purposely, and expressly excluded therefrom solely on account of their race. It was alleged that this was a violation of his rights under specified provisions of the State Constitution, certain provisions of the United States Code, and the 'due process of law' clause and the 'equal protection of the law' clauses of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Code, § 1-815.

Evidence in support thereof showed that by the 1940 census of Early County there were 9074 whites and 9614 Negroes, and as to those 21 years of age or older there were 2468 whites and 2250 Negroes; that upon the tax digest there were between 2600 and 2700 whites and at least 1000 Negroes. The Clerk of the Superior Court testified that there were no Negroes on the jury list, either the grand-jury list of the traverse-jury list; that he had been Clerk twelve years and had never seen a Negro serve as a juror. The Chairman of the Board of Jury Commissioners testified: 'I take the names of persons whom I qualify and certify as jurors from the books of the tax digest of the county * * * We have looked through them, but as I understand our duty, we can qualify anyone that we think fit. * * * We never thought any Negro citizen in the county qualified for the grand jury or petit jury * * * None of their names appear on the list made up in 1946 or 1948 neither on the grand jury or petit jury list. I have been a citizen here about forty years. I have been attending court on and off during that forty years. I have observed both grand jurors and petit jurors who have been here and have qualified to serve at that particular term. In my memory, I have never heard of a Negro being on the grand jury of petit jury in this county.' The Sheriff testified that he had been Sheriff 16 years, that prior thereto he was deputy sheriff under his father for 13 years, that he had been in the court for 30 to 40 years. That as deputy or as Sheriff he had never summoned a Negro for jury service, nor had he ever heard of one being summoned.

There was no counter-showing by the State. At the conclusion of the testimony the trial judge overruled the challenge, to which exceptions pendente lite were taken and error is assigned thereon in the bill of exceptions.

Daniel Duke, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Phillip Sheffield, Blakely, for defendant in error.

ATKINSON Presiding Justice (after stating the foregoing facts.)

The Code, § 59-106, makes provision for the selection of jurors. In substance it provides that the jury commissioners shall select from the books of the tax receiver 'upright and intelligent' men to serve as jurors, and then select from these, not exceeding two-fifth, the most 'experienced, intelligent, and upright' to serve as grand jurors.

The accused asserts that over a long period of time Negroes have been purposely and expressly exluded from the jury list solely on account of their race, and that by such systematic and purposeful exclusion he has been deprived of his rights under the 'due process' and the 'equal protection of the law' clauses under the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Code, § 1-815.

In 1880 in the case of Neal v. Delaware, 103...