Devier v. State
| Citation | 250 Ga. 652,300 S.E.2d 490 |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 39201,39253,s. 39201 |
| Parties | DEVIER v. The STATE. ROGERS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Robert J. Evans, Rome, for James Randall Rogers.
Harl C. Duffey, Jr., Duffey & Duffey, Rome, for Darrell Gene Devier, Sr.
F. Larry Salmon, Dist. Atty., Rome, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Nicholas G. Dumich, Asst. Atty. Gen., Janice G. Hildenbrand, Staff Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. Devier and Rogers were indicted by a grand jury of Floyd County for unconnected murders. Both were convicted and sentenced to death in unrelated trials.
The principal issue in both appeals, which proceeded separately, is the constitutionality of the grand jury list of Floyd County, from which were drawn the names of the grand juries which indicted both.
Because evidence relative to that issue is, by stipulation, identical in each case, and the disposition of that issue of necessity will be the same as to each case, we have combined both appeals.
The essential elements of evidence are as follows: at times material, the Floyd County grand jury list was drawn principally from the voters' list, and contained 1,809 names, all but seven of which are identifiable as to race and sex; females constitute 18% of the grand jury list; females over the age of 18 constitute 54% of the population of Floyd County.
Devier and Rogers insist that the grand jury list does not reflect a fair cross section of the community.
In response, the jury commissioners denied any intent to exclude women from the grand jury list, and sought to explain the disparity on several grounds, including the existence of certain statutory exemptions from jury duty under which an undetermined number of women in Floyd County had asked the removal of their names from the jury list. The State further contends that the disparity is explainable by a reluctance on the part of women in Floyd County to serve on juries--notwithstanding that women make up 39.8% of the basic jury list.
OCGA § 15-12-40(a)(1) (Code Ann. § 59-106) specifies the responsibilities of the board of jury commissioners in compiling, maintaining and revising jury lists, as follows: "In composing such list the commissioners shall select a fairly representative cross section of the intelligent and upright citizens of the county...." It provides also: "If at any time it appears to the jury commissioners that the jury list, so composed, is not a fairly representative cross section of the intelligent and upright citizens of the county, they shall supplement the list by going out into the county and personally acquainting themselves with other citizens of the county, including intelligent and upright citizens of any significantly identifiable group in the county which may not be fairly represented on the jury list."
Thus, by statute, the standard for the jury list is that it be a fairly representative cross section of the intelligent and upright citizens of the county. Berryhill v. State, 249 Ga. 442, 446, 291 S.E.2d 685 (1982).
That this standard applies alike to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Devier v. State
...and sentenced to death. This court reversed, finding meritorious Devier's challenge to the array of the grand jury. Devier v. State, 250 Ga. 652, 300 S.E.2d 490 (1983). After reindictment, Devier was retried, convicted and sentenced to death. He now appeals. 1. Twelve-year-old Mary Frances ......
-
Ingram v. State
...to represent a fair-cross-section of the community. See Walraven v. State, 250 Ga. 401(3), 297 S.E.2d 278 (1982); Devier v. State, 250 Ga. 652, 300 S.E.2d 490 (1983). Defendant contends that the Cobb traverse jury list was not properly compiled because the jury commissioners simply used the......
-
Turpin v. Todd
... ... 821] phase of the trial by asking the bailiff about the meaning of a life sentence and the possibility of parole. The court ruled that the State had the burden to prove this error harmless, concluded that the State had not done so, and reversed Todd's death sentence. Second, the habeas court ... ...
-
Morrow v. State
...(1984) (17% absolute disparity for females in jury pool from females in county population violates OCGA § 15-12-40); Devier v. State, 250 Ga. 652(1), 300 S.E.2d 490 (1983) (36% absolute disparity for females in jury pool violates statute). The Unified Appeal Procedure states that there shou......