Disby v. State
| Decision Date | 06 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 31684,31684 |
| Citation | 231 S.E.2d 763,238 Ga. 178 |
| Parties | Roscoe DISBY (Roscoe Oliver Digby) v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Beck, Goddard Owen & Murray, Frank A. Thomas, Jr., C. Arthur Moss, Jr., Griffin, for appellant.
Ben J. Miller, Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Thomaston, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction of armed robbery by the Superior Court of Spalding County.
Appellant was indicted on two counts of armed robbery, one count involving a robbery at a drug store in December of 1975, the other involving a robbery at a bus station in January of 1976. Appellant plead not guilty to both counts. He was tried by a jury and found guilty as to count I; a mistrial was declared as to count II. The court imposed a sentence of twenty years imprisonment. Appellant made a timely motion for new trial which was overruled by the trial judge. He appeals.
1. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting a witness for the prosecution to remain in the courtroom after a timely request for sequestration had been made. See Code Ann. § 38-1703.
Subsequent to appellant's sequestration request, appellee asked that the investigating officer, a witness for the prosecution, be allowed to remain in the courtroom. This request was granted. Appellant contends that the state did not lay a proper foundation to bring this witness within any of the recognized exceptions to the sequestration rule.
We have held on numerous occasions that it is within the trial court's discretion to make exceptions to the sequestration rule, and unless that discretion has been abused, its decision will not be reversed on appeal. See, e.g., Fountain v. State, 228 Ga. 306(3), 185 S.E.2d 62 (1971). The witness involved was the investigating officer, he was familiar with the case, and the prosecutor stated in his place that he needed the witness' assistance during the trial. We find that a proper foundation for an exception to the sequestration rule was made; we find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge. Justice v. State, 213 Ga. 166(2), 97 S.E.2d 569 (1957).
2. The appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a pre-indictment lineup because he was not represented by counsel at that time. Appellant further contends that the admission of this evidence was in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. We find these contentions to be without merit.
It is well settled that one does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a pre-indictment lineup. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972); Mitchell v. State, 236 Ga. 251, 255, 223 S.E.2d 650 (1976). Furthermore, one's voluntary consent to a lineup does not violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, since the lineup process involves no compulsion of the accused to give evidence of a testimonial nature against himself. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 222, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1966).
3. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in receiving a verdict of the jury on Count 1 of the indictment before it had completed its deliberation on issues in Count 2 of the indictment. We find this contention to be without merit.
The indictment under which the appellant was charged contained two counts, one dealing with an armed robbery at a drug store, the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington v. State
...to the jury publishing its verdict by delivering it to the court. Bell, supra; Merchant's Bank, supra. See also Disby v. State, 238 Ga. 178, 179(3), 231 S.E.2d 763 (1977) (discussing court letting “the jury publish its verdict” as to one count and finish its deliberations as to other count ......
-
Hill v. State
...to properly present the case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the witness to remain. Disby v. State, 238 Ga. 178(1), 231 S.E.2d 763 (1977); Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410(6), 216 S.E.2d 258 Appellant further contends that even if the trial court properly allowed the ......
-
White v. State
...decision will not be reversed by this court on appeal." Davis v. State, 242 Ga. 901(3), 252 S.E.2d 443 (1979); Disby v. State, 238 Ga. 178(1), 231 S.E.2d 763 (1977). Because the prosecutor stated that Detective Funderburke was the chief investigator in the case and that his presence was nec......
-
Davis v. State
...and unless that discretion has been abused, a trial court's decision will not be reversed by this court on appeal. Disby v. State, 238 Ga. 178(1), 231 S.E.2d 763 (1977); Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410(6), 216 S.E.2d 258 (1975); Fountain v. State, 228 Ga. 306(3), 185 S.E.2d 62 (1971). In McNe......