Ford v. State
| Decision Date | 12 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 72553,72553 |
| Citation | 350 S.E.2d 816,180 Ga.App. 807 |
| Parties | FORD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
L. Clark Landrum, Sylvester, for appellant.
David E. Perry, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of rape, robbery, and burglary. The victim positively identified appellant as the man who entered her home without permission; physically abused her; forced her to give him her jewelry and money; took her husband's jewelry; tied her hands and placed a pillowcase over her head; ripped her clothing off her; and had nonconsensual sexual intercourse with her. The State also presented an expert witness who compared a pubic hair sample taken from appellant with pubic hair recovered at the site of the assault and concluded that the two samplings did not exhibit dissimilarities that would suggest they were different. The expert opined the hairs were "similar in origin." The State presented sufficient evidence to enable a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty of rape, robbery, and burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Perry v. State, 154 Ga.App. 385, 268 S.E.2d 747 (1980); OCGA §§ 16-6-1(a); 16-8-40(a); 16-7-1(a). The above-summarized evidence also supports the trial court's denial of appellant's motion for new trial, which was premised on the general grounds.
Appellant contends his federal and state constitutional rights to equal protection of the law were denied him by the State's use of its peremptory strikes to exclude blacks from the jury.
In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court entertained a similar claim, 476 U.S. at ----, fn. 4, 106 S.Ct. at 1716, fn. 4, 90 L.Ed.2d at 79, fn. 4 and held that Batson, having made a timely objection to the State's removal of all black persons on the venire; having established he was a member of the racial group so excluded; and having shown circumstances that raised an inference that the State used its peremptory challenges to exclude members of the venire from the petit jury due to their race, had made a prima facie showing of discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that the burden then fell to the State "to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors." 476 U.S. at ----, 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d at 88. In the case at bar, the record and the transcript are devoid of any evidence that appellant objected to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...several state appellate courts have held that a Batson challenge must be made in a timely fashion or it is waived. Ford v. State, 180 Ga.App. 807, 350 S.E.2d 816 (1986); People v. Holder, 153 Ill.App.3d 884, 106 Ill.Dec. 700, 506 N.E.2d 407 (1987); Weekly v. State, 496 N.E.2d 29 (Ind.1986).......
-
Evans v. State, s. 73911
...that a proper objection was made in this regard, see Mincey v. State, 180 Ga.App. 263, 349 S.E.2d 1 (1986); cf. Ford v. State, 180 Ga.App. 807(2), 350 S.E.2d 816 (1986), and also assuming arguendo that Evans made a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination in selection of the jury, 2......
-
State v. Holder
...several state appellate courts have held that a Batson challenge must be made in a timely fashion or it is waived. Ford v. State, 180 Ga.App. 807, 350 S.E.2d 816 (1986); People v. Holder, 153 Ill.App.3d 884, 106 Ill.Dec. 700, 506 N.E.2d 407 (1987); Weekly v. State, 496 N.E.2d 29 (Ind.1986).......
-
Albright v. State
...appellant has waived his right to present the issue before this [C]ourt[.]" (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ford v. State , 180 Ga. App. 807, 808 (2), 350 S.E.2d 816 (1986). 4. At trial, Albright’s ex-wife testified that he had abused her in the past. The trial court admitted this as ev......