Gatlin v. State, 30965
| Decision Date | 06 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 30965,30965 |
| Citation | 236 Ga. 707,225 S.E.2d 224 |
| Parties | Bob GATLIN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Stanley H. Nylen, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carole E. Wall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Kirby G. Atkinson, Staff Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Bob Gatlin, Clarence Coachman and Robert Hill were jointly indicted, tried and convicted for the murder of Samuel Green. Hill fired the fatal shot. Each defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, and this is Gatlin's appeal. The facts as they appeared at the trial are set forth in our recent opinion affirming Coachman's conviction, Coachman v. State, 236 Ga. 473, 224 S.E.2d 36 (1976).
Gatlin raises 24 enumerations of error, most of which relate to the voir dire examination of jurors and to the court's instructions and charges to the jury. All are without merit.
1. Enumerations 1, 5, 9, 11, 22 and 24 are deemed abandoned under Rule 18(c) (2) of this court, because they are not supported by citation or argument of any kind. Allen v. State, 235 Ga. 709, 712 (221 S.E.2d 405) (1975).
2. Enumerations 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 complain of instances of the trial court's refusing to allow Gatlin's counsel to put questions phrased in a certain way to the veniremen on voir dire.
The conduct of voir dire is within the discretion of the trial court, and his rulings are proper absent some manifest abuse of his discretion. Whitlock v. State, 230 Ga. 700, 706, 198 S.E.2d 865 (1973). The proper scope of the questions is delineated in Code Ann. § 59-705: '. . . counsel for either party shall have the right to inquire of the individual jurors examined touching any matter or thing which would illustrate any interest of the juror in the cause, including any opinion as to which party ought to prevail, the relationship or acquaintance of the juror with the parties or counsel therefor, any fact or circumstance indicating any inclination, leaning or bias which the juror might have respecting the subject-matter of the suit, or counsel or parties thereto, and religious, social and fraternal connections of the juror.' General questions and technical legal questions are not proper. McNeal v. State, 228 Ga. 633, 636, 187 S.E.2d 271 (1972). Our review of the voir dire shows that the questions counsel here insists upon were properly refused in each instance, either because they were long and confusing or unduly argumentative, or general and hypothetical. The record also shows that the court's rulings did not prohibit counsel from inquiring into relevant matters by properly phrased inquiries.
3. Enumerations of error 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 23 claim error in the court's pre-trial instructions to the jury and in specified jury charges. These enumerations are all without merit, either because the prejudice claimed to have been suffered by Gatlin because of these statements is chimerical, or because the statements are not fairly subject to the misconstructions counsel urges.
4. Answering Enumeration 2, where the state waives the death penalty, as here, and co-defendants are jointly tried, the defendants have among them the same number of peremptory jury challenges that a single defendant would have if tried separately. Code Ann. § 27-2101. That number here is 20. Code Ann. § 59-805. At Gatlin's trial, each defendant was given 7, for a total of 21. Although under Code Ann. § 27-2101 the court 'acting in its sole discretion' could have allowed each defendant a number of additional strikes, nothing in this record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Legare v. State, 34444
...even though some veniremen had been questioned individually. Welch v. State, 237 Ga. 665, 229 S.E.2d 390 (1976); Gatlin v. State, 236 Ga. 707, 225 S.E.2d 224 (1976). Enumeration 10 is without 11. In Enumeration 11 the appellant alleges: "The court below erred in allowing the jury to dispers......
-
State v. Singletary
...rulings are proper absent some manifest abuse of discretion. Welch v. State, 237 Ga. 665(5), 229 S.E.2d 390 (1976); Gatlin v. State, 236 Ga. 707(2), 225 S.E.2d 224 (1976). Whether to strike a juror for cause lies within the discretion of the court. Welch, supra 237 Ga. at 671, 229 S.E.2d 39......
-
Patterson v. State
...rulings are proper absent some manifest abuse of discretion. Welch v. State, 237 Ga. 665(5), 229 S.E.2d 390 (1976); Gatlin v. State, 236 Ga. 707(2), 225 S.E.2d 224 (1976). Whether to strike a juror for cause lies within the discretion of the court. Welch, supra 237 Ga. at 671, 229 S.E.2d 39......
-
Hamilton v. State
...rulings regarding the conduct of voir dire will not be disturbed on appeal absent some manifest abuse of discretion. Gatlin v. State, 236 Ga. 707(2), 225 S.E.2d 224 (1976). The questions propounded by Hamilton's trial counsel were inquiries regarding any inclination, leaning, or bias potent......