Hakala v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 25381,25381 |
| Citation | 225 Ga. 629,170 S.E.2d 406 |
| Parties | Arnold HAKALA v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The court properly excused a venireman who expressed objection to capital punishment and stated that he would never vote to impose the death penalty regardless of the facts in the case.
2. Where more than two regular terms of court were not convened and adjourned after the term at which demand for trial by the appellant was made in this capital felony case, his plea of autrefois acquit was properly denied.
3. There was no denial of a speedy trial under the facts of this case.
4. The evidence did not require a charge on assault with intent to murder.
5. The general grounds were not argued by the appellant and will be considered abandoned.
John J. Sullivan, Savannah, for appellant.
Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Dist. Atty., Tom Edenfield, Savannah, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Exec. Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrew J. Ryan, III, Savannah, Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Mathew Robins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appellant was convicted of murder with recommendation of mercy. He appealed from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion for new trial, as amended. Enumerated as error are the general and four special grounds of the motion for new trial.
1. It was not error for the court to excuse one venireman expressing conscientious objection to capital punishment, who answered in the affirmative when asked, 'Is your feeling toward capital punishment such that you would never vote to impose the death penalty regardless of the facts in the case?' The transcript does not quote the answer, but notes that the court received an affirmative answer from the juror to the question. See Whisman v. State, 224 Ga. 793, 164 S.E.2d 719, where this court, in a full bench decision, held that under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776, it was not error to exclude the prospective juror where he answered that regardless of the facts, he would never vote to impose the death penalty.
2. The next question presented is whether the appellant was tried within the second term after demand for trial, as required by Ga.L.1952, pp. 299, 300 (Code Ann. §§ 27-1901.1 and 27-1901.2), the latter section providing in part: 'If more than two regular terms of court are convened and adjourned after the term at which the demand is filed and the defendant is not given a trial, then he shall be absolutely discharged and acquitted of the offense charged in the indictment: Provided, that at both terms there were juries empaneled and qualified to try the defendant: and Provided, further, the defendant was present in court announcing ready for trial and requesting a trial on said indictment.'
The appellant made a demand for trial at the March Term. At the next term (June) of court he was tried and there was a mistrial, and then in the next term (September) he was tried and convicted, from which judgment this appeal was taken. More than two regular terms of the court were not convened and adjourned after the term at which the demand was filed without the appellant having a trial, thus his plea of autrefois acquit is without merit.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the appellant was present in court at each term announcing ready and requesting a trial at that term, which conditions this court in Dennis v. Grimes, 216 Ga. 671(3), 118 S.E.2d 923, held must be complied with for him to be discharged and acquitted.
3. The third enumeration of error alleges that the appellant was denied a speedy trial as required by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Code § 1-806). His wife was killed on December 18, 1967. He was indicted for her murder on January 16, 1968. He was first tried in August, 1968, which resulted in a mistrial. He was next tried and convicted in November, 1968. During this period of time he was also indicted and tried for the murder of a victim of the automobile accident in which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State
...vote to impose the death penalty regardless of the facts in the case. Whisman v. State, 224 Ga. 793, 164 S.E.2d 719; Hakala v. State, 225 Ga. 629(1), 170 S.E.2d 406, Cf. Miller v. State, 224 Ga. 627, 636, 163 S.E.2d 730. Enumerated error 4 is without merit. 4. Code Ann. § 26-1302 (Ga.L.1960......
-
Walker v. State, 25678
...vote to impose the death penalty regardless of the facts in the case. Whisman v. State, 224 Ga. 793, 164 S.E.2d 719; Hakala v. State, 225 Ga. 629(1), 170 S.E.2d 406. Cf. Miller v. State, 224 Ga. 627, 636, 163 S.E.2d 730.' Jackson v. State, 225 Ga. 790, 792, 171 S.E.2d 501, 503. The fifth en......
-
Azizi v. State, S01A0778.
...Chambers v. State, 262 Ga. 200, 201, 415 S.E.2d 643 (1992). 4. Henry v. James, 264 Ga. at 530-531, 449 S.E.2d 79; Hakala v. State, 225 Ga. 629, 170 S.E.2d 406 (1969). 5. See Henry v. James, 264 Ga. at 530, 449 S.E.2d 6. Levester v. State, 270 Ga. 485, 487, 512 S.E.2d 258 (1999). 7. Levester......
-
Mays v. State, 27327
...delay, prejudice to the defendant, waiver by the defendant. Sullivan v. State, 225 Ga. 301(1), 168 S.E.2d 133. Also, see Hakala v. State, 225 Ga. 629, 170 S.E.2d 406. Giving due consideration to these factors as applied to the facts and circumstances disclosed in the present case, there was......