Kemp v. State, 25804
| Decision Date | 09 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 25804,25804 |
| Citation | 226 Ga. 506,175 S.E.2d 869 |
| Parties | Lovetta KEMP v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The verdict and judgment of conviction for rape were not error for any reason urged.
C. B. King, Albany, for appellant.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Courtney Wilder Stanton, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and a life sentence for the crime of rape.
1. The court did not err in its judgment denying the defendant's motion challenging the array of the grand and traverse juries, since no prima facie case of racially motivated systematic exclusion was established, under the holding in Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, 87 S.Ct. 643, 17 L.Ed.2d 599, and Jones v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 24, 88 S.Ct. 4, 19 L.Ed.2d 25, by the evidence, which showed that the jury lists from which the defendant's grand and traverse juries were drawn were compiled in accordance with Code § 59-106, as amended, (Ga.L.1967, p. 251); the source list utilized was the voters' registration list as used in the last general election preceding the compilation; the list of registered electors did not identify racially the persons thereupon listed; there were approximately 6000 names on the list of voters; the racial composition of the voters' registration list was not established; the percentage of Negroes on the jury lists was not sufficiently established; and the numbers of Negroes on the grand and traverse venires and juries are not shown.
2. Even if the court erred in disallowing defendant's challenge for cause of two traverse jury veniremen, such error would not be reversible, since the record shows that these two were stricken by defendant's peremptory challenges and that the only two jurors impanelled after defendant had exhausted his peremptory challenges were the twelfth juror and an alternate juror, about the inclusion of which there is no complaint. Cf. Bland v. State, 210 Ga. 100, 101, 7, S.E.2d 51 and cit. 'The burden is on him who asserts error to show it affirmatively by the record.' Roach v. State, 221 Ga. 783(4), 147 S.E.2d 299, 303.
3. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, which did not complain of the overruling of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, which latter ruling, unappealed from, became the law of the case as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. State
...room, this finding was not clearly erroneous. As a result, this enumeration of error is without merit. See also Kemp v. State, 226 Ga. 506, 507(2), 175 S.E.2d 869 (1970) (“The burden is on him who asserts error to show it affirmatively by the record.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4.......
-
Fortson v. State, S03A1169.
...of affirmatively showing reversible error where he does not complain about the inclusion of any other jurors. Kemp v. State, 226 Ga. 506, 507(2), 175 S.E.2d 869 (1970). See also Patterson v. State, 239 Ga. 409, 411(1), 238 S.E.2d 2 (1977). Accordingly, Bradham and those cases which have fol......
-
Collins v. State, A04A0362.
...double jeopardy precludes successive punishments for the same offense). 11. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kemp v. State, 226 Ga. 506, 507(2), 175 S.E.2d 869 (1970). 12. (Footnotes omitted.) Hines v. State, 276 Ga. 491, 492(2), 578 S.E.2d 868 13. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Tr......
-
Marlow v. State, 57851
...is on him who asserts error to show it affirmatively by the record.' Roach v. State, 221 Ga. 783(4), 147 S.E.2d 299." Kemp v. State, 226 Ga. 506(2), 175 S.E.2d 869. Secondly, the defendant complains about that which he does not show of record and has made no attempt to correct the record as......