Kincey v. State
Decision Date | 11 April 1989 |
Docket Number | No. A89A0082,A89A0082 |
Citation | 191 Ga.App. 300,381 S.E.2d 439 |
Parties | KINCEY v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
James A. Yancey, Jr., Waycross, for appellant.
Harry D. Dixon, Jr., Dist. Atty., Richard E. Currie, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant Joseph Kincey appeals from his conviction and sentence for the offense of burglary. Held:
1. Defendant first contends that the State used its peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the mandate of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Defendant, who is black, was tried by an all-white jury after the State used three of its peremptory challenges to strike three blacks from the venire, which was composed of thirty-nine whites and three blacks. The record shows that two of the jurors were struck because they had close relatives who had been convicted of committing felonious crimes and the third juror was struck because he had recently served on a jury which had returned a not guilty verdict in a criminal case in which the prosecutor believed sufficient evidence was presented to warrant a finding of guilty. The prosecutor further stated that he tried to keep a record of all jurors who returned not guilty verdicts and that in all cases "we do not accept that juror again regardless of race." The trial court ruled that the strikes were "not racially motivated or based strictly upon the issue of race," and denied defendant's Batson challenge.
(Punctuation omitted.) Glanton v. State, 189 Ga.App. 505, 506-507, 376 S.E.2d 386 (1988). See also Bess v. State, 187 Ga.App. 185 (1), 369 S.E.2d 784 (1988).
Applying this standard, we agree that the trial court correctly found that the State presented legitimate reasons for exercising its peremptory challenges, and that defendant's prima facie case of racial discrimination was rebutted. Consequently, the trial court's denial of defendant's Batson motion was not erroneous and must be affirmed.
2. Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence his in-custody statement, in which he admitted he broke into the victims' house and stole a purse sitting on a table near where he entered the premises. At the Jackson-Denno hearing conducted prior to the admission of defendant's statement, the officer who conducted the in-custody interview of the defendant testified that he advised defendant of his rights, that defendant executed a waiver of counsel form, that defendant indicated he was willing to talk to the officer without an attorney present and that defendant admitted he committed the crime with which he was charged. The officer further testified that defendant initially indicated that he would provide a written as well as verbal admission of guilt but he later advised the officer that he was no longer willing to make a written statement. Defendant testified that he requested an attorney and that he refused to make a statement concerning his guilt or innocence of the crime charged.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dixon v. The State
...14, 15(1), 404 S.E.2d 128 (1991) (jurors had close relatives who had been subjects of criminal prosecutions); Kincey v. State, 191 Ga.App. 300(1), 381 S.E.2d 439 (1989) (jurors had close relatives who had been convicted of committing felonies). 33. See George v. State, 262 Ga. 436, 437(2), ......
-
Cook v. State
...189 Ga.App. 505, 506-507 (376 SE2d 386) (1988). See also Bess v. State, 187 Ga.App. 185(1) (369 SE2d 784) (1988)." Kincey v. State, 191 Ga.App. 300(1), 381 S.E.2d 439. In the case sub judice, we find no abuse in the trial court's determination that the State's explanations were credible and......
-
Metheny v. State
...that the statements at issue were voluntary will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Kincey v. State, 191 Ga.App. 300, 301, 381 S.E.2d 439 (1989); Lindsey v. State, 196 Ga.App. 67, 395 S.E.2d 328 (1990). We find no clear error in the trial court's (d) Lastly, we must determ......
-
Ware v. State
...784 (1988). Accordingly, and giving the trial court's findings great deference, as we must on appeal (see e.g., Kincey v. State, 191 Ga.App. 300, 381 S.E.2d 439 (1989); Glanton v. State, 189 Ga.App. 505, 507(1), 376 S.E.2d 386 (1988)), we agree that the trial court's denial of defendant's B......