Lane v. State, A99A0505.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. A99A0505.,A99A0505. |
| Citation | 520 S.E.2d 705,239 Ga. App. 230 |
| Parties | LANE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William H. Toler III, Atlanta, for appellant.
Joseph J. Drolet, Solicitor, Marko L. Burgar, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.
Gary M. Lane, Sr. appeals his convictions for driving under the influence in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 and weaving over the roadway in violation of OCGA § 40-6-390. Lane's initial enumeration of errors contended the jury was picked from a jury pool that did not represent a fair cross-section of the community, the trial court erred by granting the State's motion in limine to exclude certain testimony of the arresting officer, and the trial court erred by refusing to charge on the weight to be given the breathalyzer or blood analyzer results. Later, Lane amended his enumeration of error to add an allegation that the trial court erred by refusing to exclude the breathalyzer test results.
1. We cannot consider the error asserted in Lane's amended enumeration of error that was filed four days after Lane filed his original enumeration of errors because an enumeration of errors cannot be amended after the time for filing an enumeration of errors has expired. Talley v. State, 200 Ga.App. 442, 447, 408 S.E.2d 463 (1991). In this case, pursuant to an extension of time in which to do so, Lane filed his enumeration of errors and brief on December 18, 1998, the last day of the extension. His amended enumeration that was filed on December 22, 1998, was thus untimely.
2. On the day of trial, Lane filed a motion challenging the array from which the jury was selected. The motion contended that young adults and whites were excluded from the jury list intentionally, discriminatorily, and systematically and that prior traverse jury lists reveal a history and pattern of intentional, discriminatory, and systematic exclusion of both groups.
(a) To prove his allegation regarding young adults, Lane was first required to prove that young adults represented a cognizable group in Fulton County. Potts v. State, 259 Ga. 812, 813(1), 388 S.E.2d 678 (1990). To do so, Lane was required to prove that young adults were a group defined and limited by some factor, that a common thread or interest ran through the group, and that the group had a community of interest that would not be represented if the group was excluded from the jury selection process. Id. Secondly, he was required to show that young adults have been consistently under-represented on the jury lists. Id.
Lane failed to prove either part of the test because he presented no evidence to support his motion. For example, he made no showing that young adults were a cognizable group in Fulton County or that young adults have been consistently under-represented in the jury pool. Potts v. State, supra, 259 Ga. at 813, 388 S.E.2d 678.
(b) Lane also failed to prove his challenge to the racial composition of the array. Evidence that a jury panel contains no members of a defendant's race, standing alone, does not support a challenge to the array (Hudson v. State, 185 Ga.App. 508(1), 364 S.E.2d 635 (1988)) because the Constitution does not guarantee that the jury impaneled in a particular case will be a representative cross-section of the community. Truitt v. State, 212 Ga.App. 286, 287, 441 S.E.2d 800 (1994). The correct inquiry concerns the procedures for compiling the jury lists and not just the composition of a particular jury. Patterson v. Balkcom, 245 Ga. 563, 565(1), 266 S.E.2d 179 (1980).
(c) Lane's challenge to the preparation of the jury list merely alleges that unspecified "arbitrary methods" are used, that the list is out of date, and that using an alphabetical list allows "entire family units" to dominate the jury process. Lane, however, presented no evidence to prove that these allegations were true, or to prove the effect of these alleged irregularities was to exclude members of any group from the jury. Although offered the opportunity to support his motion, Lane did not do so, and even though he renewed his motion after the jury was selected, he presented no evidence to support his claims. Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying this motion.
3. Lane further contends the trial court erred by granting the State's motion in limine to exclude the arresting officer's statements at a hearing on Lane's possible guilty plea to these charges. The trial court concluded that the officer was not sworn at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pittman v. State
...declined to consider untimely enumerations of error. Daniels v. State, 244 Ga.App. 522, 523, 536 S.E.2d 206 (2000); Lane v. State, 239 Ga. App. 230(1), 520 S.E.2d 705 (1999); Wallace v. State, 216 Ga.App. 718, 721(6), 455 S.E.2d 615 (1995); McGraw v. State, 199 Ga.App. 389, 405 S.E.2d 53 (1......
-
Glass v. State, A02A0195.
...536 S.E.2d 188 (2000). 48. See id. 49. Patterson v. Balkcom, 245 Ga. 563, 565(1), 266 S.E.2d 179 (1980); Lane v. State, 239 Ga. App. 230, 231(2)(b), 520 S.E.2d 705 (1999). 50. See generally Campbell, supra; Riddles v. State, 251 Ga.App. 525, 526-527(1), 554 S.E.2d 737 (2001). 51. See McElro......
-
Georgia Advocacy Office v. Borison
... ... Following the criminal indictments, the State instituted a civil forfeiture action against the assets of Borison and Diamond ... ...
-
Roberts v. State, A02A0924.
...248 Ga.App. 88, 91(3), 545 S.E.2d 637 (2001). 20. Daniels v. State, 244 Ga.App. 522, 523, 536 S.E.2d 206 (2000); Lane v. State, 239 Ga.App. 230(1), 520 S.E.2d 705 (1999); Wallace v. State, 216 Ga.App. 718, 721(6), 455 S.E.2d 615 (1995); McGraw v. State, 199 Ga.App. 389, 390, 405 S.E.2d 53 (......