Mitchell v. State, 25382
| Decision Date | 29 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 25382,25382 |
| Citation | 171 S.E.2d 140,225 Ga. 656 |
| Parties | John Henry MITCHELL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An indictment may be quashed only for matters appearing on its face.
2. Jurors who state that their opposition to capital punishment would prevent them from rendering an impartial verdict
on the issue of the defendant's guilt are properly excused for cause in a case where capital punishment is one of the punishments authorized for such crime. Questions as to the 'make-up' of the jury cannot be raised for the first time after verdict.
3. In the absence of a request for a continuance no question is raised as to whether counsel for the defendant had sufficient time to prepare for trial.
4. In order to present a question for decision by this court, the admissibility of evidence over objection must be made on the trial of the case.
5. It is not necessary in a rape case that the victim's testimony be corroborated by medical testimony.
6. The evidence authorized the verdict.
Charles M. Clayton, Atlanta, for appellant.
Richard Bell, Dist. Atty., Decatur, Eugene Highsmith, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Exec. Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Mathew Robins, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
The defendant was jointly indicted with James Henry Walker for the offense of rape but tried separately. The jury found him guilty without a recommendation of mercy and he received the death sentence. Thereafter his motion for new trial was overruled and the present appeal filed.
1. The defendant's first trial resulted in a mistrial and before the second trial a written motion was filed seeking to have the indictment quashed and evidence of waivers and statements made by the defendant suppressed because the defendant was not represented by counsel at a line-up and commitment hearing, was not advised of his right to counsel and the evidence of his identification by the victim was inadmissible. On the call of the case counsel for the defendant abandoned all the contentions except that the indictment should be quashed because the defendant was not represented by counsel at a line-up and commitment hearing.
While under the decision of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, courtroom identification is strictly regulated where the witness has previously identified the prisoner in a line-up at a time when the prisoner is not represented by counsel, yet it affords no grounds for quashing the indictment. An indictment may be quashed only for matters appearing on its face. See Millhollan v. State, 221 Ga. 165(1), 143 S.E.2d 730. Accordingly, enumerations of error 1 and 2 are without merit.
2. The third enumeration of error complains that Negroes were systematically excluded from the jury and that jurors who merely generally stated an opposition to capital punishment were excluded.
No juror was excluded who merely expressed a general opposition to capital punishment but only those who expressed an opinion that their opposition to capital punishment would prevent them from rendering an impartial verdict on the issue of the defendant's guilt. It was not error to exclude these jurors. See Furman v. State, 225 Ga. 253(1), 167 S.E.2d 628.
No question as to 'make-up' of the jury was presented until after verdict and in fact until the appeal was filed in this court (Jones v. State, 224 Ga. 283(8), 161 S.E.2d 302, and citations), since such question was not timely raised.
3. The fourth enumeration of error complains that the trial court erred in not giving defense counsel sufficient time to prepare for trial. No request of counsel for a continuance appears in the record or any ruling by the trial court. Accordingly, no question for decision is presented by this enumeration of error.
4. An enumeration of error which complains of the admission of evidence on the trial of a case does not present any question for consideration where no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bramblett v. State
...it follows that a general demurrer can be made before retrial to challenge the substance of the indictment. See Mitchell v. State, 225 Ga. 656(1), 171 S.E.2d 140 (1969). 2 The defendant's general demurrer filed in this case was not untimely. However, the indictment closely follows the statu......
-
Alexander v. State, 32112
...Bryant v. State, 229 Ga. 60, 63(3), 189 S.E.2d 435 (1972). Corroboration need not be by medical testimony (Mitchell v. State, 225 Ga. 656, 658, 171 S.E.2d 140 (1969)); nor by evidence of laboratory tests. Ford v. State, 227 Ga. 279, 280, 180 S.E.2d 545 (1971). Slight circumstance or evidenc......
-
Ramsey v. State
...it is not necessary that expert medical testimony be introduced to corroborate the actual consummation of the rape. Mitchell v. State, 225 Ga. 656, 171 S.E.2d 140 (1969). Slight circumstances may be sufficient corroboration, and ultimately the question of corroboration is one for the jury. ......
-
Mitchell v. Smith, 27277
...in support of it. One ground of the motion to strike was that the matter had been decided on the appeal of the case, Mitchell v. State, 225 Ga. 656, 171 S.E.2d 140, and was res In Mitchell v. State, supra, this court could not consider the alleged error in the systematic exclusion of Negroe......