Patterson v. Balkcom
| Decision Date | 08 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 35880,35880 |
| Citation | 266 S.E.2d 179,245 Ga. 563 |
| Parties | PATTERSON v. BALKCOM. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John L. Carroll, C. B. King, Albany, for appellant.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harrison Kohler, Susan V. Boleyn, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was convicted in the Superior Court of Crisp County of two counts of murder, and he was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal to this court in Patterson v. State, 239 Ga. 409, 238 S.E.2d 2 (1977). This is his habeas corpus appeal. In this appeal, the appellant asserts two reasons as to why he should be granted habeas relief.
1. First, the appellant challenges the array of the grand jury which indicted him, and the traverse jury which tried him, on the ground that the racial compositions of the grand and traverse juries were unconstitutional.
Prior to his indictment in July of 1975, the appellant filed a challenge to the array of the grand and traverse juries, alleging, among other things, the arbitrary and systematic exclusion of blacks. The Crisp County grand and traverse jury lists had been revised as recently as 1975. Although the appellant was able to establish that an opportunity for discrimination existed from the source of the 1975 grand and traverse jury lists, the appellant did not submit evidence concerning the racial composition of the 1975 jury lists. Accordingly, the trial court overruled the jury challenge. At that point, the appellant filed a motion for continuance to give him an opportunity to present evidence concerning the racial composition of the 1975 jury lists. This motion was denied, and, on appeal, this court affirmed. Patterson v. State, 239 Ga. 409, supra, pp. 419, 420, 238 S.E.2d 2.
At the hearing on the appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, he presented evidence concerning the racial composition of the 1975 grand and traverse jury lists for Crisp County. He also submitted evidence, consisting of a United States census, showing the percentage of blacks present in the general population of Crisp County. This evidence showed that the general population of Crisp County is 40.4% black; yet, the 1975 grand jury list is 24.4% black, and the traverse jury list is 18.7% black. However, the evidence also showed that 22 of the 52 prospective jurors on the appellant's traverse jury panel were black (42.3%), and six of the 12 jurors who were selected from the panel to try the appellant's case were black (50%). Because of this, the habeas corpus court refused to entertain the appellant's jury challenge, on the ground that the appellant had not been prejudiced by any racial disparities in the grand and traverse jury lists.
Pulliam v. Balkcom, 245 Ga. 99, 101, 263 S.E.2d 123, 127 (1980). Francis v. Henderson, supra, also recognizes that in determining whether "cause" has been shown for allowing an untimely jury challenge, it is entirely appropriate to take "prejudice" or the absence thereof into account. See Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233, 93 S.Ct. 1577, 36 L.Ed.2d 216 (1973).
We are aware that in determining whether there has been a denial of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to have jury venires selected from fairly representative cross-sections of the community, Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975) and in determining whether the defendant's rights under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated because members of his race have been deliberately excluded from the jury lists, Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 92 S.Ct. 1221, 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972), the inquiry concerns the procedures for compiling the jury lists and not the actual composition of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDuffie v. Jones
...by the act for objections to grand and traverse jury composition but jury composition is not involved here. See Patterson v. Balkcom, 245 Ga. 563, 266 S.E.2d 179 (1980).2 Waiver should be considered the second step in habeas corpus cases for the following reason: Where the state courts ente......
-
Glass v. State, A02A0195.
...S.E.2d 556 (1997). 47. See McElroy v. State, 244 Ga.App. 500, 503(2)(b), 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. ......
-
Adefenwa v. State
...and not the actual composition of the grand or traverse jury in a particular case. [Cits.]" (Emphasis supplied.) Patterson v. Balkcom, 245 Ga. 563, 564(1), 565, 266 S.E.2d 179. There is no competent evidence of systematic exclusion or underrepresentation of prospective jurors of defendant's......
-
Torres v. State, S00A0338.
...for compiling the jury lists and not the actual composition of the grand or traverse jury in a particular case. Patterson v. Balkcom, 245 Ga. 563(1), 266 S.E.2d 179 (1980). The Constitution requires only that the State not deliberately and systematically exclude identifiable and distinct gr......
-
Lines in the sand: the importance of borders in American federalism.
...486 P.2d 891,897 (Alaska 1971) (holding the Sixth Amendment applicable to states in requiring an impartial jury); Patterson v. Balkcom, 266 S.E.2d 179, 180-81 (Ga. 1980) (applying the Sixth Amendment to vicinage within Georgia); Hayes v. Commonwealth, 698 S.W.2d 827, 830 (Ky. 1985) (constru......