Rafe v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1856
• Docket Number: No. 12.,12.
• Parties: Rafe, (a slave,) plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

20 Ga. 60

Rafe, (a slave,) plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia.

No. 12.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

JUNE TERM, 1856.

Murder, in Liberty Superior Court. Tried before Judge Fleming, April Term, 1856.

The prisoner in this case challenged the array upon the following grounds—

1st. That said Jury has not been drawn from the apartment of the Jury Box marked No. 3, as prescribed by the Judiciary Act of 1799; the Justices of the Inferior Court for Liberty County having failed to select fit and proper persons to serve upon said Jury and furnish a list of such persons to the Clerk of this Court, and that the said Justices opened the Jury boxes of this Court and transposed, changed and altered the names in said boxes, not in the presence of the Judge and Clerk of this Court, and contrary to the Statute in such case made and provided.

2d. That the panel now put upon the prisoner, consists of but twenty-three of the original panel drawn, and is made up of talesmen summoned; the thirty-nine Jurors of the originalpanel in attendance not having been exhausted by challenge or otherwise.

3d. That the Jury now impanneled is not the Jury drawn at the last term of this Court to try all criminal causes at the present term of this Court.

4th. That the Jury now impanneled is chosen and selected contrary to the Laws of the State of Georgia regulating Jury trials at the time of the alleged commission of this offence.

5th. That the Jury, now impanneled, has not been summoned and impanneled in the manner contemplated by the Constitution of the State of Georgia, declaring " that trial by Jury as heretofore used in this State, shall remain inviolate."

Which challenge to the array the Court over-ruled and refused to allow, and defendant excepted.

Upon this exception the Judge certified that the Justices of the inferior Court, with the Sheriff and Clerk, on 1st Monday in June, 1854, from the Tax Receiver's books, selected the persons for Grand Jurors, and instead of sending them to the Superior Court, placed them immediately in the Jury boxes.

Charlton Sandiford, one of the Jurors, was sworn on the voir dire, and the Solicitor General proceeded to propound the four questions prescribed in the ninth sec. of the Act of 1856, regulating the mode of impanneling Jurors in criminal cases, and declaring who are qualified and liable, &c; to which questions Counsel for defendant objected; which objection being over-ruled, defendant excepted.

The Juror having qualified himself, the defendant demanded to have him put upon triors, which demand was refused by the Court, and prisoner excepted.

One of the Jurors, upon being asked the first question upon the voir dire, answered that he had formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, but that such opinion was not formed from having seen the crime committed or from having heard any part of the evidence delivered under oath. The State then put the Juror upon theprisoner, he having answered the other three questions. Prisoner objected, that he was not an impartial Juror and incompetent; whereupon, the Court examined the Juror touching the strength and permanency of his opinion, and among other questions, inquired of him if he thought he could return a verdict in accordance with the evidence as it might be delivered from the stand; and upon his answering in the affirmative, and that his opinion was not fixed and positive, pronounced the Juror to be competent, and over-ruled the objection; to which defendant excepted.

Jacob Thiess, on the part of the State testified: that he is the Sheriff of Liberty County; did not arrest prisoner; he was arrested in Savannah. Witness brought prisoner from Savannah on the 7th August, 1855. Met on the other side of Mount Hope Swamp, Mr. Orr, Lee, Lane and others. Directly after leaving Savannah, interrogated prisoner. This was some four or five days after body was found, and after Coroner's inquest. Asked prisoner if he had killed his master; prisoner said he did not; that it was a white man and two negroes. Witness replied, Rafe, you were seen with your master, and your master has been found murdered. Witness also said that the people of Liberty believed that he did it. Witness told him if he did do it he had better acknowledge it, but if he did not do it not to acknowledge it; that if he lied, it would be adding sin to sin; that the people of Liberty were so satisfied he did it they would hang him anyhow. Witness also said in the beginning, Rafe, that won't do. Witness also told Rafe that there were witnesses here who would prove that he did it.

Commenced conversation about one mile from Savannah. Mr. Quarterman asked prisoner several questions. Witness then asked him what made him kill his master. Prisoner said the devil had got into him. Witness asked prisoner how he did it. Prisoner said his master allowed him to carry a stick, to carry carpet bag on his shoulder; that he was walking on the left side of his master. Witness asked how he struck his master. Prisoner said he held the stick in bothhands and knocked him off the horse; that his master groaned, but said nothing. Witness asked him how his master\'s hand was cut. Prisoner said he jerked the knife out of his hand—could not explain how he jerked the knife out of his master\'s hand, and he being on the left side; prisoner said he struck his master on the neck. Witness asked the prisoner if he would know the spot where his master was killed when we got there. Witness did not know the spot himself. When we were near the spot we stopped—prisoner said a little further on ahead. That spot is in the County of Liberty and State of Georgia. Place was a little further on, as prisoner stated. Witness told prisoner he was bringing him to Hinesville to put him in jail; that they would meet his master, on the road; that he was in his custody, and that no one should hurt him; told him this when he stated he should meet his master. Prisoner seemed afraid. Didn\'t think it was before he confessed that he told him no one should trouble him; it was in the early part of the day. Said nothing to prisoner about the overseer, or that we were going to the overseer. Prisoner expressed some fears that he would be whipped— told prisoner no one dared to molest or trouble him while he was in custody of witness; may have been before or after confession, but think it was after. Witness had made up his mind before leaving home to get all he could out of prisoner as to facts. Witness believed at the time it would be illegal testimony, or would not have asked questions. Did not think it would be right to ask prisoner to confess and then come into court and repeat it. Prisoner did not tell at the time who took his hand-cuffs off. Prisoner has confessed and denied several times since to me and others. Witness meant, when he said he would get the facts from the prisoner, that he would question him. When witness put the questions, he was not under the impression that he was using threats or promises.

To the admission of which testimony Counsel for defendant objected, on the ground that the confessions of prisoner were induced by threats and promises, and were not free and vol-untary, which objection was over-ruled, and Counsel for defendant excepted.

On these exceptions error is assigned.

Miller & Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

Sol. Gen. Hartridge, for the State.

By the Court.— McDonald, J., delivering the opinion.

After the issue had been formed between the State and the prisoner on the bill of indictment, when a panel of forty-eight Jurors were put upon him, he challenged the array on the grounds above stated. It appears by the certificate of the presiding Judge, that the Justices of the Inferior Court, together with the Clerk and Sheriff, on the 1st Monday in June, 1854, from the books of the Tax Receiver, selected persons deemed to be fit and proper persons to serve as Grand Jurors: that the lists containing the names were not sent to the Superior Court, but that the names were separated and put into the Jury-box, as Grand Jurors; that the names, not thus selected, were put into the box as Petit Jurors, and that the names of the Jurors were not entered into a book provided by the Clerk for that purpose, but that the very names that were selected as Grand and Petit Jurors, and which would have been put in the box by the Judge if they had been sent to him, were put in it. All the persons drawn as Petit Jurors at the preceding term of the court, were put upon the panel, with the exception only of those who were not in attendance, and, in all, there were thirty-eight—twenty-three of whom had been sworn on the panel at the opening of the Court—and fifteen, being present, were summoned as talesmen.

The Statutes for selecting Jurors, drawing and summoning them, form no part of a system to procure an impartial jury to parties. They establish a mode of distributing jury duties among persons in the respective counties, subjectto that kind of service, and of setting apart those of supposed higher qualifications for the most important branch of that service; they provide for rotation in Jury service; they prescribe the qualifications of Jurors, and the time and manner of summoning them, and are directory to those whose duty it is to select, draw and summon persons for Jurors.

By this means the Court is supplied with Juries to aid in the administration of the laws; every person subject to that kind of duty is called out, in turn, to perform it, and those called on have timely notice, so that they may arrange to perform a public duty at the least inconvenience to their private affairs.

At every Court of criminal jurisdiction, where the right of trial by Jury is allowed, there must be two Juries—a Grand Jury, whose duties are accusative, and who usually hear evidence to accuse only, and Petit Juries, who are to try the persons whom the Grand Jury accuse of crimes. The Statutes referred to secure the attendance of...