Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 20 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 25040,25040 |
| Citation | 167 S.E.2d 158,225 Ga. 167 |
| Parties | Curtis ROBINSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Bobby L. Hill, E. H. Gadsden, Savannah, for appellant.
Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Sol. Gen., Savannah, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., William R. Childers, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is a burglary case in which constitutional questions have been raised, thereby giving this court jurisdiction. The defendant was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced, having filed a plea in abatement before trial. Thereafter a motion for new trial, as later amended, was filed, heard and overruled. The appeal seeks a review of this final judgment with the complaints in the plea incorporated in the amended motion for new trial. Held:
1. Georgia Laws 1967, p. 251, amends the jury selection statute (Code Ann. § 59-106) by substituting a new selection of names for jury service from 'a fairly representative cross-section of the intelligent and upright citizens of the county from the official registered voters' list which was used in the last preceding general election,' and if at any time it appears to the jury commissioners that the jury list so comprised is not a fairly representative cross-section of the intelligent and upright citizens of the county they shall supplement the list by personally acquainting themslves with other citizens of the county, including intelligent and upright citizens of any significant identifiable group of citizens which may not be fairly representative on the jury list. This law is attacked as being vague, indefinite and uncertain in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment and the 13th Amendment of the Federal Constitution in that it readily leads to exclusion or token exclusion of Negroes and women in derogation of their constitutional rights. The statute is not subject to the attack made since the purpose in its adoption was to secure a more representative cross-section of the intelligent and upright citizens of the county, including significantly identifiable groups of citizens therein. It is neither vague, indefinite nor uncertain and cannot be said to be devoid of standards. In fact, it clearly leads to the inclusion of all elements of the community, including Negroes and women, and cannot be said to exclude either. See Woods v. State, 222 Ga. 321, 149 S.E.2d 674, and cases cited therein.
2. Georgia Laws 1967, p. 725 (Code Ann. § 59-112) is not unconstitutional or violative of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution as not drawing juries from the community at large by excluding therefrom arbitrarily and without reason certain classes of citizens of high intelligence and mentality, certain classes of persons such as police and law enforcement officers, court personnel and lawyers, municipal firemen, medical and dental men and pharmacists in the active practice of their profession, and persons over 65 years of age. This statute makes the above persons exempt from jury duty but does not arbitrarily exclude them from service since they may serve, or be considered for service, if they request in writing to be allowed to be chosen. Mere automatic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. State, 26152
...appeal. Licett v. State, 23 Ga. 57(1); Evans v. State, 33 Ga. 4(2); Edwards v. State, 224 Ga. 684(1), 164 S.E.2d 120; Robinson v. State, 225 Ga. 167, 169(6), 167 S.E.2d 158. The objection interposed by counsel for the accused to certain questions propounded to some of the jurors on their vo......
-
Burns v. State
...for our consideration. Judgment reversed. BELL, P.J., and DEEN, J., concur. 1 Its constitutionality was declared in Robinson v. State, 225 Ga. 167(1), 167 S.E.2d 158, where the Supreme Court asserted that 'it clearly leads to the inclusion of all elements of the community, including Negroes......
-
Morris v. State
...violation of the Georgia Constitution. This complaint is not valid. See Manor v. State, 223 Ga. 594(1), 157 S.E.2d 431; Robinson v. State, 225 Ga. 167(2), 167 S.E.2d 158; Simmons v. State, 226 Ga. 110, 112(3), 172 S.E.2d 680. Nothing in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, ......
-
Brown v. Clower
... ... State, 90 Ga. 326, 329, 17 S.E. 96, 35 Am.St.Rep. 206; Central of Ga. R. Co. v. State of Ga., 104 Ga. 831, 845, 31 S.E. 531, 42 L.R.A. 518.' Nelson v ... ...