Strickland v. State, 26013
| Decision Date | 08 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 26013,26013 |
| Citation | 226 Ga. 750,177 S.E.2d 238 |
| Parties | Billy STRICKLAND v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where the voluntariness of a confession is questioned on the trial of a criminal case it is necessary under the decision in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, 1 A.L.R.3d 1205 (1964), to have a separate hearing as to its voluntariness before it is finally presented to the jury for consideration as to its voluntariness.
Sam Johnson, Ludowici, Albert E. Butler, Jesup, for appellant.
W. Glenn Thomas, Jr., Dist. Atty., Jesup, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, William R. Childers, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
The appellant, Billy Strickland, together with Truman Johnson, was indicted and convicted of the offense of armed robbery and each sentenced to serve five years in the State penitentiary. Thereafter the present notice of appeal was filed by the defendant Strickland.
1. The first enumeration of error complains that the co-indictees were tried together and not separately. No motion to sever was made in the trial court. Both defendants in the trial court were represented by the same counsel and while it may have been a better trial tactic to move for a severance which would have been granted under Code § 27-2101, it is too late after an adverse verdict to raise such issue for the first time. The trial court did not err in the absence of a timely request in failing to order a separate trial for the appellant.
2. The second enumeration of error complains that the trial court erred in sustaining an objection to a question asked a witness for the State on cross examination. The trial court in sustaining the State's objection expressly limited his ruling to the exact words used by counsel in phrasing the question asked, and did not preclude the defense from a thorough and sifting cross examination.
3. On the trial of the case, the defendant objected to the admission of a written confession of the co-indictee upon the ground that it was not freely and voluntarily made. In Clark v. Smith, 224 Ga. 766, 773, 164 S.E.2d 790, it was said: 'It was held in Pinto v. Pierce, 389 U.S. 31, 32, 88 S.Ct. 192, 19 L.E.2d 31 (1967), that the United States Supreme Court 'has never ruled that all voluntariness hearings must be held outside the presence of the jury, regardless of the circumstances. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, supra (1964) held that a defendant's constitutional rights are violated when his challenged confession is introduced without a determination by the trial judge of its voluntariness after an adequate hearing. " The objection made to the introduction of the confession was sufficient to invoke requirement that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parkhurst v. State
...S.Ct. 674, 62 L.Ed.2d 650; Slater v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 453; Longo v. State, 1946, 157 Fla. 668, 26 So.2d 818; Strickland v. State, 1970, 226 Ga. 750, 177 S.E.2d 238; City of Overland Park v. Sandy, 1978, 225 Kan. 102, 587 P.2d 883; People v. Arnold, 1968, 91 Ill.App.2d 282, 233 N.E.......
-
Watson v. State
...before it is finally presented to the jury for consideration as to its voluntariness.' (Emphasis supplied.) Strickland v. State, 226 Ga. 750, 177 S.E.2d 238. In the absence of a proper objection, however, there is no requirement for such a hearing. See Evans v. United States, 377 F.2d 535 (......
-
Smith v. State
...ruling invoked, there is no requirement for such a hearing. Pinto v. Pierce, 389 U.S. 31, 88 S.Ct. 192, 19 L.Ed.2d 31; Strickland v. State, 226 Ga. 750, 177 S.E.2d 238; Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698, 182 S.E.2d 446. Hilliard v. State,128 Ga.App. 157, 195 S.E.2d 772 is distinguishable in that......
-
Batts v. State, s. 31951
...that there be a reliable determination of voluntariness, judges in Georgia began making that determination. Strickland v. State, 226 Ga. 750, 177 S.E.2d 238 (1970); Cardell v. State, 119 Ga.App. 848(2), 168 S.E.2d 889 It might be expected that this additional requirement, when coupled with ......