Trull v. Smith

• Decision Date: 10 September 1970
• Docket Number: No. 25920,25920
• Citation: 226 Ga. 665,177 S.E.2d 73
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: George TRULL v. Lamont SMITH, Warden.

Page 73

177 S.E.2d 73

226 Ga. 665

George TRULL v.Lamont SMITH, Warden.

No. 25920.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 10, 1970.

Harold E. Ward, Sr., Dublin, for appellant.

Daniel Dubberly, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Glennville, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

FELTON, Justice.

1.In this habeas corpus proceeding the trial court did not err, as complained in enumerated error 1, in sustaining appellee's motion to strike those portions of the petition which alleged that Negroes had been systematically excluded from the grand and traverse juries, since the appellant white man makes no showing as to how he was harmed or prejudiced by the exclusion of Negroes.Neal v. Smith, 226 Ga. 96, 97(2), 172 S.E.2d 684 and cit.

2.The trial court did not err in failing to furnish to appellant's counsel a copy of the transcript of the record, there being no such requirement of the law.Law v. Smith, 226 Ga. 298, 300, 174 S.E.2d 893.Enumerated error 2 is without merit.

3.Enumerated error 3 contends that the use of the tax digest as the source of the jurors before whom appellant was tried was unconstitutional, as placing an 'economic factor' on those eligible for jury service by eliminating those who were so poor as not to be property owners and thereby allegedly depriving appellant of his right of trial by his peers.The requirement that jurors be selected from a tax digest is not unconstitutional on this ground.Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 310, 25 L,Ed. 664;Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 444(7), 474, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469.'Accordingly it follows that applicant cannot complain that persons of limited economic means were underrepresented on the juries because they were not on the tax rolls.Roach v. Mauldin, D.C., 277 F.Supp. 54;Id., 5th Cir., 391 F.2d 907.'Massey v. Smith, 224 Ga. 721(1), 164 S.E.2d 786.

4.The question of the appellant's conviction's being based on alleged perjured testimony, raised by enumerated error 4, is considered abandoned, since it has not been argued orally or by brief in this court.Beeks v. State, 225 Ga. 200, 202(4), 167 S.E.2d 156 and cit.

5.Where the undisputed evidence shows that appellant had authorized law officers to examine his automobile and given them his keys to it, the seizure of a bloodstained roadmap discovered inside the automobile did not result from an illegal search.Tolbert v. State, 224 Ga. 291, 292(2), 161 S.E.2d 279;Marsh v. State, 223 Ga. 590(1), 157 S.E.2d 273.Furthermore, even if the search and seizure was illegal, it was waived by appellant's allowing the evidence to be admitted in evidence without objection.Enumerated error 5 is without merit.

6.(a)The trial court did not err in refusing to set aside the conviction on the ground that appellant had not been advised of his right to counsel at the time of his arrest in November 1964, where there was evidence that he was fully advised of his constitutional rights and where he neither confessed nor otherwise admitted his complicity in the murder at such times as he was not represented by counsel.

(b) The right to counsel at a lineup, pronounced in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct....