Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 05 February 1970
• Docket Number: No. 25584,25584
• Citation: 226 Ga. 140,173 S.E.2d 182
• Parties: Johnnie B. WILLIAMS v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 182

173 S.E.2d 182

226 Ga. 140

Johnnie B. WILLIAMS v. The STATE.

No. 25584.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 5, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1970.

Howard Moore, Jr., Peter E. Rindskopf, Atlanta, for appellant.

J. Lane Johnston, Dist. Atty., Statesboro, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dorothy T. Beasley, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

UNDERCOFLER, Justice.

This is the third appearance of this case in this court. After his conviction of rape and the imposition of the death sentence, the appellant filed his appeal in this court and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Williams v. State, 223 Ga. 773, 158 S.E.2d 373. Subsequently, in a habeas corpus proceeding appealed to this court the appellant complained of the exclusion of trial jurors who stated that they were opposed to capital punishment (Code § 59-806(4)). In view of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776, we remanded the appellant to the trial court for a new trial on the question of sentence only. Williams v. Smith, 224 Ga. 800, 164 S.E.2d 798. Thereafter, the appellant was tried before a judge and a jury for the purpose of determining his sentence only. The jury returned a verdict and again imposed the death sentence. The verdict was made the judgment of the court and, after denial of a motion for new trial, he appeals to this court. Held:

1. The appellant contends that the court erroneously charged the jury on the law of alibi and that such charge violated his rights to due process and equal protection of the laws under the Constitutions of the State of Georgia (Article I, Section I, Paragraphs II and III, Code §§ 2-102, 2-103) and of the United States (Fourteenth Amendment, Code § 1-815).

The trial which we are now reviewing did not involve the issue of guilt or innocence. The appellant's guilt had been determined previously by a former jury. See Williams v. State, 223 Ga. 773, 158 S.E.2d 373, supra. The only issue which the jury in this trial had before it, as clearly charged by the trial court, was whether or not his alibi, considered with the other evidence introduced, would mitigate his sentence. The charge on alibi correctly stated the Georgia law and considering the charge as a whole does not require a reversal of the judgment. Young v. State, 225 Ga. 255(3), 167 S.E.2d 586; Chaffin v. State, 225 Ga. 602, 170 S.E.2d 426.

There is no merit in this contention of the appellant.

2. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial because the court charged the jury that the question of fixing punishment was entirely for its consideration without setting forth any standards to govern the jury in making its determination of the sentence. Thus it gave the jury unfettered, arbitrary and lawless discretion in violation of the appellant's rights to due process and equal protection of the laws under the Constitutions of the State of Georgia (Article I, Section I, Paragraphs II and III, Code §§ 2-102, 2-103) and of the United States (Fourteenth Amendment, Code § 1-815).

The charge by the court was based upon Code Ann. § 26-1302 (effective at the time of the guilty verdict, but now repealed. See Code Ann. § 26-2001 for new section). In Sims v. Balkcom, 220 Ga. 7, 12, 136 S.E.2d 766, 770, this court held the statute fixing the punishment for rape was constitutional as against the attack that it furnished no standards to govern the jury in making its determination of the sentence. In the Sims case we held: 'Lawyers experienced in court procedures know that often where guilt is proven mitigating circumstances call for lessening the punishment, and the jury who hears the evidence can better than anyone else properly weigh such matters.' The constitutionality of a similar statute fixing the punishment for murder was challenged on the same basis in Chatterton v. Dutton, 223 Ga. 243, 154 S.E.2d 213, cert. den. 389 U.S. 914, 88 S.Ct. 247, 19 L.Ed.2d 266. See also Massey v. Smith, 224 Ga. 721(4), 164 S.E.2d 786. It follows that the charge of the court based on Code Ann. § 26-1302 is not subject to this attack.

3. The appellant contends 'that the sentence of the court fixing the punishment of the appellant at death is illegal and unconstitutional, on the grounds that said sentence violates the Eighth Amendment, United States Constitution (Code § 1-808) applicable to the State of Georgia through the Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution (Code § 1-815), in that there were no standards to guide the judge and jury, there were no adequate procedures of the State of Georgia to determine in what instances a death penalty is justifiable, and that the imposition of the death penalty inflicts the loss of life without commensurate justification in violation of appellant's right to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution (Code § 1-815).'

The appellant argues that the decisions of this court in Sims v. Balkcom, 220 Ga. 7(2), 136 S.E.2d 766, supra, and Massey v. State, 220 Ga. 883(2), 142 S.E.2d 832 which hold that the death sentence for rape does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution should not be followed because community standards have changed. We do not agree with this contention. So long as the legislature provides the death penalty for forcible rape, this court will uphold it. Sims v. Balkcom, supra; Massey v. State, 222 Ga. 143(2), 149 S.E.2d 118; Massey v. Smith, 224 Ga. 721(4), 164 S.E.2d 786, supra; Abrams v. State, 223 Ga. 216(11), 154 S.E.2d 443; Manor v. State, 223 Ga. 594(18), 157 S.E.2d 431.

There is no merit in this contention of the appellant.

4. The appellant contends that his death sentence is illegal and unconstitutional in that Negroes receive the death penalty in such disproportionate numbers in relation to whites as to be explicable only by the race of the defendants, including appellant, in violation of his rights to due process and equal protection under the provisions of the Constitutions of the State of Georgia (Article I, Section I, Paragraphs II and III, Code §§ 2-102, 2-103) and of the United States (Fourteenth Amendment, Code § 1-815).

'The fact that the death sentence for rape has been imposed upon fewer white men than Negroes in past years does not show a denial of due process or equal protection of the laws under the United States Constitution.' Massey v. Smith, 224 Ga. 721(4), 164 S.E.2d 786, 790, supra; Sims v. State, 221 Ga. 190, 195, 144 S.E.2d 103, rev. on other grounds, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593, conformed to 223 Ga. 126, 153 S.E.2d 567, appeal after remand 223 Ga. 465, 156 S.E.2d 65, rev. on other grounds, 389 U.S. 404, 88 S.Ct. 523, 19 L.Ed.2d 634, conformed to 224 Ga. 36, 159 S.E.2d 290.

It follows that this contention is without merit.

5. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing in evidence on the issue of punishment the entire facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime including the introduction of certain items o the victim's of certain items of the victim's erred in overruling his motions to limit the evidence so as 'not to go back into the details of the crime except to the extent that the State feels it must in order to show severity or degree of culpability' and thus exposed him to matters irrelevant to the issue. He contends that the evidence should have been limited strictly to matters outside the scope of guilt or innocence. He further contends that such evidence was prejudicial and in violation of his rights of due process and equal protection of the laws and of his right to be free from double jeopardy as guaranteed by the provisions of the Constitutions of the State of Georgia (Article I, Section I, paragraphs III, VIII, and XV (sic), Code §§ 2-103, 2-108, 2-115 (sic)) and the United States (Fifth and...