*1 (as scope OCGA 31- within the appellant argues), falls negligence summary in favor correctly granted judgment 20-5, and trial Shessel, Nelson, supra. appellee. J., Banke, J., Birdsong, C. and P. Judgment affirmed. 1986. Decided October Smith, Daniel, Karen Leslie Tom W. for Dodson, Carr G. ADAMS v. THE STATE.
73244. Judge. Presiding Deen, Adams, of burglary, Leon was convicted appellant, William years’ imprisonment. appeal, he which he was to six sentenced verdict; support that evidence was insufficient contends failing jurors excuse for cause two the trial court erred that officers; impermis- that blacks were were married law enforcement jurors; of traverse sibly under-represented impermissi- impeachment court’s instruction witnesses was bly burden-shifting. 12, 1986, police City
1. On officers for the of Thomas- January School, Area Technical where dispatched ville were to the Thomas parked had been activated. Adams’ automobile silent alarm win- among Noticing building’s one of the school some school buses. out, the school one officer and the director of dows had been broken desk had been ran- building entered the and found that the director’s sacked; floor; a television had been moved but left on office heavily having vending damaged, machines had been Meanwhile, up forcibly opened. another officer drove been away running where he noticed Adams building, south side officer, however, he stopped from the school. When Adams saw this officer, claiming someone had stolen running approached the report rimning adjacent motel to his car and been regarded suspect placed The officer Adams as a it. nevertheless quarters, over dimes and patrol Subsequently, $7 him his car. nickels, keys, his found in Adams’ shoes and along with car A machine that of the print vending left on one matched socks. shoe Also, cell holding while he was in a shoes worn Adams at the time. County Jail, prisoner Adams stated another at the Thomas into Thomas Tech. had broken to authorize rational trier
We find this evidence sufficient doubt of bur- appellant beyond reasonable guilty fact find the Virginia, 443 U. S. SC Jackson v. glary charged. LE2d selection, the trial court declined strike During jury and the wife of a Geor-
cause the wife of Thomasville’s chief of qualified during gia jurors State officer. Both were otherwise Patrol *2 a dire. court held that the mere fact that previously voir This has prospective is a law officer does not sub- juror related to enforcement State, App. Edwards v. 161 Ga. ject juror challenge to cause. (289 282) (1982). indi- qualified juror 18 SE2d “Where an otherwise evidence, fairly party cates that he and will the the can evaluate by wishes to eliminate him must do so means of the peremptory (283 873) 409, (1981). State, Ga. 411 The strike.” Foster v. 248 SE2d refusing did not abuse its discretion in to strike these jurors for cause.
3. The appellant’s challenge array jury to of was panel the the properly denied because never challenge writing the reduced to required by State, OCGA App. 15-12-162. Smith v. 151 Ga. 699 § (261 439) (1979). any event, SE2d In only the record discloses that a percent disparity three percentage existed between the of blacks on jury percentage the traverse list and the in of blacks the eligible county population. particular The fact that the in jury this case a percentage contained lower blacks not especially sig of is nificant. is “There no constitutional guarantee grand that the or petit impanelled in juries, particular representative case will constitute the State, cross-section of 352, entire community.” Campbell v. Ga. 240 (240 828) (1977). 356 SE2d
4. The gave trial court the following impeach- instruction the “Now, ment of witnesses: Jury, ap- members of the when witnesses in pear case, they testify presumed are speak to the truth. And in I you witness, this connection im- though, may instruct that a be peached. is, proved be if in- you That untruthful or do decide. I you may struct that a witness be in impeached following the manner: by disproving testifies, by the facts to the proof which witness of gen- character, eral bad by proof that the has witness been convicted of a crime involving turpitude by proof moral contradictory of state- by ments made as to witness matters relevant to his or her testi- mony.” essentially This instruction language tracks the recommended Instructions, in the Suggested Jury Pattern we nothing find wrong with it. Judgment Beasley, JJ., Beasley, Benham and affirmed.
J., also specially. concurs Judge, concurring specially. Beasley, that, concur respect but believe more Division should 548 police chiefs wife. eligibility regarding
be said dire, merely it that she had been established During voir years city’s police twenty-five chief for had married to years. sought basis defendant to remove been chief for eleven ability cause, related her any questioning her without further when impartial juror. She had earlier remained silent serve as an anyone questions panel, of the whether statutory bias, opinion, any prejudice or or was not im- any formed harbored partial state and defendant. OCGA 15-12-164. between § jury exemp- in 1984 the law legislature regarding re-wrote Although greatly eligibility it broadened tions. OCGA 15-12-1. community serve, produce ju- so as to a truer cross-section (1) (330 808) ries, (1985), it Riley State, App. v. 174 Ga. SE2d did by the process Supreme the due concerns voiced Court diminish State, v. Georgia Hutcheson Ga. 13 SE2d State, King App. v. recognized We this Ga.
(1985), police required a full-time officer was be which held that case, challenged when for cause a criminal because excused impartiality arising employment per from the se. inherent doubt of agree type per se I would this same have apply spouse should not of a officer. More would questioning, impartiality. be elicited to cast a doubt on Al- further *3 regard- not 15-12-135 though expressly defendant did invoke OCGA § in the ing kinship “any party interested re- case,” sult law the constitutional do believe this or federal here. mandate violated
Decided October II, McGraw, T. Harry Jay Joseph Altman Attorney, E. Hardy, James District v. THE
72561. GEORGE STATE. (349 SE2d Presiding Judge. McMurray, aggra- rape for the
The defendant indicted offenses sodomy during vated the course of defendant’s defense “developed of the State’s witnesses whether counsel complainant. . . .” The trial court friendship something counsel, there’s breach of the warning that admonished defense “[i]f Later, law, minor, counsel start all over.” defense Shield however we’ll complainant “were again asked the same witness whether a mistrial and subse- close friends.” The trial court later declared