Goodwin v. HopperGoodwin v. Hopper
Lead Opinion
Tеrry Lee Goodwin was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. His conviction was affirmed by this court in Goodwin v. State,
_ 1. Thе first enumeration of error contends that the trial court improperly excluded potential jurors in violation of Witherspoon v. Illinois,
In Lockett v. Ohio, — U. S. — (98 SC 2954, 57 LE2d 973) (1978), the Supreme Court of the United States held that nothing in its opinion in Witherspoon "prevented the execution of the death sentence whеn the veniremen excluded for cause make it 'unmistakably clear . . . that their attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the defendant’s guilt.’ ” 98 SC at 2960. It is clear that these jurors were not qualified to serve in this capital felony case. This enumeration of error has no merit. Alderman v. State,
2. The second enumeration оf error contends that Goodwin was denied effective assistance of counsel at the trial. Goodwin contends that his former counsel failed: to
(a) Failure to challenge the arrays of the grand and traverse juries alone is not a ground of ineffective assistance of counsel or "cause” within the meaning of Code Ann. § 50-127 (1). See Francis v. Henderson,
(b) The trial transcript reflects that Goodwin came to the police station willingly, even though he was not under arrest. No evidence to the contrary was admitted during the habeas hearing.
(c) The issue as to whether or not proper Witherspoon objections were made is mooted by Division 1 of this opinion in which the Witherspoon issues are considered on their merits.
(d) After former counsel were appointed, the district attorney made his files available to them. They interviewed Goodwin at least five times and visited the scene of the crime twice. Goodwin’s version of the occurrence wаs consistent with the statement he had given to the police. They tried unsuccessfully to plea bargain with the district attorney. They interviewed state’s witnesses and Goodwin’s mother. They сonsidered the defense of insanity, but the psychiatric report proved to be unfavorable to a defense of insanity. They pursued a defense bottomed on the theory that Goodwin was too retarded to have been able to make a knowing and voluntary confession. In pursuit of that theory, they obtained the opinions of two experts, one of whom estimated Goodwin’s I.Q. to be 78, the other who estimated his I.Q. to be 58. They used the latter expert as a defense witness. They filed motions to quash the indictment and to suppress the confession. They considered a motion for change of venue but concluded
One of Goodwin’s former attorneys had represented two other defendants, one black and one white, in cases in which the state was seeking the death penalty, but neither of those cases resulted in imposition of the death penalty. This court does not detеrmine whether a defendant has been denied effective assistance of counsel based upon whether the defendant is convicted or receives the death sentence; rather, the issue is as to how the case was handled by counsel. Brown v. Ricketts,
The other grounds urged in this enumeration of error relate to trial strategy. Banks v. Glass,
This enumeration of error is without merit.
3. The third and seventh enumerations of error contend that the trial court erred in not inquiring into appellant’s mental competency and in allowing his сonfession in evidence. These issues previously have been decided adversely to Goodwin’s contentions. Goodwin v. State,
4. The fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth and tenth enumerations of error contend that the trial court erred in its charge on the sentencing phase of the trial and did not make known prior to trial evidence in aggravation.
The aggravating circumstances need not be set forth in the indictment. Dungee v. Hopper,
The charge given by the trial court during the sentencing phase was sufficient to meet the guidelines set forth in Spivey v. State,
Goodwin was found guilty of armed robbery and murder. The jury was charged that the punishment for murder or armed robbery was life imprisonment or death. The failure of the trial court to go further and to define capital felony was harmless error.
Appellant was indicted for both murder and armed robbery and therefore had actual notice of the aggravating circumstances used to impose the death penalty. Mitchell v. Hopper,
These enumerations of error are without merit.
5. The sixth enumeration of error contends that the habeas court erred in not finding that there was a systematic exclusion of blacks from the Walton County jury pool.
No timely сhallenge to the array was made. Accordingly, the challenge comes too late. Young v. State,
6. The eleventh enumeration of error contends that appellant was denied due process when the state, ex parte, transmitted a supplemental transcript of his testimony in аnother case. The supplemental record was ordered stricken from the record and returned to the trial court. It was not considered in ruling on appellant’s direct appeal. There is no merit in this enumeration of error.
7. The twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth enumerations of error contend that the habeas court erred in denying apрellant’s motions for alternative ways to obtain evidence, for the appointment of expert witnesses, and for a continuance.
These motions were directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. No abuse of this discretion has been shown. There is no merit in these enumerations of error. Nunnally v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
Four members of the court have now dissented to the execution of Terry Lee Goodwin. Ordinarily four votеs against death would be enough on this court. However, two Justices dissented when Goodwin’s case was here before,
In Spivey v. State,
In Spivey the court said (
Lockett v. Ohio, — U. S. — (98 SC 2954, 57 LE2d 973) (1978), requires that the judge clearly instruct the jury about mitigating circumstances and the option to recommend against death. See Chenault v. Stynchcombe, 581 F2d 444, 448 (5th Cir. 1978). Here the judge did not
I am authorized to state that Justice Marshall joins in this dissent.