*1 7, 1991. Decided November Watson, Chambless, Watson, G. Spence, Lowe & Stuart Dawn Benson, G. Stone,
William S. for
S91P0607. JONES v. THE STATE. Johnnie Dee Jones was convicted of murder stabbing the of Randall Garvin Reeves. He was sentenced death.1 (a)
1. claims error the trial cоurt’s failure motion for a excessive publicity. In we affirmed the trial court’s denial for the motion held:
Both this court and the the United States syndrome” have considered “small-town before. A public attention, serious hardly any prospec- case draws and impression tive opinion will have formed some or about proper pro- the cáse. test whether spective juror lay “can impression aside his or and rendеr presented a verdict based on evidence in court.” at [Cits.] [Id. 443.] however, Examining case, that, this we conclude Berryhill,
under trial court should the motion for Hence, aside, of venue.2 the conviction sentence is set 28, 1988, July July 29, The homicide occurred on murder on and Jones was indicted for 1990, 1, July He 1988. was found on malice murder on and was sentenced the same 31, 1990, July July date. His motion for new trial was on amended on filed 21, appеal appeal denied on 1990. A on 1991. December notice The filed February 1, 1991, argued April was docketed on on 1991. 2 Berryhill, supra, we found: The record in number, case shows that were examined. Of this jurors prejudicе guilt were excused inno- or a fixed persons opinions expressly they cence. Nineteen had but stated that could lay any opinion solely aside and render a verdict This low based evidence. pеrcentage venirepersons 8%) prejudice strongly cor- expressions impartiality by jurors roborates the the other who were not excused prejudice. 444.] dire, examined 138 excused 30 for voir percent) qualified Thirty-eight impaneled. Of of the 42 were impaneled jurors prior case; knowledge guilt; had of the 12 had formed for a new trial.
the case is remanded BerryhiU and our earlier cases approach followed is, believe, too venue in death concerning change of laborious, yielded and often have Our have been restrictive. history to be distinctions without differences. might appear agonies of retrials. “Alday murders” *2 need a better and a surer rule. We
(b)
standard.4 Trial courts will
Accordingly, we announce a new
in
in
penalty
death
those cases
change
a
of venue for
order
showing of the likelihood
a defendant can make a substantivе
publicity.5
of error are without merit.6
3. Other claims
punishment;
heard
and 26 had
discussions within
seven had formed an
community.
argue
differing compar-
acknowledge
might
the existence of other variables that
a
intentions,
However,
crediting
the best of
we note that
ison.
this case demonstrates
of the venire than was reflected
each
with
substantially
pervasive prior knowledge
part
higher
more
BerryhiU.
in
Alday family
murdering five members of the
in 1973.
three men were tried for
court,
corpus
granted by
relief
The convictions were affirmed
but habeas
was
pre-trial publicity.
change
See Coleman
federal court in 1985 and a
v
because of
(226
911)
(226
922)
.
Hunt,
majority opinion
dissent from Divisions 1
and from
judgment
of reversal.
least
At
since the United States
issued its
could be in Lincoln Without reference to the correctness, only Berryhill sumрtion cites support its reversal. Its analysis pointing is contained out ap- footnote proximately eight percent were venire 22 percent while this case almost were excused. upheld trial сourt’s denial of a *3 many death-penalty since which the ex- resulting pretrial equaled
cusáis for cause from or exceeded (2) (362 v. percentages here. Crawford (approximately percent prejudice); 30 Childs v. (2) (1987) v. prejudice); Curry percent 24 255 215 (2g) Ga. 762) (1985) (22.1 v. excused); Blanks percent (1) (330 (1985) excused); percent v. excused); Castell supra, percent 234) (1983) (22 excused). percent supra, the United States stated:
There аre statutory presumption to questions . . . correctness to trial court’s resolution juror partiality]. First, the has been made determination [of voir dire only proceeding designed after an often extended specifically identify to biased veniremen. It is to assume warnings. not receive additional was no error. See Mainor There 259 Ga. 882) Newberry 813) (1990). (d) The evidence was sufficient to enable a trier of to find Jones ratiоnal fact Virginia, beyond reasonable doubt. Jackson the offense of murder 443 U. S. [cit.], beginning, since the relied on the method is essen- Second, determination bias. usually identifies of de- largely one therefore credibility, and tially one questions of such resolution trial court’s . . . meanor. [T]he U. S. at 467 “special . . . deference.” entitled (footnotes omitted).] why determination of explain does not majority agree I cannоt “special deference.” is not entitled in this case in the manifest error examination the voir dire Lincoln obtain a fair that Jones could conclusion trial court’s ” of retrials” re “agonies and the ‘Alday murdеrs’ 2. The “noted its result. As noted justify by do ferred to Alday defend murder habeas relief to opinions granting federal because prejudice standard” ants, applied “presumed the authors pretrial publicity so showеd an inundation the record Appeals over 46 Court of Eleventh Circuit pervasive that it took the 1487, 1491- 778 F2d it. See pages to summarize 1986). simply here. This comparable occurred Nothing prejudice stan presumеd “rare” cases which is not one of those (“As supra, applicable. See dard is “rarely” ap standard is ‘presumed prejudice ”) plicable.’ that reversal is not foregoing is sufficient demonstrate then, Rеversal, can cases or federal
warranted our change new standard for application of a result from the (and I necessary or desirable if new rule is venue to this trial. Even either), ambush the unsus- we should not persuaded that it is state and correctly on considerable relied pecting trial court which Ap- Instead, the Unified simply amend precedent. we could federal by law to Procedure, are authоrized peal apply prospectively, as we do. majority will Finally, adopted I doubt the new standard more sus- labor, application will be question whether its
save present than our with differences cеptible yielding distinctions *4 of venue those requires changes rules.7 The new standard showing “in make a substantive penalty which a defendant can en courts are unless trial rule will create even more laborious Thе new course, Then, changes liberally. is less couraged by our involvement it to personal viewpoint. who have There are those ened. Whether is desirable a matter circuits, be tried long to “disinterested” аdvocated the removal of county crime lawyers, in which the judges, with the who have no association majority’s and, perhaps, underlies have much to commend it occurred. This idea step along pаth. rule as a endorsement of the new of the likelihood of publicity.” How showing? much of is a showing “substantive” is a What “likelihood” (For prejudice? enough? How much example, what if shows strong prejudice? defendant likelihоod of minimal ifWhat he strong prejudice?) shows a minimal How much is “extensive?” of this is explained majority opinion, None seems it obvious to me that no one will know majority’s “standard” means until As Attorney it General argued:
If attеmpting the court is potential to avoid future reversals standard, new, new creating a amorphous then “rule” unwittingly invites more errors its lack of definition and precision.
I5. do not 'agree that this case should be rеversed under our sent standards I concerning changes persuaded of venue. I of a new rule. with the disagree adopt. new rule we would affirm the denial of Jones’ motion for
I am authorized to Presiding state that Justiсe Smith and Justice join in Bell this dissent. — September
Decided Reconsideration denied November Plunkett, Jimmy Wills, D. John P. Sanders, Bowers, C. Attorney,
Dennis District Michael J. Attor- ney General, Benjamin C. A. Woolf,
S91A1221. v. THE AMAN STATE. Peter Paul Aman was OCGA 16-12- convicted violation of § (b) (8), provides: any It is unlawful for person possess knowingly control any sexually depicts material which a minor engaged explicit conduct. holding Stanley Aman contends v. Geor- that under the
gia, 394 U. S. he is not law- LE2d fully subject prosecution possession of such materials own home.