*1 in All concur reversed. 1, JJ. All the Justices Gunter and except Division 2, Hall, J., who dissents concur in Division from reversal. judgment Division 20, 1975. Sweet, Mull, for aрpellant. Mull & Gale W. Myers, Moye, Allen Attorney, R. District Lewis K. Attorney Arthur Attorney, Assistant District F. Oakley, Deputy Lois General, for appellеe. stated dissent dissent for the same reasons 177. 234 Ga. an held that of counsel for right
This court has effective counsel. Pitts right aсcused includes Glass, v. Rutledge, McAuliffe 100). Under the mandate of this Sims, effective counsel is one who court in the most supra, It no longer fast and loose with the trial court. is plays that "A can not policy party during of this court take his chance injustice, whаt he thinks to be an ignore verdict, later.” Joyner favorable and complain on a Sims, tends supra, result contempt by held in justice system the criminal allow the public.
29828. LEACH v. THE STATE. Jordan, Justice. conviction a murder Franklin Leach appeals in the Fulton him aby rendered against 12, 1974. After conviction February Court on imprisonment. was sentenced to life appellant erred the trial сourt complains that Appellant counsel, waiver of into evidence admitting confession, and subsequent statements they freely and voluntarily given. Although there is some conflict in the record as to physical abuse we say cannot determination confessions and statements were voluntary "clearly erroneous.” See Johnson v. 58Ga. *2 629); (1972). and v. Lego 404 U. Twomey, S. 477
2. Appellant, who was indictеd felony murder, further contends that erred in judge charging jury on the felony murder rule as follows: "A person also commits the crime оf when, murder in the commission of a felony such is, as armed robbery he causes the death of another human being irrespeсtive of malice.” Appellant’s complaint it that was reversible error to so charge jury without further them charging as to thе elements of the felony. We have reviewed the entire and charge there was no explanation or chargе as to the elements of armed robbery. This constituted reversible error. State, v. Edwards Teal
3. We have carefully studied other enumerations error and find them to be without merit. reversed. All concur, Hill, J., who concurs in the judgment and Ingram and Hall, JJ., who dissent.
K. Reid Berglund, Jacques Partin, II, O. Public Defenders, for appellant.
Arthur K. Lois F. Oakley, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Lewis R. District Attorney, H. Allen Moye, Assistant Distriсt Attorney, for appellee. Justice, to dissenting Division 2 and the
judgment of reversal.
After the jury was excused from the courtroom to begin their deliberations, the able trial judge asked counsel for the defendant and the state if there any "exceptions, objections, omissions, corrections.” Counsel objections for the defendant made two but did not object to on the murder rule. In chargе felony opinion, on the part was a waiver defendant failing object to the See charge. my dissenting opinions and Gaither Ga. 465.
To me it is ludicrous to hold that an accused lay person personally can waive his fundamental con- stitutional rights self-incrimination not waive yet any objection to a even where he is represented by counsel.
The majority oрinion overlooks the doctrine of harmless error. There can be no reasonable contention that malicе not proven was the evidence in this case. The only issue involved here was whether defendant was the who person committed the homicide. The evidence was overwhelming this was an intentional killing involving malice and the probata cold, established the of the indictment. Under the allegata harsh facts of the I would treat isolated reference to murder felоny as harmless to the *3 defendant’s case.
I would have a if wholly different the opinion evidence showed some issue with to malice respect because, event, the Edwards case cited the by However, majority would be a controlling. substantial factual distinction bеtween this case and Edwards which can be readily discerned from Division of the Edwards opinion. question very The of malice was much in issue in that case. reversal,
Not I every error and dissent to the requires reversal of this murder conviction for a teсhnical but I nonprejudicial error. dissented Robinson 210), the court majority where a of a conviction for definition of upheld rape forcible a There, me, it seemed to the had to be statutory rape. jury I by confused and could not the errоr was agree argued harmless under that and all the issues transcript However, on if a of the court could find appeаl. majority harmless, the errors loss to there were am at a un- See, derstand why the error here was not harmless. Robinson at 129. I рp. dissent.
29871. BALKCOM v. McDANIEL. Nichols, Chief Justice. an appeal by
This is warden respondent from an order sustaining prisoner’s writ of corpus. habeas The petitioner to an pled guilty accusation for burglary Superior Barrow Court and to two accusations аuto theft in Forsyth Court. The prisoner contended there was no written waiver of indictment therefore the court did jurisdiction not hаve accept guilty pleas.
The waiver signed by petitioner Barrow read: "Waive formal arraignment, indictment, of copy list of witnesses, sworn before the Grand Jury agree strike from a panel of-Jurors and plead- guilty.” Forsyth County waiver read: "The dеfendant waives formal list arraignment, of witnesses and (jury trial) and pleads-guilty.”
The attorneys who represented the defendant these in answers to interrogatories propounded by both the defendant, state and state they fully explained the meaning his right indicted by a grand jury and to be by tried a jury.
1. The court writ, sustained the on relying Roberson Balkcom, 720) Ga. 603 and Nelms v. In Roberson this court had before it a of not plea guilty followed trial. In the present case we have a plea after guilty being fully apprised оf his rights and a waiver signed by defendant. Smith,
In Goodwin v. 661), this court quoted approvingly from Edwards v. States, United 707, 709:" 256 F2d 'It must be realized that *4 a case in whiсh proof of guilt depended upon trial. In such the accused usually relies to a great extent on conduct an defense, because the accused does not know enough law to do so him self. While the accused may to take the have consequen-