This is a case in which a death sentence has been imposed. The appellant, Curtis Osborne, was convicted by a Spalding County jury of the murder of Arthur Lee Jones and Linda Lisa Seaborne. The two victims were found in an automobile by the side of a dirt road. Both had been shot through the head. After investigation, Osborne was arrested, and eventually admitted shooting the victims, claiming that Jones had reached toward the floor for a weapon. However, the crime scene evidence, including powder burns and blood spatters, showed *215 that Jones had been sitting upright when he was shot by a gun whose muzzle was only an inch from his skull.
Although the murder weapon was not recovered, ballistics examination of the bullets showed that the murder weapon had been a Ruger single-action .357 revolver firing Winchester .357 magnum copper-wash, wad-cutter bullets. Bullets identical in brand and type to the murder bullets were found in Osboiyie’s home, and his parents admitted owning a .357 Ruger that was now missing.
The evidence supports the verdict.
Jackson v. Virginia,
1. It is well settled that death-penalty qualification of prospective jurors is not improper.
Blankenship v. State,
2. There was no abuse of discretion in the admission in evidence of allegedly cumulative, gruesome photographs of the deceased victims.
Hicks v. State,
3. The state exercised five of its allotted ten peremptory challenges to strike black prospective jurors. Two blacks served on the jury as selected. Osborne accused the prosecutor of discriminating racially in his exercise of peremptory challenges. See
Batson v. Kentucky,
The prosecutor explained the five peremptory challenges at issue here as follows:
The first juror was a diabetic who took medicine that made her drowsy. Osborne’s attorney had represented her in a real estate transaction. She was almost 80 years old and seemed forgetful and unable to understand somé of the questions.
Osborne’s attorney knew the second juror’s son and referred to him by his nickname.
The third juror was the only juror on the panel who knew Osborne. Moreover, the prosecutor had information that the juror’s brother had been convicted of burglary.
The fourth juror testified that she was totally disabled from a disease similar to carpal tunnel syndrome, but later *216 testified that her hobbies included embroidery and playing Nintendo. The prosecutor felt that these hobbies were inconsistent with a disease that causes numbness and pain in the hands. Moreover, the prosecutor contended she was hesitant in her answers to the death-penalty qualification questions, although he concedes this hesitation is not apparent from a reading of the transcript.
The final juror testified that he was opposed to the death penalty, although his antipathy was not sufficiently strong to disqualify him for cause. Also, he knew Osborne’s brother.
As we stated in
Hall v. State,
A reasonable suspicion about a prospective juror’s impartiality that falls short of justifying an excusal for cause might well justify the exercise of a peremptory strike.
For the most part, the prosecutor’s suspicions were reasonable. A prosecutor does not act unreasonably when he is concerned about personal or professional relationships between prospective jurors and the defendant or his attorney, see, e.g.,
Davis v. State,
supra,
A closer question presents itself concerning the exclusion of the fourth of the five jurors at issue here. See
Williams v. State,
A court charged with the duty of determining whether the prosecutor has rebutted a prima facie case may be less troubled by one relatively weak explanation for striking a black juror when all the remaining explanations are persuasive than where several of the prosecutor’s proffered justifications are questionable. Similarly, a weak prima facie case may be rebutted more readily than a strong one.
Taking into consideration the overall strength of the prosecutor’s explanations, the fact that the record does not demonstrate that similarly-situated white jurors were accepted by the state, and the fact that the defendant, the victim, and some of the state’s important witnesses were black “tend[s] to undercut any motive to exclude [blacks]
*217
from the jury,”
Hernandez v. New York,
_ U. S. - (111 SC 1859, 1872, 114 LE2d 395) (1991), the trial court was authorized to conclude that the prosecutor’s explanations were sufficiently race neutral to overcome Osborne’s accusation of racial discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges.
Hill v. State,
4. Osborne raises two issues concerning the state’s use at trial of his pretrial statements. First, he contends the initial
Miranda
warnings were deficient because the police omitted to tell Osborne that if he asked for an attorney “no questioning would take place outside the presence of counsel unless he initiated it himself.” (Quote is from appellant’s brief.) See
Edwards v. Arizona,
An examination of the record shows that while the police did not use the exact language urged as necessary by Osborne, he was clearly advised that he had a right to confer with an attorney, that he had a right not to be questioned in the absence of his attorney, and that he could exercise his rights at any time.
2
These warnings were sufficient. See
Duckworth v. Eagan,
Osborne also complains that when the sheriff interrogated Osborne the next day, he merely reminded him of his rights instead of restating them to Osborne. Further, after Osborne agreed in this interview to help the police search for the murder weapon, a deputy talked to Osborne during the ensuing search effort without re-advising him of his rights, or reminding him of them.
On the day of his arrest, Osborne was Mirandized three times. He signed a written waiver. These warnings and waiver had not grown “stale” by the next day when the sheriff reminded him of his rights and elicited from Osborne an acknowledgment of the latter’s understanding of his rights.
Moten v. State,
5. The jury found as a statutory aggravating circumstance that *218 the murder of Linda Lisa Seaborne was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of another capital felony, to wit: the murder of Arthur Lee Jones. OCGA § 17-10-30 (b) (2). The evidence supports this finding. OCGA § 17-10-35 (c) (2).
6. We do not find that the death sentence was imposed as the result of passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary factor. OCGA § 17-10-35 (c) (1). The similar cases listed in the Appendix support the imposition of a death sentence for the murder of Linda Lisa Seaborne, considering both the crime and the defendant. OCGA § 17-10-35 (c) (3).
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Benham, J., who concurs in the judgment only with respect to Division 3.
Appendix.
Hightower v. State,
Notes
The crime occurred on August 6,1990. The trial began on August 5,1991 and ended on August 19,1991. A motion for new trial was filed and denied at her hearing on December 14, 1992. The case was docketed in this court on January 5, 1993, and argued orally April 12, 1993.
Osborne was advised:
1. I have the right to remain silent. 2. Anything I say can be used against me in a court of law. 3.1 have a right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with me while I am being questioned. 4. If I cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent me before any questioning, if I wish. 5.1 can decide at any time to exercise these rights and not answer any questions or make any statements.