*1 756 5,
Decided December 1989 20, denied December 1989. Jones, Payne, Byington, D. W. Morgan Byington, & W. William Jr., (case 46775). appellant no. III, (case Sparks, E. F. no.
John Sawhill William appellant 46853). Lanier, Cox, Attorney, Stephen F.
Stephen District Bowers, General, Leonora Attorney, District Michael J. Grant, (three cases). 46937,
46825, BECK 47020. ZANT v. (386 SE2d Weltner, court,1
After Eli Beck was sentenced to appeal a successful to this sentence,2 and certiorari for a second time. We affirmed the petition for a Supreme the United States Court was denied.3 corpus, upheld, writ of habeas the conviction was but the second death sentence was set aside. Both seek review. (a) trial, guilt phase As to the found trial,
that Beck was retarded at the time of the and that for voluntary want of intellectual his statements were not be- cause he not to remain knowingly intelligently right did waive However, guilt silent. was over- finding that the evidence of Beck’s statements was whelming, court held that the admission of the harmless. As to the consideration of the statements relief,
sentencing phase, compelled grant the court felt follows:
Therefore,
es-
applying the “harmless error” standard
Chapman
18,
California, 386 U. S.
poused
17 L. Ed. 2d
v, Zant,
in Smith
(1967),
705
applied
SC
as it was
[87
824]
705,
“impossible
F.
2d
to the facts of this
it is
beyond
ad-
improperly
conclude
a reasonable
that the
doubt
sentencing jury.”
mitted
not influence the
confession[s]
State,
(326
465) (1985).
Beck v.
9) (1986).
Beck v.
Georgia,
the habeas court is because the same issue has been adversely appeal.4 decided to Beck in his first (a) hearing held, Prior to the initial *2 at which defense counsel contended that Beck’s statements were made as a result of coercion law enforcement authorities. Addi- tionally, original suppress motion to recited that the statements intelligent counsel, were made Beck in the “absence of without an knowing and waiver of counsel. . . .”
(b) Beck now contends that the contention of intellectual deficiency prior appeals, that, was not addressed at trial or on and present reason, this his contentions are not successive.
(c) disagree. Clearly, put We the issue of voluntariness was in is- findings appeal. sue at and the trial court’s were affirmed on simply aspect Beck’s latter contentions are another of voluntariness. they prior rulings, such, As have been subsumed in and are succes- Hickman, sive. Gunter
Accordingly, portion vacated, that of the is sentence is reinstated. (a) Notwithstanding sentence, the reinstatement of the find-
ings capacity of the habeas court as to Beck’s intellectual serve gain following to him a measure of relief. That court made the observations:
Through affidavit, counsel for Petitioner has submitted evi-
mildly
dence of the fact that Petitioner is a
retarded individ-
having “significantly subaverage general
ual
intellectual and
adaptive functioning.”
.
Affidavit of Dr.
Kaufman. . .
June
impairment
Dr. Kaufman states further: “The level of
is
[mildly
such
individuals]
that
function inde-
cannot
pendently
community
impairment
great
is so
and the
population
higher
that 99% of the
. . .”
functions at a
level.
wording
Dr.
Mi-
Kaufman further concludes
of the
that “the
warning
randa
is of an
when Mr.
abstract nature such that
fully
warning
not,
likelihood,
Beck read such
[he]
a
in all
comprehend many
concepts
embodied
words and
therein.”
hearing,
See conducting
the trial
record establishes of error is that this and this enumeration was not without merit.” 339) (1989), we In of OCGA 17-7-131 reflects the existence
held that the enactment of re a within state the execution of consensus consensus, the Geor In of we held that persons. light tarded that prohibit of would gia prohibition punishments” “cruel and unusual person, prohibition that would the execution a retarded The long unchanged. proce remained continue so as the consensus relating claims post-conviction for the address of dure we established provided for remand to the habeas mental retardation presented sufficient petitioner whether the has credible determine evidence, expert diagnosis include at one mental which must least retardation, petitioner’s retar genuine create a issue finding, such would transferred to the dation. case then be jury for a issue mental retardation trial court determination of the vel non concerning in- findings of the habeas Beck’s initial inquiry, tellectual have resolved the as outlined directly to Fleming, supra. Accordingly, the case is remanded the trial court for a trial on the issue of mental retardation. sought peti- Beck contests the denial of the other relief contentions, corpus.
tion for habeas and find no reviewed *3 error.
Judgment reversed in Case No. 46825 and case remanded. All J., J., concur, Marshall, Smith, the except Justices who dis- Judgment sent. in Case All the Nos. and 47020. Jus- affirmed Justice, dissenting. Smith,
My my in case reasons are set forth in dissent to number detail S89A0241. Ga. 4, 1989 Decided December denied December Smith, Bowers, Attorney General, J.
Michael Paula K. General, appellant. for Fleming, supra, p. court 757. The date order of the antedated habeas months, prohibiting nine while the the statute execution persons Obviously, year in the had been effect for the date the order. almost before Fleming. procedure prescribed in habeas could not foreseen the remand public in commend the the consensus declared its concern that procedural swept lightly grounds. OCGA 17-7-131 should not be aside Gary Barnes, Shoemaker, A. M. Martin 46956. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF GWINNETT COUNTY et al. et JONES al. Hunt, damages:
This case raises issues the award is authorized under the facts of this whether the award is excessive, and whether under the constitutional equal protection, process fines, excessive and federal constitutions.1 due of our state clauses May severely O’Kelley 20, 1985,2 On William Harold was burned seventy percent body over from a fire caused a head-on colli- County. per- Emergency sion between his truck in and a car Gwinnett responding immediately sonnel to the accident called for a medivac helicopter O’Kelley Grady Hospital’s to evacuate unit. burn While Hos- supervisor site, still en route to the accident the of the Gwinnett pital Authority’s emergency unit, Services, rescue Metro Ambulance emergency Inc., countermanded the unanimous tech- Glancy patient brought nicians at the scene and the to Joan ordered Hospital, hospital authority’s though institutions, one of the even the pa- helicopter leaving approaching was was with the ambulance Glancy Hospital. helicopter tient. The was also diverted to Joan dispatch Police, The Gwinnett Chief of who was the officerat the specific accident, time of the related facts of other instances when an emergency patient hospital or to a was not taken to the nearest authority’s center, He trauma further testified that Metro’s reason more services to the but instead to one of the institutions. policy “provide was to county.” hospital emergency patient stabilized, At the room the in establishment of IV lines which the EMT had been unsuccessful starting pa- placement respiratory ambulance, of a tube complained about tient’s burned throat after he of shortness of breath morphine. reaching hospital, an hour after and administration *4 severity patient’s injuries, Due of survival to the chances damages appro question None of the before us raised priately Compare public authority opinion this issue. awarded and we no City 302) (1980) (a Myszka, municipal corporation Columbus v. 104) (1984) (a Binns, punitive damages); MARTA is not liable 252 Ga. self-insurer). rapid authority capacity as a transit is liable for in its directly appli Thus, legislative damage provisions are not the 1987 amendments to the 1987, p. cable. Ga. L.