Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Gould v. State

Gould v. State

207 S.E.2d 519, 131 Ga. App. 811, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1566
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 23, 1974
Docket48942
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 207 S.E.2d 519 (Gould v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gould v. State, 207 S.E.2d 519, 131 Ga. App. 811, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1566 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

Stolz, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant of two counts of aggravated assault, one count of simple battery, and one count of criminal trespass. Consecutive six-year, twelve-month, and twelve-month sentences were imposed by the trial judge.

Prior to trial, the defendant filed a written challenge to the array of the grand jury, alleging the violation of his rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Georgia of 1945, Art. I, Sec. I, Pars. Ill, V and XXV (Code Ann. § 2-103, 2-105, 2-125) and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

A similar written challenge to the array of the petit or traverse jury was also filed. The basis of both challenges was that there had been a systematic, intentional and discriminatory exclusion of women, young adults between-the ages of 18 and 30, and Negroes from both jury lists.

1. The issues presented by this appeal are the same as those presented to this court in Estep v. State, 129 Ga. App. 909 (201 SE2d 809) and to the Supreme Court in White v. State, 230 Ga. 327 (196 SE2d 849), cert. den., 414 U. S. 886 (94 SC 222, 38 LE2d 134). This court, in deciding Estep, held that it was controlled by the binding precedent in White. Reference is made to those two opinions for recitation of fact and discussion of law which in many respects is identical to that which exists in the case before us. Where this case differs factually from White and Estep, the differences will be made apparent. Certain key similarities will also be noted.

In all three cases, there were admissions by the jury commissioners recognizing the following classes: (1) women, (2) men, (3) negroes, (4) whites, and (5) young adults between the ages of 18 and 30 years. Likewise, in all three cases the jury commissioners testified that proportionally (1) there were as many upright and *813 intelligent negroes as whites, women as men, and young adults between the ages of 18 and 30 years as persons over 30 years. Also, in each case the jury lists were culled from the voter registration list and from the tax digest. On neither list was there any indication of race or age. The only reference to sex was that which is inherent in the use of male and female names. "All citizens of this State, above the age of 21 years, being neither idiots, lunatics, nor insane, who have resided in the county for six months preceding the time of serving, and who are the most experienced, intelligent, and upright persons, are qualified, and liable to serve as grand jurors, unless exempted by law: Provided, however, that all elected public officers and officials, county commissioners, tax receivers, tax collectors, members of the county board of education, county school commissioners, ordinaries, and county treasurers shall be incompetent to serve as grand jurors during their respective terms of office.” Code Ann. § 59-201. We note that the age of 21 years is no longer applicable, but that the age of 18 years is. See Code Ann. § 74-104 (Ga. L. 1972, pp. 193, 194) and Code Ann. § 74-104.1 (Ga. L. 1972, pp. 193, 199; 1973, p. 590).

"[T]he board of jury commissioners shall compile and maintain and revise a jury list of intelligent and upright citizens of the county to serve as jurors. In composing such list the commissioners shall select a fairly representative cross-section of the intelligent and upright citizens of the county from the official registered voters’ list of the county as most recently revised by the county board of registrars or other county election officials. If at any time it appears to the jury commissioners that the jury list, so composed, is not a fairly representative cross-section of the intelligent and upright citizens of the county, they shall supplement such list by going out into the county and personally acquainting themselves with other citizens of the county, including intelligent and upright citizens of any significantly identifiable group in the county which may not be fairly representative thereon.

"After selecting the citizens to serve as jurors, the jury commissioners shall select from the jury list a sufficient number of the most experienced, intelligent *814 and upright citizens, not exceeding two-fifths of the whole number, to serve as grand jurors. The entire number first selected, including those afterwards selected as grand jurors, shall constitute the body of traverse jurors for the county, except as otherwise provided herein, and no new names shall be added until those names originally selected have been completely exhausted, except when a name which has already been drawn for the same term as a grand juror shall also be drawn as a traverse juror, such name shall be returned to the box and another drawn in its stead.” Code § 59-106 (as amended, Ga. L. 1973, pp. 484, 485). The following chart succinctly illustrates the evidence showing the actual percentages and number composition of the grand jury and the petit jury in question.

*815

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McGuire v. State
363 S.E.2d 850 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Cochran v. State
271 S.E.2d 864 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Barrow v. State
236 S.E.2d 257 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Young v. State
236 S.E.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Sanders v. State
230 S.E.2d 291 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1976)
State v. Gethers
227 S.E.2d 832 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Maddox v. State
213 S.E.2d 654 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975)
Payne v. State
210 S.E.2d 775 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
Garrett v. State
211 S.E.2d 584 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Gould v. State
209 S.E.2d 718 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 S.E.2d 519, 131 Ga. App. 811, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gould-v-state-gactapp-1974.