Ford v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. State

    773 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)   Cited 50 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a juror is biased as a matter of law if he unequivocally expresses an inability to consider five years probation as possible punishment for the lesser-included offense of murder in a capital-murder trial

    In addition, several state appellate courts have held that a Batson challenge must be made in a timely fashion or it is waived. Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807, 350 S.E.2d 816 (1986); People v. Holder, 153 Ill. App.3d 884, 106 Ill. Dec. 700, 506 N.E.2d 407 (1987); Weekly v. State, 496 N.E.2d 29 (Ind. 1986). We conclude that a Batson issue does not present fundamental error and a failure to raise it cannot be excused on that ground.

  2. Albright v. State

    354 Ga. App. 538 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 7 times
    Noting that "a movant's standing to challenge a search or seizure is a threshold issue that a court must address when ruling on the motion to suppress"

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ford v. State , 180 Ga. App. 807, 808 (2), 350 S.E.2d 816 (1986). 4.

  3. Harris v. State

    272 Ga. App. 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 6 times
    Sentencing judge authorized by statute to set conditions of probation

    The record does not reflect that appellant interposed on objection to the state's use of its strikes at trial. Therefore, any issue with respect to the state's use of its strikes has not been preserved for appeal. Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807, 808 ( 350 SE2d 816) (1986). 2.

  4. Nixon v. Rosenthal

    214 Ga. App. 446 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 6 times

    However, no motion or objection was raised before the trial court in connection with this issue which also must be deemed to have been waived. Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807 (2), 808 ( 350 S.E.2d 816). 2.

  5. Harrison v. State

    370 S.E.2d 7 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 3 times

    1. The evidence was sufficient, when viewed in a light favorable to the verdict, to convince any rational trier of fact as to defendant's guilt of the crime of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Wooten v. State, 229 Ga. 409 ( 191 S.E.2d 838) (1972); Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807 (1) ( 350 S.E.2d 816) (1986); Moore v. State, 151 Ga. App. 100 (1) ( 258 S.E.2d 915) (1979). 2.

  6. Lowe v. State

    365 S.E.2d 479 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 5 times

    The evidence was sufficient to meet the standard of proof required by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979). Accord Devane v. State, 183 Ga. App. 60 (1) ( 357 S.E.2d 819) (1987); Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807 (1) ( 350 S.E.2d 816) (1986); Davis v. State, 180 Ga. App. 190, 192 (3) ( 348 S.E.2d 730) (1986). 2.

  7. Evans v. State

    359 S.E.2d 174 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 37 times

    The court inquired of defendants if they empaneled was comprised of five black jurors, seven white jurors raised any specific objection in this regard, but counsel for Evans "noticed that four or five of these seven blacks that were stricken by the State were in fact young or fairly young black males" and contended "that they were summarily stricken because they were young black males." Assuming arguendo that a proper objection was made in this regard, see Mincey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 263 ( 349 S.E.2d 1) (1986); cf. Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807 (2) ( 350 S.E.2d 816) (1986), and also assuming arguendo that Evans made a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination in selection of the jury, we turn to the issue of whether the State has countered that showing with a neutral explanation for challenging the black veniremen in this case. To establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in selection of the petit jury solely on evidence concerning the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges at the defendant's trial, "the defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, [cit.], and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race.

  8. Powell v. State

    182 Ga. App. 123 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 9 times
    In Powell v. State, 182 Ga. App. 123, 124 (2), (355 S.E.2d 72) (1987), cert. denied, the Court of Appeals held that the fact that three blacks were on the jury of 12, was not determinative, and that "[t]he question is whether the state exercised any of its strikes for a racially discriminatory reason, for if it did, the rule of Batson was violated."

    Appellant was convicted on October 18, 1985; Batson was decided on April 30, 1986. 1. Appellant's challenge must be addressed because it was adequately although not properly raised, Mincey v. State 180 Ga. App. 263 ( 349 S.E.2d 1) (1986), cf. Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807 (2) ( 350 S.E.2d 816) (1986), and is not foreclosed by the doctrine of retroactivity. Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. ___ (106 SC 2878, 92 L.Ed.2d 199) (1986).

  9. State v. Holder

    155 Ariz. 83 (Ariz. 1987)   Cited 50 times
    In State v. Holder, 155 Ariz. 83, 745 P.2d 141, 143-144 (1987), the Court was confronted with a question similar to the one in the instant case.

    In addition, several state appellate courts have held that a Batson challenge must be made in a timely fashion or it is waived. Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807, 350 S.E.2d 816 (1986); People v. Holder, 153 Ill. App.3d 884, 106 Ill.Dec. 700, 506 N.E.2d 407 (1987); Weekly v. State, 496 N.E.2d 29 (Ind. 1986). We conclude that a Batson issue does not present fundamental error and a failure to raise it cannot be excused on that ground.