Franklin v. State

87 Citing cases

  1. State v. Towns

    307 Ga. 351 (Ga. 2019)   Cited 2 times
    Affirming dismissal of the indictment where two grand jurors were chosen in violation of the randomness requirement in OCGA § 15-12-66.1

    Likewise, we need not discuss the cases involving very different circumstances in which the Court has held no relief was warranted. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 293 Ga. 641, 642-643 (2), 748 S.E.2d 896 (2013) ; Walker v. Hagins, 290 Ga. 512, 515, 722 S.E.2d 725 (2012) ; Young v. State, 290 Ga. 392, 393-395 (2), 721 S.E.2d 855 (2012) ; Bryant v. State, 288 Ga. 876, 882 (6), 708 S.E.2d 362 (2011) ; Foster v. State, 288 Ga. 98, 101 (2) (b), 701 S.E.2d 189 (2010) ; Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63, 67 (2) (b), 694 S.E.2d 316 (2010) ; State v. Parlor, 281 Ga. 820, 820-821, 642 S.E.2d 54 (2007) ; Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 80 (7), 597 S.E.2d 332 (2004) ; Rhode v. State, 274 Ga. 377, 379 (2), 552 S.E.2d 855 (2001) (providing dictum); Presnell v. State, 274 Ga. 246, 248 (2), 551 S.E.2d 723 (2001) ; Hendrick v. State, 257 Ga. 17, 17-18 (2), 354 S.E.2d 433 (1987) ; Pope v. State, 256 Ga. 195, 197 (1) (c), 345 S.E.2d 831 (1986) ; Franklin v. State, 245 Ga. 141, 143-147 (1), 263 S.E.2d 666 (1980) ; Cobb v. State, 244 Ga. 344, 347-348 (2) (d), 260 S.E.2d 60 (1979) ; Burney v. State, 244 Ga. 33, 37-38 (3), 257 S.E.2d 543 (1979) ; McHan v. State, 232 Ga. 470, 471 (3), 207 S.E.2d 457 (1974) ; Haden v. State, 176 Ga. 304, 307, 168 S.E. 272 (1933) ; Hulsey v. State, 172 Ga. 797, 805-809, 159 S.E. 270 (1931) ; Turner v. State, 78 Ga. 174, passim (1886) (denying relief on one ground and providing dictum on another); Roby v. State, 74 Ga. 812, passim (1885); Stevenson v. State, 69 Ga. 68, 74 (1882) ; Rafe v. State, 20 Ga. 60, 64 (1856). We cannot quarrel with the proposition that every one of our prior cases might be factually distinguished from this case on some material ground, inasmuch as no case exactly like this one appears to have previously come before the Court.

  2. Ingram v. State

    253 Ga. 622 (Ga. 1984)   Cited 115 times
    Requiring defendant to strip to his waist and be photographed did not compel self-incrimination

    Regardless of which section applied, we find here no disregard of the substantive provisions of the law as would vitiate the array. Cf. Franklin v. State, 245 Ga. 141 (1) ( 263 S.E.2d 666) (1980). Moreover, the privilege of exemption belonged to the juror and does not provide defendant with grounds to object to her service on the grand jury.

  3. Pope v. State

    256 Ga. 195 (Ga. 1986)   Cited 147 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the statute that classifies the records of the Board of Pardons and Paroles must yield to a capital defendant's constitutional right to mitigating evidence

    We note that Pope has not shown that there were fewer than six members on the board when the jury list was last revised (and the board is not involved in the drawing of individual venires from the list) but, in any event, we "do not find here such disregard of the essential and substantial provisions of the statute as would vitiate the arrays." Franklin v. State, 245 Ga. 141, 147 (1) ( 263 S.E.2d 666) (1980). (d) Drawing the venire was not a "critical stage" of the proceedings requiring Pope's presence.

  4. Roberts v. State

    252 Ga. 227 (Ga. 1984)   Cited 62 times
    Holding no error where the court initially granted $500 for an investigator, and defendant made no subsequent request for additional funds

    Thus, we do not further consider the defendant's twelfth enumeration. We note, however, that identical charges have been approved by this court in other cases. See, e.g., Castell v. State, 250 Ga. 776 (10a) ( 301 S.E.2d 234) (1983); Hosch v. State, 246 Ga. 417 (5) ( 271 S.E.2d 817) (1980); Franklin v. State, 245 Ga. 141 (9) ( 263 S.E.2d 666) (1980). 10.

  5. Johnson v. State

    321 S.E.2d 402 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 8 times

    The purpose of making the defendant's record known to him is to allow counsel and the defendant to determine if there are any defects which would render these documents inadmissible during the presentencing phase of the trial. See Adams v. State, 142 Ga. App. 252, 254 (7) ( 235 S.E.2d 667); Herring v. State, 238 Ga. 288 ( 232 S.E.2d 826); Black v. State, 146 Ga. App. 226 ( 246 S.E.2d 133); Franklin v. State, 245 Ga. 141 ( 263 S.E.2d 666). This was done here. No objection was made at the sentencing phase of the trial nor has the defendant pointed out before this court in what way or manner any of the evidence used in aggravation was subject to objection.

  6. Ranger v. State

    249 Ga. 315 (Ga. 1982)   Cited 86 times
    Affirming felony murder conviction based on evidence infant victim survived twelve hours before dying as result of premature delivery caused by shooting of mother

    " Thus the jury could not have understood the complained-of charge to place any burden on the defendant. See Franklin v. State, 245 Ga. 141 (8) ( 263 S.E.2d 666), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 930 (1980). 6.

  7. Gilreath v. State

    247 Ga. 814 (Ga. 1981)   Cited 132 times
    In Gilreath v. State, 247 Ga. 814 (1) (279 S.E.2d 650) (1981), this court upheld the constitutionality of a warrantless search following the entry into a house in search of the victim, and resulting in the seizure of objects in plain view.

    Since they were accurate and correct representations of material fact, their probative value outweighed their prejudicial effect and the trial court did not err in admitting them. Franklin v. State, 245 Ga. 141 (3) ( 263 S.E.2d 666), cert. denied 447 U.S. 930 (1980). 12.

  8. Windsor v. State

    683 So. 2d 1013 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 6 times
    In Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1013, 1017 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993), reversed on other grounds, 683 So.2d 1021 (Ala. 1994), the appellant, who had been convicted of capital murder, argued that he had been denied his right to be present when the prospective jurors had been excused from jury service at his trial.

    ". . . . "In rejecting the attack upon the array in Franklin [ v. State, 245 Ga. 141, 263 S.E.2d 666 (1980)], we held: 'We do not find here such disregard of the essential and substantial provisions of the statute as would vitiate the arrays. . . . The case relied upon by Franklin involved the integrity of the jury selection process, not (as here) the incidental procedures.

  9. Young v. State

    290 Ga. 392 (Ga. 2012)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that defendant received adequate prior notice of which of his previous convictions would be used against him in sentencing him as a recidivist, even though defendant asserted that the paperwork concerning those convictions had some errors

    Although the record does not contain an affidavit for every excused juror, after a thorough review of the trial court's procedure, “we do not find ‘such disregard of the essential and substantial provisions of the statute as would vitiate the array( ).’ [Cit.]” Bryant v. State, 288 Ga. 876, 882(6), 708 S.E.2d 362 (2011). See also Hendrick v. State, 257 Ga. 17, 18(2), 354 S.E.2d 433 (1987); Franklin v. State, 245 Ga. 141, 147(1)(e), 263 S.E.2d 666 (1980), overruled on other grounds, Nash v. State, 271 Ga. 281, 519 S.E.2d 893 (1999). 3. Appellant contends that the convictions for eight of the alleged offenses were improper because the trial court effectively lowered the State's burden of proof by allowing the prosecutor to argue that he was guilty of these offenses as a party to the crime even though the indictment alleged that he was the actual perpetrator of these offenses.

  10. Bryant v. State

    288 Ga. 876 (Ga. 2011)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that "mitigating evidence that does not focus on the character, background, or offense of the particular defendant on trial is properly excluded"

    Although affidavits were not provided to potential jurors, before granting any excusal the trial court examined on the record individually and under oath those potential jurors who identified themselves as primary caregivers as defined in OCGA § 15-12-1 regarding their role as caregivers and their statutory right to be excused. While the trial court failed in some cases to inquire about what alternative childcare was available to the prospective juror, we do not find "such disregard of the essential and substantial provisions of the statute as would vitiate the array[]." Franklin v. State, 245 Ga. 141, 147 (1) (e) ( 263 SE2d 666) (1980), overruled on other grounds by Nash v. State, 271 Ga. 281, 281 ( 519 SE2d 893) (1999). 7. Bryant asserts that the State's use of peremptory strikes to excuse two African-American prospective jurors, Jurors Sparks and McIntosh, violated the principles established in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 ( 106 SC 1712, 90 LE2d 69) (1986).