Opinion ID: 1383807
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The indictment was valid.

Text: 48. OCGA § 16-5-1, the murder statute, and § 17-10-30, which authorizes a death sentence for murder, are not unconstitutional. 49. Because Speed failed to prove purposeful racial discrimination in the state's intent to seek the death penalty in his case, the trial court did not err by denying his motion to preclude the state from seeking the death penalty. [63] 50. Speed's equal protection claim regarding the race and gender of the Fulton County grand jury foreperson is without merit. The record shows that the Fulton County grand jury elects its foreperson without input or assistance from the state. [64] 51. The trial court did not err in its rulings on Speed's discovery motions. 52. The trial court did not err by granting the state's motion in limine, which prevented Speed from referring to unrelated homicides without first showing that these homicides were relevant to Speed's case. 53. Speed complains that Brady v. Maryland [65] was violated because the trial court permitted the state to withhold favorable evidence during discovery. More than a year after Officer Johantgen's murder, several Atlanta area police officers, including two officers who worked in the same zone as Officer Johantgen, were arrested for committing crimes such as burglary and armed robbery. [66] Speed sought the personnel and investigative files of these officers, speculating that Officer Johantgen may have been involved in the crime ring and therefore may not have been acting in the performance of his official duties when he was murdered. Speed, however, fails to show that there was any link between the information sought and the circumstances of Officer Johantgen's murder or that the state withheld any exculpatory or favorable evidence. [67] We therefore conclude that this enumeration is without merit.