Court Opinion

ID: 9851122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:07:36.202308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:49.016546
License: Public Domain

Felton, Justice,
dissenting in part. I dissent from the judgment and sentence and from the rulings in Divisions 1 and 8.
1. As to Division 1 of the majority opinion. The rule is as stated in Division 1 of the majority opinion, that jurors are *296disqualified for cause to serve when they unmistakably answer that their reservations toward capital punishment are such that they would never vote to impose the death penalty regardless of the facts in the case.
In this case the following question was asked the jurors: “Have you already decided that should you and your fellow jurors find the defendant guilty of the capital offense charged, would you vote to return a recommendation for mercy so as to avoid the imposition of a death penalty without regard to the facts and circumstances that might emerge during the course of this trial?” to which four jurors answered in the affirmative and were excused over the objection of defendant’s counsel that they could serve as jurors.
The Witherspoon case, supra, states the law as precisely as it can be stated. In the trial of a capital case the prosecution should question jurors in such a way that it will be absolutely clear that the jurors’ answers will unmistakably and without equivocation mean that they would never vote to impose the death penalty regardless of the facts of the case as to the guilt of the defendant. My view is that in this case the prosecution did not ask a question which would without doubt make it clear that the jurors’ qualifications could be ascertained by the question asked. In response to the question asked the answer could reasonably be construed to mean that the jurors would vote to recommend life imprisonment on preliminary ballots so as to endeavor to avoid the imposition of a death sentence but does not exclude the idea that they would vote for the death penalty on the final ballot if they did not succeed, alone or with other jurors, in avoiding the imposition of the death penalty. Legal rules are made for the innocent as well as the guilty and it behooves judges, who have no way of knowing what the truth is, to “hew to the line,” and not whittle away the safeguards provided by the law until they bear no resemblance to the safeguards originally intended. Obedience to conscience and principle does not mean softness in the administration of justice. It does mean uniform application of rules of law which guarantee fair and impartial trials to guilty and innocent alike, to rich and poor, to fortunate and unfor*297túnate, to all people charged with crime, with equal and impartial consideration. It is too easy to elicit the information required in the Witherspoon case, supra, by a simple proper question to run the risk of not doing so by substituting another question less likely to produce the desired result.
2. As to Division 8 of the majority opinion. The court in this case charged the jury as follows: “Now, I charge you further that this defendant is on trial for the particular offense charged in this bill of indictment and none other. Where knowledge, motive, intent, good or bad faith or other matters dependent upon a person’s state of mind are involved as a material element in a criminal offense with which a defendant is charged, evidence of the defendant’s conduct with reference to similar transactions about the same time is admissible for the consideration of the jury insofar only as they may tend to illustrate the state of the defendant’s mind on the subject involved.
“Whether or not they do so illustrate it is a question of fact for the jury. Any evidence with reference to other offenses of the defendant should be limited by the jury to consideration of the state of the defendant’s mind with reference to the subject involved in the case now on trial.”
This part of the charge was erroneously given for the reason that the only other crime shown to have been committed about the same time as the offense charged against the defendant in this case was robbery and it was not similar to the offense of rape. It was therefore improper to authorize the jury to consider the robbery offense as showing motive, plan, scheme, method of operation, etc. Anderson v. State, 222 Ga. 561, 563 (150 SE2d 638); Green v. State, 172 Ga. 635 (158 SE 285); Walker v. State, 220 Ga. 415, 424 (139 SE2d 278). Where a charge is not authorized by the evidence it is presumed harmful unless the record shows that it was not harmful either by the fact that the record shows it was beneficial- to the defendant, or shows that the verdict was demanded by the evidence, or that the charge was immaterial on the question of guilt or innocence or was for some other reason harmless to the defendant. I do not believe that this charge could be said to have been harmless to the defendant.