 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lane v. State6/30/1999
Gary M. Lane, Sr., appeals his convictions for driving under the influence in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 and weaving over the roadway in violation of OCGA § 40-6-390. Lane's initial enumeration of errors contended the jury was picked from a jury pool that did not represent a fair cross-section of the community, the trial court erred by granting the State's motion in limine to exclude certain testimony of the arresting officer, and the trial court erred by refusing to charge on the weight to be given the breathalyzer or blood analyzer results. Later, Lane amended his enumerations of error to add an allegation that the trial court erred by refusing to exclude the breathalyzer test results.
1. We cannot consider the error asserted in Lane's amended enumeration of error that was filed four days after Lane filed his original enumeration of errors because enumeration of errors cannot be amended after the time for filing enumeration of errors has expired. Talley v. State, 200 Ga. App. 442, 447 (408 SE2d 463) (1991). In this case, pursuant to an extension of time in which to do so, Lane filed his enumeration of error and brief on December 18, 1998, the last day of the extension. His amended enumerations that were filed on December 22, 1998, were thus untimely.
2. On the day of trial, Lane filed a motion challenging the array from which the jury was selected. The motion contended that young adults and whites were excluded from the jury list intentionally, discriminatorily, and systematically and that prior traverse jury lists reveal a history and pattern of intentional, discriminatory, and systematic exclusion of both groups.
(a) To prove his allegation regarding young adults, Lane was first required to prove that young adults represented a cognizable group in Fulton County. Potts v. State, 259 Ga. 812, 813 (1) (388 SE2d 678) (1990). To do so, Lane was required to prove that young adults were a group defined and limited by some factor, that a common thread or interest ran through the group, and that the group had a community of interest that would not be represented if the group was excluded from the jury selection process. Id. Secondly, he was required to show that young adults have been consistently under-represented on the jury lists. Id.
Lane failed to prove either part of the test because he presented no evidence to support his motion. For example, he made no showing that young adults were a cognizable group in Fulton County or show that young adults have been consistently under-represented in the jury pool. Potts v. State, supra, 259 Ga. at 813.
(b) Lane also failed to prove his challenge to the racial composition of the array. Evidence that a jury panel contains no members of a defendant's race, standing alone, does not support a challenge to the array (Hudson v. State, 185 Ga. App. 508 (1) (364 S.E.2d 635) (1988)) because the Constitution does not guarantee that the jury impaneled in a particular case will be a representative cross-section of the community. Truitt v. State, 212 Ga. App. 286, 287 (441 SE2d 800) (1994). The correct inquiry concerns the procedures for compiling the jury lists and not just the composition of a particular jury. Patterson v. Balkcom, 245 Ga. 563, 565 (1) (266 S.E.2d 179) (1980).
(c) Lane's challenge to the preparation of the jury list merely alleges that unspecified "arbitrary methods" are used, that the list is out of date, and that using an alphabetical list allows "entire family units" to dominate the jury process. Lane, however, presented no evidence to prove that these allegations were true, or to prove the effect of these alleged irregularities was to exclude members of any group from the jury. Although
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|