Correspondence from Beasley to Clerk with Brief of Defendant in Error

    a
 hb 

  

ALAVY whnent of 4% ¢ ep 

fe of ¢ 

hie 
‘al 

+ 

eargla 
~ 

( t 

dt 

30334 

  

DICIAL BUILDING 132 STATE JU ARTHUR K. BOLTON 

656-3300 TELEPHONE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 
 

  

rt" 
7
 

—
 

i i 

IE, aL 
KARE S 

 
 

Xs 
hw 3 

 
 

 
 

Pa 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

TY oe £3 4X7 man Ee "i 
NYA   

  
 
 

"a 
on 

Till 

 
 

 
 
 



  

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA   

WILLIAM HENRY FURMAN 
  

BRIEF OF PEFENDANT 

IN ERROR 

Plaintiff in Exyyor 

VS. 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

Defendant in Error 

    

  

CASE NO, 25163   

  

  

PAS tei 
  

STATEMENT OF FACTS 
  

The Appellant, Williom Henry Furman, was 

indicted by the Chatham County Grand Jury on September 

12, 1967, at the September Term of the Superior Courtt 

of Chatham County for the murder of William Joseph Micke, 

Jr., by having shot the said Mr. Micke with a pistol on 

or about the llth day of August, 1967, 

The Appellant came on to be tried at the 

September Term 1968 of said Court and he entered a plea 

of not guilty to the aforementioned indictment. On 

September 20, 1968, in the Superior Court of Chatham 

County, Georgia, a Jury was impaneled to hous the afore=- 

said case and hafter heupiiin the evidence, argument and 

charge, the Jury found the Appellant guilty without 

recommendation of mercy, and he was sentenced to death 

by electrocution, 

Motion for new trial was filed by the Appellant 

on September 28, 1968, with several subsequent continuances 

until an: Order overruling the moticen for new trial on 

 



  

i 

the 24th day of September, 1969. Appellant filed a notice 

of appeal on the 3rd day of March, 1969, appealing from the 

judgment of conviction and sentence entered in said case on 

September 20, 1968, and the case .is now before this 

Honorable Court for review. 

Testimony adduced at the trial of Appellant was 

that the deceased, Micke was living with his wife and five 

children at 503 Vest 63rd Street, on the llth day of August, 

1967, which was testified by Mrs. Micke, that her husband, 

an enlisted man with United States Coast Guard, had taken on 

a second job to supplement their income. He had arrived home 

a little after midnight on the llth day of August, 1947, 

and he and his wife had gone to bed. She further stated 

that they did not immediately go to sleep and between the 

hours of 2:30 and 3:00 A. M., they heard a noise in the 

kitchen area of their home. (T. page 12 - 14). As a result 

of hearing the noise Mr. Micke went to the kitchen area 

thinking the disturbance was caused by their eleven (11) 

year old son who was a chronic sleep-walker. The last 

words Mrs. Micke heard were those of her husband saying 

"Jimmy, let's gp tp bed;" Jimmy being the name of their 

sleep-walking son. Mrs. Micke then testified she heard 

a loud noise from the area of the kitchen at which time 

she gathered her children into the safety of their locked 

bedroom and colled the Police. (T. 15 and 16). 

B
Y
.
 

  

 



  

- 

Mrs. Micke further testified that at the time 

they retired there was a washing machine on their back porch 

against the only window leading into the kitchen from the 

back porch, and the back door leading into the kitchen 

from the back porch was locked. 

Detective G. W. Spivey, Savannah Police Department, 

testified thot he was the first officer on the scene and after 

talking to a neighbor, went through the back door into the 

kitchen which was unlocked at this time, whereupon his flash- 

light beam illuminated the then deceased body of Mr. Micke 

lying on the kitchen floor with a bullet in the upper right 

chest. (T. 23-25). | 

Detective Spivey further testified that upon closer 

examination of the back door leading into the kitchen he 

found a bullet hole from the outside going into the house 

at chest level. After conferring with Mrs. Micke it was also 

determined that the washing machine near the window had been 

moved and o fan that had rested in the window had been moved 

to allow the intruder to reach through the window to unlock 

the door from the outside. (T. 26-34). 

Officer J. E. Mincey, Savannah Police Department 

Identification Division, testified that he was called to the 

scene at which time request was mode to examine the back 

porch and kitchen for fingerprints. He further testified 

that he found a useable print on the washing machine in an 

ER 
M
A
A
 R
E
C
A
 
PA

PE
ET

E 

  

R
E
L
,
 

A
 
S
E
T
 

SA
 

NOSES
 

 



  

i >
 t 

area of the machine where pressure would have been exerted 

to move the aforementioned machine away from the window. 

He also testified that this fingerprint: woF compared 

with the known fingerprints of Appellee taken after his 

arrest. He further testified that the comparison of the 

latent prints from the washing machine and the known 

prints of Appellee proved to be one and the same. (T. 40- 

45), His testimony was confirmed by Joh F. Walters, Agent | 

for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Identification | 

Division, who testified that his comparison also showed | 

that the latent prints and the known prints of Appellee 

were made by one and the same person. (T. 46 - 55). 

Officer A. Hall, Savannah Police Department 

testified that shortly after 2:30 A. H., on the morning 

R
E
 

—
—
_
—
_
—
e
 

of the llth of August, 1967, he answered a call to 508 

West 63rd Street where he waw the deceased. He testified 

next to the house in a southerly direction was a wooded area 

and he was ordered to go beyond the wooded area to see if 

possibly the killer had left by that route. Shortly, 

after arriving at the southern portion of the wooded 

area and while seated in his automobile with his lights 

off he observed a colored male coming out of the woods, 

running from the direction of the Mike residence. He | 

noticed the mode of dress, size and description of the | 

individual and placed the same on the radio for the | 

benefit of other detail units in the area. 

 



  

wh 

He and other officers converged upon the residence at 

5020 Temple Street, the home of James Furman, uncle of 

the Appellee, who stated to the Police that he had heord 

a noise in his yard, and wanted them to thvssticars 3. 

Upon investigation it was determined that Appellunt vos 

under the house hiding and upon the command to come out 

T
o
 

Te
 

a
E
 

reached for a gun concealed in his right rear pocket. 

Officer Hall pointed his pistol at Appelleamg, took him by 

the hand and pulled him from the house at which time Appellent 

was advised that he was under arrest for investigation as 

to probably murder and carrying a pistol without a license. 

The pistol was discovered by Officer J. RV Goode, making an 

immediate search incidental to the arrests {T. 55-563). 

Charles Sullenger, senior toxicologist for the © 

State Crime Lab, Savannah Division, testified that the 

weapon taken from Appelloetand the bullet delivered to him 

caused him to come to the conclusion that they were fired 

from one and the same pistol, end the otsiol was introduced 

in evidence. (T. 79-81). 

After the “tate had rested its case DEfendant 

took the stand and in his unsworn statement, testified that 

he had entered the house for the purpose of seeing what he 

could find and having been detected by Mr. Micke shot him 

through the door. The pistol token fxm Appellant was 

test fired and the test bullet was compared with the bullet 

removed from the body of the deceased, licke. Appellamt 

 



  

wl 

admitted ¢§ being there and while backing out of the door 

stumbled on a wire on the floor causing him to fall backwards 

and the pistol fired accidentally, (T. 91 - 92). However, 

Be W. Smith, Savannah Police Department, testified that after 

having fully advised Appellent of his constitutional rights, 

asked him one question, "did you get into the house" and to 

which his answer was "yes" he had gotten into the kitchen 

but Mr. Micke had tried to grab him, he slammed the door, 

turned around, fired one shot and ran. (T. 71 = 73}, 

PART Ii 
  

LAW OF THE CASE 
  

Appellzi¥ in his brief sets forth eight (8) grounds 

“upon which he contends a new triol should be granted. Grounds 

numbers one, two, three, and five follow one basicCewws question 

  

in that Appellondt complains that the arrest was illegal), therefore 

a search of the Appellggstwas illegal, the taking of the finger- 

prints was illegal and this evidence should have been surpressed.. 

THE Couxt will recall from the Statement of facts 

preceding this, Appellant was seen a short distance from the 

scene of the killing and only a matter of minutes after the 

killing, emerging fe5n the wooded area emmediately adjacent to 

the scene of the killing. The Police Officer gave pursuit and 

Appellant was discovered hiding under a house, not his own, 

after a complaint had been made by the occupant thereof. 

The conduct of Appellant gave sufficient cause for suspicion 

by the Police Officers who stopped and investigated his 

presence in this areca. 

 



  

oy 

In Terry vs. The State of Ohio, 392 4. S. 

Reports, page 889 (advance sheets) the Supreme Court of the 

United States held that where a Defendant as in this case, 

was observed by Police Officers under suspicious circumstances 

and was stopped and searched by the Officers and a concealed 

weapon was found on him it was ruled that this stopping, 

searching and seizure did not violate the Dgfendant's 

constitutional rights. 

We feel that in this case the suspicious actions 

of the Appellant so closely followed those of the Defendant 

.in the aforesaid case, that the subsequent inquiry and searching 

by the Police Officers was completely justified. 

As to Appellant's complaint that the fingerprints 

were taken, and allowed into evidence, the same was violating 

the constitutional rights of Appellant, Appellee would cite the 

cause of U. 5. vs. Billy Joe Wade, 388 U, 35. 218, In this 

case the Court held "the denial of an accused's right to 

have his counsel present, at systematized or scientific 

analyses of the accused's fingerprints, blood sample, 

clothing, hair, and the like does not violate the Sixth 

Amendment; they are not critical stages, since there is 

minimal risk that his cooRzel?s absence at such stages 

might derogate his right to a foir trial, Als6e see U. S, 

vei Kelly 55 F 2nd 67; Schmerber vs. California 384 U. S. 

757. | 

¥4. 3s Anseilae’s contention that since 

the arrest was legal, the taking of the fingerprints, 

the search incidental to arrest, the seizure of the 

  

   



  

Be | 

concealed weapon and the subsequent use of these items 

in evidence, together with the fingerprints in no way | 

violated Defendant's constitutional rights. 

Appellant contends in his fourth ground 

for reversal that the death penalty as authorized by Georgia 

Statutes and is administered by State authorities is cruel 

and unusual punishment. Appellee would cite to this 

Honorable Court the case of Abrams vs. the State, 223 Georgia, 

216 (11), in which the Supreme Court olithe State of Georgia 

held that even in a rape case a sentence of death is not 

cruel and unusual punishment such as is inhibited by the 

Constitution of the United States. The instant case is of 

even more grave nature in that it wos the killing of a human 

being while in the commission of a felony, to wit: burglary. : 

‘Also, see Sims vs. Balkcom, 220 Georgia, 7, £2). 

In further answering Appellant's contention 

that his constitutional rights were violated because he was 

not taken to the nearest Magistrate immediately after arrest, 

: that 

Appellee argues/in no way in the transcript of evidence is 

there any testimony of this fact. However, for the benefit 

of the Court Appellee would cite that Appellant was taken 

before the uatitruss the same day of his capture and 

Appellant not having counsel to represent him the hearing 

was postponed to allow Appellant opportunityto obtain 

counsel, 1 

 



  

i, | 

Appellant's sixth ground for reversal argues 

that persons with conscientious scruples against the death | 

penalty were excluded without giving their services.on a 

Jury which convicted the Appellant. In Witherspoon VS. 

111tnols, 391 U. S. 510, the Supreme Court set forth guide | 

lines by which the trial courts would either qualify or | 

disqualify a Jumrwho claimed to have conscientious scruples 

against capital punishment. The only Juror excluded from 

service cfoue the conscientious objections to capital punishment 

was Mr. Anchors who was asked if his opposition to capital 

pinishment meant that he would refuse to impose capital 

punishment in a case regardless of the evidence and he 

answered "I believe I would." He was then asked do you 

think that your attitude toward the death penalty would 

prevent you from making an impartial decision as to the 

Defendant's guilt, to which he answered "I think it would." 

After this answer had been received by the Court the Juror 

was excused without service. (T. 4-5). 

In complying with the Witherspoon decision 

Appellee feels that it has more than complied with the 

guide lines set by the Supreme Court of the United States 

"touching upon this question. 

It is the contention of Appellee that 

none of Appellant's constitutional rights were violated, 

that he received a fair and impartial triel by o fair 

and impartial jury, and that the Jury concluded after 

 



  

-}0- 

hearing the evidence and the charge of the Court that this 
heinous crime demanded the sentence imposed, 

Appellee would respectfully request that this 
Honorable Court affirm the verdict and sentence of the lower 

Court, 

Respectfully submitted, 

Hi 4 P 7 hd 
~~ Al TRA tof A Le td ” J 

{ bd Co Prin Lr i £2. 

BISTRICT  ATToRmEY, E J.C. OF G 
  

) i 
/ ~~ 43 4 

E 

/ v 

p / \ A A ( = la A 4 Lal ’ 4 Pi { 

ZC : Fg ; Fd ’ / i : ri z, rad { x 

"CHIEF ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, : 
C. OF GEORGIA. 

  

  

Post Office Address: 

305 Court House Building 

Savannoh, Georgia 3140] 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
a 

  

I hereby certify that I have this day 

served a copy of the foregoing Brief upon the Appellant 

by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, 

in an-envelope with sufficient postate affixed and 

properly addressed to: 

Honorable B. C. Mayfield 

Attorney at Law 

910 West Broad Street 

Savannah, Georgia 31401 

This llth day of April, 1969. 

j 7 # op ad mil ral 

J 7 4 / Sig! 

Fd / 7 ed "4 / ; iy ig 7, AT 

  

CHIEF (ASJISLANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

$ nls wer OF GEORGIA. 

 



  

IN THE SUPREM] COURT OF GEORGIA   
  

WILLIAM HENRY FURMAN, 

Appellant 

STATE OF GEORGIA, 

Appellee 

* 

a 

CASE NO. 25163 

¥ 
% 

% 
Xk 

ok 
% 

% 
* 

X
X
 

  

BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE 

  

P. O. ADDRESS: 

132 Judicial Building 

40 Capitol Square 

Atlanta, Georgia 30334 

ARTHUR K. BOLTON 

Attorney General 

MARION O. GORDON 

Assistant Attorney General 

LARRY H. EVANS 

Attorney 

 



  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA 
  

WILLIAM HENRY FURMAN, * 
* 

Appellant * 

* CASE RO. 25163 

V. Lo 
* 

STATE OF GEORGIA, * 
* 

* Appellee 

  

BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE 

  

PART I 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 
  

The appellant's statement of the facts is incomplete. 

Thus, the appellee is compelled to restate the case. 

Appellant (hereinafter called Defendant) was convicted 

of the crime of murder in the Superior Court of Chatham County, 

Georgia, on September 20, 1968. (Record 7). The sentence was 

death by electrocution. (R. 16). A motion for a new trial 

was filed on September 25, 1968. (R. 20). An amended motion 

for a new trial was filed on Pebruary 20, 19569, {R. 45). The 

motion for new trial as amended was denied. {R. 46). 

About 2:00 o'clock A. M. on August ll, 1967, the deceased 

went into the kitchen of his home to investigate a disturbance 

he and his wife had heard. {Transcript 14, 23). Soon there-~ 

after, Mrs. Lanelle Micke, the deceased's wife, heard a very 

loud sound and then heard the deceased scream. (T.: 15). ‘The 

 



  

deceased was found dead lying on the kitchen floor, face down 

in a large puddle of blood.  (P. 23, 24, 25,.26, 102). About 

2:30 A. M., on the morning of the murder, the defendant was 

seen emerging from a wooded area near the scene of the crime. 

(T. 58). He was followed by several police officers and soon 

was found underneath a house. (PT. 60, 6), 62). The defendant 

was pulled from under the house, arrested, advised of his 

constitutional rights, and then he was searched. {T. 62, 63, 

64). A twenty-two caliber pistol was removed from the defen- 

dant's pocket. (T. 63, 64). The bullet removed from the 

deceased's body (T. 35) was found to have been discharged by 

this pistol. (T. 8l). 'The defendant's fingerprints i 

found at the scene of the crime. {7,4}, 42.43, 50, 5)). 

After the defendant was taken to the police station (T. 78), 

he was again advised of his constitutional rights by Detective 

B. W. Smith. {T., 71, 76). The substance of this advice 

fulfills the Miranda requirements. {T. 72, 76). The defendant 

advised Detective Smith that he didn't want a lawyer at that 

time. (T. 72, 76). In response to the only question asked 

by Detective Smith after the defendant had been duly advised 

of his constitutional rights, he confessed. iT. 73, 77). The 

defendant also confessed to the crime in his unsworn statement, 

but he said the gun fired accidentally. (T. 91). He also said 

he was not advised of his constitutional rights. (T. 91, 92). 

PART 2 

ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES   

The defendant in his third enumeration of error argues 

that the evidence used against him, namely his statement, pistol, 

and fingerprints, should have been suppressed. His argument 

 



in support of this allegation, however, discusses the right 

  

to counsel from Powell v. Alabama through Henry v. Mississippi. 
  

  

While the argument is good, it is inapplicable. 

The trial court, after hearing testimony out of the jury's 

presence, held that the defendant's statement was admissible. 

(T. 75) . The appellee's statement of the case shows that the 

defendant made his statement on the day the crime was committed 

after he had been duly advised of his constitutional rights. 

Clearly, this statement was properly admitted into evidence 

since it was voluntarily and knowingly made by the defendant 

after he had been advised of his constitutional rights. 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (19656). 
  

As the facts show, the defendant's pistol was taken from 

him incident to a lawful arrest. Therefore, without equivo- 

cation, it is admissible. However, even if the search was h 

made and the pistqQl removed from .the defendant prior to his 

arrest, it would still be admissible into evidence under the 

facts in this.case. Terry v, Chico, 392 U.8. 1 (1958). 4 
  

The defendant's allegation that his constitutional rights 

were violated when his fingerprints were taken and admitted 

into evidence is clearly without merit. Schmerber v. State of 
  

California, 384 U.8., 757, 760 (1966); Manor v, State, ‘2323 Ga. 
  

  

595(3) :{1957). 

The fourth enumeration of error states that the death 

penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and therefore uncon- 

stitutional. There is no merit in this enumeration of error. 

Manor v, State, 223 Ga. 594(18) (1967). 
  

In his fifth enumeration of error the defendant alleges 

that he was not taken before the nearest magistrate for 

 



arraignment. The record shows that the defendant was arrested 

  

on August 11, 1967 (R. 4) and a commitment hearing was held 

on August 15, ‘1967. (R. 3}. It appears that the law was 

complied with fully. 6a. L. 1956, pp. 798, 797 (Ga. Code Ann. 

§ 27-212). The defendant further contends that during this 

period of alleged illegal detention his fingerprints were taken 

and that he was not accorded the benefit of legal counsel. The 

appellee has already argued that the taking of the defendant's 

fingerprints did not violate his constitutional rights and the 

statement of the case shows that the defendant had knowingly 

waived his right to counsel during this period of detention. 

The only issue that might possibly have been raised con- 

cerns the statement that the defendant made while he was con- 

fined and before he was taken before a magistrate for commitment. 

The defendant did not mention this in his argument but it is 

unmeritorious. pouberly wv. State, 184 Ga. 573, 574 (1937); 
  

Blake v, State, 109 Ga. App. 6368{(3) (1964). 
  

The sixth enumeration of error alleges that the defendant's 

constitutional rights were violated in that persons with con- 

scientious scruples against the death penalty were excluded 

from the jury that convicted him. This argument is based on 

the fact that prospective juror, Mr. Anchors, was stricken for 

cause. (T. 5). It is very clear, based on Mr. Anchors' response 

to the State's questioning on voir dire, that he would not have 

been an impartial juror and regardless of the evidence he would 

not have voted to impose the death penalty. (T. 4-9). The 

requisites of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968) were 
  

complied with and Mr. Anchors was properly stricken for cause. 

-“ 

 



é » 

Enumerations of error 1, 2 and 7 allege that the motion 

  

for new trial, as amended, should have been granted. ' This 

motion was based on the general grounds and seven special 

grounds. Special ground one is simply a statement that the 

defendant was tried and convicted on September 20, 1968, and 

requires no argument. Special ground three is the same as 

enumerations of error 3, 4 and 5 which have already been 

discussed. Special ground four is the same as enumeration of 

error 6 which was discussed earlier. . Special ground six is 

the same as enumeration of error 5 which has already been 

discussed. Special grounds five and seven challenged certain 

instructions given the jury. Since the Se fendant did PE argue 

these in his brief, the appellee is not arguing them. Also, 

no argument was made by the defendant on special ground two 

which challenged the method of jury and grand jury selection. 

The appellee will not argue this special ground two, either. 

This leaves to be argued only the general grounds on which 

this motion for new trial was based. The statement of the case 

adequately shows that the verdict was supported by the evidence. 

Therefore, enumerations of error 1, 2 and 7 are without merit. 

 



| : . » 

CONCLUSION 

  

For the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that the 

defendant's enumerations of error are without merit, and 

that the decision of the trial court should be affirmed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

  

ARTHUR K. BOLTON 

Attorney General 

  

MARION O., GORDON 

Assistant Attorney General 

  

ig id 1 

\f § 
I inh : 
LARRY H. EVANS 

Attorney 

Please serve: 

LARRY H. EVANS 

P. 0. Address: 

132 Judicial Building 

40 Capitol Square 

Atlanta, Georgia 30334 

 



® » 

  

  

  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to cextify that 1 have this day served a copy 

of the foregoing brief on B. Clarence Mayfield, Attorney at 

Law, 910 West Broad Street, Savannah, Georgia 31401, by : 

depositing a true copy of same in the United States mail, 

properly addressed and postage prepaid. : 

This {\°“ day of April, 1969. 

\ ™ I ie, 

i Ni Fo i 

LARRY "H. EVANS 

&