Lockhart v. State
Citation | 163 So.3d 1088 |
Decision Date | 30 August 2013 |
Docket Number | CR–10–0854. |
Parties | Courtney Larrell LOCKHART v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Bryan A. Stevenson, Sophia F. Bernhardt, Stephen Chu, and Charlotte Morrison, Montgomery; and William W. Whatley, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and J. Clayton Crenshaw and Kristi Deason Hagood, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.
Courtney Larrell Lockhart was convicted of murder made capital because it was committed during a robbery in the first degree, see § 13A–5–40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. The jury unanimously recommended that Lockhart be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. However, the trial court did not follow the jury's recommendation and sentenced Lockhart to death. Lockhart appeals his conviction and his sentence.
On March 4, 2008, passersby discovered Lauren Burk, a student at Auburn University, in distress on Highway 147 in Lee County. Burk was naked and had numerous abrasions on her body. She was also suffering from a single gunshot wound to her upper body. Shortly after Burk was discovered, she died from the gunshot wound.
On March 7, 2008, after being arrested by police officers in Phenix City, Lockhart was interviewed by law-enforcement officers from multiple agencies, including the Phenix City Police Department, the Auburn Police Department, and the Alabama Bureau of Investigations. After waiving his Miranda1 rights, Lockhart gave the law-enforcement officers a detailed oral confession that was recorded on video and shown to the jury at trial. Lockhart also gave the law-enforcement officers a signed, handwritten statement, which stated:
On March 9, 2008, Lockhart was again interviewed by officers with the Auburn Police Department. Again, Lockhart was advised of his Miranda rights, and he waived those rights. After waiving his Miranda rights, Lockhart gave the law-enforcement officers another statement. In that statement, Lockhart gave more detail about what transpired before he approached Burk on the evening she died:
(C. 994–97; R. 3934–40.)
When Lockhart was arrested, an iPod portable media device belonging to Burk was in his possession. (R. 3802–03, 3841.) When police officers searched Lockhart's car after his arrest, they discovered three spent .38–special shell casings and a green T-shirt inside the car. (R. 3764–65, 3768.) Law-enforcement officers also discovered a fired lead bullet in the burned remains of Burk's vehicle. (R. 3620, 3626–27, 3634.) When Lockhart was interviewed by the police shortly after he was arrested, he informed the police officers that he had thrown a handgun out of his car window as he passed by the Publix supermarket on Summerville Road in Phenix City. (R. 3872–77.) Police officers searched the area around that Publix supermarket and recovered a handgun. (R. 3814–30.) Katherine Richert, a forensic scientist specializing in firearms and toolmarks examination for the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, testified that the handgun recovered from the area around the Publix supermarket had fired the bullet found in Burk's car and the shell casings found in Lockhart's car. (R. 4040–41, 4048.) Richert also testified that that gun functioned properly and that it required approximately five pounds of pressure to pull the trigger to the rear when the hammer was cocked. (R. 4042–45.) She further testified that the gun required approximately 12 pounds of pressure to pull the trigger to the rear when the hammer was not cocked. (R. 4045.) Kristin Maturi, a forensic DNA analyst with the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, testified that Burk's DNA profile and Lockhart's DNA profile matched DNA profiles obtained from the green T-shirt that was found inside Lockhart's car after he was arrested. (R. 4106–10.)
Dr. John Daniels, a former medical examiner for the State of Alabama, performed the autopsy on Burk's body. Dr. Daniels testified that the cause of Burk's death was a single gunshot that entered her upper left back and exited through her right upper arm. (R. 3501.) Dr. Daniels testified that, based on the entrance wound, the muzzle of the firearm was a few inches away from Burk's skin when the fatal shot was fired. (R. 3507–08.)
At trial, it was undisputed that Lockhart caused Burk's death. However, the defense contended that Lockhart did not intend to cause Burk's death. Specifically, the defense argued that Lockhart accidentally fired the gunshot that killed Burk and that his prior military service caused him to suffer from a mental disease or defect that rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.
In his brief to this Court, Lockhart raises several issues that were not first raised in the trial court; thus, those issues were not preserved for appellate review. Nevertheless, because Lockhart was sentenced to death, his failure to raise those issues in the trial court does not prevent this Court from reviewing those issues for plain error.
Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P., provides:
“In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.”
In Wilson v. State, 142 So.3d 732, 751 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) ( ), this Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capote v. State
...manner. There was no plain error in the circuit court's instructions on intent." 154 So. 3d at 216-17. See also Lockhart v. State, 163 So. 3d 1088 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013).Likewise, in this case, the jury was instructed that in order to convict Capote of capital murder the jury had to find th......
-
Petersen v. State
...supra. But the admission of that testimony was harmless because it did not prejudice Petersen. See id. See also Lockhart v. State, 163 So. 3d 1088, 1108 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) ("[T]his court has recognized that, even in capital cases, the harmless-error rule applies to contentions that Rule......
-
Lindsay v. State
...; Luong v. State, 199 So.3d 173 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) ; White v. State, 179 So.3d 170 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) ; Lockhart v. State, 163 So.3d 1088 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) ; McMillan v. State, 139 So. 2d 184 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) ; Gobble v. State, 104 So.3d 920 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) ; Shari......
-
Osgood v. State
...statements does not automatically rise to the level of plain error. See Ex parte Land, 678 So. 2d 224 (Ala. 1996); Lockhart v. State, 163 So. 3d 1088 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). In Ex parte Land, letters were presented to the trial court by the victim's family and friends that Land claimed expr......