Phillips v. State (In re Phillips)
Decision Date | 19 October 2018 |
Docket Number | 1160403 |
Citation | 287 So.3d 1179 |
Parties | EX PARTE Jessie Livell PHILLIPS (In re: Jessie Livell Phillips v. State of Alabama) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Bryan A. Stevenson, Randall S. Susskind, and John W. Dalton of Equal Justice Initiative, Montgomery, for petitioner.
Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and Andrew L. Brasher, deputy atty. gen., for respondent.
Jessie Livell Phillips was convicted in the Marshall Circuit Court of the capital offense of murder of "two or more persons" for the intentional killing of his wife, Erica Phillips,2 and their unborn child ("Baby Doe") "by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct." § 13A-5-40(a)(10), Ala. Code 1975. The jury unanimously recommended that he be sentenced to death. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Phillips to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Phillips's conviction but remanded the case for the trial court to address certain defects and errors in its sentencing order. Phillips v. State, 287 So.3d 1063 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) (" Phillips I").
On remand, the trial court conducted another sentencing hearing during which the parties addressed, among other things, the scope of the Court of Criminal Appeals' remand instructions and what impact, if any, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), had on Phillips's case. On return to remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Phillips's sentence of death. Phillips v. State, 287 So. 3d 1063 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) ( )(" Phillips II").
We granted certiorari review as to 13 issues raised in Phillips's petition related to jury instructions on transferred intent and intent and knowledge; the application of § 13A-1-6, Ala. Code 1975, known as "the Brody Act," to the facts of this case; the chain of custody of a urine sample taken during Erica's autopsy and used to conduct a pregnancy test and the requirements of the Confrontation Clause in regard to the sample; the trial court's consideration of nonstatutory aggravating circumstances; the use of peremptory strikes under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) ; the admission into evidence of an autopsy photograph; the amendment of or material variance from the indictment; the comments that the jury's sentencing verdict was advisory; the "double counting" of capital offenses; and the disparate nature of Phillips's sentencing.
The facts set out in Phillips I are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capote v. State
...court incorrectly informed the jury that its penalty-phase verdict was merely a recommendation. Capote acknowledges Ex parte Phillips, 287 So. 3d 1179 (Ala. 2018), in which the Alabama Supreme Court upheld well-settled law that comments informing a jury of the extent of its sentencing autho......
-
Petersen v. State
...Crim. App. 2001)." Phillips v. State, [Ms. CR-12-0197, December 18, 2015] ––– So. 3d ––––, –––– (Ala. Crim. App. 2015), aff'd, 287 So. 3d 1179 (Ala. 2018). With these principles in mind, we address Petersen's claims on appeal.Discussion Pretrial Issues I.5 Petersen argues that he was depriv......
-
Lindsay v. State
...of the defendant, Stephon Lindsay." (C. 138.)6 To protect the anonymity of the jurors we are using their initials.7 In Ex parte Phillips, 287 So. 3d 1179 (Ala. 2018), Chief Justice Stuart, writing, in a special concurrence joined by two members of the Alabama Supreme Court, stated: "For the......
-
Lane v. State
...where the defendant fails to make a timely objection to the manner in which the State used its peremptory strikes. See Ex parte Phillips, 287 So. 3d 1179, 1243 (Ala. 2018) ("I would ... hold that failure to make a timely objection forfeits consideration under a plain-error standard of a Bat......
-
Equal Protection and the Unborn Child: A Dobbs Brief.
...M. Byrn, An American Tragedy: The Supreme Court on Abortion, 41 Fordham L. Rev. 807, 844-48 (1973) (collecting cases); Ex parte Phillips, 287 So.3d 1179, 1251-1253 (Ala. 2018) (Parker, J., concurring specifically) (collecting (133.) "Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a develo......