Ex parte Stoner
| Decision Date | 13 August 1982 |
| Citation | 418 So.2d 184 |
| Parties | Ex parte Jesse Benjamin STONER. (Re: Jesse Benjamin Stoner v. State of Alabama). 81-709. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 418 So.2d 171.
Jesse Benjamin Stoner, pro se.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G. L. Marston, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
WRIT DENIED.
I would grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
A bombing of a black church occurred in Jefferson County on June 29, 1958. Over 19 years later, September 26, 1977, Stoner, a white man, was indicted for the bombing and was convicted in the circuit court.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, and conceded that no explanation appears in the record justifying the 19 years' delay. It can be inferred that the 19 years' delay was for the State to gain a tactical advantage over Stoner. In other words, wait long enough and a climate for conviction will emerge, whereas, if Stoner had been tried within a reasonable time after the bombing, chances were greatly in his favor that he would have been acquitted. The trial judge stated, "I would almost find that as a fact for the reason of delay the State did not feel they could successfully prosecute in 1958."
The Court of Criminal Appeals upholds the delay by implying there was a continuing investigation. See United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971), and United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977). But, the court states in its opinion, "In essence, no real reason for the delay can be found in the record." Both Marion and Lovasco mandate that the court consider the reason for the delay, and the prejudice to the accused. Cf. United States v. West, 568 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1978). By denying the petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the majority of this Court have also failed to consider the reasons for the delay and the prejudice to the accused.
In my opinion Stoner has been deprived of his due process rights to a fair trial. The fundamental conceptions of justice have been discreetly "swept under the rug."
I would grant the petition to consider whether fundamental due process of a fair trial has been denied Stoner.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. State
... ... After hearing oral arguments, this court denied the petition without opinion, thereby allowing the ruling of the trial court to stand. Ex parte Hunt, 617 So.2d 703 (Ala.Cr.App.1992) ... On December 28, 1992, the grand jury indicted Hunt. Count I of the indictment charged ... If such is not shown, the state fails to make out a case, and the prosecution would be barred by the statute of limitations. See Stoner v. State, 418 So.2d 171 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 418 So.2d 184 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1128, 103 S.Ct. 764, 74 L.Ed.2d 978 (1983). A ... ...
-
Cox v. State
... ... If the evidence fails to disclose that the offense was committed within the statute, the State fails to make out its case."). See also Stoner v. State, 418 So.2d 171, 177-78 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 418 So.2d 184 (Ala.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1128, 103 S.Ct. 764, 74 L.Ed.2d 978 ... See Ex parte Anderson, 457 So.2d 435 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed, 457 So.2d 446 (Ala.1984) (pretrial mandamus); Anderson v. State, 542 So.2d 292 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), ... ...
-
Hunt v. Tucker
... ... Hunt's petition for the writ of certiorari, affirmed the conviction in all respects, and denied a petition for rehearing. Ex parte Hunt, 642 So.2d 1060 (Ala.1994) (per curiam). 10 ... After a thorough review of the trial record and the briefs of counsel, the ... Under Alabama law, however, the statute of limitations in a criminal prosecution is a substantive, not a procedural, right. Stoner v. Alabama, 418 So.2d 171, 178 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 418 So.2d 184 (Ala.1982), and cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1128, 103 S.Ct. 764, 74 ... ...
-
State v. Skakel
... ... Although several courts have concluded otherwise; see, e.g., United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105, 106 (3d Cir.1975); Stoner v. State, 418 So.2d 171, 178 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 418 So.2d 184 (Ala.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1128, 103 S.Ct. 764, 74 L.Ed.2d 978 ... The first formulation consists of ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent—that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant ... ...