Cherry v. State, CR-02-0374.
Citation | 933 So.2d 377 |
Decision Date | 01 October 2004 |
Docket Number | CR-02-0374. |
Parties | Bobby Frank CHERRY v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Frank Myers, Birmingham (withdrew 10/01/2004); and Charles A. Flowers III, Birmingham, for appellant.
William H. Pryor, Jr., and Troy King, attys. gen., and Marc A. Starrett, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
On the morning of September 15, 1963, four young girls, Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley, and Addie Mae Collins, all 14 years old, and 11-year-old Carole Denise McNair were downstairs in the ladies' lounge of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, preparing to participate in the church's first Youth Day Service. At approximately 10:22 a.m., a bomb exploded near the church's 16th Street stairway, resulting in a "high order explosion" that killed Carole, Cynthia, Addie Mae, and Carole Denise, and injured Addie Mae's sister, Sarah. (R. Vol. 19, 371.) Reverend John Haywood Cross evacuated the church and discovered the victims' bodies.
In the late 1970s, Robert Edward Chambliss was convicted of murder for his involvement in the bombing. Chambliss v. State, 373 So.2d 1185 (Ala.Crim.App.1979). In 2001, Thomas Edwin Blanton was convicted of murder for his involvement the bombing. Blanton v. State, 886 So.2d 850 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). During the May 2000 session of the Jefferson County grand jury, Bobby Frank Cherry was indicted for the murders of Carole, Cynthia, Addie Mae, and Carole Denise.1
On May 22, 2002, Cherry was convicted of four counts of murder, violations of Title 14, § 314, Ala.Code 1940. Cherry was sentenced to life in prison on each conviction; those sentences were to run consecutively.2 Cherry filed a motion for a new trial; the hearing on the motion was continued two times by agreement of the parties. Ultimately, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion on September 13, 2002, and denied the motion on the same day. This appeal followed. Cherry raises two issues on appeal.
Cherry argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss based on the preindictment delay between the 1963 bombing and his indictment in 2000.3 Cherry contends that he suffered actual and substantial prejudice from the preindictment delay; he also maintains that from the delay the State "intentionally garnered a tactical advantage." (Appellant's brief, p. 27.) Cherry raised this argument to the trial court in his motion to dismiss and in his motion for a new trial.
Stoner v. State, 418 So.2d 171, 179-80, 181, 182 (Ala.Crim.App.1982).
Cherry quotes at length from his motion to dismiss, listing 12 witnesses who "are shown to have direct knowledge and/or involvement in the explosion" and who are now missing or deceased. He contends that the inability to interview these witnesses caused him actually prejudice. He speculates as to the "favorable" testimony of two of those witness: the first, an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), would have testified that, when asked, Cherry stated that he "didn't know anything about" the bombing (Appellant's brief, p. 31.); and the second, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, would have testified that "he had solved the crime 14 years earlier, but ... it was never brought to trial because too many people in high places would [have been] embarrassed." (Id.) Additionally, Cherry lists several other witnesses, all family members of Cherry, and relates the favorable testimony, including alibi testimony, that they "would have been expected to give." (Appellant's brief, p. 30.)4
Chambliss v. State, 373 So.2d 1185, 1203 (Ala.Crim.App.1979).
Stoner, 418 So.2d at 180 (footnote omitted). Therefore, Cherry's self-serving declarations that some now unavailable witnesses would have given testimony favorable to Cherry are not sufficient to establish that Cherry was actually and substantially prejudiced by the preindictment delay.
Cherry makes the blanket assertion that the death of "a multitude of witnesses" worked "to the State's advantage." (Appellant's brief, p. 33.) He also asserts, without presenting proof of the assertion at the hearing, that, by "intentionally" failing to prosecute Cherry in the 1970s when Chambliss was prosecuted, the State successfully waited until "the jury changed to the State's benefit." (Id.)
Stoner, 418 So.2d at 182. There is no proof in the record before us that the State intentionally caused the preindictment delay. At trial, defense counsel alleged:
(R. 82.) We are left, then, with mere bare assertions of intent on the part of the State; without more,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Smith (In re Smith)
...to receive a fair trial in the county where the crime allegedly occurred: presumed prejudice and actual prejudice. Cherry v. State, 933 So.2d 377 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). Presumed prejudice is where pretrial publicity has so saturated the community that an impartial jury could never be seate......
-
State v. Cook
...there is uncertainty as to whether the deceased individuals would have chosen to testify for Appellant. See Cherry v. State, 933 So.2d 377, 381 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) (observing that “ ‘[m]erely because appellant alleges that certain dead witnesses would testify for him and in a certain manner......
-
Ex Parte Cherry
...his involvement in the bombing. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Cherry's convictions on October 1, 2004. Cherry v. State, 933 So.2d 377 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). Cherry applied for a rehearing, which the Court of Criminal Appeals denied by an order issued on November 19, 2004, una......