Arthur v. State
Decision Date | 08 March 1996 |
Docket Number | CR-91-718 |
Citation | 711 So.2d 1031 |
Parties | Thomas Douglas ARTHUR v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Thomas Douglas Arthur, pro se.
Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor, attys. gen., Andy Poole, Melissa Math, Kenneth Nunnelley, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.
This appeals follows the appellant's third trial for the killing of Troy Wicker. The appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by electrocution in each of the three trials. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the appellant's first conviction, holding that details of the appellant's prior second degree murder conviction were improperly admitted at trial under the
identity exception to the general exclusionary rule. Ex parte Arthur, 472 So.2d 665 (Ala.1985). The appellant was again convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to death by electrocution. However, this court reversed his second conviction, holding that the admission into evidence a statement made by the appellant to a police officer two weeks after the appellant had asserted his right to remain silent constituted plain error because the appellant did not initiate the conversation and there was no evidence that he had been given access to an attorney following assertion of his right to remain silent. This court held that the statement probably had an unfair prejudicial impact on the jury. Arthur v. State, 575 So.2d 1165 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), cert. denied, 575 So.2d 1191 (1991).
Following this second reversal, the appellant was charged in a two-count indictment with the intentional murder of Troy Wicker by shooting him with a pistol, made capital because he had previously been convicted of murder in the second degree in 1977, see § 13A-5-40(a)(13), Code of Alabama 1975, and with capital murder for intentionally causing the death of Troy Wicker by shooting him with a pistol for pecuniary or other valuable consideration, see § 13A-5-40(a)(7), Code of Alabama 1975. Before submitting the case to the jury at the guilt phase, the prosecutor elected to proceed only under the first count of the indictment. The jury found the appellant guilty of capital murder as charged in this first count of the indictment. The jury subsequently returned an advisory verdict of death by electrocution by a vote of 11 to 1. Following a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court upheld the jury's advisory verdict and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution.
This court set on the earlier appeal out a complete rendition of the evidence presented at the appellant's second trial. Arthur v. State, 575 So.2d at 1167-70. That evidence is substantially similar to that presented in the third trial, but there were some differences: changes in the testimony of State's witness Judy Wicker; the testimony by witness, Gene Moon, was offered on behalf of the appellant at the third trial rather than for the State as in the second trial; and certain evidence that was admitted at the second trial was not entered into evidence at the third trial. For this reason, the trial court's "Findings of Fact From the Trial," which briefly sets out the evidence presented at the third trial, is included 1:
together; that upon receipt of the insurance money witness paid Arthur $10,000, paid her sister, Teresa, $6,000 and Theron McKinney received some jewelry and a Trans Am automobile.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. State
...documents at trial. "The State has no duty to disclose information concerning prospective jurors. As we stated in Arthur v. State, 711 So.2d 1031 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), aff'd, 711 So.2d 1097 (Ala.1997), quoting Kelley v. State, 602 So.2d 473 (Ala.Crim. "`"This Court has held that arrest and c......
-
Lewis v. State
...3d at 316 ("'Matters of trial tactics and trial strategy are rarely interfered with or second-guessed onappeal.' Arthur v. State, 711 So. 2d 1031, 1089 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996)."). Lewis also argues that Parkman should have introduced employment records from the cigar factory to show that Fre......
-
Saunders v. Stewart
...State, 777 So. 2d 781, 846 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999), aff'd sub nom. Ex parte Whitehead, 777 So. 2d 854 (Ala. 2000); Arthur v. State, 711 So. 2d 1031, 1093 (Ala. Cr. App. 1996). Those state cases - eschewing victim impact statements that advise or suggest an appropriate sentence - oftentimes i......
-
McGowan v. State
...Here, the appellant could have procured this information from the veniremembers themselves during voir dire.'" Arthur v. State, 711 So.2d 1031, 1080 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996) (quoting Kelley v. State, 602 So.2d 473, 478 (Ala.Crim.App.1992)), aff'd, 711 So.2d 1097 (Ala.1997). See also Williams v.......