Benjamin v. State
Decision Date | 30 September 2005 |
Docket Number | CR-03-2040. |
Citation | 940 So.2d 371 |
Parties | Brandyn Josephe BENJAMIN v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Michael Crespi, Dothan, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Tracy Daniel and Corey L. Maze, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Brandyn Josephe Benjamin, was convicted of capital murder for the killing of Jimmie Lewis. The murder was made capital because the appellant committed it during the course of a first-degree robbery. See § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. By a vote of 10-2, the jury recommended that he be sentenced to death. The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death. The appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by operation of law. See Rule 24.4, Ala. R.Crim. P. This appeal followed.
The appellant raises some arguments on appeal that he did not raise at trial. Although the lack of an objection at trial will not bar our review of an issue in a case that involves the death penalty, it will weigh against any claim of prejudice the appellant may raise. See Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala. 1985). 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 ... whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant."
"[This] plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be `used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.'" United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592 n. 14, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982)).
Because the appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, a lengthy recitation of the facts is not necessary. However, we have reviewed the evidence, and we have determined that it is sufficient to support the appellant's conviction. The following summary of the relevant facts, which the trial court prepared, may be helpful to an understanding of this case:
(C.R. 202.) The appellant also made a statement to law enforcement officers in which he admitted that he intended to rob the victim, that he had a handgun with him, and that he and the victim struggled. However, he contended that he unintentionally or accidentally shot the victim during the struggle.
The appellant's first argument is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss or remand the indictment and denying his motion for a more definite statement because the indictment allegedly was defective. Citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), he specifically contends that the indictment was defective because it did not set forth the aggravating circumstances upon which the State intended to rely. We addressed and rejected a similar argument in Stallworth v. State, 868 So.2d 1128, 1186 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001) ( ), as follows:
(Footnote omitted.) Accordingly, the appellant's argument is without merit.
The appellant's second argument is that the trial court erred in admitting the audiotape of the conversation between the appellant and Baker into evidence.
"The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." Rule 901(a), Ala. R. Evid.
Paige v. State, 621 So.2d 372, 372 (Ala. Crim.App.1993).
Bates v. State, 669 So.2d 232, 234 (Ala. Crim.App.1995).
Paige, 621 So.2d at 373. In fact, a witness who listened to a recorded conversation from a remote location may testify as to the recording's authenticity. See Bates, 669 So.2d at 234 ( ); Paige, supra ( ).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Pelletier
...Fed.Appx. 948, 950 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 163, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2007). See also Benjamin v. State, 940 So.2d 371, 379 (Ala.Ct.Crim.App.2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 494, 166 L.Ed.2d 372 (2006); State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193, 214, 141 P.3d 368 ......
-
Connell v. State
...to expand that decision as the appellant would have us do. See Jones v. State, 946 So.2d 903 (Ala.Crim.App.2006); Benjamin v. State, 940 So.2d 371 (Ala. Crim.App.2005). Therefore, the appellant's reliance on Roper is misplaced, and his argument is without The appellant's second argument is ......
-
Sharifi v. State
...We have also rejected arguments that the aggravating circumstances must be contained in an indictment. See Benjamin v. State, 940 So.2d 371 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); Barber v. State, 952 So.2d 393 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); Walker v. State, 932 So.2d 140 (Ala.Crim. Moreover, "Lewis further argues that......
-
James v. State
...limited circumstances, and we are not in a position to expand those decisions as the appellant would have us do. See Benjamin v. State, 940 So.2d 371 (Ala.Crim.App.2005). Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to relief in this regard.” Similarly, the appellant is not entitled to relief i......