Bryant v. State, No. CR-98-0023 (AL 4/29/2005)
Decision Date | 29 April 2005 |
Docket Number | No. CR-98-0023.,CR-98-0023. |
Parties | Jerry Devane Bryant v. State of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Houston Circuit Court (CC-97-403).
On Return to Remand.
The appellant, Jerry Devane Bryant, was convicted of murder made capital because it occurred during a kidnapping in the first degree. See § 13A-5-40(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975. In accordance with the jury's recommendation, the circuit court sentenced Bryant to death.
On November 19, 1999, this Court affirmed Bryant's conviction and sentence. Bryant v. State, [Ms. CR-98-0023, November 19, 1999] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 1999). On June 21, 2002, the Supreme Court affirmed Bryant's conviction, but reversed the sentence of death and remanded the case to this Court, holding that Bryant was entitled to a new sentencing proceeding because the circuit court's penalty-phase jury instructions implied that the jury could not recommend a penalty of life in prison without the possibility of parole instead of death unless the mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating circumstances. Ex parte Bryant, [Ms. 1990901, June 21, 2002] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. 2002).
On March 21, 2003, this Court, in accordance with the Supreme Court's directive, reversed Bryant's death sentence and remanded this case for the Houston Circuit Court to conduct a new sentencing hearing. The circuit court has complied with our directions, and on October 8, 2004, this case was resubmitted for our review.
Because the facts surrounding this case have already been set out in some detail, a brief rendition of the facts will suffice.
The evidence presented at trial established that on the night of January 27, 1997, Bryant kidnapped and murdered 27-year-old Donald Hollis. Bryant kidnapped Hollis in Dothan and later that night shot him in the head three times. Bryant then put Hollis's body in the trunk of Hollis's automobile, drove to Florida, and disposed of the body. Bryant then sold Hollis's cellular telephone for crack cocaine; he also attempted to sell Hollis's car for crack cocaine, but was unsuccessful. The jury found Bryant guilty of murder made capital because it occurred during a kidnapping in the first degree.
Following a second sentencing hearing conducted on remand, the jury recommended by a vote of 11-1 that he be sentenced to death. The circuit court adopted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Bryant to death.
We now address the issues raised as a result of the new sentencing hearing and the other penalty-phase issues. Any additional facts pertinent to the resolution of these issues will be set out as necessary.
Bryant argues that the circuit court erred when it granted the State's challenges for cause regarding prospective jurors E.F. and M.F.1
When reviewing a challenge for cause, we look to the following general principles of law:
Ex parte Davis, 718 So. 2d 1166, 1171-72 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1179 (1999). See also Whitehead v. State, 777 So. 2d 781, 808 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 777 So. 2d 854 (Ala. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 907 (2001).
This issue was also discussed at length in Dallas v. State, 711 So. 2d 1101, 1107 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997), aff'd, 711 So. 2d 1114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 860 (1998) (quoting Taylor v. State, 666 So. 2d 36, 47 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994), aff'd, 666 So. 2d 73 (Ala. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 (1996)). In Dallas, we stated:
See also McNabb v. State, 887 So. 2d 929, 944-45 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001), aff'd, 887 So. 2d 998 (Ala.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 606, 160 L. Ed. 2d 466 (2004).
With these principles in mind, we will address Bryant's claims as to these potential jurors.
Bryant contends that the circuit court should not have granted the State's challenges for cause as to potential jurors E.F. and M.F., who indicated their opposition to the death penalty. Specifically, he argues that they were adequately rehabilitated during additional voir dire that clarified their opinions regarding the death penalty.
In Pressley v. State, 770 So. 2d 115, 127 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 770 So. 2d 143 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 931 (2000), this Court noted the following:
See also Watkins v. State, 509 So. 2d 1071, 1073 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986), aff'd, 509 So. 2d 1074 (Ala.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 918 (1987).
We have reviewed the voir dire conducted by the circuit court, paying particular attention to those jurors against whom challenges for cause were lodged, including E.F. and M.F. After reviewing the voir dire examination, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in granting the challenges for cause as to E.F. and M.F. Both individuals indicated their opposition to the death penalty. Both expressed reservations about their ability to recommend the death penalty, even if the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. Upon further voir dire, both indicated that the aggravating circumstances would have to greatly outweigh the mitigating circumstances before they would be able even to consider recommending that Bryant be sentenced to death. In responding to the court's inquiry, M.F. noted that there would have to be "a great amount of aggravating circumstances for me to recommend the death penalty ... [and] if there was just even a small bit of mitigating circumstances, that would make me go towards life [imprisonment] without parole." (R. 154.) M.F. went on to note that if there was any mitigating evidence at all, it would be enough for him to recommend life imprisonment without parole (R. 155-56), before telling the court that "I could not do it" (R. 157), meaning that he could not recommend the death penalty.
E.F. was equally reluctant to even consider...
To continue reading
Request your trial