Chambers v. State
Decision Date | 26 February 1980 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 202 |
Citation | 382 So.2d 632 |
Parties | Willie James CHAMBERS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Albert C. Hultquist, Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., Joseph G. L. Marston, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The defendant was indicted for the first degree murder of William Henry Craig. A jury convicted him of manslaughter in the first degree and fixed punishment at ten years' imprisonment. The only issue raised on appeal concerns the impropriety of the prosecutor's remarks in closing argument to the jury.
During closing argument, defense counsel made four objections to the prosecutor's remarks. Those remarks and the objections made by defense counsel, as well as the action by the trial court, appear in the record as follows.
V
The objection to a fifth remark is made for the first time on appeal. That remark by the prosecutor was: "This man (defendant) ran up there and gunned him down."
The defendant contends that these comments are not based on the evidence and are not reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Additionally, he argues that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor's remarks is so prejudicial that a reversal of his conviction is required.
The principles by which this case must be decided are set forth in Allred v. State, 291 Ala. 34, 38, 277 So.2d 339, 342 (1973).
The State argues that the prosecutor was merely arguing legitimate inferences from the evidence and that, since the trial court sustained every objection made by defense counsel, nothing is presented for review. On this second point, the Alabama Supreme Court has ruled:
Christian v. State, 351 So.2d 623, 626 (Ala.1977).
Considering the prejudicial quality of the prosecutor's remarks preserved for review, we do not find that his statements were such that their impact upon the jury was ineradicable.
The facts show that on May 30, 1979, the defendant and Craig engaged in a fight. The defendant left the scene but later returned and shot at Craig five times as Craig was sitting in his automobile. According to the State's evidence Craig never had a pistol and, inferentially, the defendant brought the pistol he used to kill Craig with him to the scene of the homicide.
The defense presented testimony that Craig had a pistol sometime prior to the killing. When the defendant approached Craig to make up after their fight, Craig pulled the weapon. At that point, the defendant managed to get the pistol away from Craig which accidentally fired. When the defendant "went down under his seat, looked like he was going to get something else" the defendant "fired pistol again and backed off holding the pistol". Two of the five shots fired struck Craig and caused his death.
Under the testimony presented, there is a basis for finding that the prosecutor's arguments were inferences from the evidence. See Stewart v. State, 231 Ala. 594, 165 So. 840 (1936), and Langham v. State, 12 Ala.App. 46, 68 So. 504, cert. denied, 192 Ala. 687, 68 So. 1019 (1915), for analogous though not identical situations. "Liberal rules are allowed counsel in drawing inferences from the evidence in their arguments to the jury, whether they are truly drawn or not."...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baxter v. State
...So.2d 175 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); Kelley v. State, 405 So.2d 728 (Ala.Crim. App.), cert. denied, 405 So.2d 731 (Ala. 1981); Chambers v. State, 382 So.2d 632 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 382 So.2d 636 (Ala.1980); Nix v. State, 370 So.2d 1115 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1119 (Ala.......
-
Wilson v. State
...better position than the appellate court to determine whether the remarks were so prejudicial as to be ineradicable.' Chambers v. State, 382 So.2d 632, 635 (Ala. Cr. App.), cert. denied, 382 So.2d 636 (Ala. Soriano v. State, 527 So.2d 1367, 1371 (Ala. Cr. App. 1988). Accordingly, the appell......
-
Wilson v. State
...better position than the appellate court to determine whether the remarks were so prejudicial as to be ineradicable.' Chambers v. State, 382 So.2d 632, 635 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 382 So.2d 636 Soriano v. State, 527 So.2d 1367, 1371 (Ala.Cr.App.1988). Accordingly, the appellant is not ......
- Tarver v. State