Cook v. State
Citation | 369 So.2d 1251 |
Parties | In re Recardo COOK v. STATE of Alabama. Ex parte Recardo Cook. 77-320. |
Decision Date | 15 September 1978 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Louis Wilkinson and Charles M. Purvis of Wilkinson, Purvis & Pickard, Birmingham, for petitioner.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and James L. O'Kelley, Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State, OPPOSED.
Recardo Cook was convicted of "robbery . . . when the victim is intentionally killed." § 13-11-2(a)(2), Code of Ala.1975. After a sentencing hearing held by the trial court, Cook was sentenced to death. His conviction and punishment were upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeals. This court granted certiorari as a matter of right. ARAP 39(c).
Cook urges two grounds for reversal: (1) that the Alabama Death Penalty Act is unconstitutional, and (2) that the trial court committed error by not correcting certain prosecutorial arguments allegedly containing prejudicial or erroneous material.
We affirm Cook's conviction, but opine that the sentencing hearing did not comport with the constitutional standards outlined in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) and Jacobs v. State (Ala.1978, opinion extended on rehearing Aug. 11, 1978), 361 So.2d 640, and remand for another sentencing hearing pursuant to the procedures outlined in this opinion.
On March 4, 1977, one week after the jury returned its guilty verdict, the trial judge held the sentencing hearing required by § 13-11-3, Code of Ala.1975. Present at the hearing were the trial judge, a district Defense counsel rebutted by pointing out that malicious mischief with a $100 fine probably would not equal a "significant history" and that Cook was still presumed innocent on the pending robbery charge. Counsel also stated briefly that it was shown at trial that Cook had a good work history at a local factory but had been laid off shortly before the murder. Defense counsel showed that Cook was 22 at the time the crime was committed, but the trial judge did not feel Cook's age presented a mitigating circumstance. Counsel then emphasized that immediately prior to trial Cook had been offered life imprisonment for a guilty plea, arguing that Cook should not now be sentenced to death simply because he insisted on a trial by jury. The State then asserted that it was now seeking the death penalty for deterrence reasons, to avoid "making it open season out there." The trial judge refused to consider these last arguments.
attorney, one member of Cook's defense team, and Cook himself. The State began by presenting Cook's "prior record or his involvement in other criminal activities." It was revealed that in 1972 Cook was charged with assault with intent to murder, but this charge was reduced to malicious destruction of property with a $100 fine. In addition, in 1975 Cook was alleged to have robbed the "Red One Shop." The trial judge was informed that there were two purported eyewitnesses and that a tag number was taken for Cook's sister's car (the same car reportedly used in the murder of Webb.) The witnesses did not appear at the hearing. According to the district attorney, "There was no physical violence involved at all other than the use of a gun."
After this brief discussion the trial judge began to consider, seriatim, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances listed in §§ 13-11-6 and 13-11-7, Code of Ala.1975. 1 Under § 13-11-7 (mitigating circumstances) the trial judge stated, "I would agree that he probably has no significant history, but he does have a history." He later incorporated this statement in his findings of fact where he discussed the 1972 assault with intent to murder and its final outcome and also detailed the pending robbery charge. The trial judge thought this was the only mitigating circumstance present, although it was obviously very limited in his mind. Under § 13-11-6 (aggravating circumstances) the trial judge found two present, (4) a capital felony committed in the course of a robbery, and (6) a capital felony committed for pecuniary gain, and
these were both listed in his findings of fact. Consequently, since he did not think the mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating circumstances, the trial judge "allowed the jury's verdict to stand."
As to the first issue raised by the defendant, the constitutionality of Alabama's Death Penalty Act, our recent consideration of this point in Jacobs v. State eliminates the need for further discussion of the general statutory provisions here.
Nor do we find merit in defendant's contention that his conviction must be reversed because of allegedly prejudicial or erroneous material in the prosecutor's closing argument. Specifically, defendant objects to two portions of the argument. The first comment complained of occurred as follows:
It is clear that a district attorney in closing argument may make a general appeal for law enforcement. Embrey v. State, 283 Ala. 110, 118, 214 So.2d 567 (1968). In Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476 (1881), this Court observed:
In line with this principle, this court allowed the argument of the district attorney in Embrey that, " 'You have got to determine whether or not these juries are going to stop these robberies from going on.' " 283 Ala. at 118, 214 So.2d at 575. See also Davidson v. State, 211 Ala. 471, 100 So. 641 (1924). In fact, the comment objected to in this case is distinguishable only in the severity of the crime and punishment from that allowed in Blalock v. State, 8 Ala.App. 349, 63 So. 26 (1913), where the solicitor stated, " 'If you turn this man loose, it will be a license for all them people up there in beat 24 to turn their stock out.' " In approving this argument the Court of Appeals stated:
In this same vein defendant also objects to another portion of the district attorney's closing argument where the following occurred:
The rule governing the permissible scope of argument was succinctly stated by this court in Johnson v. State, 272 Ala. 633, 133 So.2d 53 (1961):
272 Ala. at 637, 133 So.2d at 56.
Here defendant objected to the prosecutor's remark about "Mr. Tortorici" as a reference to "other specific incidents." Certainly counsel could not draw comparisons between the case at bar and another case, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Harris
...involve an attempt at pecuniary gain. Thus, to avoid repetition, subsection 6 should not be applied to a robbery." (Cook v. State (Ala.1978) 369 So.2d 1251, 1256.) The North Carolina Supreme Court has similarly limited the use of the aggravating circumstances of "avoiding or prevent lawful ......
-
People v. Melton
...alleged as "avoiding or preventing lawful arrest" and "hinder[ing] or disrupt[ing] ... enforcement of laws"]; Cook v. State (Ala.1978) 369 So.2d 1251, 1256 [robbery-murder and murder for pecuniary gain]; Provence v. State (Fla.1976) 337 So.2d 783, 786 [same].)29 For this reason, the dissent......
-
People v. Bigelow
... ... Ed.2d 562, the Supreme Court established the constitutional right of a defendant to represent himself, it carefully added that: "Of course, a State may--even over objection by the accused--appoint a 'standby counsel' to aid the accused if and when the accused requests help, and to be available to ... (b).) ... 12 Two other decisions have similarly narrowed a murder for pecuniary gain factor to avoid overlap with felony murder. (Cook v. State (Ala.1979) 369 So.2d 1251, 1256; Provence v. State (Fla.1976) 337 So.2d 783, cert. denied (1977) 431 U.S. 969, 97 S.Ct. 2929, 53 L.Ed.2d ... ...
-
Dobyne v. State
...capital murder charge from an unrelated prior incident the Court cannot consider pending charges as criminal history. Cook v. State, 369 So.2d 1251 (Ala.1978). Accordingly the Court finds that the mitigating circumstance under Section 13A-5-51(1) "2) The Court finds that the mitigating circ......