Dailey v. State
| Decision Date | 29 June 2001 |
| Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama. (Re Tchnavian Rolanda DAILEY v. STATE). |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and J. Thomas Leverette, asst. atty. gen., for petitioner.
Domingo Soto of Madden & Soto, Mobile, for respondent.
Tchnavian Rolanda Dailey, the driver of a day-care van, was convicted of criminally negligent homicide, a violation of § 13A-6-4, Ala.Code 1975, after she left Demyreon Lindley, a three-year-old child, unattended in a closed van, ultimately causing his death. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed her conviction, concluding that the trial court had erred in granting the State's challenge for cause of prospective juror K.K. Dailey v. State, 828 So.2d 337 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). We granted the State's petition for certiorari review to determine whether the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals conflicts with this Court's holding in Evans v. State, 794 So.2d 411 (Ala.2000). We reverse and remand.
The record includes the following relevant portion of the voir dire examination of prospective juror K.K.:
The State challenged K.K. for cause, and the trial judge granted the challenge over the objection of defense counsel. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that "because there was no evidence of an absolute bias on the part of veniremember K.K. that would have disqualified her from serving on the jury, the trial court erroneously granted the State's challenge for cause." 828 So.2d at 340. The State, relying on Rule 45, Ala. R.App. P., and Evans v. State, argues that even if K.K.'s removal for cause was error, it was harmless error and therefore does not require a reversal.
We first consider whether the trial court erred in granting the State's challenge of K.K. for cause. Section 12-16-150, Ala.Code 1975, reads in pertinent part:
The Court of Criminal Appeals correctly stated the relevant test to be applied in qualifying a prospective juror in Minshew v. State, 542 So.2d 307, 309 (Ala. Crim.App.1988):
In holding that the trial judge erred in granting the State's challenge of K.K., the Court of Criminal Appeals stated:
828 So.2d at 340. We agree with this reasoning of the Court of Criminal Appeals; the trial court erred in granting the State's challenge of K.K. for cause. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in failing to perform a harmless-error analysis before reversing the trial court's judgment.
Rule 45, Ala. R.App. P., reads:
"No judgment may be reversed or set aside, nor new trial granted in any civil or criminal case on the ground of misdirection of the jury, the giving or refusal of special charges or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, nor for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which the appeal is taken or application is made, after an examination of the entire cause, it should appear that the error complained of has probably injuriously affected the substantial rights of the parties."
In Evans v. State, supra, the trial court had granted the State's challenge of a veniremember for cause based upon the fact that she was married to defense counsel's uncle. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court had erred in granting the challenge and that Evans's constitutional right to a fair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doster v. State Of Ala.
...Therefore, the Betheas are not entitled to a new trial on this basis.'"833 So. 2d at 6-7 (footnotes omitted). See also Dailey v. State, 828 So. 2d 340 (Ala. 2001). As was the case in Bethea, Calhoun offers no evidence that the jury ultimately impaneled was biased; therefore, if error occurr......
-
Belcher v. State
...Mason v. State, 536 So. 2d 127, 129 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988) (quoting Uptain )."As noted in the language quoted above from Dailey [v. State, 828 So. 2d 340 (Ala. 2001) ], this Court has returned to the ‘harmless-error’ analysis articulated in the Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 108 S.Ct. 2273,......
-
Morgan v. Com., 2003-SC-0489-MR.
...States rejects this view. By my count, twenty-six states have unequivocally rejected the per se reversal rule. See Dailey v. State, 828 So.2d 340, 343-44 (Ala.2001); Minch v. State, 934 P.2d 764, 769-70 (Alaska Ct.App.1997); State v. Hickman, 205 Ariz. 192, 68 P.3d 418, 427 (2003); Bangs v.......
-
State v. Gould
...511 U.S. 1129, 114 S.Ct. 2138, 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994) ; United States v. Joseph, 892 F.2d 118, 124 (D.C.Cir.1989) ; Dailey v. State, 828 So.2d 340, 343–44 (Ala.2001) ; State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245, 249, 750 N.E.2d 90 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1036, 122 S.Ct. 1795, 152 L.Ed.2d 65......