Drinkard v. State
Decision Date | 18 December 1998 |
Citation | 777 So.2d 225 |
Parties | Gary DRINKARD v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Britt Cauthen, Decatur; Kimberly J. Dobbs-Ramey, Decatur; and Randall Scott Susskind, Montgomery, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Michael B. Billingsley, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Gary Drinkard, was convicted of the offense of murder made capital because it was committed during a robbery in the first degree, see § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Code of Alabama 1975. He waived his right to a sentencing hearing before the jury that convicted him. Following a sentencing hearing before the trial court, the appellant was sentenced to death.
In its sentencing order, the trial court set out the following findings of fact:
(C.R.62-65.)
At the outset, we note that the appellant raises some 29 issues on appeal, several of which include numerous subparts, and, in a practice disfavored by this Court, he also raises several substantive issues in footnotes. Many of the appellant's assertions have not been preserved for appellate review; nevertheless, because this case involves the death penalty, this Court must review the appellant's assertions for plain error.
"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, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant."
Bush v. State, 695 So.2d 70, 87 (Ala.Cr. App.1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 969, 118 S.Ct. 418, 139 L.Ed.2d 320 (1997). See also, Davis v. State, 718 So.2d 1148, 1154 n. 3 (Ala.Cr. App.1995), aff'd, 718 So.2d 1166 (Ala.1998).
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to sequester the jury during his trial. Specifically, he argues that Rule 19.3(a)(1), Ala.R.Crim.P., takes precedence over § 12-16-9, Code of Alabama 1975, and therefore, the trial court erred in allowing the jury to separate over the objection of the parties.1 This Court recently addressed this issue and decided it adversely to the appellant in Stewart v. State, 730 So.2d 1203, 1212 (Ala. Cr.App.1997). See also, Hyde v. State, 778 So.2d 199 (Ala.Cr.App.1998); Smith v. State, on return to remand, 756 So.2d 892 (Ala.Cr.App.1997). Accordingly, this argument is without merit.
The appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based on his allegation that the manner of selecting grand jury forepersons in Morgan County was racially discriminatory. We disagree.
The appellant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in which he argued, in part, that African-Americans had been "systematically and discriminatorily excluded from serving as grand jury foreperson in Morgan County."2 The trial court subsequently conducted a hearing on the appellant's motion.
Testimony elicited at the hearing established that before October 1993 grand jury forepersons were appointed by the trial court based upon a recommendation from the district attorney. The evidence tended to indicate that at the time of the hearing, no African-American had served as a foreperson of a grand jury in Morgan County. Bob Burrell, the district attorney for Morgan County since 1987, testified that since October 1993 the grand jury members have been allowed to select a foreperson from among themselves. The grand jury that indicted the appellant selected its own foreperson. (R. 629-30.) According to Burrell, the new method has not yet resulted in the selection of an African-American as a grand-jury foreperson; however, h...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGowan v. State
...was presented from which one could reasonably infer that the appellant's threat was directed toward the victim." Drinkard v. State, 777 So.2d 225, 243-46 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), rev'd on other ground, 777 So.2d 295 Based on the foregoing, we find that the admission of Ronnie Harper's testimony......
-
Grayson v. State
...as long as there is sufficient supporting testimony, there is no impropriety in the use of such a term. See, e.g., Drinkard v. State, 777 So.2d 225 (Ala.Cr.App.1998) (use of "indicated" concerning the appellant's knowingly waiving his rights to a sentencing hearing before a jury); Abernathy......
-
Bryant v. State
...a no eyewitness case? "[R.C.]: (Nodding head in affirmative.) "The Court: That's all then. Thank you." (R. 320-25.) In Drinkard v. State, 777 So.2d 225 (Ala.Cr.App.1998), in reviewing and upholding the trial court's granting of the prosecution's challenges for cause as to two prospective ju......
-
Woods v. State
...prosecutor responded that the grand jury proceedings were not recorded in St. Clair County. As this Court held in Drinkard v. State, 777 So.2d 225, 258 (Ala.Cr.App. 1998), rev'd on other grounds, 777 So.2d 295 "We find no plain error in the failure to record the grand jury proceedings. Alab......