Dunaway v. State
Decision Date | 03 May 1973 |
Citation | 291 Ala. 93,278 So.2d 205 |
Parties | In re James E. DUNAWAY v. STATE of Alabama. Ex parte James E. Dunaway. SC 322. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William B. McCollough, Jr., Birmingham, for petitioner.
No brief for the State.
Defendant asserts that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is in conflict with a prior decision of this court and a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, to wit: Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 84 S.Ct. 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028, in which the entire opinion is as follows:
'Per Curiam.
'Petitioner was convicted in separate trials and by different juries of forging and uttering endorsements on government checks, 18 U.S.C. § 495, and of transportation of a forged instrument in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The two cases were tried in succession. The jury in the case tried first--forging and uttering endorsements--announced its guilty verdict in open court in the presence of the jury panel from which the jurors who were to try the second case--transportation of a forged instrument--were selected. Petitioner immediately objected to selecting a jury for the second case from among members of the panel who had heard the guilty verdict in the first case. The objection was overruled, and the actual jury which found petitioner guilty in the second case contained five jurors who had heard the verdict in the first case. The conviction in the second case was affirmed on appeal, 324 F.2d 914, (9 Cir.) and petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari.
'The Solicitor General, in his brief filed in this Court, states that:
'It is so ordered.
'Reversed and remanded.' (84 S.Ct. at 1696).
The opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals as here pertinent recites, 50 Ala.App. 200, 278 So.2d 200:
'. . . First, appellant complains of having to strike a jury from the same venire which had just witnessed a trial of the accused for a different offense. Appellant urges a denial of due process in his brief, stating that 'it is beyond my comprehension that a juror could witness a defendant on trial for a serious offense and (that) would not bias that juror's opinion in a trial immediately following.'
'Just prior to this ruling the trial judge had excused all jurors who had just served on another case involving the appellant.
'We find no abuse of discretion here.'
In application for certiorari, defendant asserts that the holding expressed in the foregoing statement by the Court of Criminal Appeals is in conflict with the holding of The Supreme Court of The United States in Leonard v. United States, supra; and that the action of the trial court, in requiring defendant to select a jury from a venire that had previously heard evidence against defendant in another case or had seen defendant convicted and sentenced in a case previously tried, was reversible error in that the action of the trial court deprived defendant of his right to be tried by an impartial jury.
Amendment VI of the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to trial 'by an impartial jury.'
Section 6 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 provides that the accused in all prosecutions by indictment, has a right to trial 'by an impartial jury.'
On its face, the above quoted statement from the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals appears to suggest that the court is there holding that a trial court may, without error, require a defendant in a criminal case to select a jury from a venire composed of persons who had just witnessed the trial of defendant for a different offense. Such a holding would appear to be contrary to Leonard v. United States, supra.
We must examine the record in the trial court if we are to decide whether the action of the trial court was erroneous. Ordinarily, on certiorari, this court will not review findings of fact by the Court of Criminal Appeals in the absence of a full statement of the evidence in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Loyd v. State, 279 Ala. 447, 186 So.2d 731; Haywood v. State, 280 Ala. 171, 190 So.2d 728. Even when the Court of Appeals has not written an opinion, however, in 'extreme instances,' this court has looked to the record to ascertain the facts necessary to decision upon a federal question. State v. Parrish, 242 Ala. 7, 5 So.2d 828. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thomas v. State
... ... 641, 643, 179 So.2d 766 (1965) ... See also Freeman v. Hall, 286 Ala. 161, 165, 238 So.2d 330 (1970) ... No evidence was presented to rebut this presumption. McCord v. State, 373 So.2d 1242, 1244 (Ala.Cr.App.1979) ; Williams v. State, 364 So.2d 717, 719 (Ala.Cr.App.1978) ; Dunaway v. State, 50 Ala.App. 200, 202, 278 So.2d 200, cert. denied, 291 Ala. 93, 278 So.2d 205 (1973) ." ... Id. (The court concluded that even if the admission of Bighames's fingerprint card was improper, that error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. But ... ...
-
Brantley v. State, 4 Div. 277
... ... Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 84 S.Ct. 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028; Dunaway v. State, 291 Ala. 93, 278 So.2d 205 ... Prior to trial, the appellant also moved for a mistrial because the trial court asked the question of the venire, 'Is any juror related by blood or marriage to any degree to L. L. Dozier?' also, 'Does any juror do business with L. L ... ...
-
Caffie v. State
... ... Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and its progeny created a narrowly drawn exception to the broad general rule that the seizure of a person "must be supported by the 'long prevailing standards' of probable cause." Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 212, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2256, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). In White v. State, 49 Ala.App. 5, 12, 267 So.2d 802, 809 (1972), the court, quoting People v. Navran, 174 Colo. 222, 228-29, 483 P.2d 228, 232 (1971), stated: ... "[W]e conclude that the authority to make a search ... ...
-
Hill v. State
... ... Smith v. State, 55 Ala. 1 (1876). The principle has been applied to a juror who sat on trial of another defendant which involved ... Page 857 ... the same transaction. Crowden v. State, 41 Ala.App. 421, 133 So.2d 678. The principle also applies to a companion case. Dunaway v. State, 291 Ala. 93, 278 So.2d 205 (1973), aff'g 50 Ala.App. 200, 278 So.2d 200, and conforming to Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 84 S.Ct. 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028. That members of a venire have previously served in a similar case is likely to present a problem as to their qualification, ... ...