Ex parte Adkins
Decision Date | 17 April 1992 |
Citation | 600 So.2d 1067 |
Parties | Ex parte Ricky Dale ADKINS. (Re Ricky Dale Adkins v. State). 1900654. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
D. Michael Barrett, Birmingham, Talmadge H. Fambrough, Pell City, and Charlotta Norby, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Gilda Branch Williams and William D. Little, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
Ricky Dale Adkins was convicted of capital murder. After the guilt phase of the trial, the jury considered his punishment and recommended, by a 10-to-2 vote, that he be punished by death. The trial judge agreed and sentenced Adkins to death.
On direct appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 600 So.2d 1054, Adkins raised five issues. As required by Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-53, the Court of Criminal Appeals also reviewed the propriety of Adkins's conviction and sentence of death. After doing so, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence of death.
This Court granted Adkins's petition for a writ of certiorari. Rule 39(c), Ala.R.App.P. In this Court, Adkins reargues some of the issues addressed by the Court of Criminal Appeals and also presents a number of new issues. We have reviewed the record, the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the arguments presented in Adkins's petition and brief. After thoroughly considering the issues addressed by the Court of Criminal Appeals, we conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly decided each of the issues presented to that court.
The State argues that this Court should not address the issues that were not raised in the Court of Criminal Appeals. According to Rule 39(k), A.R.App.P., this Court can notice and review any "plain error or defect" in capital cases, without regard to whether the error was brought to the trial court's attention. 1
Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So.2d 112, 117 (Ala.1991). Accordingly, this Court has reviewed the record for any plain error that would have seriously affected the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings. See Ex parte Lawhorn, 581 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1991) cert. denied, 502 U.S. 970, 112 S.Ct. 445, 116 L.Ed.2d 463 (1991). Of those issues, raised here by the defendant as based on "plain error," but which were not addressed by the Court of Criminal Appeals, we find only two that present any need for discussion.
WHETHER THE STATE IMPROPERLY EXERCISED ITS PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES BY STRIKING BLACK JURORS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RACE.
Adkins, a white defendant, was charged with the murder of a white female. During jury selection, the State exercised 9 of its 24 peremptory strikes to remove 9 of 11 blacks from the jury. Adkins's lawyers struck one of the two remaining black jurors, and one black served on the jury. Adkins's lawyers never objected to the State's removal of blacks from Adkins's jury.
Recently, the United States Supreme Court held as follows:
"Invoking the Equal Protection Clause and federal statutory law, and relying upon well-established principles of standing, we hold that a criminal defendant may object to race-based exclusions of jurors effected through peremptory challenges whether or not the defendant and the excluded juror share the same race."
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 1366, 113 L.Ed.2d 411, 419 (1991). The Court stated:
Id., 499 U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1371, 113 L.Ed.2d at 425 (citations omitted). Consequently, this Court must review the question whether the State's exercise of its peremptory strikes was racially discriminatory.
In Ex parte Bankhead, supra, this Court, relying on Powers, remanded a case in which the death penalty had been imposed on a white defendant. Bankhead's attorney had not objected to the State's use of its peremptory strikes to remove 8 of 10 black venire members. This Court held that the "plain error" doctrine required it to address the Batson issue and, on rehearing after Powers was decided and relying on the mandate of Powers, held that the case was due to be remanded to the circuit court for a hearing on this issue. 585 So.2d at 117. The same holding is required here.
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT'S "REASONABLE DOUBT" INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.
Adkins also argues that the trial judge improperly instructed the jury at the close of the evidence. Specifically, Adkins contends that the trial judge's explanation of the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" allowed the jury to find Adkins guilty based on a lower degree of proof than that required by the due process clauses of the United States Constitution and the Alabama Constitution. Adkins also argues that the trial judge improperly referred to the same explanation of "beyond a reasonable doubt" during the sentencing phase of the trial.
The United States Supreme Court has stated:
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072-73, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, 375 (1970). 2 A trial judge's error in explaining the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard could "adversely affect[ ] the substantial rights" of a defendant, Rule 39(k), A.R.App.P., or "affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceeding." Ex parte Bankhead, supra. Accordingly, this Court must determine whether the trial judge's explanation of the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" satisfied the requirements of the Due Process Clause.
In explaining the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt," the trial judge instructed the jury as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hodges v. State
..."unless clear evidence of bias is shown." Adkins v. State, 600 So.2d [1054] at 1062 [(Ala.Cr. App.1990), remanded on other grounds, 600 So.2d 1067 (Ala.1992)].'" Ex parte Knotts, 716 So.2d 262, 267 (Ala. Crim.App.1998) (quoting Riddle v. State, 669 So.2d 1014, 1019 We have reviewed the reco......
-
Jenkins v. Allen
...was decided, "Powers was clearly established Federal law at the time of his trial as well as for his appeal." (Doc. 48 at 87). However, Adkins did not involve a claim that counsel were ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's alleged discriminatory use of peremptory challenges.......
-
DeBruce v. State
...Specifically, the instruction in the present case does not require 'a grave uncertainty' for acquittal." See also Ex parte Adkins, 600 So.2d 1067, 1069-71 (Ala.1992); Ex parte Beavers, 598 So.2d 1320, 1324 (Ala.1992); Ex parte White, 587 So.2d 1236, 1237 The appellant's conviction is not du......
-
Jenkins v. State
...in October 1988. Tammy Hogeland was murdered in April 1989. See Adkins v. State, 600 So.2d 1054 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990), remanded, 600 So.2d 1067 (Ala.1992), opinion on return to remand, 639 So.2d 515 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), aff'd, 639 So.2d 522 (Ala.1994). 14. This individual's name is spelled d......
-
Medical Malpractice as Workers' Comp: Overcoming State Constitutional Barriers to Tort Reform
...heightened scrutiny because of the particular constitutional guarantees they implicate.").386. See, e.g., Ex parte Adkins, 600 So. 2d 1067 (Ala. 1992); Reed v. Branson, 527 So. 2d 102 (Ala. 1988); Home Indem. Co. v. Anders, 459 So. 2d 836 (Ala. 1984); Bowlin Horn v. Citizens Hosp., 425 So. ......