Ex parte Ainsworth
| Decision Date | 14 November 1986 |
| Citation | 501 So.2d 1269 |
| Parties | Ex parte Willie Lee AINSWORTH. (Re: Willie Lee Ainsworth v. State of Alabama). 85-1292. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jerry E. Stokes, Andalusia, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Tommie Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
We granted Defendant's request to review the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals that the trial court properly refused to allow defense counsel to argue that his client was guilty of an offense other than the offense with which he was charged. We reverse and remand.
The facts are amply stated in the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion (Ainsworth v. State, 501 So.2d 1265 (Ala.Cr.App.1986)), and need not be detailed here. Suffice it to say that the Defendant was indicted for theft in the first degree; and, during defense counsel's summation to the jury, the trial court sustained the State's objection to defense counsel's argument to the effect that, although his client was guilty of a criminal offense, the evidence supported a reasonable inference that the only offense he had committed was the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the defendant's claim of error, reasoning that he, "as a matter of law, could not be guilty of unauthorized use."
As a premise for its holding, the Court of Criminal Appeals stated two basic principles: 1) The offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle is not a lesser included offense of theft in the first degree; and 2) counsel's argument to the jury must be confined to the material issues as defined by the trial court's instructions to the jury.
Although, abstractly, the stated premise contains correct statements of law, the Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously applied the law to the facts of the instant case. Neither the doctrine of lesser included offenses, nor the rule that confines argument of counsel to the material issues, restricts the right of counsel to argue the reasonable inferences of the evidence. Not only did he have the right to argue that his client did not have the requisite intent to permanently deprive the victim of her property, but also the jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence that the accused committed a crime for which he had not been charged.
Counsel in the trial of any lawsuit has the unbridled right (to be sure, the duty) to argue the reasonable inferences from the evidence most favorable to his client. 1 Indeed, the art of persuasion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
... ... 'plain error' in a capital case, the Alabama Supreme Court has looked to the federal court's interpretation of what is 'plain error.' See Ex parte Harrell, 470 So.2d 1309 (Ala.1985); Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766 (Ala.1983) [cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986, 104 S.Ct. 436, 78 L.Ed.2d 367 (1983) ] ... Ex parte Ainsworth, 501 So.2d 1269 (Ala.1986). The appellant's claim has no merit ... The appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing ... ...
-
Mason v. State
... ... See Ex parte Harrell, 470 So.2d 1309 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 935, 106 S.Ct. 269, 88 L.Ed.2d 276 (1985); Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766 (Ala.), cert ... , duty) to argue the reasonable inferences from the evidence most favorable to his client."' Kuenzel, 577 So.2d at 492, quoting Ex parte Ainsworth, 501 So.2d 1269, 1270 (Ala.1986) ... (Footnote omitted.) ... `"Counsel for the state and defendant are allowed a rather wide latitude in drawing their ... ...
-
Loggins v. State
... ... The Alabama Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in Ex parte Stewart, 730 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1999), and concluded that when the Legislature amended § 12-16-9, the statute superseded Rule 19.3(a), eliminated the ... the unbridled right (to be sure, the duty) to argue the reasonable inferences from the evidence most favorable to his client.' Ex parte Ainsworth, 501 So.2d 1269, 1270 (Ala.1986) (footnote omitted). `[T]he rule is that counsel are allowed considerable latitude in drawing their deductions from ... ...
-
Kuenzel v. State
... ... 'plain error' in a capital case, the Alabama Supreme Court has looked to the federal court's interpretation of what is 'plain error.' See Ex parte Harrell, 470 So.2d 1309 (Ala.1985); Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766 (Ala.1983) ... "In United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 105 ... the unbridled right (to be sure, the duty) to argue the reasonable inferences from the evidence most favorable to his client." Ex parte Ainsworth, 501 So.2d 1269, 1270 (Ala.1986) (footnote omitted). "[T]he rule is that counsel are allowed considerable latitude in drawing their deductions from ... ...