Ex parte Clark
Decision Date | 15 May 1998 |
Citation | 728 So.2d 1126 |
Parties | Ex parte Andrew Bert CLARK. (Re Andrew Bert Clark v. State). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charles D. Decker, Dothan, for petitioner.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Michael B. Billingsley, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
We granted Andrew Bert Clark's petition for the writ of certiorari to review his capital murder conviction and his sentence of death by electrocution.
Clark was convicted of murder made capital pursuant to § 13A-5-40(2), Ala.Code 1975, because the murder occurred during the commission of a first degree robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, the jury, by a 9 to 3 vote, recommended that Clark be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The trial judge, pursuant to the authority given him by § 13A-5-47(e), overrode the jury's recommendation of life without parole and sentenced Clark to death by electrocution. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Clark's conviction and sentence, and, in its opinion, set forth the following facts:
Clark v. State, 728 So.2d 1117 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996).
In affirming Clark's conviction and sentence, the Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the following issues: whether the trial judge erred in denying Clark's motion for recusal; whether the trial court erred in refusing to strike a prospective juror for cause; whether the trial court erred in allowing photographs of Posey's body into evidence; whether the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter; and whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Clark of capital murder. The Court of Criminal Appeals adequately addressed these issues in its opinion and we, therefore, adopt the reasoning and holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals on those issues as part of the opinion of this Court. We will address the following additional issues raised by Clark in this Court.
Clark contends that the prosecutor impermissibly directly and indirectly referred to the fact that Clark did not testify at the trial. Clark argues that during closing arguments the prosecutor made a direct reference to his failure to testify, when the prosecutor told the jury:
R.T. at 917. Clark argues that this comment directly referred to his failure to testify at trial and, consequently, was reversible error. The record indicates that the comment made by the prosecutor during closing arguments was made after the following comment made by the defense:
"Ladies and gentlemen, in summation, you have a situation and you have a tape recording of the only surviving witness who was there giving you direct testimony of exactly what happened out there, Andy Clark's statements."
R.T. at 912-13. The defendant did not object at trial to the prosecutor's statement during closing argument. This Court has written:
Ex parte Payne, 683 So.2d 458, 465 (Ala. 1996). In Ex parte Brooks, 695 So.2d 184 (Ala. 1997), this Court wrote:
; Ex parte Yarber, 375 So.2d 1231, 1233 (Ala.1979); Whitt v. State, 370 So.2d 736, 738-39 (Ala.1979).
"Comments by a prosecutor on a defendant's failure to testify are highly prejudicial and harmful, and courts must carefully guard against a violation of a defendant's constitutional right not to testify. Whitt, supra, at 739; Ex parte Williams, 461 So.2d 852, 853 (Ala.1984); see Ex parte Purser, 607 So.2d 301 (Ala.1...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lindsay v. State
...to other capital murders. Indeed, this murder meets the definition of especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel as defined in Ex parte Clark, 728 So.2d 1126 (Ala. 1998), and Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So. 2d 317 (Ala. 1979). Lindsay is due no relief on this claim.XIV. Lindsay next argues that the ci......
-
Brown v. State
...Williams v. State, 601 So.2d 1062, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App.1991)."'" Maples v. State, 758 So.2d at 42-43, quoting Ex parte Clark, 728 So.2d 1126, 1132 (Ala.1998), quoting in turn Worthington v. State, 652 So.2d 790, 792-93 (Ala.Crim. App.1994). Because Brown was spontaneously volunteering informat......
-
Miller v. State, CR-08-1413
...trial court properly concluded that the murder of the three victims was 'especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.' See Ex parte Clark, 728 So. 2d 1126, 1140 (Ala. 1998).Miller, 913 So. 2d at 1165-67. This Court has reviewed the mitigating evidence trial counsel allegedly failed to discover ......
-
Hodges v. State
...or cruel" aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally applied in this case. We disagree. The Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Clark, 728 So.2d 1126 (Ala.1998), stated the following about this aggravating "In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), the Sup......