Ex parte Johnson
| Decision Date | 07 December 1979 |
| Parties | Ex parte Anthony O'Hara JOHNSON. (Re: Anthony O'Hara Johnson v. State of Alabama). 78-670. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Robert W. Gwin, Jr., Birmingham, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and Mary Jane LeCroy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, respondent.
The writ of certiorari was granted automatically in this case in which the death penalty was imposed as punishment. Rule 39(c), ARAP. We have carefully reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties on the points raised by the petition, and upon due consideration we affirm the conviction. We reverse and remand for a new sentencing hearing, however.
As noted by the Court of Criminal Appeals, there were two sentencing proceedings in the lower court. At the second hearing that court applied our decision in Ex parte Cook, Ala., 369 So.2d 1251 (1978), interpreting the aggravating circumstance of "a capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain" as contained in Code of 1975, § 13-11-6, and eliminated his consideration of that factor in his determination of the sentence. The trial court then adopted his findings made in the original sentencing hearing. These included the following 2. The present capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged in and accompanied by another person in the commission of a robbery (Subsection 4).
3. This capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest for the purposes of getting rid of the victim so that he could not identify the defendant (Subsection 5).
The Court of Criminal Appeals held that these findings accorded with the provisions of § 13-11-6 on aggravating circumstances. We disagree with that conclusion because we are convinced that subsection (5) of § 13-11-6 requires a more limited interpretation than either court has given it. Subsection (5) states:
The capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody;
One interpretation of this provision would enable it to be applied in all felony cases in which death has ensued, for it could be said that one of the purposes of inflicting any death would be to prevent identification by the victim. The language of the provision, grouped as it is with other specific circumstances of aggravation, cannot have been intended by the legislature to have such an expansive application. The requirement of strict construction of criminal statutes also augurs for a more restricted interpretation. Schenher v. State, 38 Ala.App. 573, 90 So.2d 234, cert. den. 265 Ala. 700, 90 So.2d 238 (1956). Utilizing the clear language of the provision to determine the circumstances to which it is applicable we conclude that it applies to "lawful arrest" or "escape from custody" situations. Cf. the concurring opinion of Torbert, C. J., in Jacobs v. State, Ala., 361 So.2d 640 (1978). It should be kept in view that the offenses for which the death penalty may be invoked are aggravated offenses. Undoubtedly the legislature, by adopting the provision in question, placed special emphasis upon the protection of persons effecting lawful arrests or who would be endangered during escapes from lawful custody, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. State
...opportunity at rebuttal. Smiley v. State, 435 So.2d 202, 206 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, 399 So.2d 873 (Ala.1979). " 'In Thompson [v. State], 503 So.2d [871,] at 880 [Ala.Cr.App.1986], this Court rejected the argument that the presentence report w......
-
Burgess v. State
...206 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), Johnson v. State, 399 So.2d 859, 864 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, 399 So.2d 873 (Ala.1979).'" 601 So.2d at 1085, quoting Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474, 528 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.), cert. denied, 502 U.S......
-
Kuenzel v. State
...202, 206 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Johnson v. State, 399 So.2d 859, 864 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, 399 So.2d 873 (Ala.1979). In Thompson, 503 So.2d at 880, this Court rejected the argument that the presentence report was inadmissible at the sentence hearing......
-
State v. Kingsley
...is about to apprehend or prosecute him." Kingsley relies on cases which arose in the death penalty context in other states. Ex parte Johnson, 399 So.2d 873 (Ala.1979); People v. Bigelow, 37 Cal.3d 731, 209 Cal.Rptr. 328, 691 P.2d 994 (1984); and Menendez v. State, 368 So.2d 1278 We consider......