Ex parte Lasley
| Decision Date | 06 February 1987 |
| Citation | 505 So.2d 1263 |
| Parties | Ex parte Bruce LASLEY. (In re: Bruce Lasley v. State of Alabama). 85-1398. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Daniel L. McCleave, of Pennington, McCleave & Patterson, Mobile, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Martha Gail Ingram, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is a review by writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 505 So.2d 1257. Bruce Lasley was convicted on two counts of assault in the first degree. He was sentenced to terms of twenty-two years on each count, to run concurrently.
After the trial it was discovered that three of the jurors had conducted separate home experiments in attempts to test petitioner's theory of defense. The results of two of these experiments were communicated to the other jurors. One of the jurors also consulted a law book to aid her understanding of certain legal terms and concepts. The issue is whether such juror misconduct might have unlawfully influenced the jury.
Petitioner was alleged to have intentionally injured Terrance and Troy Smith, aged three years and four years, by placing or holding them in scalding water until they were severely burned. At the time of the alleged assault, petitioner was living with Sharon Smith, mother of the victims. Petitioner was at home alone with the children. He testified that he was giving them a bath when he was distracted by a knock at the door. According to his testimony, he returned to find the boys standing in scalding hot water.
The State's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Dr. Ramenofsky, a pediatric surgeon, testified concerning emersion burns, the spans of time during which emersion burns will occur at varying temperatures, and possibilities as to how such burns can be received in household bathtubs. The home experiments conducted by the jurors consisted of running tubs of hot water, checking the temperatures at varying levels and recording the time periods that it took to reach various temperatures. The trial court conducted a post trial hearing at which each juror was called to testify, under oath, regarding the home experiments.
There is no doubt that the home experiments constituted juror misconduct. The only question is whether the misconduct requires a new trial. The standard for determining whether juror misconduct requires a new trial is set forth in Roan v. State, 225 Ala. 428, 435, 143 So. 454, 460 (1932).
"The test of vitiating influence is not that it did influence a member of the jury to act without the evidence, but that it might have unlawfully influenced that juror and others with whom he deliberated, and might have unlawfully influenced its verdict rendered." (Emphasis added.)
The Roan test mandates reversal when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNair v. State
... ... State, 653 So.2d 351 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence on September 2, 1994. Ex parte McNair, 653 So.2d 353 (Ala.1994). On February 21, 1995, the United States Supreme Court denied the appellant's petition for certiorari review ... influenced that juror and others with whom he deliberated, and might have unlawfully influenced its verdict rendered." See Ex parte Lasley, 505 So.2d 1263 (Ala.1987); Ex parte Troha; 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1437 (1989). The Roan test mandates reversal when juror misconduct might ... ...
-
Pierce v. State
... ... Pierce v. State, 612 So.2d 514 (Ala.Cr.App.1992) ... The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, Ex parte Pierce, 612 So.2d 516 (Ala.1992), and the United States Supreme Court denied the appellant's petition for certiorari review. Pierce v. Alabama, ... for a finding that the jurors' actions "`"might have unlawfully influenced"' the verdict." Freeman, 605 So.2d at 1260 (quoting Ex parte Lasley, 505 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala. 1987) ). Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that defense counsel would have struck the jurors if he had known the ... ...
-
Tomlin v. State
... ... However, our judgment was ultimately reversed by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Tomlin, 540 So.2d 668 (Ala.1988) (on Tomlin's second application for rehearing), in which the Supreme Court held that the prosecutor engaged in ... This test casts a "light burden" on the defendant. Cf. Ex parte Lasley, 505 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.1987) (stated in regard to the test of whether juror misconduct might have influenced the verdict) ... " 'Although the ... ...
-
Perkins v. State
... ... See Ex parte Perkins, 851 So.2d 453 (Ala.2002). Thereafter, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari review. See Perkins v. Alabama, 540 U.S ... influenced that juror and others with whom he deliberated, and might have unlawfully influenced its verdict rendered.” See Ex parte Lasley, 505 So.2d 1263 (Ala.1987); Ex parte Troha; 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1437 (1989). The Roan test mandates reversal when juror misconduct might ... ...
-
GOOGLING A MISTRIAL: ONLINE JUROR MISCONDUCT IN ALABAMA.
...(16) Id. (17) Ex parte Thomas, 666 So. 2d 855, 857-58 (Ala. 1995). (18) Id. at 858. (19) Ex parte Lasley, 505 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Ala. (20) Ex parte State, 547 So. 2d 596, 597 (Ala. 1989). (21) Ex parte Potter, 661 So. 2d 260, 260-61 (Ala. 1994). (22) Id. at 261-62. (23) Crowell v. City of M......