Ex parte Price
Decision Date | 04 September 1998 |
Citation | 725 So.2d 1063 |
Parties | Ex parte Christopher Lee PRICE. (Re Christopher Lee Price v. State). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Joel L. Sogol, Tuscaloosa, for petitioner.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Sandra J. Stewart, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
Christopher Lee Price was convicted of capital murder for the intentional murder of Bill Lynn during the course of a robbery in the first degree.After a sentencing hearing, the jury returned an advisory verdict recommending, by a vote of 10 to 2, that Price be sentenced to death by electrocution.After holding a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Price to death by electrocution.Price was also convicted of robbery in the first degree for the robbery of Bessie Lynn, Bill Lynn's wife, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment, without parole, for that conviction.The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Price's convictions and sentences.Price v. State,725 So.2d 1003(Ala.Cr.App.1997).This Court granted Price's petition for certiorari review pursuant to Rule 39(c), Ala. R.App. P.We affirm.
Through the testimony of Bessie Lynn and the admission of a statement Price had given to authorities in Chattanooga, Tennessee, approximately one week after the alleged offenses, the State presented evidence tending to show the following:
Price v. State,725 So.2d at 1011-1012.
Before this Court, Price raises 23 issues, all of which were considered and rejected by the Court of Criminal Appeals.Although we have carefully reviewed and considered all of Price's arguments, we will address only one issue in this opinion: whether the trial court erred when it denied Price's motion to suppress any extrajudicial inculpatory statements Price gave to law enforcement authorities.
Before trial, Price gave two statements to law enforcement authorities.He gave the first statement to Detective Michael Mathis of the Chattanooga, Tennessee, Police Department on December 29, 1991(the "Tennessee statement").The record indicates that Detective Mathis made audiotapes of that interview and later provided the audiotapes to Sheriff James Turner in Fayette County, Alabama.Sheriff Turner testified that his secretary prepared a typed transcript of the tapes of Detective Mathis's interview.1
Price gave the second statement to Sheriff Turner on December 29, 1991, in Fayette County(the "Alabama statement").Sheriff Turner testified that this interview was also recorded on audiotape and that a typed transcript was prepared.2
Price filed a pretrial motion to suppress, requesting that the trial court suppress "[a]ny statements made by [Price], whether oral, written or videotaped, which the State intends to introduce into evidence or otherwise use at the trial of this case."Price did not specify in the motion why the statements should be suppressed.The trial court conducted a hearing on Price's motion on December 15, 1992, during which the State presented evidence regarding both statements.At the hearing, the trial judge denied Price's motion to suppress, as to both statements.
On appeal, Price contends that both statements should have been suppressed because, he says: (1) with regard to both of the statements, the State failed to adequately demonstrate that the law enforcement authorities had properly advised him of his Miranda rights(Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694(1966)) before questioning him; and (2) the Tennessee statement was the product of an improper inducement.
It is well established that extrajudicial confessions and other inculpatory statements are prima facie involuntary and that for such a statement or confession to be admissible the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was voluntary.Ex parte Singleton,465 So.2d 443, 445(Ala.1985).To satisfy this burden, the State must show: (1) that proper Miranda warnings were given before any questioning by the police and (2) that the statement was voluntary, i.e., that it was not procured through coercion or improper inducement.SeeStariks v. State,572 So.2d 1301, 1304(Ala.Crim. App.1990);McLeod v. State,718 So.2d 727, 729(Ala.1998).The initial determination of admissibility is made by the trial court, and the trial court's determination will not be disturbed unless it is contrary to the great weight of the evidence or is manifestly wrong.McLeod,supra;Stariks,supra.
Price argues that, with regard to both statements, the State failed to demonstrate that he was properly advised of his Miranda rights before being questioned.Although there is no talismanic incantation required to satisfy the requirements of Miranda, it is well settled that, before being questioned, an accused in custody must be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in court, that he has the right to have counsel present at the interrogation, and that if he is indigent and cannot afford to pay a lawyer, the court will appoint one to represent him during the interrogation.SeeEx parte Siebert,555 So.2d 780, 781-82(Ala.1989), citing, California v. Prysock,453 U.S. 355, 359-60, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 69 L.Ed.2d 696(1981);Wallace v. State,290 Ala. 201, 275 So.2d 634(1973).If the defendant is not advised of each of these rights before being questioned, then any statement he makes during the questioning is not admissible against him as evidence of guilt.See, e.g., Berkemer v. McCarty,468 U.S. 420, 429, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317(1984)( ).
We will first consider whether the State demonstrated that Price had been properly advised of his Miranda rights before being questioned by Detective Mathis in Chattanooga.
Price argues that this Court may consider only the evidence that was before the trial court when it denied the motion to suppress and, therefore, that it may not consider any additional evidence...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Petersen v. State
...egregious’ and if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ See Ex parte Price, 725 So. 2d 1063 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133, 119 S. Ct. 1809, 143 L.Ed. 2d 1012 (1999)." ’ " Ex parte Brown, 11 So. 3d 933, 935-36 (Ala. 2008) (q......
-
Lindsay v. State
...egregious" and if it "seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133, 119 S.Ct. 1809, 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999) ; Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997), aff......
-
Reynolds v. State Of Ala.
...egregious' and if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' See Ex parte Price, 725 So. 2d 1063 (Ala. 1 998), cert, denied, 526 U.S. 1133, 119 S.Ct. 1809, 143 L.Ed. 2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So. 2d 742 (Ala. Cr. App. 1997), af......
-
McGowan v. State
...long as it is apparent that such opinion is based solely on the evidence. Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998). The prosecutor was not, as Melson alleges on appeal, arguing to the jurors that only guilty verdicts would allow them to honor their ......