Ex parte Pruitt
| Decision Date | 20 July 1984 |
| Citation | 457 So.2d 456 |
| Parties | Ex parte Talmadge PRUITT. (Re Talmadge Pruitt v. State of Alabama). 83-843. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John Baker, Fort Payne, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
We deny the writ because defendant has failed to comply with Rule 39, A.R.A.P., in presenting additional facts not contained in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. In denying the writ, we are not to be understood as approving the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals that "where a defendant denies the event in toto, the court is not obliged to charge on a lesser included offense." 457 So.2d 454 (Ala.Crim.App.1979). The accused is entitled to have the trial court charge on lesser included offenses where there is a reasonable theory from the evidence supporting defendant's position, regardless of whether the State or defendant offers the evidence. See Chavers v. State, 361 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Ala.1978). The Court of Criminal Appeals reached the correct result in Williams, a case "where the only reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that the defendant is guilty of robbery [the greater offense] or no crime at all." 377 So.2d at 637. If, however, the defendant denies the charge but the evidence presented by the State suggests a reasonable theory supporting a charge on a lesser offense, the trial court is obliged to give a charge on the lesser offense when requested.
WRIT DENIED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindsay v. State
... ... error is "particularly 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 ... support a charge on a lesser included offense, the defendant is entitled to the charge even where "the defendant denies the charge," Ex parte Pruitt , 457 So.2d 456, 457 (Ala. 1984), and [where] "the evidence supporting the defendant's position is offered by the State." Silvey v. State , 485 ... ...
-
Wright v. State
... ... Alabama, supra. The second one was posed first in Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605, 102 S.Ct. 2049, 72 L.Ed.2d 367 (1982)." Ex parte Baldwin, 456 So.2d 129, 133 (Ala.1984) ... See also Bryars v. State, 456 So.2d 1122, 1127 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), reversed on other ... Ex parte Pruitt, 457 So.2d 456, 457 (Ala.1984). "A defendant is not entitled to charges on lesser included offenses where the only reasonable conclusion from the ... ...
-
Connolly v. State
... ... The petition was denied without opinion in Ex parte Pennington, 461 So.2d 60 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), cert. denied, 459 So.2d 1017 (Ala.1984) ... Connolly now contends that the trial ... theory from the evidence supporting defendant's position, regardless of whether the State or defendant offers the evidence." Ex parte Pruitt, 457 So.2d 456, 457 (Ala.1984) ... However, a lesser included offense instruction must be given in a capital case, or ... in ... ...
-
Daniels v. State
... ... In Pruitt v. State, 457 So.2d 456, 457 (Ala.1984), our Supreme Court explained, as follows: ... "In denying the writ, we are not to be understood as ... ...