Ex parte Purser
Decision Date | 17 July 1992 |
Parties | Ex parte James Allen PURSER. (Re James Allen Purser v. State). 1910275. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James M. Kendrick, Birmingham, for petitioner.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Robin Blevins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
We granted James Allen Purser's petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming Purser's conviction, 607 So.2d 298, despite the trial court's failure to grant Purser a mistrial after Purser objected to a comment made by the prosecutor during opening statements. Purser argues that the prosecutor's comment was a comment on whether Purser would testify and thus that it violated Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-220.
Purser was convicted for the murder of Mark Pollard and the attempted murder of Karen Denise Purser, his estranged wife. During the prosecutor's opening statement, the following occurred:
The Court of Criminal Appeals held that because defense counsel made only a general objection to the comment, there was no reversible error presented. That court further stated that the trial court also offered curative instructions, which it said defense counsel "refused as a matter of strategy." The Court of Criminal Appeals also noted, however, that, at times, a general objection will suffice to preserve for review the issue of improper comment on a defendant's failure to testify.
Quoting from Lawrence v. State, 409 So.2d 987 (Ala.Crim.App.1982), the Court of Criminal Appeals stated:
"
409 So.2d at 989. According to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the comments in this case "rise dangerously close to that level," and, it said, "[U]nder proper circumstances we would not hesitate to reverse for improper comments of this type by the prosecutor." The court proceeded to hold, however, that, "because the objection was general and not specific, and because the curative instruction was refused, we affirm the judgment of the trial court." Id. (emphasis in original).
We note initially that the fact that the comment occurred during opening statements, rather than during closing arguments, does not prevent the remark from being a comment on the defendant's failure to testify. The Court of Criminal Appeals properly quoted the following from an opinion by Judge Harris for that court:
Collins v. State, 385 So.2d 993, 1001 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), reversed on other grounds, 385 So.2d 1005 (Ala.1980).
After defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's comment during opening statements, the court overruled the objection, and then defense counsel asked to approach the bench. The bench conference was off the record; however, the record shows that, during a recess after the testimony of the state's first two witnesses, the following occurred:
The above portion of the record shows that defense counsel did specifically object during the bench conference held immediately after the prosecutor's comment. The court accepted the defense attorney's reiteration of the grounds for the objection, and the prosecutor did not object. The objection, as reconstructed above, was very specific and directly to the point now being argued.
During the conference quoted above, the defense attorney invited the trial court to give curative instructions, but stressed that he could not see how any curative instruction would overcome the prejudice already caused to Purser. The trial court responded by saying that the State had not commented on Purser's right not to testify, but instead had commented only about what the evidence would show--that there were only three people present at the scene of the alleged crime. The trial court went on to say that it would have been willing to give curative instructions at the time the objection was made, but that it never "reached [the] point where it was necessary" to do so.
The Alabama Constitution of 1901, article I, section 6, declares that, "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right ... to testify in all cases, in his own behalf, if he elects so to do, ... and he shall not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blackmon 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 ... Whitt [v. State], [370 So.2d 736] at 739 [ (Ala.1979) ]; Ex parte Williams, 461 So.2d 852, 853 (Ala.1984); see Ex parte Purser, 607 So.2d 301 (Ala.1992). This Court has held that comments by a prosecutor that a jury may possibly take as a reference to the defendant's failure ... ...
-
Ex parte Scott
... ... at 873. Scott contends that the only other person who could possibly have offered testimony as to "why he was up here" was the defendant Scott himself. Citing Windsor v. State, 593 So.2d 87 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), and Ex parte Purser, 607 So.2d 301 (Ala.1992), Scott claims that this statement by the prosecutor was a reference to Scott's failure to testify ... The context in which this comment was made was as follows (quoting here the prosecutor's closing argument): ... "Now, somehow or another, [the ... ...
-
Loggins v. State
... ... The Alabama Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in Ex parte Stewart, 730 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1999), and concluded that when the Legislature amended § 12-16-9, the statute superseded Rule 19.3(a), eliminated the ... Whitt [v. State, 370 So.2d 736 ], 739 [ (Ala.1979) ]; Ex parte Williams, 461 So.2d 852, 853 (Ala.1984) ; see Ex parte Purser, 607 So.2d 301 (Ala.Crim. App.[Ala.]1992) ... This Court has held that comments by a prosecutor that a jury may possibly take as a reference to the ... ...
-
Baxter v. State
... ... In support of this argument, the State cites Ex parte McWilliams, 640 So.2d 1015 (Ala.1993) ... In Ex parte McWilliams, the Alabama Supreme Court stated that "`the facts and circumstances of each case ... than during closing arguments, does not prevent the remark from being a comment on the defendant's 723 So.2d 814 failure to testify." Purser v. State, 607 So.2d 301, 303 (Ala.1992) ... "`It does not matter that during the opening statement the accused has or has not taken the stand, ... ...