Ex parte Rutledge
Decision Date | 19 February 1988 |
Citation | 523 So.2d 1118 |
Parties | Ex parte Mitchell RUTLEDGE. (Re: Mitchell Rutledge v. State of Alabama). 86-1172. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Dennis N. Balske of Balske and Van Almen, Montgomery, for petitioner.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and William D. Little, William W. Whatley, Jr., and Rivard Melson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
Thomas M. Goggans of Goggans, McInnish, Bright & Chambless, Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama Crim. Defense Lawyers Assoc.
We granted the defendant's petition for writ of certiorari in this case to review the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's "challenge for cause" as to a certain prospective juror.
Prior to trial, the defendant filed a "voir dire motion in limine" requesting that the court prohibit the district attorney from asking prospective jurors about the Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPLC"). The defendant argued 1) that the types of cases handled by the SPLC make it unpopular with a large segment of the population, and that those venirepersons holding an unfavorable opinion of the SPLC would be potentially prejudiced against the defendant; and 2) that an effective voir dire examination could be conducted without questions about the SPLC itself if the district attorney were to ask the prospective jurors if they knew any of the individuals on a list of the employees of the SPLC (including all of the lawyers employed by the SPLC).
Reasoning that most people were not familiar with the SPLC and that any reference to it would not prejudice the defendant, the trial court denied the defendant's motion. On voir dire, eight prospective jurors responded that they had heard of the SPLC. One juror further stated that he was prejudiced against organizations such as the SPLC and that this personal prejudice would possibly affect his ability to act as a fair and impartial juror. The next day that juror was interviewed outside the hearing of the other members of the venire and the following colloquy took place:
The State, in support of the trial court's denial of the defendant's challenge of Juror Wear for cause, cites abundant precedent for the rule that a proper challenge for cause exists only when a prospective juror's opinion or bias is so fixed that he or she could not ignore it and try the case fairly and impartially according to the law and the evidence. See Sparks v. State, 450 So.2d 188 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Clark v. State, 443 So.2d 1287 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Gwin v. State, 425 So.2d 500 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), writ quashed, 425 So.2d 510 (Ala.1983). Further, argues the State, a trial court's ruling on a challenge for cause based on bias is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See Price v. State, 383 So.2d 884 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert denied, 383 So.2d 888 (Ala.1980); Motes v. State, 356 So.2d 712 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert denied, 356 So.2d 720 (Ala.1978).
Although we agree with the State that the foregoing statements are correct propositions of law, we are constrained to follow our holding in Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala.1987), wherein this Court held that "[n]o right of a felon is more basic than the right to 'strike' a petit jury from ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capote v. State
...and may argue every legitimate inference.’ Rutledge v. State, 523 So. 2d 1087, 1100 (Ala. Cr. App. 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 523 So. 2d 1118 (Ala. 1988) (citations omitted). Wide discretion is allowed the trial court in regulating the arguments of counsel. Racine v. State, 290 Ala. 225......
-
Petersen v. State
...This Court will not disturb the trial court's decision "unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion." Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So. 2d 1118, 1120 (Ala. 1988). "This court must look to the questions propounded to, and the answers given by, the prospective juror to see if this disc......
-
Lindsay v. State
...an adoption of this reasoning. See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So.2d 3 (Ala. 1991) ; Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala. 1989) ; Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala. 1988) ; Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala. 1987) ; Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988) (quoting Swain and ci......
-
Arthur v. State
...As such, the argument was proper. See also Rutledge v. State, 523 So.2d 1087, 1097 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), reversed on other grounds, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala.1988) ("the prosecutor did not argue that the lack of evidence of statutory mitigation should be considered by the jury as an aggravating circ......