Ex parte Vaughn
| Citation | 395 So.2d 95 |
| Parties | Ex Parte Listle L. VAUGHN. (In re Listle L. Vaughn v. State of Alabama). 78-619. |
| Decision Date | 07 December 1979 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William M. Hammond, Troy, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and Paul E. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This case comes to us upon a petition for writ of certiorari. Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder in the Circuit Court of Pike County. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals on June 28, 1977. On April 27, 1978, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging, among other things, that one of the jurors at his murder trial was related to the murder victim by consanguinity within the proscribed ninth degree. § 12-16-150(4), Ala.Code 1975. A hearing was had on the petition on October 4, 1978, at which time, prior to the taking of testimony, the court dismissed those portions of the petition alleging the improper juror. Appeal was taken to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the lower court without an opinion. Upon denial of application for rehearing, a petition for writ of certiorari was filed with this Court.
We granted the writ to seek clarification of the disposition of the petition in the court below. The authority of this Court to review the Court of Criminal Appeals on a constitutional issue, even in a "no opinion" context, is well established. Loyd v. State, 279 Ala. 447, 186 So.2d 731 (1966). The statute proscribing certain degrees of relationship between the victim and the jurors is an implementation of the fair and impartial trial guarantee of Art. I, Sec. 6, of our State Constitution.
From our preliminary review of the petition, it was not clear whether the lower court's action was procedural or based upon the merits of Petitioner's allegations. Our review of the record discloses that Petitioner's allegations pertaining to an improper juror were dismissed by the trial Court as not being properly raised on a petition for coram nobis, resulting in a denial of Petitioner's "improper juror" claim on its merits. We reverse and remand.
The office of writ of error coram nobis, under Alabama law, is to bring to the attention of the court an error of fact, unknown to the court or the affected party at the time of trial, which had it been known, would have prevented the judgment challenged; indeed, the writ is in effect a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Tillis v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bass v. State, 6 Div. 664
... ... In effect, the writ serves as a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Vaughn v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 395 So.2d 95 (1979); Seibert v. State, Ala., 343 So.2d 788 (1977); Lewis, supra; Summers v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 366 So.2d ... ...
-
Sheehan v. State
... ... In effect, the writ serves as a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Vaughn v. State, 395 So.2d 95 (Ala.1979); Seibert v. State, 343 So.2d 788 (Ala.1977); Lewis v. State, 367 So.2d 542 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 367 ... ...
-
Longmire v. State
...443 So.2d 1265 ... Ex parte State of Alabama ... (Re: James LONGMIRE ... STATE of Alabama) ... Supreme Court of Alabama ... Dec. 10, 1982 ... Charles A ... Cauley v. State, 34 Ala.App. 111, 37 So.2d 153." Ex parte Rudolph, 276 Ala. 392, 393, 162 So.2d 486 (1964). In Ex parte Vaughn, 395 So.2d 95 (Ala.1979), the Court further indicated the purpose served by this extraordinary writ as follows: ... "The office of ... ...
-
Robinson v. State, 6 Div. 689
... ... Ex parte Fewell, 261 Ala. 246, 73 So.2d 558 (1954); Ex parte Reliford, 37 Ala.App. 697, 75 So.2d 90 (1954)." (Emphasis added) ... In t, the writ serves as a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Vaughn v. State, 395 So.2d 95 (Ala.1979); Seibert v. State, 343 So.2d 788 (Ala.1977) ... In a coram nobis proceeding, the petitioner bears ... ...