Ex parte Washington
Citation | 507 So.2d 1360 |
Parties | Ex parte Joseph WASHINGTON. Re Joseph Washington v. State. 85-882. |
Decision Date | 07 November 1986 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
W. Gregory Hughes, Mobile, for Joseph Washington.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., for State.
Defendant, Joseph Washington, was convicted of two offenses of murder and was sentenced to serve two consecutive 99-year terms in prison. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari to determine whether that court correctly determined that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation in this case did not require reversal.
During summation by the prosecutor, Mr. Copeland, the following occurred:
The defendant contends now, as he did below, that Copeland's statement constituted reversible error. In addressing this argument, the Court of Criminal Appeals held as follows:
Washington v. State, 507 So.2d 1358 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). We reverse.
It has long been the rule in Alabama that, although counsel should be given considerable latitude in drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence, they may not argue as a fact that which is not supported by the evidence. Brown v. State, 374 So.2d 395 (Ala.1979); Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669, 120 So.2d 904 (1960); Cosby v. State, 269 Ala. 501, 114 So.2d 250 (1959); Garrett v. State, 268 Ala. 299, 105 So.2d 541 (1958); Ray v. State, 248 Ala. 425, 27 So.2d 872 (1946). This has been the rule since it was first stated in McAdory v. State, 62 Ala. 154 (1878):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen v. State
...lead the jury to believe, that there was other evidence, not presented to them, which would prove the defendant's guilt. Ex parte Washington, 507 So.2d 1360 (Ala.1986)." King v. State, 518 So.2d 191, 193-94 (Ala.Cr.App.1987) (emphasis in We reject the contention that the prosecutor impermis......
-
Daniels v. State
...reasonable inferences from the evidence, they may not argue as a fact that which is not supported by the evidence." Ex parte Washington, 507 So.2d 1360, 1361 (Ala.1986). However, "[c]onsidering the district attorney's comment in the context of the trial setting and the closing arguments of ......
-
McWhorter v. State
...plain-error rule. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. The appellant argues that this instruction violated the rule of law stated in Ex parte Washington, 507 So.2d 1360 (Ala.1986), by improperly indicating to the jury that there was vital evidence that could not be submitted to it because of the rules of......
-
Arthur v. State
...lead the jury to believe, that there was other evidence, not presented to them, which would prove the defendant's guilt. Ex parte Washington, 507 So.2d 1360 (Ala.1986).... "... With respect to improper statements by prosecutors, the position of our Supreme Court in Ex parte Washington, cond......