Ex parte Whitehead
| Decision Date | 30 June 2000 |
| Parties | Ex parte Larry Wayne WHITEHEAD. (Re Larry Wayne Whitehead v. State). |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Hoyt L. Baugh, Jr., Rainsville, for petitioner.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Michael B. Billingsley, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
Larry Wayne Whitehead was convicted of capital murder for the death of Ernest Andrew Whitten, an Albertville police officer. The murder was made capital because it occurred during a burglary, see Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(4); because it was related to Whitten's having served as a grand-jury witness against Whitehead, see § 13A-5-40(a)(14); and because it was related to Whitten's having been subpoenaed to testify against Whitehead in an upcoming trial, see § 13A-5-40(a)(14). The jury unanimously recommended the death penalty. The trial judge, finding four aggravating factors and no mitigating factors, accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Whitehead to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Whitehead's conviction and sentence. See Whitehead v. State, 777 So.2d 781 (Ala. Crim.App.1999). This Court granted Whitehead's petition for certiorari review and heard oral arguments. We now affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The facts of this case are set out in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals and are only briefly recounted here. Officer Whitten investigated allegations that Whitehead had stolen money from his employer, Hudson Foods, Inc., by having friends clock him in and out of work on days he did not actually work. Under Alabama's Habitual Felony Offender Act (Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-9), Whitehead faced a life sentence if he was convicted of theft. Whitehead had bragged that, if Whitten was not able to testify against him, then not only would he be acquitted of theft, but he would also be able to sue Hudson Foods for millions of dollars. Shortly before his theft trial, Whitehead, along with two accomplices, James Matthew Hyde and Stephen Brookshire, went to Whitten's house. The evidence suggested that Hyde went through an exterior door of Whitten's house and into a laundry room; that Hyde then knocked on the door separating the laundry room from the main portion of Whitten's house; that Whitten came to the door and partially opened it; and that Hyde shot Whitten through the door, inflicting a single, fatal wound.
In his certiorari petition, Whitehead raises 22 issues concerning the merits of his conviction and sentence, all of which he raised on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals. We have carefully reviewed all the issues presented in the petition and discussed in the briefs and at oral argument, and we have studied the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. All of the issues Whitehead raises here were thoroughly addressed in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We reiterate here, however, that the entry of a bullet into Whitten's house did not constitute an "entry" under the burglary statute. Ex parte Hyde, 778 So.2d 237, 239 n. 2 (Ala. 2000); see Ala.Code 1975, §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saunders v. Stewart
...phase of trial should be prohibited. See Whitehead v. State, 777 So. 2d 781, 846 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999), aff'd sub nom. Ex parte Whitehead, 777 So. 2d 854 (Ala. 2000); Arthur v. State, 711 So. 2d 1031, 1093 (Ala. Cr. App. 1996). Those state cases - eschewing victim impact statements that ad......
-
McGowan v. State
...therefore, . . . prevented the jury from `critically examining] the weight of their testimony'") (footnote omitted), p. 56, aff'd, 777 So.2d 854 (Ala.2000); Burgess v. State, 827 So.2d 134 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (the capital-murder victim's husband was properly exempted from "the rule" and all......
-
Beckworth v. State
...part in Gavin v. State, 891 So.2d 907, 939 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Whitehead v. State, 777 So.2d 781, 800 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 777 So.2d 854 (Ala.2000); and Oryang v. State, 642 So.2d 979, 982 "In Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (1975), we reviewed a trial in which many jurors had heard......
-
Hodges v. State
...Ex parte Davis, 718 So.2d 1166, 1171-72 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1179, 119 S.Ct. 1117, 143 L.Ed.2d 112 (1999)), aff'd, 777 So.2d 854 (Ala.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 907, 121 S.Ct. 1233, 149 L.Ed.2d 142 1. Hodges argues that the trial court erred in failing to strike prospective......