Gaddy v. State
Decision Date | 26 May 1995 |
Docket Number | CR-90-1429 |
Citation | 698 So.2d 1100 |
Parties | Richard Eugene GADDY v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
William K. DelGrosso, Birmingham, for appellant.
Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor, attys. gen., Lisa Gunter and David Bjurberg, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Richard Eugene Gaddy, was charged with capital murder for causing the death of James Caldwell by stabbing him with a knife, during the course of committing a theft, see§ 13A-5-40(a)(2),Code of Alabama 1975.The appellant was found guilty as charged and, following a sentencing hearing, the jury returned an advisory verdict of death by electrocution.The final sentencing hearing was held before the trial court and the trial court followed the jury's recommendation, sentencing the appellant to death by electrocution.
The trial court, in its order imposing the death penalty, properly sets out the evidence introduced at trial and the trial judge's findings of fact as follows:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Arthur v. State
...136, 130 L.Ed.2d 78 (1994). Brown v. State, 686 So.2d 385 (Ala.Cr.App.1995); Ex parte Taylor, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995); Gaddy v. State, 698 So.2d 1100 (Ala.Cr.App.1995). Moreover, the fact that the appellant had previously been convicted of murder is an element of the capital offense for whi......
-
Wynn v. State
...(Ala.Crim.App.1996), aff'd, 695 So.2d 184 (Ala.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 893, 118 S.Ct. 233, 139 L.Ed.2d 164 (1997); Gaddy v. State, 698 So.2d 1100 (Ala.Crim. App.1995), aff'd, 698 So.2d 1150 (Ala.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1032, 118 S.Ct. 634, 139 L.Ed.2d 613 (1997); Land v. State, 678 So.2......
-
Samra v. State
...photographic evidence, if relevant, is admissible even if it has a tendency to inflame the minds of the jurors.'" Gaddy v. State, 698 So.2d 1100, 1148 (Ala. Cr.App.1995), aff'd, 698 So.2d 1150 (Ala.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1032, 118 S.Ct. 634, 139 L.Ed.2d 613 (1997) (quoting Ex parte Siebe......
-
Waldrop v. State
...1990).' "State v. Austin, 596 So.2d 598, 601 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991)." Jackson v. State, 674 So. 2d at 1326. See also Gaddy v. State, 698 So. 2d 1100, 1117 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995), aff'd, 698 So. 2d 1150 (Ala.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 634, 139 L.Ed.2d 613 (1997). "'Mere emotionalism ......