Gentry v. State
Decision Date | 25 October 1991 |
Citation | 595 So.2d 548 |
Parties | Joseph Ward GENTRY v. STATE. CR 90-645. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
John A. Lentine and Lawrence B. Sheffield III, Birmingham, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Sandra Stewart, Melissa G. Math and J. Thomas Leverette, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Joseph Ward Gentry, the appellant, was convicted for the capital offense involving burglary and the intentional murder of Kimberly Diane Hill, in violation of Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(4). The jury recommended the death penalty. The trial court sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution.
This is an extremely unusual case in that all the parties involved--the appellant, the trial judge, the assistant district attorney who represented the State at trial, and the attorney general, who represents the State on appeal--admit that the appellant's conviction must be reversed because the trial judge allowed the jury to separate over the objections of the appellant and in violation of Ala.Code 1975, § 12-16-9(a), which provides in pertinent part:
"If the accused and his counsel and also the prosecuting attorney, in any prosecution for a capital felony consent thereto in open court, the trial court in its discretion may permit the jury trying the case to separate during the pendency of the trial, whether the jury has retired or not."
See also Rule 19.3(a)(1), A.R.Crim.P., which, we recognize, was not applicable when the appellant was tried.
By letter dated August 23, 1991, the attorney general requests this Court to "enter a summary order reversing the conviction and sentence on the issue of jury separation, and remand the cause for a new trial." When a reversal is required on one ground, this Court need not consider other issues that would not arise on another trial. See Wilson v. State, 195 Ala. 675, 680, 71 So. 115, 118 (1916). Therefore, this Court will not address most of the issues raised on this appeal. However, there remain other issues which demand comment because, in all probability, they will be encountered in any new trial that the appellant might face.
The appellant argues that he could not be guilty of burglary as a matter of law because he had the victim's consent to enter her residence.
The indictment charged, in pertinent part, that the appellant intentionally killed the victim
"during the time that [the appellant] knowingly and unlawfully entered or remained, or attempted to enter or remain unlawfully in the dwelling of Kimberly Diane Hill with intent to commit murder, and the said [appellant] did cause physical injury to Kimberly Diane Hill by the said stabbing with a knife and by beating with a blunt object." R. 1234.
In sentencing the appellant to death, the trial judge made the following finding of facts:
The crime of burglary in the first degree is defined by Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-7-5(a).
Commentary to §§ 13A-7-5 through 13A-7-7.
This issue involves primarily the interpretation of the phrase "remains unlawfully in a dwelling." "A person 'enters or remains unlawfully' in or upon premises when he is not licensed, invited or privileged to do so." Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-7-1(4).
Commentary to § 13A-7-1. See also 12A C.J.S. Burglary § 24(a) (1980).
This Court adheres to the interpretation of the phrase "unlawfully remains" found in Moss v. State, 536 So.2d 129, 133-34 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), Minshew v. State, 542 So.2d 307, 311-12 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), and Johnson v. State, 473 So.2d 607, 609-10 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), that the fact that the victim terminated the defendant's license or privilege to remain on the premises can be inferred where a struggle took place and the victim was beaten.
The common law requirement that there be a "breaking" has been omitted from the definition of burglary under the Alabama Criminal Code. "The primary objective of burglary statutes should be to conserve human life and not property merely, Reeves v. State, 245 Ala. 237, 16 So.2d 699 (1943), and there is no essential purpose served by retaining a technical breaking requirement." Commentary to §§ 13A-7-5 through 13A-7-7. "Once a consensual entry has occurred, a burglary charge still may be grounded in a nonconsensual 'remaining in' the structure." Thorpe v. State, 559 So.2d 1285, 1286 (Fla.App.1990). We find persuasive the reasoning expressed in Ray v. State, 522 So.2d 963 (Fla.App.) review denied, 531 So.2d 168 (Fla.1988).
"The phrase 'remaining in' has been interpreted as proscribing an act distinct from that of entering. In Routly v. State, 440 So.2d 1257 (Fla.1983), [cert. denied, 468 U.S. 1220, 104 S.Ct. 3591, 82 L.Ed.2d 888 (1984)], the court rejected, as being without merit, the defendant's contention that because he had lawfully entered the decedent's home at the outset, there could be no burglary. The court held that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stewart v. State
...a gun, at which point any privilege he might have had to remain on the premises was terminated. As Judge Bowen stated in Gentry v. State, 595 So.2d 548 (Ala.Cr.App.1991): "This Court adheres to the interpretation of the phrase 'unlawfully remains' found in Moss v. State, 536 So.2d 129 (Ala.......
-
Gentry v. State
...raised by the appellant in the first trial and in his first appeal of this case to this court, and we ruled against him, Gentry v. State, 595 So.2d 548 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), cert. denied, 595 So.2d 548 (Ala.1992), relying on Moss v. State, 536 So.2d 129 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), and Minshew v. State,......
-
Ex parte Gentry
...remanded the case for a second trial, based on error in allowing the jury to separate over Gentry's objection. Gentry v. State, 595 So.2d 548 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (Gentry I ). Gentry was retried and again convicted, and the Court of Criminal Appeals has affirmed the conviction and the senten......
-
Davis v. State
...withdrawn. See Glass v. State, 671 So.2d 114 (Ala.Crim.App.1995); Stewart v. State, 601 So.2d 491 (Ala.Crim. App.1992); Gentry v. State, 595 So.2d 548 (Ala.Crim.App.1991); Weaver v. State, 564 So.2d 1007 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); Minshew v. State, 542 So.2d 307 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988); Moss v. Stat......