Grimsley v. State
Decision Date | 19 January 1996 |
Docket Number | CR-94-889 |
Citation | 678 So.2d 1197 |
Parties | Olin GRIMSLEY v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
The appellant, Olin Grimsley, was convicted of robbery in the first degree, a violation of § 13A-8-41, Code of Alabama 1975. The appellant was originally charged with murder made capital because the murder occurred during a robbery. A mistrial was declared when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The appellant was then retried and was acquitted of the murder charge and was found guilty of robbery in the first degree. This court reversed his robbery conviction in Grimsley v. State, 632 So.2d 547 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), because the trial court had denied the appellant the right to fully cross-examine a state's witness. The appellant was tried again on the robbery charge and was again found guilty. He appealed to this court and we remanded this case so that the trial court could conduct a Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), hearing after considering the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Thomas, 659 So.2d 3 (Ala.1994). Grimsley v. State, 678 So.2d 1194 (Ala.Cr.App.1995).
The trial court held a Batson hearing, found no violation of Batson, and filed a return to remand with this court.
Stokes v. State, 648 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). The party against whom a successful Batson challenge is made must give a "legitimate reason" for striking the prospective jurors. Lane v. State, 625 So.2d 1178, 1181 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). The United States Supreme Court recently in Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995), defined what is a "legitimate reason." The Court stated:
--- U.S. at----, 115 S.Ct. at 1771. (Emphasis added.)
The appellant contends that the prosecution struck five black prospective jurors in violation of Batson. The prosecution contended that it struck three prospective jurors because those jurors had the same blood type as the appellant. The prosecution explained that the case involved extensive evidence concerning the blood type of the blood found on a partially smoked cigarette next to the victim's body. The prosecution also stated that all of the prospective jurors who had the same blood type as the appellant were struck. Another prospective black juror was struck because she was a nurse. The prosecutor contended that, because most of the evidence dealt with blood typing, the prosecution did not want someone trained in the medical field on the jury. Another juror was struck because she was a teacher. The prosecution explained that it did not want teachers on the jury because "someone trained as a teacher would have--would put significant importance [on] a person's IQ as to whether or not they could freely, knowingly, and voluntarily waive the Miranda [v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ] rights." These reasons related to the facts of the case, were not facially discriminatory, and did not violate Batson. Purkett v. Elem, supra.
The appellant first contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for first degree robbery. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict and for a new trial.
Cumbo v. State, 368 So.2d 871, 874 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 877 (Ala.1987).
The state's evidence tended to show that on May 22, 1990, the body of Ella Foy Riley was found in her house in Abbeville. A "Newport" brand cigarette, partially smoked, was found near the victim's body. The victim's pocketbook along with her Social Security card, a check made out to her, her checkbook, and some keys, were found on Marvin Turner Road, approximately six miles from the victim's house. The victim's neighbor, Pamela DeLoach, testified that she had seen a grey car, with two black male occupants, parked by the back door of the victim's house around 10:00 p.m. on the night of May 21. DeLoach described one of the men as having a heavy build and the other as having a medium build. The appellant matched the description of one of the men. A few minutes after she noticed them, the two black males sped away in the car. The neighbor subsequently identified codefendant Willie McNair's car as the car she saw that night parked in front of Riley's house.
Bessie Mae Sanders testified that she saw the appellant and Willie McNair together after 9:30 p.m. on May 21. The appellant testified that McNair picked him up in his car around 5:00 p.m. and that they smoked crack cocaine and drank beer. He stated that McNair took him home around 9:00 p.m. Sanders testified that the appellant commonly smoked "Newport" brand cigarettes and that, on the night of May 21, he had a pack of that brand of cigarettes in his pocket. Sanders also testified that she saw the appellant the morning of May 22 and that he had blood on his shirt.
William H. Landrum, a forensic serologist with the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, tested the saliva found on the cigarette near the victim's body. His analysis revealed that the saliva on the cigarette was consistent with the appellant's blood type, in that it was from a type "A" secretor.
There was more than sufficient evidence presented for the case to be submitted to the jury. The trial court properly denied the appellant's motion for a directed verdict and submitted this case to the jury.
The appellant also argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Having determined that this case was correctly submitted to the jury, this issue is moot. The trial court correctly denied the motion for a new trial and the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in not setting aside his conviction because, he says, the prosecution intentionally violated the attorney-client privilege.
When the appellant first appealed his conviction for robbery he argued that the state violated the attorney-client privilege by obtaining a statement he made to an investigator for a prospective defense counsel who was never retained to represent the appellant. The facts and circumstances surrounding this statement were addressed in depth by this court in Grimsley, where we stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burgess v. State
...and legitimate reason for striking the juror, and the reason was clearly related to the facts of the case. See Grimsley v. State, 678 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Ala.Cr.App.1996) (reasons related to the facts of the case that are not facially discriminatory do not violate Batson); Zumbado v. State, 6......
-
Burgess v. State
...discover such information. Kelley v. State, 602 So.2d 473, 476-78 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), and cases cited therein. See also Grimsley v. State, 678 So.2d 1197 (Ala.Cr.App.1996) (same PENALTY PHASE XVIII Burgess contends that the trial court erred at sentencing when it considered numerous victim i......
-
Hyde v. State
...cert. denied, 522 U.S. 957, 118 S.Ct. 385, 139 L.Ed.2d 300 (1997); Burrell v. State, 689 So.2d 992 (Ala.Cr.App.1996); Grimsley v. State, 678 So.2d 1197 (Ala.Cr.App.1996). From the foregoing, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to continue the trial base......
-
Williams v. State
..."Miles v. State, 650 So.2d 583, 586 (Ala. Cr.App.1994), quoting, Parks v. State, 587 So.2d 1012 (Ala.1991)." Grimsley v. State, 678 So.2d 1197, 1208 (Ala.Cr.App.1996) (emphasis in original). The appellant did not object during opening arguments when the State referred to the children's pres......