Hamilton v. State

• Decision Date: 08 March 1996
• Docket Number: CR-93-2239
• Citation: 680 So.2d 987
• Parties: Thomas Wayne HAMILTON, Jr. v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 987

680 So.2d 987

Thomas Wayne HAMILTON, Jr. v. STATE.

CR-93-2239.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 8, 1996.

Rehearing Denied April 19, 1996.

Certiorari Denied July 19, 1996

Alabama Supreme Court 1951339.

David Karn, Clanton, for Appellant.

Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Rosa Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.

COBB, Judge.

The appellant, Thomas Wayne Hamilton, Jr., was convicted of murder for the killing of his wife, Donna Jo Price Hamilton, a violation of § 13A-6-2, Ala.Code 1975. He was sentenced to life in the penitentiary. He raises six issues on appeal.

I

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance to secure an expert evaluation concerning his mental state before and after the offense. Pertinent facts are set out in chronological order below:

December 9, 1993--The murder was committed.

February 25, 1994--The indictment was returned.

March 25, 1994--The appellant was arraigned and trial was set to begin on June 27, 1994.

June 7, 1994--The defense filed a motion for a continuance arguing lack of full discovery. There was no reference in that motion to the appellant's mental condition.

June 24, 1994--The defense faxed a motion to the trial court requesting a continuance, alleging, among other things, that more time was needed for his retained psychiatrist to complete a thorough mental evaluation. The trial court denied this motion and indicated that the trial would proceed as scheduled.

June 27, 1994--The appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the trial court's denial of his motion for a continuance. This court denied the petition.

June 28, 1994--The case was called for trial. Before beginning the trial, the trial court held a hearing to allow the appellant to argue his motion for a continuance. The motion was denied after arguments were heard and the trial began.

The appellant argues on appeal that it was not until June 7, 1994, that the appellant's family could raise the $3,000 retainer required by Dr. Douglas A. Sargent, the psychiatrist retained to evaluate the appellant's mental condition. Dr. Sargent informed the defense that he had expedited the evaluation of the appellant but that interviews with family members had brought to light facts requiring additional testing and that it would be physically impossible to complete that testing by the trial date of June 27, 1994. He stated that at that point, without the additional testing, it was impossible to give an accurate and scientifically supportable report of the appellant's mental health at the time of the murder and at the time of trial. However, Dr. Sargent speculated that the appellant suffered from a condition known as intermittent explosive disorder, a condition that would support a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Dr. Sargent requested an additional two weeks in which to complete the testing.

The trial judge denied the motion for a continuance and stated the following reasons for the denial. Defense counsel, Mr. Spears, had represented the appellant since his arrest. The defense knew that the appellant had been classified as a suicide risk in the Chilton County jail at the time of his arrest. The defense requested that the court order an evaluation of the appellant's mental state. The court granted this motion on December 20, 1993, the day it was filed. C.R. 18. This motion and the order granting it predate the return of the indictment and the arraignment. According to the trial judge, these facts are an "indication early in the record that Mr. Spears certainly appreciated the issue of the mental state of the defendant and how that might have a bearing on a potential defense." R. 27. "The written waiver of arraignment [filed on March 22, 1994,] included the plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect." R. 27. The Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility conducted a forensic evaluation pursuant to the December 20 defense motion and issued a report on the appellant's mental health, which was filed in the circuit court on January 14, 1994. The trial court stated that the Taylor Hardin report reflected that the appellant "could profit from long-term, perhaps, in-patient treatment for his alcohol dependence" and recommended further therapeutic efforts directed at assisting Mr. Hamilton in discovering other strategies for managing frustration, anxiety, and self-esteem issues that do not include intoxication.... [These] matters in the psychologist's opinion ... do not stand in the way of the defendant proceeding with the disposition of his trial." R. 25. The indictment in this case is dated February 25, 1994, which is five or six weeks after the Taylor Harden evaluation. R. 27. "There appears in the record no further request [to] the Court to entertain any kind of motions or hearings relative to the defendant's mental state between the time that the report was filed from Taylor Hardin really up and through this date with the exception of the motion to continue that was filed on Friday June 24, 1994." R. 28. The trial court stated that the June 7, 1994, motion by the defense for a continuance addressed discovery issues, and,

"there was no mention during the June 7th, 1994, hearing that there was any intention on Mr. Spears' part to pursue further mental evaluation or examination of the defendant in pursuit of a not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect defense. For all that the Court knew, the issues of mental disease or defect had been resolved by the examinations and prescribed treatments that were afforded the defendant early on by Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility and those attending the defendant thereafter.

"The defense counsel is a very sharp and well-thought-of attorney with regards to his legal abilities and skills and his thoroughness with respect to raising issues that he knows to be important to trial practice and a defense in cases of this nature, and I think it's reasonable under these circumstances for the Court to certainly reach a conclusion that this last minute scramble for a continuance or delay of the trial with regards to pursuing this mental disease of defect type of defense is lacking in merit and is instituted for delay purposes."

R. 28-29.

We find no evidence in the record indicating an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the appellant's motion for a continuance.

"It is well settled law that the disposition of a motion for continuance is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court and that its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal, except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Busby v. State, 412 So.2d 837 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); Avery v. State of Ala., 308 U.S. 444, 60 S.Ct. 321, 84 L.Ed. 377 (1939). It is within the sound discretion of the trial judge to deny a motion for continuance for the purpose of obtaining further study and evaluation of a defendant. Beauregard v. State, 372 So.2d 37 (Ala.Crim.App.1979). There is no obligation of the trial court to grant a continuance for the purpose of preparing an insanity defense, Lee v. State of Alabama, 386 F.2d 97 (5th Cir.1967), and, lastly, the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity does not present the issue of the mental competency of the accused to stand trial. Hawkins v. State, 267 Ala. 518, 103 So.2d 158 (1958)."

Carroll v. State, 445 So.2d 952, 954 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); see also McFarland v. State, 581 So.2d 1249 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Taylor v. State, 507 So.2d 1034 (Ala.Cr.App.1987) ("[i]t is within the sound discretion of the trial judge to deny a motion for continuance for the purpose of obtaining further study and evaluation of a defendant"); Wisdom v. State, 515 So.2d 730 (Ala.Cr.App.1987) ("there is no obligation of the trial court to grant a continuance for the purpose of preparing an insanity defense."); Based on the facts presented above, we find no error in the ruling of the trial.

II

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial in which he alleged that the jury pool was tainted by pretrial publicity and by "statements" made by a juror.

No objection was made at the trial level concerning pretrial publicity. Motions for a mistrial based on alleged juror discussions about the case were made, but there was no mention of an objection based on pretrial publicity. Therefore, this issue is precluded from appellate review. Furthermore, the trial court stated that: "I have granted every single challenge for cause of individual jurors that [has] been made by anybody and exercised some discretion on my own when I felt like a juror could not be fair and impartial and could not serve properly in this case." R. 265.

The following occurred concerning the issue of juror misconduct. After a recess, the trial judge was informed that some comments, apparently concerning the court, were made by juror H.L.N. during the recess. The trial judge called H.L.N. to the witness stand and the trial judge and the parties attempted to question him about an incident where he allegedly made strange comments concerning the court or the trial to the court clerk.

The record supports the trial court's conclusion that this juror's nonsensical rambling was the result of a mental defect and was probably a response to "voices" heard only by him. While discussing the matter with the trial judge, the prosecution stated that H.L.N. "has got to go.... [H]e is going to compromise the whole trial." R. 517. The defense then moved for a mistrial. The defense did not specify as a ground for its motion that the jury had been tainted by H.L.N.'s comments but instead alleged that photographs of the crime scene introduced by the prosecution had upset H.L.N. However, we will assume that the trial court understood that ground for the motion was that the jury had been tainted by H.L.N.'s remarks. The trial court denied the motion and ordered that...