Henderson v. State
| Decision Date | 12 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 523 |
| Citation | 584 So.2d 841 |
| Parties | Curtis Lee HENDERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
B. Greg Wood of Wood, Hollingsworth & Willis, Talladega, and Tommy R. Dodson of Machen, Redd & Dobson, Sylacauga, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Rivard Melson and William D. Little, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Curtis Lee Henderson, was charged with intentionally causing the death of Willie Edward Perkins by shooting him with a pistol, after being hired by Cleveland Turner, Jr., and on an agreement that he be paid $2,000. He was found guilty of the capital offense as charged in the indictment, in violation of § 13A-5-40(a)(7), Code of Alabama (1975). The jury returned an advisory verdict recommending punishment by death and, following a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution.
Following the striking of the jury, a hearing was held on the appellant's motion to quash the jury on the grounds that the prosecution systematically used its peremptory strikes to exclude black individuals from the jury. The record indicates that the appellant is black. There were fourteen black persons on the striking list and the prosecutor used his first ten strikes to eliminate black potential jurors. Thereafter he struck two more black persons. Defense counsel struck one black person who indicated that she felt the death penalty would be appropriate in cases of intentional killing. One black remained on the jury.
During the hearing, the prosecutor gave reasons for his strikes, some predicated on a "no" given by an investigator with the sheriff's department. Because of the nature of some of these reasons, this case is remanded to the trial court for a hearing to be held pursuant to Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987). A record of this hearing and findings made by the trial court shall be filed expeditiously in this court following the hearing in circuit court.
For the reasons stated, this cause is remanded with directions for a hearing.
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
All the Judges concur.
ON RETURN TO REMAND
The appellant was convicted of the capital offense of murder for hire and was sentenced to death, as explained in our original opinion. The following is the trial court's findings of fact concerning the evidence and testimony presented during the trial:
This cause was remanded to the trial court in order for a hearing to be held pursuant to Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987). As previously noted, the prosecutor used his first ten strikes against black venire members and, thereafter, struck two more blacks. Defense counsel struck one black venire member and one black venire member remained on the jury. Although this trial occurred prior to the release of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the prosecutor had come forward with reasons for his strikes. Because of the nature of some of these reasons, further explanation and examination was required.
A thorough hearing was held, pursuant to the order of this court, during which the prosecutor came forward under the guidelines of Batson and Branch with explanations for his strikes against the 12 black venire members. The reasons he gave were as follows:
1. Celia R. Briskey: The district attorney stated that he originally considered leaving her on the jury, but his chief investigator, Frank Strickland, later informed him that she was a very good friend of a group of young men who had been prosecuted on several previous occasions.
2. Mary Curry: The district attorney stated that her husband worked for the County Road Department and Mack Cole. He further stated that Mack Cole was a county commissioner who had been indicted at the time and, although he could not recall whether the potential juror's husband was brought into the grand jury, a number of Mack Cole's employees were ultimately involved in the trial and "it was an extensive investigation into the County Commission and left a lot of hard feelings between some of the workers with the County and the D.A.'s Office." The prosecutor further noted that he had prosecuted 13 Currys during the preceding three or four years and there was, at the time, a Curry on the trial docket to be prosecuted for sale of controlled substance. Frank Strickland informed the prosecutor that Mary Curry was related to a number of the Currys that had been prosecuted.
3. Rhonda G. Debardlabon: The prosecutor stated that she was struck because her mother had been prosecuted for murder. He further noted that he would have struck a member of any race for this reason. 1
4. Essie M. Denson: The prosecutor stated that Frank Strickland informed him that she would make a good juror and that he intended to leave her on the jury, but that, during the voir dire, she voiced a great dislike for circumstantial evidence and stated that she could not base a judgment on circumstantial evidence. He further noted that he struck a white venire member, Gordon Gibbins, for the same reason.
5. and 6. Cora F. Estelle and Maxine Estelle: The prosecutor noted that these two jurors having the same last name were also close in age. He testified that 7. Charlie Evans: The prosecutor noted that this potential juror had been represented by the appellant's attorney and that the appellant's attorney addressed him on a first name basis. He further noted that the potential juror wore sunglasses in the courtroom during the entire voir dire. The prosecutor stated that he would strike a member of any race for that reason. The prosecutor further stated that he struck a white male, Tommy Dobson, because he had been represented by another attorney involved in this case.
he got the two potential jurors confused and decided to strike both of them out of caution. One of them might have been a co-worker with the mother of a man who was convicted of a triple murder and sentenced to death. Furthermore, one of these venire members would frown and begin to raise her hand when the prosecutor began to discuss the death penalty as a possible punishment.
8. Althea Garrett: This potential juror answered that she had seen the appellant frequently and "around" at "the club." The prosecutor also noted that approximately 25 Garretts from that area had been prosecuted by him during the past four-year period. He further noted that several other Garretts were on the present trial docket. Frank Strickland informed the prosecutor that Althea Garrett was related to a number of the Garretts who had been prosecuted by the district attorney.
9. Ella Garrett: Frank Strickland also stated that she was related to a number of the Garretts who had been prosecuted. The prosecutor also stated that she had indicated a religious conviction against passing judgment. The prosecutor explained that he had actually indicated on his list that it was Irene Garrett with the religious conviction, but that in reviewing the record and defense counsel's notes, he determined that it was in fact Ella Garrett who had the religious conviction.
10. Irene Garrett: The prosecutor had noted on his list that she stated she could not pass judgment on her fellow man. Moreover, she had appeared as a witness for a defendant in a murder case in Calhoun County. 2 The prosecutor also stated that Frank Strickland informed him that she was related to a number of the Garretts whom he had prosecuted.
11. J.B. Garrett: Frank Strickland also stated that this potential juror was related to a number of the Garretts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reynolds v. State Of Ala.
...are cited in which the prosecuting attorney made comments stating his opinion that the appellant was guilty.'""Henderson v. State, 584 So. 2d 841, 857 (Ala. Cr. App. 1988), remanded on other grounds, 584 So. 2d 862 (Ala.1991)." Broadnax v. State, 825 So. 2d 134, 183 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000).2......
-
Doster v. State Of Ala.
...1980), writ denied, 398 So. 2d 332 (Ala.), cert, denied, 452 U.S. 941, 101 S.Ct. 3085, 69 L.Ed.2d 955 (1981). Henderson v. State, 584 So. 2d 841, 856-57 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988), remanded on other grounds, 585 So. 2d 862 (Ala. 1991). " Sneed v. State, 1 So.3d 104, 140 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). ......
-
Dobyne v. State
...U.S. 637, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974)." 477 U.S. at 181, 106 S.Ct. at 2471, 91 L.Ed.2d at 157. This court in Henderson v. State, 584 So.2d 841 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), considered the propriety of a similar argument. We "[T]he prosecutor's comment that the appellant apparently believed in......
-
Sockwell v. State
...contends that the "pecuniary gain" aggravating circumstance has not been adequately defined. We disagree. In Henderson v. State, 584 So.2d 841, 859 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), remanded on other grounds, 584 So.2d 862 (Ala.), aff'd on remand, 587 So.2d 1071 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), this Court stated th......