Horsley v. State
| Decision Date | 01 June 1979 |
| Citation | 374 So.2d 375 |
| Parties | In re Edward HORSLEY v. STATE of Alabama. Ex parte Edward Horsley. 78-87. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 374 So.2d 363.
Nicholas S. Hare, Jr., and W. J. Causey, Jr., Monroeville, for petitioner.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Jean Williams Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Ala., respondent.
This cause is due to be affirmed on authority of Ex parte Baldwin v. State, 372 So.2d 32 (Ala.1979).
We have carefully reviewed the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals and the record of the proceedings in this cause, and are convinced that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is due to be, and is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
JONES, J., concurs in the result for the same reason stated in Ex parte Baldwin v. State, 372 So.2d 32 (Ala.1979).
The Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion concedes that the main issue in this case is whether the "crime made the basis of the prosecution was wholly committed outside of Alabama. . . ." That Court then proceeds to hold that the offense charged, "Robbery or attempts thereof when the victim is intentionally killed . . ." is not consummated until death occurs. Thereafter by a convoluted process it is held that under the facts of this case the asportation of the automobile was a continuing process: "(T)hey never ceased their effort to separate the two, whether Naomi from the automobile or the automobile from Naomi . . . ." That Court added: "Their effort to take permanently and indefinitely away from her the automobile was thwarted only by the automobile's sudden and unexpected immobility." Thus it was established that this robbery became a "continuing" offense because the "process of the robbery" continued from Hudson, North Carolina to Monroe County, Alabama, somehow establishing a "logical connection" between the crime of robbery and the crime of intentional homicide.
Therein lies the difficulty, for I cannot determine whether the court below is interpreting the statute to mean that the legislature established a new and continuing offense under § 13-11-2(a)(2) or whether it is holding that Under these facts this robbery continued in its Commission until the victim was killed. My conclusion is that the latter holding was intended, however each position deserves some comment.
I have already expressed my views on the nature of this crime, the significance of the legislature's use of the common law term "robbery," and the rule of strict construction to be applied in criminal cases. See Evans v. State, Ala.Crim.App., 361 So.2d 666 (1978) (Beatty, J., dissenting). It would appear A fortiori that our earlier decisions on the elements of robbery would control the definition of robbery in this statutory crime, given the fact that "robbery" is not defined in the death penalty statute. That being so, we should take the statute as it stands, and as it stands it does not make robbery a Continuing offense to furnish the aggravation necessary under that statute. While the notion that the robbery continues because the owner of the property is forcefully taken along and thus somehow remains in possession of it is an appealing one from the point of view of law enforcement, nevertheless it is not a proposition heretofore accepted in such cases by our law....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peoples v. State
... ... See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 460 So.2d 207 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), aff'd, 460 So.2d 216 (Ala.1984); Horsley v. State, 374 So.2d 363 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), aff'd, 374 So.2d 375 (Ala.1979), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 448 U.S. 903, 100 S.Ct. 3043, 65 L.Ed.2d 1133 (1980); Williamson v. State, 370 So.2d 1054 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), aff'd, 370 So.2d 1066 (Ala.1979), vacated and remanded on other grounds, ... ...
-
Hunt v. State
... ... "We are deeply mindful of the principle that criminal statutes are to be strictly construed, but adherence to strict construction does not require an unreasonable interpretation, an interpretation that the legislature could not have intended." Horsley v. State, 374 So.2d 363, 372 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), affirmed, 374 So.2d 375 (Ala.1979), vacated on other grounds, Horsley v. Alabama, 448 U.S. 903, 100 S.Ct. 3043, 65 L.Ed.2d 1133 (1980). See Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-1-6 (criminal statutes "shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms ... ...
- Horsley v. State of Ala.
-
Beck v. State
... ... Code 1975, § 13A-5-31 ... Page 662 ... Each of the fourteen crimes specified requires an intentional killing with aggravation, and not some crime other than homicide under aggravated circumstances. Horsley v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 374 So.2d 363 (1978); aff'd, Horsley v. State, Ala., 374 So.2d 375 (1979). Any holding by this or any other court which is contrary to the holding we make today, is overruled. 8 Under the separation of powers doctrine, this Court cannot change the offense, but a change in ... ...