Ivery v. State
Decision Date | 19 April 1996 |
Docket Number | CR-93-0766 |
Citation | 686 So.2d 495 |
Parties | Samuel IVERY v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Glenn Davidson, Richard Williams, Mobile, for Appellant.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Jack Willis and Frances Smith, Asst. Attys. Gen., for Appellee.
Samuel Ivery was convicted after a jury trial of the capital offense of murder of Deborah Lewis committed during a robbery in the first degree or an attempt thereof, see § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Code of Alabama 1975. At the sentencing phase of the trial, the jury voted unanimously to recommend that Ivery be sentenced to death. At the sentencing hearing held pursuant to §§ 13A-5-47 through -52, the trial court sentenced Ivery to death by electrocution.
The facts of the crime in this case are not in dispute. The sole issue presented at trial was whether Ivery was legally insane at the time of the offense. Ivery essentially conceded the prosecution's prima facie case, raising no evidentiary objections during the state's case-in-chief, and subjected the state's witnesses to little, if any, cross-examination. The trial court's sentencing order presents a complete and correct recount of the gruesome facts of the case presented at trial.
To this statement of facts, we add that Ivery's defense indicated that, as a result of his alleged paranoid schizophrenia, Ivery believed himself to be the "ninja of God," and to have been instructed by God to kill people at will and to take their money as the spoils of victory. With this single addition, we adopt the trial court's statement of facts as quoted for the purposes of this opinion.
At the outset, we note that many of the issues raised on appeal were not raised at the trial level. Therefore, we review these issues under the doctrine of plain error.
George v. State, [Ms. CR-94-0387, April 19, 1996] --- So.2d ----, ---- (Ala.Cr.App.1996).
Ivery contends that the trial court erred, during the guilt-phase jury instructions, by failing to define "wrongfulness," for purposes of § 13A-3-1, Code of Alabama 1975, as moral wrongfulness. At trial, Ivery did not object to the trial court's failure to define "wrongfulness" for the jury; therefore, our review is limited by the plain error standard.
Alabama's insanity defense statute, § 13A-3-1(a), reads:
This statute does not define "wrongfulness"; therefore, to determine the meaning of that word in the context of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petersen v. State
...State, 462 So. 2d 1013, 1016 (Ala. Cr. App. 1984) ; Sanders v. State, 426 So. 2d 497, 509 (Ala. Cr. App. 1982).’ " Ivery v. State, 686 So. 2d 495, 504 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (quoting Bankhead v. State, 585 So. 2d 97, 105-07 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989) ). "A prosecutor may argue in closing any ev......
-
Lindsay v. State
...use of the Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions in criminal cases." Ex parte McGriff, 908 So.2d 1024, 1033 (Ala. 2004).In Ivery v. State, 686 So.2d 495 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996), this Court considered whether it was plain error for the trial court to fail to define the term "wrongfulness" as that......
-
Lansdell v. State
...by statute, whether it is necessary for the trial court to define the term for the jury hinges on the facts of the case." Ivery v. State, 686 So.2d 495, 501-02 (Ala.Crim. App.), aff'd on return to remand, 686 So.2d 520 (Ala.Crim.App.1996). As used in this case, the terms "any means," "any c......
-
Williams v. State
...define the term for the jury hinges on the facts of the case. See Thornton v. State, 570 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.1990)." Ivery v. State, 686 So.2d 495 (Ala.Cr.App.1996). This principle "has added meaning when the challenged terms can be understood by the average juror in their common usage." ......
-
Confronting Racist Prosecutorial Rhetoric at Trial.
...can disagree on where to draw the line between "blatant" racist arguments and more subtle ones. Id. at 1760-61. (192.) Ivery v. State, 686 So.2d 495, 504-05 (Ala. 1996). The prosecutor also used a variant of the n-word, "n*****itious," to refer to hatred of Black people. The prosecutor and ......