Lawley v. State
| Decision Date | 10 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 266 |
| Citation | 264 Ala. 283,87 So.2d 433 |
| Parties | Lankford LAWLEY v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Wilton W. Rabren, Columbiana, for appellant.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Owen Bridges, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Lankford Lawley was tried in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Alabama, on an indictment containing two counts; one count charging rape, and the other charging carnal knowledge of, or abuse in the attempt to carnally know, Linda Sue Bass, a girl under the age of twelve years. He was found guilty and his punishment fixed at life imprisonment in the state penitentiary. The court entered a judgment accordingly, and it is from this judgment that the appeal is taken.
The appellant's principal contention is that reversible error was committed by the trial judge in instructing the jury as to the possibility of parole in case the defendant were convicted and sentenced to serve time in the penitentiary. The state admits error, but argues that the error was cured by subsequent remarks by the trial judge.
The transcript reveals that after the case had been submitted to the jury, and the jury had retired to the jury room, the jury returned into open court and the following proceedings were had:
'By the Court: Gentlemen, is there some question of law you want to ask me; I can't help you as to a question of fact.
'By Juror: We would like to ask the number of years that he would be eligible for parole.
'By Juror: Will he always be eligible for parole?
'By Mr. Rabren: We object to the instructions of the Court given to them regarding this.
'By Mr. Rabren: We except to the Court's remarks.'
As a result of these remarks by the trial judge, the case must of necessity be reversed. In the recent case of McCray v. State, 261 Ala. 275, 74 So.2d 491, this court held that in arriving at a proper sentence to be imposed on a defendant, the proportionate part thereof which probably or possibly might be deducted therefrom by the Parole Board was not a proper factor to be considered by the jury, and it is error for the court to instruct the jury as to the laws or customs governing the granting of paroles. In the light of that decision, the trial court in the case now before us unquestionably was in error in his remarks made in response to the juror's inquiry.
The withdrawal of the remarks by the court did not cure the error which had been committed. Where the withdrawal of a prejudicial remark by a judge is not sufficient to remove the impression which that remark has made upon the minds of the jurors, the defendant is entitled to have a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...consistently held that it is improper for a trial judge to answer a juror's question about the pardon and parole laws. Lawley v. State, 264 Ala. 283, 87 So.2d 433 (1956); Robinson v. State, 335 So.2d 420, 423-25 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 426 (1976). "(T)he view of most of the c......
-
People v. Morse
...In reversing a rape conviction which involved only imprisonment, and not the death penalty, as here, the court in Lawley v. State (1956) 264 Ala. 283, 87 So.2d 433, stated that '(I)n arriving at a proper sentence to be imposed on a defendant, the proportionate part thereof which probably or......
-
State v. White
...heavily the other way. See Annotation, 35 A.L.R.2d 769 (1954), and later decisions not there considered. Lawley v. State, 264 Ala. 283, 87 So.2d 433 (Sup.Ct.1956); Scarber v. State, 226 Ark. 503, 291 S.W.2d 241 (Sup.Ct.1956); McGruder v. State, 213 Ga. 259, 98 S.E.2d 564 (Sup.Ct.1957); Demi......
-
State v. Remmers
...v. Commonwealth, 267 S.W.2d 73, 76 (Ky.1954). Other courts have reached the same conclusion in similar cases. See Lawley v. State, 264 Ala. 283, 87 So.2d 433, 435 (1956) ("the jury was planning to add to the length of sentence in order to compensate for a parole before the entire sentence w......