Manuel v. State
Decision Date | 14 November 1997 |
Docket Number | CR-96-0616 |
Citation | 711 So.2d 507 |
Parties | Ercell MANUEL, Jr. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Paul D. Brown, Mobile, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Rosa H. Davis, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
On November 21, 1996, Ercell Manuel, Jr., was convicted of murder, a violation of § 13A-6-2, Ala.Code 1975, in connection with the fatal shooting of Danny Lamar Strickland. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The evidence presented at trial tended to show that Manuel fatally shot Strickland during an argument that occurred in the house of a mutual friend, Kim Hill. Manuel, Hill, and two other persons were at Hill's residence when Strickland entered. Hill testified that she was involved in a sexual relationship with Manuel at the time of the shooting and that she had had a relationship with Strickland in the past. The fact that Manuel shot Strickland was undisputed. It is also undisputed that Strickland was unarmed.
Manuel's trial strategy rested on self-defense. Manuel testified that Strickland abruptly entered Hill's residence without knocking, that Strickland was hostile toward him, and that Strickland appeared to be reaching into his pants for a weapon just before he fired his gun.
Although Manuel raised three issues in his brief to this Court, our disposition of the case requires that we address only one of these issues.
Manuel contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it charged the jury as follows:
"Ladies and gentlemen, in a trial of a person for committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence, the fact that he was armed with a pistol and had no license to carry the same shall be prima facie evidence of his intention to commit said crime of violence unless the evidence which proves the killing rebuts that presumption."
(R. 332) (emphasis added). Manuel argues that this jury instruction created a mandatory rebuttable presumption that, he says, impermissibly relieved the State of its burden of proving every element of its case beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree.
The State has not cited, and we cannot find, a case involving a similar charge.
The record reflects that, during a pre-charge conference, the trial court stated its intent to give the disputed charge. The following exchange took place:
(R. 321-323.) After the jury was instructed and before it retired for deliberations, Manuel objected to the charge on the ground that it violated his right to due process.
The trial court based its charge on § 13A-11-71, Ala.Code 1975, and also on Wright v. State, 252 Ala. 46, 39 So.2d 395 (1949). Section 13A-11-71, Ala.Code 1975, which was originally enacted in 1936 (See Ala. Acts 1936, Ex.Sess., Act No. 82, p. 51) provides in part:
"In the trial of a person for committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence, the fact that he was armed with a pistol and had no license to carry the same shall be prima facie evidence of his intention to commit said crime of violence."
In Wright, the Alabama Supreme Court cited Hornsby v. State, 94 Ala. 55, 66, 10 So. 522, 526 (1892) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 60 Ala. 26, 28 (1877)), in support of its holding that it was " 'error to charge the jury as to the presumptions arising from the use of a deadly weapon, without accompanying such charge with the further statement, "unless the evidence which proves the killing rebuts the presumption." ' " Wright, 252 Ala. at 48, 39 So.2d at 396. However, the whole line of caselaw that Wright was based upon was, in turn, founded upon the premise, set out in Hadley v. State, 55 Ala. 31 (1876), that a homicide defendant bore the onus of proving that a killing was committed in self-defense.
Today, it is clear that a defendant bears no burden of proving self-defense. Vaughn v. State, 293 Ala. 365, 367-68, 304 So.2d 6, 8 (1974). "Once the issue of self-defense is raised, the State 'must prove that the accused did not act in self-defense in the sense that the State must prove a prima facie case of unjustified homicide.' " Ex parte Johnson, 433 So.2d 479, 481 (Ala.1983). Additionally, as discussed below, recent opinions, both in federal courts and the courts of this state, have addressed with disapproval jury charges that create mandatory presumptions in favor of the prosecution regarding the existence of certain elements of the offense charged.
This Court, in Beard v. State, 612 So.2d 1335 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), addressed the concerns raised by jury charges that create mandatory presumptions in favor of the State. In Beard, the appellant was accused of capital murder and had been found to be in possession of property belonging to the murder victim. Judge Patterson, writing for this Court, applied the following analysis in holding that it was reversible error to instruct the jury that the possession of property stolen during the course of a crime created a rebuttable presumption that the possessor participated in the crime.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. State
...(1979) (footnotes omitted, emphasis in original)." Beard v. State, 612 So.2d 1335, 1342-43 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). See also Manuel v. State, 711 So.2d 507 (Ala.Cr.App.1997). Here, the predicate fact supporting the presumption is Jones's intentional and unlawful killings of the victims with a dea......
-
Jarmon v. State
...court recharged the jury using the same instruction. (R. 669.) That instruction was impermissible as a matter of law.In Manuel v. State, 711 So.2d 507 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997), this Court rejected the use of a virtually identical jury instruction in a self-defense case. In doing so, this Cour......
-
Wesson v. State
...mandatory presumption or that the circuit court's jury charges created an unconstitutional mandatory presumption. Cf. Manuel v. State, 711 So. 2d 507 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997). Because "[e]ven constitutional issues must first be correctly raised in the trial court before they will be considere......
-
Townes v. State
...resulted in plain error. Rule 45A, Ala. R. Crim. P. The issue of intent was very much at issue in this case. See Manuel v. State, 711 So. 2d 507,513 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) (recognizing that a mandatory-presumption instruction relating to an element of the offense will be harmless if "the er......