Maples v. State
Citation | 758 So.2d 1 |
Parties | Corey MAPLES v. STATE. |
Decision Date | 26 March 1999 |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. Clint Brown, Jr., Decatur; Denise Hill, Decatur; Bryan White, Decatur; and James Ralph Mason, Jr., Decatur, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Kathryn D. Anderson, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Corey Maples, was convicted of two counts of capital murder for 1) the murders of Stacy Alan Terry and Barry Dewayne Robinson II pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, § 13A-5-40(a)(10), Ala.Code 1975, and 2) the murder of Stacy Alan Terry during the course of committing a robbery, § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. By a vote of 10-2, the jury recommended that the appellant be sentenced to death. The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death.
Because the appellant does not specifically challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, a lengthy recitation of the evidence presented is unnecessary. However, we have reviewed all of the evidence and find that it is sufficient to support the appellant's convictions. The following summary of the relevant facts, as prepared by the trial court, may be helpful to an understanding of this case:
(C.R.554-56.) Additional facts are included, as necessary, throughout this opinion.
The appellant raises several issues on appeal that he did not first present to the trial court. The failure to object will not bar our review of an issue in a case involving the death penalty. However, it will weigh against any claim of prejudice. Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975, 106 S.Ct. 340, 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P., provides:
"In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review... whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant."
"[This] plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be `used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.'" United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982)).
The appellant's first argument is that the trial court erroneously denied him discovery of DNA-related evidence. Specifically, he contends that he was entitled to obtain discovery of each of the 12 items enumerated in Ex parte Perry, 586 So.2d 242, 255 (Ala.1991), but that the State provided only 2 of those items: 1) a copy of the report run by the laboratory and issued to the State and 2) chain-of-custody documents. He contends that the State should have produced the 10 other items because he allegedly specifically requested DNA evidence and because the denial of the discovery allegedly prevented him from effectively rebutting the State's inculpatory DNA evidence. Finally, citing Ex parte Hutcherson, 677 So.2d 1205 (Ala. 1996), he argues that such an error can never be harmless.
In Ex parte Perry, 586 So.2d 242 (Ala.1991), the Alabama Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of DNA evidence. After setting forth a three-pronged test for determining the admissibility of DNA evidence, that court held:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petersen v. State
...v. State, 820 So. 2d 842, 874 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000).’ " Snyder v. State, 893 So. 2d 488, 548 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). See alsoMaples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1, 65 (Ala. Crim. App.), aff'd, 758 So. 2d 81 (Ala. 1999)." Henderson v. State, 248 So. 3d 992, 1005 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017). With these l......
-
Brown v. State
...susceptibility to inducement' occurred to induce" Brown to make the statement. Minor v. State, 780 So.2d at 732. In Maples v. State, 758 So.2d 1 (Ala. Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 758 So.2d 81 (Ala. 1999), the appellant argued that his statements were involuntary because they were made pursuant t......
-
McGowan v. State
...958-59 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), remanded on other ground, 836 So.2d 973 (Ala.2001), aff'd, 836 So.2d 979 (Ala.2002); Maples v. State, 758 So.2d 1, 70-71 (Ala. Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 758 So.2d 81 (Ala. McGowan contends that the trial court's override of the jury recommendation of imprisonment fo......
-
Woolf v. State
...601 So.2d 1062, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).' " ' " Brown v. State, 982 So.2d 565, 601–02 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (quoting Maples v. State, 758 So.2d 1, 42–43 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (additional citations omitted)). Except for his reply to Officer Payne's question regarding what he might have done, all ......