Meade v. State
Decision Date | 22 January 1980 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 258 |
Parties | Reginal MEADE, alias v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
William J. Underwood, Tuscumbia, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., Sarah Kathryn Farnell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Violation of Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act; sentence: eleven years imprisonment and $10,500 fine.
During the afternoon of November 8, 1978, the appellant sold 110 milligrams (.00388 oz.) of cocaine to one James Cowson a third party used on this occasion by the North Alabama Drug Unit to make such a purchase. The purchase was witnessed by Florence Police Officers Don Harmon and Randy Jones, both of whom were at the time assigned to the drug unit. The appellant was indicted during the November 1978 term of the grand jury and subsequently arrested on February 2, 1979. We pretermit further discussion of the facts as an issue concerning the prosecutor's closing argument is dispositive of the cause.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial and/or a new trial based on certain comments of the prosecuting attorney during his closing argument. In pertinent part the questionable comments are as follows:
Appellant asserts that the above comments directly point out his failure to testify in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, § 6, Constitution of Alabama 1901, and § 12-21-220, Code of Ala.1975.
It is apparent that the first statement of the prosecuting attorney can only be construed as a direct comment on the failure of the appellant to testify. The second statement adds to the prejudicial quality of the first. Such amounts to reversible error unless the trial court takes proper action to eradicate its harmful effect. Whitt v. State, Ala., 370 So.2d 736 (1979).
In the instant case appellant's counsel objected, and the trial court sustained. He then moved for a mistrial which the trial court overruled. The trial court, near the end of its oral charge, instructed the jury:
"
The instruction was virtually identical to appellant's refused requested charge except his was grammatically incorrect and thereby properly refused. However, as to the sufficiency of such charges, see Smith v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 370 So.2d 312, cert. denied, Ala., 370 So.2d 319 (1979). See also: Burson v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 373 So.2d 1239 (1979).
In Whitt, supra, at page 739, Justice Bloodworth stated:
Applying the above standards, we find:
(1) The trial court sustained the appellant's objection; however,
(2) The court failed to promptly instruct the jury;
(3) The court failed to promptly instruct the jury that the comment was improper and to disregard it;
(4) The court failed to promptly instruct the jury that statements of counsel are not evidence and that the defendant has a privilege to testify in his own behalf or not and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grady v. State
...Ala.Cr.App., 373 So.2d 1239 (1979); Fleenor v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 372 So.2d 902, cert. denied, Ala., 372 So.2d 904 (1979); Meade v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 381 So.2d 656, cert. denied, Ala., 381 So.2d 659 (1980). An examination of these authorities and their comparison with the facts here comp......
-
Griffin v. State
...grounds, Ala., 370 So.2d 736 (1979); Gissendaner, supra. For a collection of cases dealing with this area generally, see Meade v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 381 So.2d 656, cert. denied, Ala., 381 So.2d 659 We have carefully searched the record for errors injuriously affecting substantial rights of......
-
Vickery v. State, 1 Div. 262
...remedial measures were taken by the trial court to cure this error. Whitt, supra. Consequently, reversible error occurred. Meade v. State, 381 So.2d 656 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 381 So.2d 659 While we seriously question the use of the self-verifying detail test to satisfy both the basis......
-
Henry v. State
...Nix v. State, 370 So.2d at 1117. "The trial court can cure such a prejudicial statement, so that any error is See also Meade v. State, 381 So.2d 656 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 381 So.2d 659 (Ala.1980). harmless, by appropriate instructions to the jury which include 'that such remarks are ......