Murray v. State, 5 Div. 399
| Decision Date | 20 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 399 |
| Citation | 359 So.2d 1178 |
| Parties | Ira James MURRAY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Cecil M. Tipton, Jr., Opelika, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and Eugenia D. B. Hofammann, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
A jury found appellant-defendant guilty of robbery and fixed his punishment at imprisonment for twenty years. He was sentenced accordingly.
Notwithstanding the fact that no question is raised on appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, we deem it appropriate to comment thereon briefly.
Appellant was definitely and positively identified by Guy B. Hannum and Jody Bonds as the man who came into Chanelo's Pizza in Auburn, Alabama, on the evening of January 14, 1977, pulled a ski mask down over his face with his left hand and with his right hand presented a revolver at Hannum and told him to open the cash register. According to their testimony, Mr. Hannum opened the cash register and another man who was with defendant at the time "came around and put his left hand on the register and took the money." During all of the time that the other man was taking the money, defendant held the pistol pointed at Hannum. Then defendant took some of the money and he and his companion went out the door with the money and left the scene. Mr. Hannum promptly notified the police, and defendant and his companion were apprehended together about a week later.
Hannum and Bonds were the only witnesses who testified as eyewitnesses to the robbery. Defendant did not take the stand, but his girl friend testified in his behalf to the effect that he was with her from the early part of the evening of January 14 until about 2:00 A.M. of January 15, 1977, which period included more than two hours immediately preceding the time of the robbery and more than two hours immediately following the time of the robbery. She said that they spent most of this time at a night club, that defendant was constantly with her all of the time other than when he was "going backwards and forwards to the bathroom" and on one occasion when he was playing pool for not more than half an hour.
Appellant's only insistence on error is directed at what occurred during the closing argument to the jury of counsel for the State, as follows:
As the record shows, there was some difference of opinion between trial counsel as to what counsel for the prosecution said. We must take the record as it is and not put words into the mouth of either counsel. If the argument of counsel for the prosecution was to the effect that whatever punishment the jury fixed would be reduced, the argument was highly improper, as the authorities in Alabama, including those hereafter cited, have uniformly held.
A jury should perform its duty both as to the question of guilt and as to the extent of punishment, if within the province of the jury, irrespective of what someone else, including the trial court, appellate courts and all probation, parole and pardoning authorities might do in the future. That is not a matter for the jury to consider. A rule permitting any agency in the administration and execution of justice to knowingly attempt to ease its conscience or evade its responsibility in the assumption that another agency will rectify its failure to perform its separate responsibility would lead inevitably to subversion, irrespective of the good intentions that might at times prompt such action.
In Lee v. State, 265 Ala. 623, 629, 93 So.2d 757, 763 (1957), it was said:
"There is no question but that the argument of the solicitor to the effect that a man sentenced to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...cert. denied, 423 U.S. 951, 96 S.Ct. 373, 46 L.Ed.2d 288 (1975); Eaton v. State, 278 Ala. 224, 177 So.2d 444 (1965); Murray v. State, 359 So.2d 1178 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), respectively. Within this framework, we here measure the claims of prosecutorial abuse in closing argument against the prin......
-
California v. Ramos
...the actions of other branches of government through the pre-emptive imposition of the death penalty. See, e.g., Murray v. State, 359 So.2d 1178 (Ala.App.1978) (consideration of commutation subverts jury's properly assigned role); Andrews v. State, 251 Ark. 279, 290, 472 S.W.2d 86, 92 (Ark.1......
-
State v. Clark
...held it improper for the jury to consider or be informed of the possibility of commutation, pardon, or parole. See Murray v. State, 359 So.2d 1178 (Ala.Crim.App.1978); People v. Morse, 60 Cal.2d 631, 388 P.2d 33, 36 Cal.Rptr. 201 (1964); People v. Walker, 91 Ill.2d 502, 64 Ill.Dec. 531, 440......
-
Pressley v. State
...Ex parte Rutledge, 482 So.2d 1262, 1264 (Ala.1984); Eaton v. State, 278 Ala. 224, 177 So.2d 444 (1965); see also Murray v. State, 359 So.2d 1178 (Ala.Cr.App.1978). Determining that the prosecutor's question to Juror A. was improper does not, however, end our review. Prosecutorial misconduct......