Parker v. State
Decision Date | 25 August 1989 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 200 |
Citation | 549 So.2d 989 |
Parties | Dale Thomas PARKER v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
John M. Britton, Phenix City, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Robert E. Lusk, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Dale Thomas Parker appeals from his convictions of first degree sodomy, first degree rape, and second degree kidnapping. The three charges were consolidated and appellant was found guilty by a Russell County jury. He was sentenced to 25 years, 25 years, and 10 years, respectively, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently.
Because appellant's arguments on appeal do not require an analysis of the facts leading to the charges against him, a lengthy recitation of those facts will be omitted. Suffice it to say that appellant allegedly abducted a 15-year-old girl at knifepoint and carried her to an isolated area of Phenix City, where he raped and sodomized her. He then drove her near her home and let her go. The victim ran home and told her mother what had transpired, and her mother called the police. Appellant was subsequently arrested and ultimately found guilty of the aforementioned offenses. He now appeals from those convictions.
I.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. He contends that the court made statements during its opening remarks to the jury which were prejudicial and prevented him from receiving a fair trial.
The record reveals, inter alia, the following comments made by the trial court to the jury venire at the beginning of the voir dire:
(Emphasis added.)
At the close of the court's voir dire and prior to the striking of the jury, the following transpired out of the presence of the jury:
Thereafter, the court stated the following to the venire:
The jury was impaneled, and then the court made the following comments:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whitt v. State, CR-96-0349.
...to disregard improper remarks, there is a presumption against error and the prejudicial effects thereof are removed.' Parker v. State, 549 So.2d 989, 992 (Ala. Cr.App.1989), quoting Haywood v. State, 501 So.2d 515, 519 Huffman v. State, 706 So.2d 808 (Ala. Crim.App.1997). A. The first comme......
-
Thomas v. State
...In finding that Thomas has not met the prejudice prong of Strickland, we have considered the principles set out in Parker v. State, 549 So.2d 989, 990 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989). In that case, the court reviewed the propriety of the trial court's opening remark to the jury venire that "a grand jury......
-
Walker v. State
...351, 352 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), and thus were sufficient to eradicate the prejudicial effects of the questions. Compare Parker v. State, 549 So.2d 989, 992 (Ala.Cr.App.1992) (where trial court "did not instruct the venire to disregard the comment under scrutiny" and did not poll venire on the m......
-
Huffman v. State
...to disregard improper remarks, there is a presumption against error and the prejudicial effects thereof are removed." Parker v. State, 549 So.2d 989, 992 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), quoting Haywood v. State, 501 So.2d 515, 519 Here, the trial court immediately instructed the jury to disregard the co......