Prince v. State
Decision Date | 18 September 1992 |
Docket Number | CR-91-431 |
Citation | 623 So.2d 355 |
Parties | Leon Albert PRINCE v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
L. Dan Turberville, Birmingham, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Margaret Childers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Leon Albert Prince, was convicted of carnal knowledge of a girl less than twelve years old, in violation of Title 14, § 398, Ala.Code 1940 (Recomp.1958). He was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. He raises five issues on this appeal from that conviction.
The appellant alleges that his right to a fair trial was violated by numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct begin with almost the first page of the court reporter's transcript of the proceedings and continue repeatedly throughout the entire record.
During the voir dire of the jury venire, the following occurred:
"MS. PULLIAM: Can you put aside any possibility of a sentence outside your concentration? Normally, that is never an issue for the jury. In this case, it is, which makes this case different. Is there anybody who cannot do that, who cannot keep the two separate?
"(No response.)" R. 132-35.
After the jury had been selected and excused for the day, the prosecutor initiated further discussion with the trial court about the matter of probation. She explained that she considered her comment on probation "only fair" (R. 267) because in its opening comments the trial court informed the jury that a conviction carried a sentence that the jury must set at ten years' to life imprisonment and that defense counsel had "reemphasized that." R. 267. The trial court responded: R. 267. See also R. 271. It is undisputed that the prosecutor was the only person to mention probation before the jury.
After the trial court overruled defense counsel's motion for a mistrial, defense counsel requested that the trial court not attempt any curative instruction on the prosecutor's comment. R. 301-05.
Later, outside the presence of the jury and during the course of the trial, the trial court expressed its opinion that the prosecutor's remark was "error." R. 1070. On whether his comments cured the error, the trial court stated: R. 1070
During the deliberation of the jury, the jury indicated that it had a question. That question was, "Is there a possibility of parole or probation?" R. 1378. Based on that request, defense counsel asked the trial court that the jury be given further instructions.
The trial court then gave the jury the following instruction:
"You sent out this question: 'Is there a possibility of parole or probation?'
Defense counsel then objected to the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury "as to what level of probation was available in this case." R. 1380. Defense counsel did not request the trial court to instruct the jury that the matter of parole or probation was not for its consideration.
"[I]t has long been the law of this State that comments upon the probability or possibility of what might happen under a particular sentence, falling outside the evidence and the law of the case, constitute improper argument." Ex parte Rutledge, 482 So.2d 1262, 1265 (Ala.1984). A prosecutor should not comment on the possibility of probation or parole before the jury.
Lee v. State, 265 Ala. 623, 629, 93 So.2d 757, 763 (1957). See also Eaton v. State, 278 Ala. 224, 227, 177 So.2d 444, 448 (1965). "In Alabama the attorneys are forbidden to talk to the jury about probation and parole." Davis v. State, 494 So.2d 851, 854 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) ( ). A prosecutor's comment on the possibility of probation or parole is "clearly improper." Doyle v. State, 487 So.2d 996, 998 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Henderson v. State, 460 So.2d 331, 333 (Ala.Cr.App.1984) ( ).
Murray v. State, 359 So.2d 1178, 1180 (Ala.Cr.App.1978). Although each of the above cases involved a prosecutor's comment in argument to the jury, we consider the above principles equally applicable where the comment is made during the voir dire of the jury venire.
Although erroneous, "[a]rgument in the nature of that under consideration is not so inflammatory and prejudicial that its harmful quality cannot be eradicated." Murray, 359 So.2d at 1181. See Doyle, 487 So.2d at 998-99 ( ). "Any prejudice suffered by the appellant as a result of the prosecutor's argument was eradicated by the trial judge's prompt action [in immediately sustaining defense counsel's objection]." Hooks v. State, 534 So.2d 329, 361 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), affirmed, 534 So.2d 371 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050, 109 S.Ct. 883, 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989). See Thomas v. State, 373 So.2d 1149, 1159-60 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed, 373 So.2d 1167 (Ala.1979), vacated on other grounds, 448 U.S. 903, 100 S.Ct. 3043, 65 L.Ed.2d 1133 (1980).
The appellant's trial began on November 4, 1991, and a conviction was returned on November 8. Considering the length of the appellant's trial, the curative action taken by the trial court (even though minimal), and the particular objections made and the curative actions that defense counsel did and did not request, we find that the prosecutor's comment does not constitute a ground for a reversal of the appellant's conviction.
The prosecutor was not guilty of misconduct and did not violate the principles of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sheffield v. State Of Ala.
...Malone v. State, 659 So. 2d 1006 (Ala. Cr. App. 1995); McClellan v. State, 628 So. 2d 1026 (Ala. Cr. App. 1993); Prince v. State, 623 So. 2d 355 (Ala. Cr. App. 1992)." 698 So. 2d at 205. Additionally, Rule 17.5, Ala.R.Crim.P., provides that "[a]ny witness who, after being subpoenaed, fails ......
-
Woods v. State
...issue and that procedural rules promulgated by the Alabama Supreme Court generally govern over statutory provisions. Prince v. State, 623 So.2d 355 (Ala.Cr. App.1992); § 12-1-1, Ala.Code 1975. The appellant also correctly asserts that `when the Legislature gives the court the power to make ......
-
Spencer v. State
...347 (Ala.1981); Malone v. State, 659 So.2d 1006 (Ala.Cr.App.1995); McClellan v. State, 628 So.2d 1026 (Ala.Cr.App.1993); Prince v. State, 623 So.2d 355 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).”698 So.2d at 205. Additionally, Rule 17.5, Ala.R.Crim.P., provides that “[a]ny witness who, after being subpoenaed, fail......
-
Smith v. State
...Rule 1.1, Ala.R.Crim.P. As concerns any conflict, the rules generally supersede any earlier enacted statutory provision. Prince v. State, 623 So.2d 355 (Ala.Cr.App.1992); § 12-1-1, Ala.Code, "Specifically applicable here, Rule 3.3(a), Ala.R.Crim.P., provides that `[t]he arrest warrant shall......