Prothro v. State
Decision Date | 16 January 1979 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 419 |
Citation | 370 So.2d 740 |
Parties | Howard Lee PROTHRO v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Larkin Radney, Alexander City, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Willis E. Isaac, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, appellee.
The only issue expressly presented by appellant for review is stated in his brief as follows:
"The Alabama 'Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Without Parole' statute violates the Constitution of the United States and the Alabama Constitution of 1901."
The instant challenge of the constitutionality of said Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Without Parole Act (Act 213, 1975 Ala. Acts, p. 701, Et seq. 1) is based upon grounds in addition to those presented in several cases in which the constitutionality of said law as therein raised and considered has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Alabama and by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. See Jacobs v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 361 So.2d 607 (1977), cert. denied Ala., 361 So.2d 640 (1978); Cook v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 369 So.2d 1243 (1977), aff'd in part and rev'd in part and remanded for a rehearing on mitigating circumstances, Ala., 369 So.2d 1251 (1978); Wilson v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 1978, 371 So.2d 932; Beck v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 1978, 365 So.2d 985; Williamson v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 1978, 378 So.2d 1054; and Clements v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 1978, 370 So.2d 708. See also, Evans and Ritter v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 361 So.2d 654 (1977), aff'd as to Evans and rev'd and rem'd as to Ritter for consideration of the applicability of the "felony-murder doctrine" Ala., (July 6, 1979) on remand, Ala.Cr.App., (August 9, 1978), in which cases each of the defendants-appellants requested and was given the death penalty.
On an indictment charging Zebedee Hayes, Howard Lee Prothro, and Dave Thomas with intentionally killing Luther Shoffeitt during the course of a robbery of Shoffeitt, appellant herein was separately tried. The jury found him guilty as charged and fixed his punishment at death. On a post-conviction hearing, the trial court reduced his punishment by a sentence to imprisonment for life without parole.
Appellant urges that the Alabama Death Penalty Act "violates the Fifth Amendment right to plead not guilty, the Sixth Amendment right to demand a trial by jury, and the Constitution of Alabama, 1901, Article I, Section 11, which provides, "That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate."
Appellant centers his aim upon the following parts of the cited Alabama Act:
" § 13-11-2.
(a) If the jury finds the defendant guilty, it shall fix the punishment at death when the defendant is charged by indictment with any of the following offenses and with aggravation . . . .
Appellant relies chiefly upon United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968), in which the court had for consideration the Federal Kidnaping Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a) in pertinent part as follows:
"Whoever knowingly transports in interstate . . . commerce, any person who has been unlawfully . . . kidnaped . . . held for ransom . . . shall be punished (1) by death if the kidnaped person has not been liberated unharmed, and if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend, or (2) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if the death penalty is not imposed."
In Jackson the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Stewart for a majority of six, held that the death penalty provision of the Federal Kidnaping Act was invalid because it imposed an impermissible burden upon an accused's exercise of his Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and his Sixth Amendment right to demand a trial by jury. The Court said at 390 U.S. 581, at 88 S.Ct. 1216:
The question presented and determined in Jackson Is not the question to be determined here, as the legal premises for a conclusion reached therein are essentially different from, and in some respects diametrically opposed to, the legal premises in the case now before us.
It is to be kept in mind that, although Jackson Holds that a defendant has the constitutional right not to plead guilty, citing Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116, 76 S.Ct. 223, 100 L.Ed. 126, it does not hold that one has the constitutional right to a trial without a jury. Even before the Bill of Rights, it was provided, "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; . . ." Constitution of the United States, Art. III, Sec. 2, Par. 3.
Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
"Cases to be tried by jury shall be so tried unless a defendant waives a jury trial in writing with the approval of the court and the consent of the government."
Rule 23(a) was attacked as unconstitutional in Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 85 S.Ct. 783, 13 L.Ed.2d 630, Singer claiming that in a federal criminal case, by virtue of his unconditional right, guaranteed by Art. III, Sec. 2, and the Sixth Amendment, he had "a correlative right to have his case decided by a judge alone if he considered such a trial to be to his advantage." In an extensive consideration of the history of criminal proceedings in England under the common law, in the courts of the American Colonies, in United States courts, and in the courts of the various states before and after their adoption of the Constitution of the United States, the Court in Singer concluded that the Constitution of the United States does not confer upon a defendant in a criminal case a Right to waive a jury trial and that Rule 23(a) FRCrP sets forth a reasonable procedure governing attempts to waive jury trials.
At the time of Singer, at the time of Jackson, and from the time of the adoption of the Constitution to and including the present time, with few possible exceptions, such as was attempted by the Federal Kidnaping Act, the determination of the punishment, within the limits prescribed by law, to be imposed upon a defendant convicted in federal cases, was, has been, and is exclusively a function of the trial judge.
United States v. Davidson, 367 F.2d 60, 63 (6 Cir. 1966)
The line of demarcation between the function of the judge and the function of a jury as to the punishment to be imposed upon a defendant found guilty of a crime is distinctly different in federal trial courts from what it is in trial courts of Alabama. In a capital case in the trial courts of Alabama, a jury, and a jury alone, has authority to fix the punishment at death. So assiduously has the integrity of the exclusive function of the jury been guarded throughout the years, that not until September 12, 1969, (the date of the approval of Acts 1969, No. 1061, p. 1981, § 1, which will be hereafter discussed) could the trial judge (the court without the intervention of a jury), fix the punishment for a felony when such "power is expressly conferred on the jury," even though defendant had expressly waived a jury trial and entered a plea of guilty. The proposition is stated in Ex parte Jenkins, 38 Ala.App. 117, 76 So.2d 858 (1955) as follows:
In amending the statutory law by Acts 1969, No. 1061, p. 1981, § 1, the previous stringent requirements that the provisions of statutory law for punishment be fixed by a jury were relaxed to the extent that where a defendant upon arraignment or prior to trial pleads guilty and contemporaneously therewith waives his right to a jury trial, the court, without the intervention of a jury, can fix the punishment The same as a jury might fix or impose it 2 if the case were being tried by a jury, But the court cannot impose capital punishment without the intervention of a jury.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ritter v. Smith
...that "robbery or attempts thereof when the victim is intentionally killed by the defendant" is a capital offense.3 See Prothro v. State, 370 So.2d 740 (Ala.Cr.App.1979).4 Id. Sec. 13-11-2(a).5 Id. Sec. 13-11-5.6 For a detailed procedural history of this case see Ritter v. State, 429 So.2d 9......
-
Hubbard v. State
...was declared and upheld in Jacobs v. State, 361 So.2d 607 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), affirmed, 361 So.2d 640 (Ala.1978). A. In Prothro v. State, 370 So.2d 740 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), this Court rejected the defendant's argument that the Alabama Death Penalty Act violates the holding of United States v. ......
-
State v. Martin
...to them, have relied on the fact that the death penalty may be imposed whether guilt is determined by jury or not. Prothro v. State, 370 So.2d 740, 743 (Ala.Cr.App.1979) (statute provides for jury assessment of punishment if defendant pleads guilty); Commonwealth v. Bhillips, 475 Pa. 427, 3......
-
Ritter v. Smith, Civ. A. No. 83-0457-H.
...and forego a jury trial but that procedure was not permissible under the death penalty statute then in force. See Prothro v. State, 370 So.2d 740 (Ala.Cr.App.1979). Petitioner and Evans gave inculpatory statements to the Grand Jury and each testified at trial admitting the necessary element......