Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 26 May 2000 |
| Citation | 795 So.2d 788 |
| Parties | Joseph Clifton SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Glenn L. Davidson, Mobile, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen.; and J. Clayton Crenshaw and Thomas F. Parker IV, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Joseph ("Jody") Clifton Smith, was convicted of murdering Durk Van Dam during the course of a robbery, an offense defined as capital by § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. The jury, by a vote of 11 to 1, recommended that Smith be sentenced to death. The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Smith to die in Alabama's electric chair at a date to be set by the Alabama Supreme Court.
The State's evidence tended to show the following. On November 25, 1997, police discovered the badly beaten body of Durk Van Dam in his mud-bound Ford Ranger truck in a wooded area near Shipyard Road in Mobile County. Dr. Julia Goodin, a forensic pathologist for the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, testified that Van Dam died as a result of 35 different blunt-force injuries to his body. Van Dam had marks consistent with marks made by a saw on his neck, shoulder, and back; he also had a large hemorrhage beneath his scalp, brain swelling, multiple rib fractures, a collapsed lung, multiple abrasions to his head and knees, and defensive wounds on his hands. Dr. Goodin testified that the multiple rib fractures that caused one lung to collapse were probably the most immediate cause of death.
Smith gave two statements to the police. In the first statement he denied any involvement in the robbery-murder but said that he was with Larry Reid when Reid beat and robbed Van Dam. Smith denied taking anything from the victim. When police were questioning Reid, Smith repeatedly knocked on the interrogation room door and requested to talk to the officer who had taken his first statement. In his second statement Smith admitted that he and Reid had planned to rob Van Dam because they had been told that Van Dam was carrying $1,500 in cash. Smith said that he, Reid, and Van Dam left the Highway Host motel in Van Dam's red truck on November 23, 1997. Van Dam was driving. Reid directed Van Dam, who had been drinking, to an isolated location. Once there, Reid began hitting Van Dam. He said that when Reid kicked Van Dam in the face he thought Van Dam was dead. Smith said that Van Dam then got up and Smith hit him on the head with his fist, kicked him in the ribs several times, threw a handsaw at him, and may have hit him with a hammer but he wasn't entirely sure because he suffers from blackouts. Reid then got a power saw from the back of Van Dam's truck, Smith said, and ran the saw against Van Dam's neck. Smith held Van Dam down while Reid took the money from his pockets. Smith and Reid then attempted to move the truck, because they had planned to steal it, but it got stuck in the mud. Smith also admitted that he took the victim's boots, because his shoes were wet, and that he took the victim's tools. The two discussed where to take Van Dam's body and Smith suggested that they take it to a nearby lake. However, they left the body, Smith said, under a mattress near Van Dam's truck. Smith said that when they divided the money he got only $40 and Reid kept the rest, approximately $100. Smith also told police that he had just been released from custody on Friday—two days before the robbery-murder on Sunday.1
Russell Harmon testified that on November 23, 1997, he went to the Highway Host motel and saw Reid and Smith. He said that Smith told him that they were going to rob Van Dam and asked if he wanted to join them. Harmon declined and left the motel. Later that day he went back to the motel to see if the two had been successful with their plans. He said that Smith told him that he had beaten the victim on the head and that he had cut him with a saw. On cross-examination he admitted that he could not swear that Smith was the one who said he had cut Van Dam in the back but that it could have been Reid who made this statement. However, on cross-examination Harmon reiterated that Smith told him that he "hit the man, beat the man—hit the man in the head and cut him." (R. 340.) Harmon testified that Smith asked him to go with him to get the tools from where he had left them in the woods. He said that he went with Smith and that they got the tools and took them to a pawnshop—Smith received $200 for the tools. Harmon testified that he was currently in the county jail because his probation had been revoked.
M.A.2 testified that she was living at Highway Host motel with her mother and sister at the time of Van Dam's murder. She said that her sister, M., was dating Smith. M.A. testified that on November 23, 1997, she saw Smith, Reid, and Van Dam drive away from the motel in a red truck. She said that when Smith and Reid returned sometime later they were in a black car, Van Dam was not with them, and Smith had blood on his clothes. M.A. testified that Smith told her that he had hit, cut, and stabbed Van Dam in the back.
Patty Milbeck testified that she saw Smith, Reid, and Van Dam on the day of the robbery-murder. When they returned, she said, Van Dam was not with them and Smith appeared nervous. Smith told her that Van Dam had become angry and left. Milbeck stated that at the time of her trial testimony she was in jail because she failed to report to her probation officer.
Joey Warner, an employee of 24-Hour Pawn pawnshop, testified that on November 23, 1997, Smith pawned several tools including saws, drills, and a router. He was given $200 and he showed his Alabama Department of Corrections identification card as identification to pawn the tools. (Supp. R. 92.)
Because Smith has been sentenced to death, this Court must review each issue raised in Smith's brief, even if the issue was not first presented to the trial court. This Court must also review the record to determine if there is any "plain error" i.e., error that has adversely affected the substantial rights of the appellant, see Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P., even though the issue was not raised in Smith's appellate brief to this Court.
Hall v. State, [Ms. CR-94-0661, October 18, 1999] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Cr.App. 1999).
Smith argues that "the trial court violated Mr. Smith's rights to a capital trial free from arbitrariness when it randomly removed a juror from the venire." (Appellant's brief to this Court, p. 89.) The following occurred after the trial court granted strikes for cause:
(R. 111.)
Initially, we observe that no objection was made to the court's using the court reporter to strike one juror so that the State and the defense would have an even number of strikes. Our review, therefore, is limited to determining whether plain error occurred. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P.
Section 12-16-100(a), Ala.Code 1975, addresses the drawing, selection, and empaneling of juries in criminal cases and states in part:
(Emphasis added.) This same provision is also contained in Rule 18.4(a), Ala. R.Crim.P.
Clearly, the trial court was authorized by law to remove this prospective juror. There is no argument that this prospective juror was not removed on a "nonselective basis," indeed, Smith's argument states that this prospective juror was "randomly struck." No error, much less plain error, occurred here.
Smith argues that he was denied an impartial and unbiased jury because the trial court denied his request for individual sequestered voir dire examination. The following occurred at a pretrial hearing regarding Smith's motion for individual voir dire:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capote v. State
...the matter asserted but to demonstrate how law-enforcement officers arrived at the location of the rifle. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 795 So. 2d 788 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) ; Miller v. State, 687 So. 2d 1281 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) ; D.R.H. v. State, 615 So. 2d 1327 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) ; Sa......
-
Petersen v. State
...112 S. Ct. 979, 117 L.Ed. 2d 142 (1992).’ " Doster v. State, 72 So. 3d 50, 104 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) (quoting Smith v. State, 795 So. 2d 788, 837 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) ).On appeal, Petersen cites a few excerpts from the trial transcript that, he says, demonstrate the instances in which th......
-
Reynolds v. State Of Ala.
...1990), aff'd, 587 So. 2d 1236 (Ala. 1991), cert, denied, 502 U.S. 1076, 112 S. Ct. 979, 117 L.Ed. 2d 142 ((992).'"Smith v. State, 795 So. 2d 788, 837 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000)." Poster v. State [Ms. CR-0 6-0323, July 30, 2010]___So. 3d __, __(Ala. Crim. App. 2010). Reynolds is due no relief on......
-
McGowan v. State
...only—is incorrect. The indictment encompassed the conduct of an accomplice as well as that of a principal. See Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 823-24 (Ala. Crim.App.2000). "Under Alabama law, the distinction between principals and accessories has long been abolished; one charged as a princip......
-
Seeking a Recusal: Calling the Judge a Lizard Won't Help Your Cause
...or was opposite one of the parties. The fact of this relationship in and of itself does not require automatic recusal. In Smith v. State, 795 So. 2d 788 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000), the defendant plead guilty to receiving stolen property and to burglary in the third degree prior to trial. The se......