Smith v. State
Decision Date | 25 March 1994 |
Citation | 646 So.2d 704 |
Parties | David Russell SMITH, Sr. v. STATE. CR 92-1726. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
G. Jean Darby, Florence, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Shirley Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
David Russell Smith, Sr., the appellant, was convicted of the murder of Milton T. Russell, and of attempting to murder Michael David Russell and Jimmy Waddell. He was sentenced to three concurrent terms of life imprisonment. He raises five issues on this direct appeal from those convictions.
The appellant contends that his motion for a change of venue should have been granted due to what he alleges was extensive pretrial publicity that saturated the county.
The crimes occurred at the Russell Sporting Center in Florence, Alabama, on November 7, 1992. The appellant was arrested on November 23, 1992. Trial was held in April 1993. The appellant filed a motion for change of venue on January 10, 1993, stating that C.R. 34.
A pretrial hearing was held on the appellant's motion for a change of venue on February 22, 1993. In support of his motion, the appellant introduced 18 newspaper articles and a videotape containing "several news broadcasts from television stations." R. 135. The trial judge denied the motion on February 25, 1993. C.R. 56. After the conclusion of the voir dire of the jury and the exercise of the challenges for cause, defense counsel renewed his motion for a change of venue. R. 1000. The appellant's motion for change of venue was properly denied.
The voir dire of the jury venire began on April 19, 1993. R. 218. The record shows that there were 52 members on the venire. When asked "How many of you have heard about this case from any source whatsoever?" every veniremember stood. R. 290. Thereafter, each veniremember was individually voir dired in chambers. That voir dire was extensive and thorough.
Our review shows that the appellant challenged for cause 25 of the 52 venirepersons 1. Nineteen of those challenges were granted. R. 939-50. Each of the remaining venirepersons expressed a beliefs or opinion that he or she could be fair and impartial and render a verdict based upon the evidence.
Although the appellant established the existence of substantial pretrial publicity, there was no showing that the publicity prejudiced the venire against the appellant. "It is well established in Alabama ... that the existence of pretrial publicity, even if extensive, does not in and of itself constitute a ground for changing venue and thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction of an offense." Ex parte Fowler, 574 So.2d 745, 747 (Ala.1990).
Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474, 483-84 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), affirmed, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886, 112 S.Ct. 242, 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991).
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722-23, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642-43, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961).
United States v. Lehder-Rivas, 955 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 924, 113 S.Ct. 347, 121 L.Ed.2d 262 (1992).
Our review convinces this Court that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a change of venue.
"
Oryang v. State, 642 So.2d 979 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) ( ). See also Thomas v. State, 539 So.2d 375, 394 (Ala.Cr.App.) ("[a]t the beginning of voir dire, every member of the venire stated he or she had read or heard about this case"), affirmed, 539 So.2d 399 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 3201, 105 L.Ed.2d 709 (1989). Here, as in Thomas, 539 So.2d at 395, the appellant has "failed to show a connection between the pre-trial publicity and the existence of actual jury prejudice."
The appellant contends that his motion to suppress the statements he made to Florence Police Officer Keith Joiner should have been granted.
Officer Joiner was one of the first law enforcement officers to arrive at the scene of the homicide. The officers were responding to a report of a shooting. At that time no one knew what actually had occurred and everyone at the scene was a suspect. Officer Joiner testified that "I was really unclear at that time who was the shooter and who was the shootee and how many people had been shot." R. 150.
As officers with weapons drawn approached the Russell Sporting Center, the appellant walked toward them from the building. Florence Police Officer Kimberly Hastie ordered the appellant to stop and to lie down on the pavement. Hastie testified: "My main concern was to get him to stop and put him on the ground in case he was the suspect, or if he was harmed to get him out of the line of fire." R. 192. Officer Joiner, who was with Officer Hastie, testified at trial that the appellant "was covered in blood, and I asked him had he been shot." R. 147. Joiner stated that the appellant replied: R. 148-49. The trial judge ruled that this statement was admissible in the State's case-in-chief. C.R. 87.
Officer Joiner testified further that shortly thereafter, Florence Police Chief Richard Thompson arrived and R. 149. Thompson testified that he looked at Officer Joiner because he thought the appellant was a victim and asked Joiner, "Do we know where the shooter is?" R. 203. He stated that before Officer Joiner could answer, the appellant rolled over and stated: R. 203-04. Thompson then obtained...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lindsay v. State
...cert. denied, 587 So.2d 1039 (Ala. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 941, 112 S.Ct. 1486, 117 L.Ed.2d 628 (1992). Smith v. State, 646 So.2d 704, 708 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994).The United States Supreme Court has recognized that: "concerns for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the lite......
-
Arthur v. State
...493 U.S. 970, 110 S.Ct. 419, 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989)." Johnson v. State, 651 So.2d 1085, 1087 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). See also Smith v. State, 646 So.2d 704 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). Pursuant to the questioning and answers given by the prospective juror, it is clear that he was properly removed for caus......
-
Saunders v. Stewart
...intent to kill is a degree so extreme as to render it impossible for the defendant to form the intent to kill." Smith v. State, 646 So. 2d 704, 712-13 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994) (quoting Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So. 2d 112, 121 (Ala. 1991)). Trial counsel repeatedly argued Saunders's crack cocain......
-
Woods v. State
...the judgment in Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 838, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991)).' "663 So.2d at 1005-06 (emphasis supplied [in Smith])." (Emphasis in original). No error occurred Likewise, in this case there was no objection to the testimony about the length of the victim's m......