Smith v. State
Decision Date | 22 December 2000 |
Citation | 908 So.2d 273 |
Parties | Kenneth Eugene SMITH v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Christopher M. Johnson, Charlotta Norby, and Palmer Singleton, Atlanta, Georgia, for appellant.
William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Kathryn D. Anderson, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Kenneth Eugene Smith, was convicted of murdering Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett for a pecuniary or other valuable consideration, an offense defined as capital by § 13A-5-40(a)(7), Ala.Code 1975. The jury, by a vote of 11 to 1, recommended that Smith be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The trial court, pursuant to authority granted by § 13A-5-47(e), Ala. Code 1975, overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Smith to death.1 The State's evidence tended to show the following. On March 18, 1988, the Reverend Charles Sennett, a minister in the Church of Christ, discovered the body of his wife, Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett, in their home on Coon Dog Cemetery Road in Colbert County. The coroner testified that Elizabeth Sennett had been stabbed eight times in the chest and once on each side of the neck, and had suffered numerous abrasions and cuts. It was the coroner's opinion that Sennett died of multiple stab wounds to the chest and neck.
The evidence established that Charles Sennett had recruited Billy Gray Williams,2 who in turn recruited Smith and John Forrest Parker,3 to kill his wife. He was to pay them each $1,000 in cash for killing Mrs. Sennett. There was testimony that Charles Sennett was involved in an affair, that he had incurred substantial debts, that he had taken out a large insurance policy on his wife, and that approximately one week after the murder, when the murder investigation started to focus on him as a suspect, Sennett committed suicide. Smith detailed the following in his confession to police:
Smith's statement to police was corroborated at trial. Donald Buckman, a friend of Smith's, testified that Smith approached him about one week before the murder and asked him if he would be interested in participating in beating someone up in exchange for money. Another witness, Brent Barkley, testified that Smith told him that he had been hired to beat up someone. Barkley also stated that he saw Smith on the evening of the murder and that Smith's hand was "bruised and wrapped." There was also testimony that Smith had in his possession a large amount of money immediately after the murder.
Smith's defense at trial was that he participated in the assault of Elizabeth Sennett but that he did not intend to kill her. Counsel in opening statement stated the following:
Smith has been sentenced to death. Pursuant to Rule 45A Ala.R.App.P., this Court must review the record of the trial proceedings to determine if there is plain error. Rule 45A states:
"In all cases, in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant."
As this Court stated in Jackson v. State, 791 So.2d 979, 991-92 (Ala.Crim.App.2000):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capote v. State
...vehicle. The circuit court properly apprised the jury of the elements of capital murder and felony murder. See Smith v. State, 908 So. 2d 273, 297 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) ; Freeman v. State, 555 So. 2d 196, 208 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988) (noting that "the trial judge extensively instructed the j......
-
Petersen v. State
...to the aggravating and the mitigating evidence is strictly within the discretion of the sentencing authority." Smith v. State, 908 So. 2d 273, 298 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000).’" Stanley [v. State], 143 So. 3d [230,] 333 [(Ala. Crim. App. 2011)]." Phillips v. State, [Ms. CR-12-0197, Dec. 18, 2015......
-
Woolf v. State
...weight to be attached to the ... mitigating evidence is strictly within the discretion of the sentencing authority." Smith v. State, 908 So.2d 273, 298 (Ala.Crim.App.2000)." ' " '[T]he sentencing authority in Alabama, the trial judge, has unlimited discretion to consider any perceived mitig......
-
Woodward v. State
...the weight to attach to the circumstances -- is a matter that is strictly within the discretion of the trial court. Smith v. State, 908 So. 2d 273, 298 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). The trial court clearly gave the mitigating circumstances proffered by Woodward little weight. The record fully sup......