Smith v. State, CR-91-1975
Decision Date | 17 January 1997 |
Docket Number | CR-91-1975 |
Citation | 698 So.2d 1166 |
Parties | Willie B. SMITH III v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Michael W. Sanderson, Birmingham (appointed Feb. 25, 1993); and Kathryn V. Stanley, Montgomery (appearance entered May 10, 1993), for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Cecil Brendle, Jr., asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Willie B. Smith III, was found guilty of two counts of capital murder, for committing an intentional murder during the course of a robbery and for committing an intentional murder in the course of a kidnapping, see § 13A-5-40(a)(2) and § 13A5-40(a)(1), Code of Alabama 1975, respectively. The jury thereafter returned an advisory verdict recommending that the appellant be sentenced to death, by a vote of 10 to 2. Following a sentencing hearing before the trial court, the appellant was sentenced to death by electrocution.
Because the appellant raises an issue that requires us to remand this cause to the trial court for a hearing, the remaining issues are pretermitted until a return is filed by the trial court with this court.
The appellant argues that the trial court erred in determining that he failed to make a prima facie showing of gender discrimination in the exercise of the prosecutor's preemptory challenges against potential jurors, as prohibited by J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994). The appellant argues that he made a prima facie showing of such discrimination and that the trial court should have required that the prosecutor come forward with gender-neutral reasons for his strikes.
The record reflects that, following the striking of the jury, defense counsel stated that he would request a hearing pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The following then transpired outside the presence of the jury:
Thereafter, defense counsel made an objection based on alleged racial discrimination by the prosecutor in his peremptory strikes. 1
Thus, in making his objection that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. State
...was thereafter to determine whether the prosecutor had removed females from the jury in a discriminatory manner. Smith v. State, 698 So. 2d 1166 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997). On return to remand, this Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, Smith v. State, 838 So. 2d 413 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002)......
-
Smith v. State
...in which the prosecutor would be ordered to come forward with reasons for his strikes of female potential jurors. Smith v. State, 698 So.2d 1166 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). The trial court was instructed to then examine these reasons and determine whether the prosecutor had used any of his strikes......
-
Smith v. State
...court was thereafter to determine whether the prosecutor had removed females from the jury in a discriminatory manner. Smith v. State, 698 So.2d 1166 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). On return to remand, this Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, Smith v. State, 838 So.2d 413 (Ala.Crim.App.2002), ......
-
Smith v. Dunn
...veniremembers, based on the Supreme Court's intervening opinion in J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 (1994). Smith v. State, 698 So. 2d 1166, 1169 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) ("Smith I"). On remand, the trial court found that the prosecutor provided sufficient non-discriminatory reasons for his st......