Smith v. State
Citation | 756 So.2d 892 |
Decision Date | 19 December 1997 |
Docket Number | No. CR-95-0093.,CR-95-0093. |
Parties | Ronald Bert SMITH, Jr. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Michael Lawrence Fees, Huntsville; Jackie D. Ferguson, Huntsville; Richard A. Kempaner, Huntsville; and Charles H. Pullen, Huntsville, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Jack W. Willis, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Ronald Bert Smith, Jr., was convicted of the murder of Casey Wilson. The murder was made capital because it occurred during a robbery in the first degree or an attempted robbery, see ž 13A-5-40(a)(2), Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to death.
Smith appeals from this conviction and sentence, raising 22 issues. However, because we are remanding this cause to the trial court for a hearing on two issues, we forgo discussion of the remaining issues at this time.
The appellant argues that the indictment returned against him was irreparably tainted because Ed Starnes, the foreperson of the grand jury that returned the indictment against him, is the father of Bill Starnes, a Madison County assistant district attorney. He contends that Ed Starnes's presence on the grand jury was presumptively prejudicial to his right to due process.
Initially, the record reflects that the appellant raised this issue for the first time in his motion for a new trial. Rule 12.9, Ala.R.Crim.P., states:
There is no question that the appellant's motion was untimely. See, Pace v. State, 714 So.2d 316, 319-20 (Ala.Cr.App.1995), reversed in part and remanded, 714 So.2d 332 (Ala.1997). However, because this case involves the death penalty, we are required to search the record for plain error. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P.; Pace, supra.
The record indicates that, during the hearing on the appellant's motion for a new trial, the parties stipulated that Ed Starnes was the father of Bill Starnes, who is an assistant district attorney. It does not appear from the record that Bill Starnes was involved in any way with the investigation or prosecution of this case. The parties also stipulated that in Madison County the grand jury foreperson is picked randomly by drawing names from a hat. Neither party called witnesses to testify concerning this issue. The trial court denied the appellant's motion for a new trial.
In Cardwell v. State, 544 So.2d 987 (Ala. Cr.App.1988), we addressed a similar situation. In that case, the wife of an assistant district attorney served on the grand jury that indicted the defendant. On appeal, the defendant argued that her presence biased the grand jury and deprived him of his right to a fair trial. We remanded for the trial court to determine whether the wife discussed the details of that case with her husband at any time before the return of the indictment and whether she should be disqualified from serving as a grand juror, and to determine what role, if any, the wife had played in the grand jury's decision. We remanded the case1 with the following instructions to the trial court:
We are unable to determine from the record before us whether the assistant district attorney and his father discussed this case before the appellant was indicted. We therefore remand this cause and direct the trial court to conduct a hearing on this issue, with the appellant and his attorney present. The parties shall be permitted to subpoena such witnesses as they deem appropriate to testify at this hearing. The trial court shall make written findings of fact as to whether the assistant district attorney discussed this matter with his father at any time before the indictment was returned. If the trial court finds that Ed Starnes did not discuss this case with his son before the return of the indictment, then Mr. Starnes was competent to serve as a member of the grand jury in question. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363, 76 S.Ct. 406, 408, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956); Cardwell, supra.
Alternatively, if the court finds that the assistant district attorney did discuss this case with his father before the indictment was returned, it shall make written findings of fact as to: (1) whether Assistant District Attorney Bill Starnes had any involvement in the investigation or prosecution of the appellant's case; (2) the number of times that Assistant District Attorney Starnes and his father, Ed Starnes, discussed this case before the appellant was indicted; and (3) the nature and content of each such discussion. The trial court shall then determine: (1) whether the fact that that the grand jury foreperson was the father of the assistant district attorney had any effect on the grand jury proceedings; and (2) whether, as a result of the discussions between Ed Starnes and his son, Ed Starnes should have been disqualified from sitting on the grand jury that indicted the appellant.
The appellant next argues that his conviction and sentence should be reversed because of his contention that the State misrepresented to the jury the terms of the plea bargain Chad Roundtree, a codefendant, made with the State in return for his testimony against the appellant. The appellant further argues that Roundtree's testimony was vital to the State's case and that, because Roundtree significantly misstated the sentence that he would receive, he was denied the opportunity to prove Roundtree had a strong incentive to give false testimony against him.
The record indicates that Chad Roundtree testified he would be sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole in exchange for his testimony. On May 31, 1996, however, Roundtree was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The appellant did not present this issue to the trial court. Rather, he raised it for the first time in his second motion to supplement the record on appeal. The documents that were included with this motion were the case action summary and the sentencing order in Roundtree v. State (Second Supplemental Record at C. 94-95).
In its brief filed with this court, the State argues that the documents mentioned in the appellant's second motion to supplement the record were not offered to, or received by, the trial court. The State argues, therefore, that the record was improperly supplemented, and that the documents pertaining to Roundtree's case should be struck from this record.2 We agree.
In Dobyne v. State, 672 So.2d 1319, 1327 (Ala.Cr.App.), 672 So.2d 1353 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994) (appeal after remand), affirmed, 672 So.2d 1354 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1169, 116 S.Ct. 1571, 134 L.Ed.2d 670 (1996), we held that Rule 10(g), Ala.R.App. P., does not apply when the evidence sought to be included in the record on appeal was never offered to or received by the trial court. "Rule 10(g) applies to `admitted or offered evidence that is material to any issue.'" Id.,672 So.2d at 1327 (citing Rule 10(g), Ala.R.App.P.).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lindsay v. State
...the law enforcement officers constituted improper testimony about the ultimate issue before the jury. As we stated in Smith v. State, 756 So.2d 892 (Ala. Cr. App. 1997), aff'd, 756 So.2d 957 (Ala. 1999) :" ‘In determining whether a capital offense is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,......
-
Lewis v. State
...So. 2d 207, 208-09 (Ala. Cr. App. 1983).' Falkner v. State, 462 So. 2d 1040, 1041-42 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984). See Smith v. State, 756 So. 2d 892, 910 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997), aff'd, 756 So. 2d 957 (Ala. 2000) ('[I]t is not our function to second-guess the strategic decisions made by counsel.'......
-
Sheffield v. State Of Ala.
...So. 2d 207, 208-09 (Ala. Cr. App. 1983)." Falkner v. State, 462 So. 2d 1040, 1041-42 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 984). See Smith v. State, 756 So. 2d 892, 910 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997), aff'd, 756 So. 2d 957 (Ala. 2000) ("[I]t is not our function to second-guess the strategic decisions made by counsel.......
-
McGriff v. State
..."___ So. 2d at ___. See also Jackson v. State, [Ms. CR-97-2050, May 28, 1999] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 1999); Smith v. State, 756 So. 2d 892 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), aff'd, 756 So. 2d 957 (Ala. 2000); Roberts v. State, 735 So. 2d 1244 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), aff'd, 735 So. 2d 1270 (Ala. 199......