Spears v. State
Decision Date | 15 April 1994 |
Citation | 647 So.2d 15 |
Parties | Thomas Wayne SPEARS v. STATE. CR 93-27. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Stuart C. Dubose, Jackson, and James E. Kimbrough, Jr., Mobile, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Jack Willis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Thomas Wayne Spears, the appellant, pleaded guilty and was convicted of manslaughter in connection with the 1987 death of his wife, Leslie Marie Spears. His sentence of ten years' imprisonment was "split" with one year to serve and five years' probation.
This case has a lengthy procedural history. The State appealed the circuit court's pretrial order granting a portion of the appellant's motion to suppress evidence found at the scene of the crime. State v. Spears, 560 So.2d 1145 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), on return to remand, 570 So.2d 888 (Ala.Cr.App.1990).
The appellant's first trial resulted in a mistrial when the prosecutor violated a "gag" order of the trial court. The appellant's case was called for trial on October 16, 1991. On that day the jury was struck, and the trial judge instructed the attorneys not to discuss the case with the media.
"All right. Let the record reflect that the State's attorneys will not make any direct or indirect reference to the existence of a purported diary of anyone during ... [in original] during opening statements, and the remainder of the motion in limine [to prevent any mention of the diary] will be taken up at a later time. 1
"One other thing is I'm going to instruct you gentlemen, just as I am these jurors, not to discuss--because I don't know how long this case will last--not to discuss this case during the trial with any member of the media, any newspaper reporter, or any reporter with any radio station." Mandamus/trial 85. 2
On October 18, 1991, after ten witnesses had testified for the State, defense counsel requested a mistrial based on a newspaper article that appeared in The Mobile Press Register on October 17, 1991. Mandamus/trial R. 399. That article stated, in pertinent part:
C.R. 491. 3
The district attorney responded to the motion for mistrial by stating: Mandamus/trial R. 399. At that time, the trial judge polled the jury and determined that no juror had heard or read any media account of the trial.
Mandamus/trial R. 401. In denying the motion for mistrial, the trial judge stated:
"THE COURT: That's the Court's ruling." Mandamus/trial R. 402-03.
After that, the State "join[ed] in with the defendant at this time and move[d] for a mistrial." Mandamus/trial R. 406.
In response the trial judge stated:
Finding no prejudice to the jury, the trial judge denied both motions. Mandamus/trial R. 407.
Later, but also on October 18, 1991, defense counsel renewed his motion for a mistrial after a second article appeared in the newspaper. Mandamus/trial R. 525. A portion of the article appearing on the afternoon of October 18 states:
In response to the renewed motion for a mistrial, the district attorney stated:
In response the trial judge made the following statement:
Following this, there was a brief discussion of other matters and the jury was excused for the weekend.
At the beginning of court on Monday, October 21, 1991, the trial judge, Hardie B. Kimbrough, declared a mistrial with the following statement addressed to the jury and to the parties:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tomlin v. State
...motion were taken as true, Tomlin would not be entitled to relief." 695 So.2d at 164-65 (footnote omitted). See also Spears v. State, 647 So.2d 15 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (no double jeopardy bar to retrial when the prosecutor violated the trial court's "gag" order and several newspapers article......
-
Pettibone v. State
...intent to prevail at this trial by impermissible means.’ ” “United States v. Oseni, 996 F.2d 186, 187–88 (7th Cir.1993).”Spears v. State, 647 So.2d 15, 21–22 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (some citations omitted). In Brannon v. State, 549 So.2d 532 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), this Court held that in order t......
-
Clancy v. State
...367 So.2d 518, 522-23 (Ala.Crim.App.1978). See also Washington v. State, 818 So.2d 411, 418 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Spears v. State, 647 So.2d 15, 24 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). Clancy contends that his right to a speedy trial was violated. On March 23, 2001, about two weeks before his second trial b......
-
Parte v. R.E.D. (Ex parte State)
...intent to goad the defendant into filing a motion for a mistrial in violation of principles of double jeopardy. See Spears v. State, 647 So. 2d 15, 22 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994) (" ‘The requirement of intent is critical, and easily misunderstood. The fact that the government blunders at trial a......