Stewart v. State
Citation | 730 So.2d 1203 |
Parties | Charles Randall STEWART v. STATE. |
Decision Date | 22 March 1996 |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Randall S. Susskind, Montgomery (on return to remand; appeared May 9, 1995); and Steve Giddens, Talladega (appointed May 2, 1996), for appellant.
Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor, attys. gen.; Sandra Stewart, deputy atty. gen.; and Gail Ingram Hampton and Lindy Beale, asst. attys. gen., for appellee (on return to remand).
On Second Return to Remand
The appellant, Charles Randall Stewart, was convicted of murder, made capital because the murder was committed during the course of a burglary and a kidnapping, see § 13A-5-40(1) and § 13A-5-40(4), Code of Alabama 1975. By a vote of 10 to 2, the jury recommended that the appellant be sentenced to death. The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution. On appeal, we initially remanded this case to the Circuit Court for Talladega County so that that court could vacate four of the counts of capital murder and hold a hearing on the appellant's allegations concerning one of the jurors. See Stewart v. State, 601 So.2d 491 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). The trial court complied with our directions, vacated four counts, and found no juror bias. We affirmed the conviction and the sentence of death on return to remand. Stewart v. State, 659 So.2d 120 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the appellant's conviction but vacated the sentence and ordered a new penalty phase hearing. Ex parte Stewart, 659 So.2d 122 (Ala.1993). After remand from the Alabama Supreme Court, we remanded the case to the Circuit Court for Talladega County so that that court could hold a new sentencing hearing. Stewart v. State, 659 So.2d 129 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). This case is now on return to remand to this court after the penalty phase hearing was held in response to our instruction.
The appellant initially contends that the trial court's instructions to the jury in the penalty phase were flawed and that giving those instructions was reversible error because they failed to instruct the jury that the aggravating circumstances had to outweigh the mitigating circumstances before it could vote to impose the death penalty. Initially, we note that there was no objection to this issue raised to the trial court. However, because this is a case involving the death penalty, this court is obliged by Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P., to apply the plain error doctrine. This rule 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."
The trial court gave the following instructions to the jury at the penalty phase:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reynolds v. State Of Ala.
...by the parties as to the existence of an aggravating circumstance has been approved by this Court. See Stewart v. State, 730 So. 2d 1203, 1227-29 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly, in light of these facts, we find no plain error. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P.B. Reynolds contends that the circuit......
-
McGowan v. State
...666 So.2d 73, 82-85 (Ala. 1995), disagreed with on other ground, Ex parte Borden, 769 So.2d 950 (Ala. 2000); Stewart v. State, 730 So.2d 1203, 1232 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), aff'd, 730 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1999); Bush v. State, 695 So.2d 70, 114-15 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.1997......
-
Osgood v. State
...is not per se cruel and unusual punishment.'" Mashburn v. State, 7 So. 3d 453, 465 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)(quoting Stewart v. State, 730 So. 2d 1203, 1242 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997)(opinion on third return to remand), aff'd 730 So. 2d 1246 (Ala. 1999)). See also Knight v. State, 907 So. 2d 470 (......
-
McGriff v. State
...conduct had a cumulative prejudicial effect on his trial is without merit and does not require a reversal. See Stewart v. State, 730 So. 2d 1203 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996), aff'd, 730 So. 2d 1246 (Ala.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 846, 120 S.Ct. 119, 145 L.Ed.2d 101 (1999); Hunt v. State, 642 So. 2d ......