Travis v. State
Decision Date | 18 April 1997 |
Citation | 776 So.2d 819 |
Parties | Wayne Holleman TRAVIS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
George K. Elbrecht and Robert C. King, Monroeville, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Ward Beeson and Cecil Brendle, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Wayne Holleman Travis, was charged with capital murder for intentionally causing the death of Clarene Haskew during the course of a burglary, see § 13A-5-40(a)(4), Code of Alabama 1975. The appellant was found guilty as charged and, following a sentencing hearing, the jury returned an advisory verdict recommending death by electrocution. The final sentencing hearing was held before the trial court, which accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution. The facts relevant to the issues raised in this appeal are set out in the trial court's order sentencing the appellant to death, and the trial judge's findings of fact, pursuant to § 13A-5-47(d), Code of Alabama 1975, state, in pertinent part, as follows:
The appellant alleges several assignments of error in his first issue. Each relates to appellant's contention that the trial court committed reversible error because, he says, it abused its discretion by impermissibly limiting the questions he propounded to prospective jurors during voir dire relating to their attitudes concerning the death penalty. The appellant further argues that the trial court, sua sponte, disallowed the majority of the defense's voir dire questions, allowing only those questions that pertained to the ability of the venirepersons to "follow the [applicable] law." The appellant contends that so limiting voir dire violated his due process rights guaranteed by United States and Alabama Constitutions. U.S. CONST. Amend. XIV, and Ala. Const. Art. I, § 6 1901. The appellant argues that the court's actions deprived him of his right to a fair and impartial jury guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 6 of the Alabama Constitution 1901.
In support of these contentions, the appellant relies principally on Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992). In Morgan, the Supreme Court held, in pertinent part, that during voir dire, the trial court is required, at the defendant's request, to inquire into the prospective jurors' views on capital punishment to identify unqualified jurors, and that jurors who maintain they are unalterably in favor of the death penalty in every case are unable to follow the law, and should therefore be disqualified. 504 U.S. at 729,112 S.Ct. at 2229-30. See also, Smith v. State, 698 So.2d 189 (Ala.Cr. App.1996).
The appellant does not identify each assignment of error or state the nature of the trial court's mistake, although he does refer this Court to portions of the record in which he states such limitations of his voir dire occurred. As this is a death case, however, this Court is required by the plain error doctrine to search the record for error. Rule 45A, A.R.A.P.
Lane v. State, 644 So.2d 1318, 1322 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). See also, Harris v. State, 632 So.2d 503 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), aff'd., 632 So.2d 543 (Ala.1993), aff'd., 513 U.S. 504, 115 S.Ct. 1031, 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995).
In Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 189 (Ala.Cr. App.1996), this Court addressed the need in a capital case for the trial court to adequately inquire into the attitudes of prospective jurors regarding the death penalty:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petersen v. State
...as to the extent of voir dire examination required will not be overturned except for an abuse of that discretion.’ Travis v. State, 776 So. 2d 819, 835 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997), aff'd, 776 So. 2d 874 (Ala. 2000)." Floyd v. State, 289 So. 3d 337, 377 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017). Here, defense couns......
-
Lindsay v. State
...of this rule has been lax. C. Gamble, Gamble's Alabama Rules of Evidence § 704 (1995).We have noted previously in Travis v. State, 776 So.2d 819 at 849 (Ala. Cr.App. 1997), that expert testimony as to the ultimate issue should be allowed when it would aid or assist the trier of fact, and th......
-
McGowan v. State
...request that the prosecution disclose any relationship between any potential juror and law enforcement, we find Travis v. State, 776 So.2d 819 (Ala.Crim. App.1997), aff'd, 776 So.2d 874 (Ala.2000), applicable. There, the court "[T]he appellant fails to name in brief any member of his venire......
-
Hodges v. State
...v. State, 630 So.2d 147, 149 (Ala. Cr.App.1993). See also Benefield v. State, 726 So.2d 286 (Ala.Cr.App.1998); Travis v. State, 776 So.2d 819 (Ala.Crim. App.1997); Smith v. State, 698 So.2d 189 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 698 So.2d 219 (Ala.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 957, 118 S.Ct. 385, 139 L.......