Ward v. State
Decision Date | 04 February 2000 |
Citation | 814 So.2d 899 |
Parties | John Michael WARD v. State. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. David Nichols, Birmingham, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Kathryn D. Anderson, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, John Michael Ward, was convicted of the capital murder of a child less than 14 years of age, a violation of § 13A-5-40(a)(15), Ala.Code 1975. The jury, by a vote of 10-2, recommended that Ward be sentenced to death. The trial court imposed the death sentence recommended by the jury.
The record contains a summary of the facts and evidence presented, as rendered by the trial court. In pertinent part, the trial court's order states as follows:
(C. 5-7.)
Ward raises several issues on appeal, many of which were not presented to the trial court. Ward, however, was sentenced to death; therefore, the failure to raise these issues at trial does not prevent our review. It does weigh against any claim of prejudice Ward now makes on appeal. See Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998); Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886, 112 S.Ct. 242, 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991). "`[T]he plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result."'" Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641, 645 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115, 115 S.Ct. 1973, 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995), quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting, in turn, United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982)).
"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."
Accordingly, we will now address the issues Ward raises for our review.
Ward contends that the trial court erred in admitting slides of photographs and a videotape depicting images of the autopsy. Specifically, he argues that the photographs and videotape were inflammatory, irrelevant, and highly prejudicial. Additionally, he claims that the prosecution intentionally appealed to the jurors' emotions by showing the videotape of the external and internal injuries of the body.
Pilley v. State, 780 So.2d 870, 882 (Ala.Cr. App.1998), rev'd on other grounds, 789 So.2d 888 (Ala.2000).
In Siebert v. State, 562 So.2d 586 (Ala. Cr.App.1989), this Court stated:
Additionally, in Gentry v. State, 689 So.2d 894, 907 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), this Court stated:
" "
Gentry v. State, supra, quoting Bankhead v. State, 585 So.2d 97 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). "" Gentry, supra, quoting Bankhead. "There is no reason to treat photographs of internal wounds differently than photographs of external wounds." Hammock v. State, 612 So.2d 545, 547 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).
During the testimony of Dr. James Downs, a state medical examiner, a videotape depicting images of the external and internal injuries to the body during the autopsy was shown to the jury.1 During the playing of the videotape to the jury, Dr. Downs identified the various injuries on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capote v. State
......State , 562 So. 2d 586, 599 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989), aff'd, 562 So. 2d 600 (Ala. 1990), quoting Walker v. State , 416 So. 2d 1083, 1090 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982). See also Ward v. State , 814 So. 2d 899 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). Generally, ‘[a] properly authenticated video tape recording of the scene of the crime constitutes competent evidence’ and ‘is admissible over the defendant's objections that the tape was inflammatory, prejudicial, and cumulative.’ Kuenzel ......
-
Lindsay v. State
......Lindsay's sentence was neither. See Blackmon v. State , 7 So. 3d 397 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) ; Minor v. State , 914 So. 2d 372 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) ; Broadnax v. State , 825 So. 2d 134 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) ; Ward v. State , 814 So. 2d 899 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). This Court has also searched the record for any error that may have adversely affected Lindsay's substantial rights and has found none. See Rule 45A, Ala. R. App. P. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Lindsay's sentence of death. AFFIRMED. ......
-
Brown v. State
......The amount of violence used against Mrs. Keel, a frail and elderly lady, was excessive. See Scott v. State, supra (holding that the strangulation and suffocation death of a 10-year-old victim was particularly heinous, atrocious, and cruel compared to other capital offenses); Ward v. State, 814 So.2d 899, 923-24 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (holding that the suffocation death of an abused child was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel compared to other capital offenses); Singleton v. State, 465 So.2d 432 (Ala.Crim.App.1983), aff'd, 465 So.2d 443 (Ala.1985) (holding that the ......
-
Lansdell v. State
......State, 728 So.2d 691, 696 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), quoting Ward v. State, 557 So.2d 848, 850 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). `The role of appellate courts is not to say what the facts are. Our role .. is to judge whether the evidence is legally sufficient to allow submission of an issue for decision [by] the jury.' Ex parte Bankston, 358 So.2d 1040, 1042 (Ala.1978). ......