at 501. Initially, we observe that Stallworth never objected to the trial court's actions he now challenges on appeal. The term heinous' means extremely wicked or shockingly evil. We note that appellant has pointed to no occurrence during the trial, and we can find none, in which the judge acted in any way other than entirely impartially. Lewis v. State, 535 So.2d 228, 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). ), cert. See Boyd. No, maybe hundreds? Stallworth argues that because the jury was not given the opportunity to return a verdict on any of the aggravating circumstances in his case, he is ineligible, based on the Supreme Court's holding in Ring, for the death penalty. There is no contention, indeed the testimony established otherwise, that Judge Reid made any remarks concerning Chief Miller's comments about Stallworth. The substantive claim was decided adversely to Boyd on direct appeal. We affirmed Stallworth's convictions but remanded the case for the trial court to correct several deficiencies in its sentencing order. 3. Thus, we review this issue for plain error. In Apprendi, the Court emphasized that it was not overruling Almendarez-Torres. Two locals from the banks of Murder Creek & two beach bums, had the idea to make a shine sparkling like the creeks waters, and smoother than a calm gulf wave. The jury was allowed to return a guilty verdict of capital murder even though it had indicated it did not understand the charge of capital murder.'. We have often stated: Because we find no error in the specified instances alleged by the appellant, we find no cumulative error. McGriff v. State, [Ms. CR-97-0179, September 29, 2000] ---So.2d ----, ---- (Ala.Crim.App.2000). [Defense counsel]: Objection, Your Honor. Stallworth argues that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the veracity of two state witnesses. denied, 517 U.S. 1169, 116 S.Ct. Gruesomeness becomes objectionable in a photograph only where there is distortion of either of two kinds; first, distortion of the subject matter as where necroptic or other surgery caused exposure of nonprobative views, e.g., massive mutilation, McKee v. State, 33 Ala.App. Murchison also testified that Judge Reid did not respond to any of the remarks. 2653, 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), to the Alabama Supreme Court because the record indicated that Perkins had an IQ of 76. Ex parte Hart, 612 So.2d 536, 542 (Ala.1992) (Lockett [v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. granted, [Ms. 1000763, May 1, 2001] --- So.2d ---- (Ala.2001). Anderson v. State, 362 So.2d 1296, 1298 (Ala.Crim.App.1978). In fact, she said she heard no comments made to the Court by any person present. The victim had apparently tried to ward off the knife blows and had received the defensive knife wounds before she received the fatal blows. In Alabama, a capital jury cannot arbitrarily consider mercy in arriving at a sentence. (1), Canons of Judicial Ethics, states, A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his disqualification is required by law or his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Stallworth argues that Judge Reid's impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of his inadvertent exposure to the remarks made about Stallworth. The Apprendi Court stated, Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. Unlike the prior misdemeanor conviction in Cook-malicious destruction or property-the conviction in this case-assault-involved violence. Two or more offenses may be joined in an indictment, information, or complaint, if they: (1)Are of the same or similar character; or, (2)Are based on the same conduct or are otherwise connected in their commission; or, (3)Are alleged to have been part of a common scheme or plan.. In that opinion, when considering whether Atkins barred the imposition of the death sentence for Perkins, the court stated: We have conducted a thorough review of the record to determine if there is any inference that Perkins is mentally retarded. denied, 516 U.S. 1120, 116 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976) (plurality opinion) ([I]t has never [been] suggested that jury sentencing is constitutionally required.). There was a disagreement, and the prosecutor apologized for his outburst. 93.) It was reassigned to Judge Wise on January 16, 2001. Stallworth argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor called defense counsel a liar. Butterworth is distinguishable from the present case, where the defense seeks the testimony of all grand jury witnesses on what appears to be a fishing expedition. Because there was a killing in the course of and in furtherance of a robbery, [i]t is clear that the appellant is at least guilty of felony murder. Kinder v. State, 515 So.2d 55, 72 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). Tucker v. State, 650 So.2d 534, 536 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). In fact, she said she didn't even realize that the judge was present at the meeting. Although Judge Wise was not a member of this Court when this case was orally argued, she has reviewed the audiotapes and videotapes of the oral argument. The trial court's determination will not be disturbed unless it is contrary to the great weight of the evidence or is manifestly wrong. Consolidation of similar offenses is specifically provided for in Rule 13.3(c), Ala.R.Crim.P. Stewart v. State, 730 So.2d 1203 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 730 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1999); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1027 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 683 So.2d 1042 (Ala.1996), cert. Stallworth also challenges the following comment made in the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument in the guilt phase: And I'm going to tell you something. The trial court gave the following instruction: This phrase that I am using, reasonable doubt, is self-explanatory. Whether at the time of the murders Stallworth was under a sentence of imprisonment because he was on probation for his prior conviction for assault in the third degree was a question related to Stallworth's prior conviction-a question for the trial court to resolve. The United States Supreme Court in Atkins held that the execution of a mentally retarded person violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Perkins did not present any evidence during the penalty phase of his trial to establish that he was mentally retarded. at 2432. I think if they want to talk about whether or not they are a member of an organization that's prejudicial, or if they hold prejudices which prevent them from rendering a fair trial, that's perfectly legitimate. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), and Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 114 S.Ct. We stated: Furthermore, we do not find the trial judge's refusal to give additional instructions to the jury on murder and capital murder to be error, since the trial judge thoroughly instructed the jury on these matters in his oral charge to them. The testimony that the person overheard on the telephone was talking about Dukes's murder was correctly received into evidence because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. He also said that somebody in the police department planted Dukes's blood on his jacket. See Jackson v. State, 836 So.2d 915 (Ala.Cr.App.1999); Williams v. State, 627 So.2d 985 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), aff'd, 627 So.2d 999 (Ala.1993), cert. The record reflects that 18 minutes after the jury had retired to begin deliberations in the penalty phase, the jury returned with three questions. The trial court granted this motion. 171, 31 So.2d 656 [(Ala.Ct.App.1947)]; or second, focal or prismatic distortion where the position of the camera vis--vis the scene or object to be shown gives an incongruous result, e.g., a magnification of a wound to eight times its true size, Wesley v. State, 32 Ala.App. We have stated the following concerning the plain-error standard of review: The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal. We have examined the trial court's jury instructions and find that Stallworth's argument is not supported by the record. United States v. Payne, 750 F.2d 844, 859 (11th Cir.1985).. The Supreme Court has stated that when a court is determining whether a confession was given voluntarily it must consider the totality of the circumstances. Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478, 480, 89 S.Ct. Stallworth argues that he was prejudiced when the prosecutor informed the jury that its verdict in the penalty phase was a recommendation. The Supreme Court held in Harris that the United States Constitution permits the trial judge, acting alone, to impose a capital sentence and is not offended when a State further requires the sentencing judge to consider a jury's recommendation and trusts the judge to give it the proper weight. 513 U.S. at 515, 115 S.Ct. The jurors could not have reasonably interpreted the comments to mean that the state was relieved of its burden to prove every element of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt, as the appellant contends. And I ask that you examine the credibility of Mrs. Woodyard as she sat under oath on the witness stand, as you would any other witness, and examine whether or not she had any motive.. In fact, two-thirds of the death sentences imposed in Alabama involve cases of robbery/murder. Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 842 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), quoting McWhorter v. State, 781 So.2d 257, 330 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). Wilson. 1031, 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995). Taylor v. State, 808 So.2d 1148 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). The trial court heard the testimony and ruled that the State had met its burden of showing that the confession was voluntary. Alabama courts have also held that a court must consider the totality of the circumstances to determine if the defendant's will was overborne by coercion or inducement. denied, 790 So.2d 1012 (Ala.2001), cert. He cites several different instances to support this contention. She must have known and been fearful of her ultimate fate as the knife wounds were inflicted. Rather, Ex parte Grayson[, 479 So.2d 76 (Ala.1985),] held that the appellant must show that he suffered actual prejudice or that the community was saturated with prejudicial publicity. Slagle v. State, 606 So.2d 193, 195 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). Wilson v. State, 777 So.2d 856, 924 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 777 So.2d 935 (Ala.2000), cert. This meeting occurred the year before the case was tried. Stallworth's two IQ tests revealed an IQ well above 70-an IQ that is above the significant subaverage range. The trial court's instructions on this issue were both thorough and accurate. Rule 404, Ala.R.Evid. The State moved that the cases be consolidated. 548 So.2d at 565 (emphasis in original). Her testimony was, as I recall, that Calvin left that day with a blue jacket with a hood on it. It has long been held that a confession, or any inculpatory statement, is involuntary if it is either coerced through force or induced through an express or implied promise of leniency. Here, the evidence was conflicting. There was no improper argument. However, most of the articles are factual accounts of the circumstances surrounding each case and the investigation of each case. He said that he took the VCR from the store because it would show that he had been in the store. There was no plain error here. The year before the two murders Stallworth had been convicted of assault in the third degree. denied, 502 U.S. 886, 112 S.Ct. denied, 513 U.S. 1159, 115 S.Ct. Dr. Davis also administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R), in addition to the Rorshach test, Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised, the Bender test, and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory II. It's the appearance of impropriety. This was counsel's way of showing the exhibit to the jury. 1121, 130 L.Ed.2d 1084 (1995). Initially, we observe that defense counsel did not object to the trial court's jury instructions in the penalty phase. 4745.) (R. State ex rel. Barbour then set a fire or fires in an attempt to hide the criminal act. We stated: During the deliberations at Mr. Boyd's capital trial, the jury returned a note to the trial court stating Could we have distinction between murder and capital murder? The Court refused to answer the question, and, instead, indicated that the terms had already been defined and that the jury should use its own recollection of the definitions to determine the distinction Without receiving any further instruction, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment. Rule 615, Ala.R.Evid., and Rule 9.3(a), Ala.R.Crim.P., govern the exclusion of witnesses. In Culombe[ v. Connecticut], 367 U.S. 568, at 602, 81 S.Ct. After June 10, 1999, an attorney appointed to represent a defendant charged with a capital offense has no cap on the attorney fees that he can collect.. However, the court shall not order that the offenses or the defendants, as the case may be, be tried together without first providing the defendant or defendants and the prosecutor an opportunity to be heard.. A:Kind of shocked, taken aback by it, you know. Matters resting in the sound discretion of the trial court will not be disturbed, absent a clear abuse of discretion. While he was on probation for this offense he was tried for robbery and acquitted. See Norris v. State, [793] So.2d [847] (Ala.Cr.App.1999).. 382, 83 L.Ed.2d 318 (1984). I mean, that's how low key his attendance was at the meeting. In reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, this court must view that evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution. Stallworth was charged with two counts of robbery-murder for robbing and killing the employees of two convenience stores.7 The trial court's failure to sua sponte give an instruction on an offense that was not included in the capital-murder indictments was not error. It's not the appearance of impropriety to us lawyers, that know that you are [not] the judge of the facts, and the jury is the judge of the facts, it's the appearance of impropriety when the Joe Schmo on the street knows that this judge was at a Rotary Club meeting where the Foley police chief talked about Calvin Stallworth, and what he said about the case.
Benleg- Delivering the dream