From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Nov 16, 1990
571 So. 2d 353 (Ala. 1990)

Opinion

89-1421.

November 16, 1990.

Petition for writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals (3 Div. 964). Appeal from the Circuit Court, Montgomery County, No. CC-87-1464, Charles Price, Judge.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and William D. Little, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

William R. Blanchard of Blanchard, Calloway Campbell and Charles Hollifield of Hollifield Hollifield, Montgomery, for respondent.

Bryan A. Stevenson, Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama Capital Representation Resource Center, in support of respondent.


WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES, ALMON, SHORES and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., dissent.


Alabama courts have long held that individual voir dire examination of prospective jurors is not mandatory, even in a capital case, but, rather, that the decision to allow a request for individual voir dire lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Whisenhant v. State, 555 So.2d 219 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), affirmed, Ex parte Whisenhant, 555 So.2d 235 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 3230, 110 L.Ed.2d 676 (1990); Hallford v. State, 548 So.2d 526 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), affirmed, Ex parte Hallford, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 354, 107 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989); Bell v. State, 475 So.2d 601 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), affirmed, 475 So.2d 609 (Ala. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1038, 106 S.Ct. 607, 88 L.Ed.2d 585 (1985).

During its voir dire examination, the trial court had the opportunity on three occasions to observe the members of the venire and to consider their responses to the voir dire questions. Because the trial court was in a better position to understand and evaluate the events that took place during voir dire examination, I believe that court should be allowed to decide whether individual voir dire examination was required. In my opinion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for individual voir dire examination in this case. Hallford, supra.

Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the order quashing the writ. I would review this case and reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals' holding requiring individual voir dire examination of jurors.

HOUSTON, J., concurs.


Summaries of

Brown v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Nov 16, 1990
571 So. 2d 353 (Ala. 1990)
Case details for

Brown v. State

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte State of Alabama. (Re Raymond Eugene BROWN, alias v. STATE)

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Nov 16, 1990

Citations

571 So. 2d 353 (Ala. 1990)

Citing Cases

Ex Parte Brown

In Brown v. State, 571 So.2d 345 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Brown's…

Brown v. State

This Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari, but later quashed the writ as improvidently…