Cade v. Alabama, 448 U.S. 903, 100 S.Ct. 3043, 65 L.Ed.2d 1133 (1980). After his second trial, the jury again found him guilty of capital murder, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Cade v. State, 521 So.2d 80 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). In his appeal and in his application for rehearing, Cade argued that the State had failed to prove that the murder took place while Sheriff Sizemore was arresting him. Cade argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals wrongfully relied upon its earlier opinion in three instances.
See Cade v. State, 375 So.2d 802 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), aff'd, 375 So.2d 828 (Ala. 1979), vacated, 448 U.S. 903, 100 S.Ct. 3043 (1980). After Alabama changed that procedure, see Beck v. State, 396 So.2d 645 (Ala. 1981), Cade was again tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in 1982, see Cade v. State, 521 So.2d 80 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986), aff'd, 521 So.2d 85 (Ala. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 184 (1988). Cade's conviction is based on events that took place in 1977.
. See also Cade v. State, 521 So.2d 80 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), aff'd, 521 So.2d 85 (Ala. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 184, 102 L.Ed.2d 153 (1988). Thus, this matter is precluded because it has been previously adjudicated by this court.
The conviction and sentence were once again upheld on appeal. Cade v. State, 521 So.2d 80 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), affirmed, 521 So.2d 85 (Ala. 1987), and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review. 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 184, 102 L.Ed.2d 153 (1988).
ALA. CODE 15-8-30 (West 1999). See also Williams v. State, 548 So.2d 584 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988); Holmes v. State, 497 So.2d 1149 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986); Cade v. State, 521 So.2d 80 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986); McCrary v. State, 398 So.2d 752 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981); Camp v. State, Williams v. State, 348 So.2d 1101 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977); Moreover, the purpose of an indictment is to inform the defendant of the nature of the charges against him, not to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlawful possession of a controlled substance is a crime under § 13A-12-212 of the Alabama Code:
Concerning whether the capital offense was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws, we point out that this Court has previously held that that aggravating circumstance is proper when an on-duty police officer is murdered while conducting a traffic stop. See Woodward, 123 So.3d at 1058 (holding that the trial court committed no error in finding that the defendant committed the murder to disrupt or hinder the enforcement of laws when the evidence indicated that the defendant murdered an on-duty police officer while the officer was conducting a traffic stop); see also Cade v. State, 521 So.2d 80, 84 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (holding that the evidence supported a finding that the capital offense was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of a governmental function or the enforcement of laws when the evidence indicated that the murder occurred while a police officer was in process of arresting the defendant). In the present case, the State presented evidence indicating that Johnson murdered Officer Davis while he was on duty and while he was conducting a traffic stop.
Although it appears that the state possibly could have caused appellant's case to proceed along more swiftly, this court is not in a position to make such judgments, for we are confined solely to the information in the record before us. See Cade v. State, 521 So.2d 80, 85 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986); Lewis v. State, 426 So.2d 932, 937 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), cert. denied, 426 So.2d 938 (1983). Moreover, such inaction by the State can, at most, be labeled "negligent inaction," which is considered a neutral reason for delay and is to be weighed less heavily against the State than deliberate delay.
In similar cases, the trial court has been authorized to find the existence of the aggravating circumstance set out in § 13A-5-49(7): "The capital offense was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws." See, e.g., Cade v. State, 521 So.2d 80 (1986), on rehearing, December 9, 1986 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), aff'd, 521 So.2d 85 (Ala. 1987) (murder occurred while officer was in process of arresting appellant); Crowe v. State, 485 So.2d 351 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), rev'd on other ground, 485 So.2d 373 (Ala. 1985), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 909, 106 S.Ct. 3284, 91 L.Ed.2d 573 (1986) (murder occurred while appellant was effecting brother's escape from jail). Based upon the order before us, we cannot determine whether the court considered the evidence offered by the defendant and then determined that it was insufficient or whether the court merely precluded it without consideration.
Generally, an indictment is not void for vagueness because it fails to state the precise time at which the offense was committed. Cade v. State, 521 So.2d 80, 82 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), affirmed, 521 So.2d 85 (Ala. 1987); Bush v. State, 431 So.2d 555, 558 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), affirmed, 431 So.2d 563 (Ala. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865, 104 S.Ct. 200, 78 L.Ed.2d 175 (1985). See also § 15-8-30, Code of Alabama (1975).