Key v. State

30 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte Key

    891 So. 2d 384 (Ala. 2004)   Cited 29 times

    After conducting its own sentencing hearing, the trial court found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and sentenced Key to death. Key then appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed as to the conviction and remanded the case with directions to the trial court to correct deficiencies in its sentencing order. Key v. State, 891 So.2d 353 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002). On remand, the trial court stated that it found three statutory aggravating circumstances to exist.

  2. Dotch v. State

    67 So. 3d 936 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that the circuit court was not required to instruct the jury regarding its consideration of prior conviction evidence when that evidence had been admitted to establish motive

    . See also Key v. State, 891 So.2d 353, 368 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002), affirmed, 891 So.2d 384 (Ala. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1005, 125 S.Ct. 608, 160 L.Ed.2d 466 (2004) (holding that Key would not have been entitled to relief on his claim that § 13A-5-40(a)(17) is unconstitutionally vague and arbitrary and that "to punish a defendant whose victim was sitting in a car differently from a defendant whose victim stumbled away from a car violated equal-protection principles" because this Court "has previously considered and rejected the constitutional arguments" raised by Key).

  3. Miller v. Dunn

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-00154-KOB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 29, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    "This is precisely the type of strategic choice, based on counsel's examination of the relevant facts and legal principles, that our cases have deemed to be virtually unchallengeable." Key v. State, 891 So.2d 353, 376 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). As the circuit court in Key aptly noted:

  4. Ex Parte State

    No. 1041313 (Ala. Oct. 6, 2006)   Cited 24 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a circuit court has no duty to sua sponte instruct a jury on the use of prior convictions when those convictions are admitted as substantive evidence of guilt and not for impeachment purposes.

    The Court of Criminal Appeals itself has recognized the limited holding of Ex parte Minor. In Key v. State, 891 So. 2d 353 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002), the defendant, Key, was convicted of the capital murder of his ex-wife. The State offered evidence during the penalty phase of the trial indicating that on the day before he killed his ex-wife Key had pleaded guilty to aggravated stalking as to his ex-wife and had been sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

  5. Dearman v. State

    No. CR-18-0060 (Ala. Crim. App. Aug. 5, 2022)

    Although Dearman's "guilty plea waived this nonjurisdictional claim from review as it relates to the guilt phase[, b]ecause the same jury heard the penalty phase of the proceeding, we will review the claim on appeal as it relates to that phase of the trial." See Key v. State, 891 So.2d 353, 371 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). Additionally, because Dearman failed to raise a Batson claim at trial, this Court will review this claim for plain error only.

  6. Gobble v. State

    104 So. 3d 920 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that trial court's statement that "[t]he jury's verdict establishes the existence of this aggravating circumstance in an unanimous vote and the evidence supports the verdict" was insufficient to comply with § 13A-5-47(d)

    However, the holdings in Minor and Snyder have been repeatedly held to apply only to those cases in which the defendant testified and the evidence of prior convictions was admitted for impeachment purposes, and then on a case-by-case basis. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, [Ms. 1041313, Oct. 6, 2006] ––– So.[3]d –––– (Ala.2006); Ex parte Martin, 931 So.2d 759 (Ala.2004); Key v. State, 891 So.2d 353 (Ala.Crim.App.2002).”Floyd v. State, [Ms. CR–05–0935, September 28, 2007]

  7. Miller v. State

    99 So. 3d 349 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 26 times

    “This is precisely the type of strategic choice, based on counsel's examination of the relevant facts and legal principles, that our cases have deemed to be virtually unchallengeable.” Key v. State, 891 So.2d 353, 376 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). As the circuit court in Key aptly noted:

  8. Miller v. State

    No. CR-08-1413 (Ala. Crim. App. Jul. 8, 2011)

    "This is precisely the type of strategic choice, based on counsel's examination of the relevant facts and legal principles, that our cases have deemed to be virtually unchallengeable." Key v. State, 891 So. 2d 353, 376 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). As the circuit court inKey aptly noted:

  9. Smith v. State

    No. CR-97-1258 (Ala. Crim. App. Jan. 16, 2009)

    Thus, the photographs were properly admitted into evidence. See Key v. State, 891 So. 2d 353, 373 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002). Also, victim-impact evidence is admissible at the penalty phase of a capital-murder trial.

  10. Revells v. Wise

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:11cv609-WHA [WO] (M.D. Ala. Sep. 24, 2014)

    The burden to establish ineffectiveness of counsel "is particularly stringent when a defendant enters a guilty plea." Key v. State, 891 So. 2d 353, 374 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002), affirmed Ex parte Key, 891 So. 2d 384 (Ala. 2004), cert. denied, Key v. Alabama, 543 U.S. 1005, 125 S.Ct. 608, 160 L.Ed. 2d 466 (2004). Revells has not met this burden.