Section 13A-5-40 - Capital offenses

5 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. Capital Defense Weekly, April 19, 2010

    Capital Defense NewsletterApril 18, 2010

    As rational basis existed for making the intentional killing of a victim who was inside a vehicle a capital offense, defendant's claim of unreasonableness was meritless. Moreover, Ala. Code § 13A-5-40(17) was not overly broad or too vague." [via LexisOne]Cary Michael Lambrix v. State, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 545 (FL 4/15/2010) "Order denying defendant's petition for petition for postconviction relief was affirmed because there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that no sexual encounter occurred between a main witness and a state investigator and even if there was such an encounter, defendant could show no prejudice.

  2. Capital Defense Weekly, March 22, 2010

    Capital Defense NewsletterMarch 22, 2010

    nflict;" (13) "failing to investigate and present [A] additional mitigating evidence that Appellant endured a miserable life of poverty and parental neglect during his childhood and adolescence; [B] new evidence showing that trial counsel did not obtain Appellant's knowing and intelligent consent or acquiescence to counsel's concession that Appellant was the shooter and that counsel could not ask the jury to render a not guilty verdict; [C] additional evidence from a witness available to trial counsel but not called at trial showing that State's witness Roy Collins had admitted to him that he was going to 'snitch on' Appellant to get a better deal in his own case; and [D] evidence of a defense trial investigator's conflict of interest because of a previous assignment as an investigator for a codefendant;" (14) cumulative error and (15) mandatory sentence reviewBrent E. Martin v. State, Ala. Crim. App. 3/5/2010) "Defendant's capital-murder convictions and death sentence in violation of Ala. Code § 13A-5-40(a)(1), (a)(10) were proper because a prospective African-American juror's hesitancy in answering questions during voir dire and the fact that she had a nephew who had been convicted for rape were permissive reasons for peremptory strikes." [via LexisOne]If you have problem with this edition it is available at http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/archives/100322.htm for printing.

  3. Capital Defense Weekly, March 15, 2010

    Capital Defense NewsletterMarch 15, 2010

    " [via LexisOne]Darryl Scott Stinski v. State, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 186 (GA 3/1/2010) Capital sentence undisturbed, arson sentence vacated as the evidence showed that only one continuous act of setting multiple fires in the same house. [more next week]Kendrick Antonio Simpson v. State, 2010 OK CR 6 (Okla. Crim. App3/5/2010)Brent E. Martin v. State, Ala. Crim. App. 3/5/2010) "Defendant's capital-murder convictions and death sentence in violation of Ala. Code § 13A-5-40(a)(1), (a)(10) were proper because a prospective African-American juror's hesitancy in answering questions during voir dire and the fact that she had a nephew who had been convicted for rape were permissive reasons for peremptory strikes." [via LexisOne]If you have problem with this edition it is available athttp://capitaldefenseweekly.com/archives/100322.htmfor printing.

  4. Capital Defense Weekly, February 15, 2010

    Capital Defense NewsletterFebruary 15, 2010

    The Court will reserve its ruling on Petitioner's venireman-court claim."Week of February 1, 2010: In Favor of the State or GovernmentTierra Capri Gobble v. State, 2010 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 8 (Ala. Crim. App. 2/5/2010) "Appellant's conviction for murdering 4-month-old son--capital offense under Ala. Code § 13A-5-40(a)(15)--was affirmed, but case was remanded for circuit court to, inter alia, make specific findings of fact as to each aggravating circumstance in Ala. Code § 13A-5-49 and then reweigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances and resentence appellant." [via LexisOne]Alfonzo Morris v. State, 2010 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 9 (Ala. Crim. App. 2/5/2010) "The trial court did not err in determining appellant was not mentally retarded for purposes of Atkins.

  5. Capital Defense Weekly, February 2, 2009

    Capital Defense NewsletterFebruary 1, 2009

    Jerry Jerome Smith v. State, 2009 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 2 (Ala 1/16/2009) "The trial court's conclusion that defendant was not mentally retarded was supported by the record, as a forensic psychologist testified that defendant had an extensive work history, managed his money, and drove a stick-shift car. Defendant's conviction for murder and his death sentence pursuant to Ala. Code § 13A-5-40(a)(10) were affirmed." [via Lexisone] Tillon Lashon Carter v. State, 2009 Tex. Crim . App. Unpub.