Case Title: McCray v. State

Citation: 74 So. 2d 491

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1954-06-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
74 So. 2d 491 (1954)
John H. McCRAY
v.
STATE of Alabama.
1 Div. 585.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 30, 1954.
*492 Harry Seale and W. A. Marsal, Mobile, for petitioner.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Maury D. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.
CLAYTON, Justice.
Petitioner, John H. McCray, Jr., insists upon three propositions for reversal of the judgment of conviction against him for the offense of manslaughter. First, that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence; second, certain remarks of the trial judge to the jury during the course of its deliberation, relative to the matter of possible parole for defendant; and third, the refusal to defendant of his requested charge No. 6.
Propositions numbered 1 and 3, are correctly and adequately treated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals and will not be further discussed here. Proposition 2, raised by petitioner, concerns remarks of the trial court made in response to questions by the jury, which are delineated by the reporter in his statement of the case. Most of our cases, which are most closely associated with the case at bar, relate to remarks in argument to the jury by counsel for the state. However, in the case of Burch v. State, 32 Ala.App. 529, 530-531, 29 So. 2d 422, 423 our Court of Appeals, through its Presiding Judge Bricken, in considering the statement by the solicitor in his argument to the jury that "`Counsel for the defendant are trying to make monkeys out of this jury, and they are laughing up their sleeves at you,'" said:
In the case of Boyle v. State, 229 Ala. 212, 154 So. 575, 587, the solicitor, in his argument, stated that the effect of finding defendant not guilty by reason of insanity would be to "`put him upon the ground'". Defendant's objection was overruled. This court, in considering this matter, had this to say:
In the case of Peterson v. State, 231 Ala. 625, 166 So. 20, 23, the solicitor in his argument to the jury said he hoped the jury would fix it so that this man would not get off with any penitentiary sentence by the jury returning the death verdict, and that if they did sentence him to the penitentiary a mushy parole board would let him out in a little while, and that it had been his experience that murderers did not stay there long; * * * that besides all this he could be pardoned and released from the penitentiary, and that he wanted the jury to fix it, by their verdict, that this man could never escape or get out of the penitentiary by giving him the death sentence. This court said: "It is true the arguments of the solicitor were highly improper and should not have been made; * * *."
Likewise, in Oliver v. State, 232 Ala. 5, 9, 166 So. 615, 617, it was held:
The same holding was made in Cobb v. State, 248 Ala. 548, 28 So. 2d 713, following the holding in Pilley v. State, 247 Ala. 523, 25 So. 2d 57, 60, pertinent parts of which opinion are:
In the case of Moulton v. State, 199 Ala. 411, 415, 74 So. 454, 456, the trial court in its charge to the jury said:
Exception was reserved to the first sentence. This court said of the quoted part of the charge:
In the light of the above quoted authorities, we consider the present situation in *494 which on of the jury, in the course of its deliberation, inquired of the court as to what part of the sentence which it should impose upon the defendant might be deducted by parole. There is little room for doubt that the jury made its inquiry for the purpose of including in its determination of length of sentence to be imposed upon the defendant the proportionate part of such sentence which might be remitted by parole. This was not a matter for the consideration of the jury, and the court should have so instructed them in positive terms. Cobb v. State, supra; Pilley v. State, supra; Peterson v. State, supra; Oliver v. State, supra.
But the trial court in answer to the juror's question said: "That is a matter purely with the Parole Board. It (is) generally customary for them to allow a man a third of the time, but the rules change every day with them." [Emphasis supplied.] Answers by the court to further questions from the jury possibly tended to reduce the impression on the minds of the jury that parole might be expected for the defendant when two-thirds of the sentence imposed on him, in the instant case, should have been served. But it is left to speculation on the part of the jury as to whether the Parole Board might increase or decrease the fraction of the prisoner's sentence actually to be served in the penitentiary. No instruction was given that the jury must make a verdict based on the evidence only and not consider possible future parole. From the questions of the jury and the answers of the trial court, the jury might reasonably have considered such action on their part as entirely proper. Boyle v. State, supra.
In Griffin v. State, 90 Ala. 596, 601, 8 So. 670, 673, this court observed: "We know that jurors are easily influenced by remarks from the bench, and the slightest intimations of the court are seized upon and exert a controlling influence upon them." Also, our Court of Appeals in Neal v. State, 36 Ala.App. 156, 159, 54 So. 2d 613, 616, quotes a previous expression of that court:
A situation analogous to the instant case arose in the case of Houston v. Commonwealth, 270 Ky. 125, 109 S.W.2d 45, 46; pertinent parts of the opinion of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky are quoted:
Likewise, a similar situation arose in the case of Coward v. Commonwealth, 164 Va. 639, 178 S.E. 797. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, in reversing a judgment of conviction in that case made the following observation and holding:
The verdict of a jury in a criminal case should be based solely upon the evidence *496 adduced on the trial and be absolutely free from outside influences. Or, as expressed by our Court of Appeals in Hammond v. State, 26 Ala.App. 391, 392, 160 So. 900, 901:
In arriving at a proper sentence to be imposed on the defendant, the proportionate part thereof which probably or possibly might be deducted by the Parole Board was not a proper factor to be considered by the jury.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals in reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
All the Justices concur.