Case Title: Dunaway v. State

Citation: 278 So. 2d 205

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1973-05-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
278 So. 2d 205 (1973)
In re James E. DUNAWAY
v.
STATE of Alabama.
Ex parte James E. Dunaway.
SC 322.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 3, 1973.
William B. McCollough, Jr., Birmingham, for petitioner.
No brief for the State.
COLEMAN, Justice.
Defendant asserts that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is in conflict with a prior decision of this court and a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, to wit: Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 84 S. Ct. 1696, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1028, in which the entire opinion is as follows:
The opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals as here pertinent recites, 50 Ala. App. 200, 278 So.2d 200:
In application for certiorari, defendant asserts that the holding expressed in the foregoing statement by the Court of Criminal Appeals is in conflict with the holding of The Supreme Court of The United States in Leonard v. United States, supra; and that the action of the trial court, in requiring defendant to select a jury from a venire that had previously heard evidence against defendant in another case or had seen defendant convicted and sentenced in a case previously tried, was reversible error in that the action of the trial court deprived defendant of his right to be tried by an impartial jury.
Amendment VI of the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to trial "by an impartial jury."
Section 6 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 provides that the accused in all prosecutions by indictment, has a right to trial "by an impartial jury."
On its face, the above quoted statement from the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals appears to suggest that the court is there holding that a trial court may, without error, require a defendant in a criminal case to select a jury from a venire composed of persons who had just witnessed the trial of defendant for a different offense. Such a holding would appear to be contrary to Leonard v. United States, supra.
We must examine the record in the trial court if we are to decide whether the action of the trial court was erroneous. Ordinarily, on certiorari, this court will not review findings of fact by the Court of Criminal Appeals in the absence of a full statement of the evidence in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Loyd v. State, 279 Ala. 447, 186 So. 2d 731; Haywood v. State, 280 Ala. 171, 190 So. 2d 728. Even when the Court of Appeals has not written an opinion, however, in "extreme instances," this court has looked to the record to ascertain the facts necessary to decision upon a federal question. State v. Parrish, 242 Ala. 7, 5 So. 2d 828.
See also: Brown v. State, 277 Ala. 353, 170 So. 2d 504; Wright v. State, 279 Ala. 84, 181 So. 2d 898; Dillard v. State, 283 Ala. 245, 215 So. 2d 464.
In Fowler v. State, 261 Ala. 262, 74 So. 2d 512, this court looked to the original record, not for the purpose of settling any disputed question of fact or of reviewing the Court of Appeals in respect to its finding of facts, but for an interpretation or a more complete understanding of matters discussed in the opinion of the Court of Appeals with respect to the question whether the jury in a trial for robbery had been sworn.
In the instant case we look to the record to ascertain what appears there with respect to defendant's objection to striking from the venire. The record recites as follows:
On consideration of the foregoing record, we are of opinion that defendant has failed to show that he was required to strike from the same venire which had just witnessed a trial of the accused for a different offense.
It follows that error by the trial court has not been shown and certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals is due to be denied.
Writ denied.
BLOODWORTH, McCALL, FAULKNER and JONES, JJ., concur.