Case Title: Baldwin v. State

Citation: 372 So. 2d 32

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1979-06-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
372 So. 2d 32 (1979)
In re Brian Keith BALDWIN
v.
STATE of Alabama.
Ex parte Brian Keith Baldwin.
78-127.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 1, 1979.
*33 Windell C. Owens and Paul M. Harden, Monroeville, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and J. Anthony McLain, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, respondent.
TORBERT, Chief Justice.
Petitioner was convicted of the capital felony of robbery when the victim is intentionally killed by the defendant and was sentenced to death by electrocution. We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming Baldwin's conviction. The facts as set forth in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, are as follows:
The only issue presented for review is whether the State of Alabama had jurisdiction to try the offense. Petitioner contends that the robbery took place outside of Alabama and the killing took place within Alabama; therefore, the venue of the crime of robbery was not within the state and there was no jurisdiction to try petitioner in Alabama so the verdict of the jury and judgment of the trial court are void. We disagree.
The crime of robbery when the victim is intentionally killed is a single offense beginning with the act of robbing or attempting to rob and culminating with the act of intentionally killing the victim. The offense consists of two elements, robbing and intentionally killing, but does not consist of two separate offenses. See Ex parte Clements, 370 So. 2d 723 (Ala.1979); Horsley v. State, [1 Div. 931] (Ala.Crim.App. 1978). Therefore, although the offense was commenced in North Carolina, it was not consummated until Naomi Rolon was killed in Monroe County, Alabama.
The place where the crime was consummated is the place where the crime was committed and the place where the defendant may be tried. 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 399, at 416. Section 15-2-4 provides:
§ 15-2-4, Code 1975.
Accordingly, venue did lie in Monroe County and petitioner was properly tried and convicted. The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
BLOODWORTH, MADDOX, FAULKNER, ALMON, SHORES and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
JONES, J., concurs in the result.
BEATTY, J., dissents.
JONES, Justice (concurring in the result):
I concur in the result to affirm. I see no necessity to deal with what I perceive as a purely academic exercise: Whether the capital offense here charged is one or two offenses. It is one offense in the sense that both robbery and intentional killing must co-exist to constitute the capital offense contemplated by the Death Penalty Statute. In another aspect, it is two separate and distinct offenseseach of which must be charged, instructed upon, and all the elements of which must be found as a prerequisite to a guilty verdict on the capital offense charged.
The point is this: It is unimportant whether it is denominated one offense comprised of two elements, or two offenses1) intentional killing in the course of 2) robbing the victim. The disposition of this appeal in no way depends upon the one offense/two offenses dichotomy. As the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals points out, the offense of robbery was consummated in Alabama and the offense of intentional killing was consummated in this State. There is no jurisdictional problem.
BEATTY, Justice (dissenting):
For the reasons expressed in my dissent in Horsley v. State, ___ So.2d ___ (Ala. 1979), I also dissent in this case.