Case Title: Ex Parte Ferguson

Citation: 814 So. 2d 970

Docket Number: 1992209

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2001-07-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
814 So. 2d 970 (2001)
Ex parte Thomas Dale FERGUSON.
(Re Thomas Dale Ferguson v. State of Alabama.)
1992209.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 6, 2001.
Rehearing Denied September 7, 2001.
*971 Glenn Davidson of Collins, Davidson & Jensen, L.L.C., Mobile, for petitioner.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Rosa Hamlett Davis, chief asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
HARWOOD, Justice.
Thomas Dale Ferguson petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment affirming his convictions of four counts of capital murder and his sentence of death. We granted Ferguson's petition to review the alleged errors Ferguson claims were made by the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals. After thoroughly reviewing the record for error and after fully considering all of his arguments, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Court of Criminal Appeals succinctly set out the pertinent facts of this case, as follows:
Ferguson v. State, 814 So. 2d 925, 933-37 (Ala.Crim.App.2000)(footnotes omitted).
Ferguson presented 23 issues in his certiorari petition. All of these issues were addressed in the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed many of Ferguson's claims under the plain-error standard because Ferguson had failed to object to the alleged errors at trial. This Court has reviewed all of the those issues presented in the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion, and we have found no error, plain or otherwise. We address four of Ferguson's arguments with more particularity below.
Ferguson argues that the trial court erroneously required him to prove that he was legally insane rather than properly considering his mental health as both a statutory and a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance during his sentencing hearing. He alleges that the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed as to this issue, in violation of Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S. Ct. 869, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1982), and Whisenhant v. State, 370 So. 2d 1080, 1095-96 (Ala.Crim.App.1979). The trial court, in considering Ferguson's mental health as a statutory mitigating circumstance, wrote:
C.R. at 137-38.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings concerning Ferguson's mental health as a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance on the basis that the trial court had properly considered the mitigating evidence, but placed little weight upon it in light of the other testimony and evidence produced at trial. We conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly applied the settled law on this issue in finding that the trial court had in fact taken into account Ferguson's mental health as a possible nonstatutory mitigating circumstance. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 57 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1978); Ex parte Hart, 612 So. 2d 536, 542 (Ala.1992)("Lockett does not require that all evidence offered as mitigating evidence be found to be mitigating."), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 953, 113 S. Ct. 2450, 124 L. Ed. 2d 666 (1993); and Ex parte Slaton, 680 So. 2d 909, 924 (Ala.1996) ("`While Lockett and its progeny require consideration of all evidence submitted as mitigation, whether the evidence is actually found to be mitigating is in the discretion of the sentencing authority.'")(quoting Bankhead v. State, 585 So. 2d 97, 108 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1079, 117 S. Ct. 742, 136 L. Ed. 2d 680 (1997)).
Ferguson also argues that the trial court refused to find that statutory mitigating circumstances existed because, he says it improperly invoked the requirements for proving legal insanity, i.e., that Ferguson could not appreciate the difference between right and wrong or otherwise conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. The trial court, in addition to considering Ferguson's mental health as a statutory mitigating circumstance, specifically found that the following statutory mitigating circumstance did not exist:
C.R. at 139.
These findings by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals, do not conflict with the United States Supreme Court's holding in Eddings v. Oklahoma, as Ferguson argues. In Eddings, the Supreme Court applied the rule from Lockett v. Ohio, supra. It did not change the rule that a sentencer is to consider "the characteristics of the person who committed the crime." Eddings, 455 U.S.  at 112, 102 S. Ct. 869 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 197, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 (1976)). This Court has also relied upon Eddings for this rule. See Ex parte Borden, 769 So. 2d 950, 958 (Ala. 2000)("There is no requirement that a sentencing authority must find the evidence offered by the defendant as a mitigating factor; however, the sentencing authority may not be precluded from considering any mitigating factor." (Emphasis original.)); and Ex parte Cochran, 500 So. 2d 1179, 1186 (Ala.1985)("The language in Lockett and Eddings indicates that so long as the sentencer is not precluded from considering any mitigating factor, the requirements of the Constitution have been *977 satisfied."). We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that the trial court did in fact consider Ferguson's offer of the mitigating evidence of his mental health, but gave that evidence little weight when compared against the other evidence that it had before it. These findings are also consistent with Whisenhant v. State, 370 So. 2d 1080, 1095 (Ala.Crim.App.1979), because we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the trial court did not incorrectly apply the standard for legal insanity when it considered Ferguson's mental health as a mitigating circumstance.
Ferguson argues that the trial court erred by using nonstatutory aggravating circumstances to override the jury's recommendation of life without parole. He alleges that the trial court did so based upon its findings that Ferguson had the "opportunity to reflect and withdraw from his actions," and by stating its opinion of "the nature of the crime and [Ferguson's] involvement in it." C.R. at 140. He argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming based upon its decision in Burgess v. State, [Ms. CR-93-2054, November 20, 1998] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App.1998), aff'd, Ex parte Burgess, [Ms. 1990803, August 25, 2000], ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.2000). He argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals' reliance on its opinion in Burgess is in conflict with this Court's decision in Ex parte Stewart, 659 So. 2d 122 (Ala.1993). The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court on this issue and, in doing so, stated:
Ferguson, 814 So. 2d  at 959. Ex parte Stewart does not conflict with the Court of *978 Criminal Appeals' opinion, as Ferguson contends. Stewart addressed the issue whether a trial court had improperly instructed the jury that it could consider nonstatutory aggravating circumstances. That is not the issue presented here; we otherwise conclude that the trial court properly considered the available statutory aggravating circumstances contained in § 13A-5-49, Ala.Code 1975. The Court of Criminal Appeals did not err in affirming the ruling of the trial court as to this issue.
Ferguson argues that the trial court erred by not considering evidence that he was mentally retarded as a mitigating circumstance and that the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in violation of Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 327-29, 109 S. Ct. 2934, 106 L. Ed. 2d 256 (1989), and Ex parte Henderson, 616 So. 2d 348, 350 (Ala.1992). In addressing this issue, the Court of Criminal Appeals stated:
Ferguson, 814 So. 2d  at 965. (Emphasis in original.)
In Penry, the United States Supreme Court stated:
492 U.S.  at 319, 109 S. Ct. 2934 (quoting California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538, 545, 107 S. Ct. 837, 93 L. Ed. 2d 934 (1987)(O'Connor, J., concurring)). As the Court of Criminal Appeals pointed out, the trial court's sentencing order contains several references to Ferguson's mental condition. These references are evidence that the trial court *979 did consider Ferguson's mental condition as both a possible statutory, and a nonstatutory, mitigating factor. Because the trial court properly considered this evidence, no conflict exists between the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion and this Court's opinion in Henderson. The Court of Criminal Appeals determined this issue on settled caselaw that does not conflict with Penry or Henderson.
Ferguson also argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider or to give effect to several other nonstatutory mitigating circumstances that were offered. He contends that the trial court did not consider or give proper effect to evidence of: (1) his traumatic childhood; (2) his impaired ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law; (3) his acting under extreme duress or the substantial domination of another person; (4) his being under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance; (5) his acting as an accomplice to the murders and his claimed minor participation; (6) his codefendants' receiving lighter sentences; and (7) his showing of remorse for his actions. Ferguson contends that the Court of Criminal Appeals' affirmance is in conflict with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S. Ct. 2978, 49 L. Ed. 2d 944 (1976), and its progeny, as to all of the offered mitigating circumstances that he alleges were not considered or were not given proper effect. In Woodson, the Supreme Court stated:
428 U.S.  at 304, 96 S. Ct. 2978.
After reviewing the record and the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion, we conclude that the trial court did not err in weighing the nonstatutory mitigating circumstances offered by Ferguson. As stated in the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion, as long as the sentencing authority is not precluded from considering proffered mitigating circumstances, the protections provided by the Constitution are satisfied. See Lockett v. Ohio, Eddings v. Oklahoma, Ex parte Borden, and Ex parte Cochran, supra. Moreover, the Court of Criminal Appeals relied upon that settled law that "the trial court is not required to specify in its sentencing order each item of proposed nonstatutory mitigating evidence offered that it considered and found not to be mitigating." Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1276, 1347 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), aff'd, 710 So. 2d 1350 (Ala.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 929, 118 S. Ct. 2325, 141 L. Ed. 2d 699 (1998). The Court of Criminal Appeals correctly affirmed as to the trial court's consideration of these nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. Although Ferguson correctly argues that these circumstances can be considered as mitigating, nothing in the record indicates the trial court was precluded from considering, or otherwise did not consider, these circumstances, as Ferguson argues.
We have considered all of Ferguson's arguments, and we have reviewed the record for error, plain or otherwise; we have found no error that would warrant a reversal *980 of Ferguson's convictions or his sentence. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
AFFIRMED.
MOORE, C.J., and HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur.
JOHNSTONE, J., concurs specially.
JOHNSTONE, Justice (concurring specially).
While the opinion by the Court of Criminal Appeals, Ferguson v. State, 814 So. 2d 925 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), is thorough and scholarly, I suggest one caveat. In part XIX, the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals says, "Because no single instance of alleged error constituted reversible error, we will not consider the cumulative effect to be any greater." 814 So. 2d  at 968 (emphasis added). A correct statement of the law would be that, when no one instance amounts to error at all (as distinguished from error not sufficiently prejudicial to be reversible), the cumulative effect cannot warrant reversal. In other words, multiple non-errors obviously do not require reversal. The particular wording of the holding by the Court of Criminal Appeals implies that multiple rulings which are, indeed, errors cannot cumulatively cause enough prejudice to require reversal unless at least one of the erroneous rulings is, in and of itself, sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal under Rule 45, Ala. R.App.P. The correct law is that, while, under the facts of a particular case, no single error among multiple errors may be sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal under Rule 45, the accumulation of prejudice from the errors may require reversal. Ex parte Tomlin, 540 So. 2d 668, 672 (Ala. 1988) ("We need not decide whether either of the two errors, standing alone, would require a reversal; we hold that the cumulative effect of the errors probably adversely affected the substantial rights of the defendant and seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings. See Blue v. State, 246 Ala. 73, 80, 19 So. 2d 11, 16-17 (1944); Jetton v. State, 435 So. 2d 167 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983)."); McGriff v. State, [Ms. 97-0179, September 29, 2000] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App.2000) ("Because we find no error in the specific instances alleged by the appellant, we find no cumulative error." (Quoting earlier cases.) (Emphasis added.)); United States v. Rivera, 900 F.2d 1462, 1470 (10th Cir.1990) ("A cumulative-error analysis merely aggregates all the errors that individually have been found to be harmless, and therefore not reversible, and it analyzes whether their cumulative effect on the outcome of the trial is such that collectively they can no longer be determined to be harmless."); and United States v. Canales, 744 F.2d 413, 430 (5th Cir.1984) ("We recognize that the cumulative effect of several incidents of improper argument or misconduct may require reversal, even though no single one of the incidents, considered alone, would warrant such a result.")