Case Title: Ex Parte Washington

Citation: 507 So. 2d 1360

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1986-11-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
507 So. 2d 1360 (1986)
Ex parte Joseph WASHINGTON.
Re Joseph Washington
v.
State.
85-882.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 7, 1986.
*1361 W. Gregory Hughes, Mobile, for Joseph Washington.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., for State.
BEATTY, Justice.
Defendant, Joseph Washington, was convicted of two offenses of murder and was sentenced to serve two consecutive 99-year terms in prison. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari to determine whether that court correctly determined that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation in this case did not require reversal.
During summation by the prosecutor, Mr. Copeland, the following occurred:
The defendant contends now, as he did below, that Copeland's statement constituted reversible error. In addressing this argument, the Court of Criminal Appeals held as follows:
Washington v. State, 507 So. 2d 1358 (Ala. Crim.App.1986). We reverse.
It has long been the rule in Alabama that, although counsel should be given considerable latitude in drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence, they may not argue as a fact that which is not supported by the evidence. Brown v. State, 374 So. 2d 395 (Ala.1979); Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669, 120 So. 2d 904 (1960); Cosby v. State, 269 Ala. 501, 114 So. 2d 250 (1959); Garrett v. State, 268 Ala. 299, 105 So. 2d 541 (1958); Ray v. State, 248 Ala. 425, 27 So. 2d 872 (1946). This has been the rule since it was first stated in McAdory v. State, 62 Ala. 154 (1878):
62 Ala. at 163.
It is clear that, in the present case, the prosecutor was making reference to certain facts which were not in evidence but which, as he argued to the jury, he would have introduced if not for the existence of our evidentiary rules. The prejudicial impact of such a statement on the jury is all too evident: If the prosecutor had been allowed to introduce this evidence, the defendant's guilt would thereby have been proved.
The Court of Criminal Appeals decided that in making the statement the prosecutor was only "flirting with reversal." The allowance of such a flirtation during summation in a criminal prosecution, we respectfully observe, is intolerable.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and this case is remanded to that court for an order consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
All the Justices concur.