Title: Ex Parte Stewart

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

659 So. 2d 122 (1993)
Ex parte Charles Randall STEWART.
(Re Charles Randall Stewart v. State).
1920509.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 3, 1993.
Rehearing Denied October 15, 1993.
*123 Michael P. O'Connor, Montgomery, and George R. Giddens, Anniston, for petitioner.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Gail Ingram Hampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sandra J. Stewart, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Charles Randall Stewart was convicted by a Talladega County jury of capital murder and was sentenced to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals initially remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings on two issues, but found no error as to the other issues raised. Stewart v. State, 601 So. 2d 491 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). On return to remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals found no error in the trial court's resolution of the two issues that were the subject of the remand. The Court of Criminal Appeals proceeded to address the propriety of the conviction of capital murder and the sentence of death. That court affirmed Stewart's conviction and sentence. Stewart v. State, 659 So. 2d 120 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). Stewart filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, and it was granted as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 39(c), Ala.R.App.P.
All of the issues raised in Stewart's petition and brief were addressed by the Court of Criminal Appeals, with either a full discussion or a summary statement that no error was presented.[1] As to the issues affecting the entire trial or only the guilt phase, we see no error.
One issue merits some clarification. A particular veniremember mentioned that his wife was on the grand jury then serving, but the district attorney stated, erroneously, that Stewart had been indicted by the prior grand jury. Stewart argues that, if he had known that the veniremember's wife had served on the grand jury that had indicted him, he would have exercised a peremptory strike to prevent that veniremember from sitting on the petit jury. The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded for further inquiry into this issue and, in its opinion on return to remand, stated:
The Court of Criminal Appeals has used the term "absolute bias" as the test for a challenge for cause when there is no statutory ground for such a challenge. Jenkins v. State, 627 So. 2d 1034 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), affirmed, 627 So. 2d 1054 (Ala.1993); Nettles *124 v. State, 435 So. 2d 146 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed, 435 So. 2d 151 (Ala.1983). In neither case did this Court repeat the "absolute bias" language, and we express no opinion here as to whether that is the correct test, because Stewart does not argue that the fact that the veniremember's wife served on the grand jury was grounds for a challenge for cause.
Instead, Stewart argues that he was deprived of his right to exercise his peremptory strikes based on truthful answers from prospective jurors, citing Clark v. State, 551 So. 2d 1091 (Ala.1989); Ex parte O'Leary, 417 So. 2d 232 (Ala.1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1206, 103 S. Ct. 3536, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1387 (1983); and State v. Gilbert, 568 So. 2d 876 (Ala.Cr. App.1990).[2] The test applied in these cases is whether the defendant might have been prejudiced by a veniremember's failure to make a proper response.
Here, however, the juror was perfectly forthcoming as to his wife's service on the grand jury. The following is the entire exchange at voir dire:
At the hearing on remand, the juror testified that he had mentioned to the jury that his wife had been on the grand jury that indicted Stewart, but he also testified that she had not told him anything about the case. Stewart focuses his argument on the district attorney's misstatement that the indictment had been returned by a prior grand jury. There is no evidence that the district attorney knowingly misstated this fact, and he testified at the remand hearing that he simply thought Stewart's indictment had been returned earlier than it had.[3] Stewart argues that the district attorney had a copy of the indictment at his counsel table, but there is no indication that he actually looked at it when he stated that the indictment had been returned by the March or April term of the grand jury. Stewart's attorney certainly also had access to a copy of the indictment. If he had wished to pursue the information volunteered by the juror in order to exercise his peremptory strikes, he could have easily looked at the indictment himself.
There is no indication of any wrongdoing or prejudice on the part of the juror. The trial court held a hearing on remand and found no basis for a holding that Stewart might have been prejudiced by the juror's service on the jury. We see no error, and we decline to reverse on this ground.
We have carefully studied all of the arguments affecting the validity of the conviction and we have found no error. Furthermore, Rule 39(k), Ala.R.App. P., provides as follows:
*125 Accordingly, we have reviewed the record for plain error, and we have found no error affecting Stewart's conviction for capital murder that "has or probably has adversely affected the substantial rights of the petitioner."
However, as to the sentence of death, one of the issues discussed by the Court of Criminal Appeals and presented in Stewart's petition does present reversible error. Stewart argues that the trial court's instructions during the sentencing phase were improper because, he argues, they conveyed to the jury the impression that it could find aggravating circumstances other than those enumerated in Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-49. The trial court instructed the jury, in pertinent part, as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
Sections 13A-5-45 through -52, Ala. Code 1975, govern sentence hearings in capital cases. Section 13A-5-46(e) provides:
(Emphasis added.) The aggravating circumstances are enumerated in § 13A-5-49, which provides, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.)
Stewart argues that, because §§ 13A-5-46(e) and 13A-5-49 definitively establish that *127 the list of aggravating circumstances is exclusive, the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could consider circumstances (2) and (4) on the statutory list of aggravating circumstances plus "any aggravating circumstances you might find from the facts of the case." Stewart further argues that the trial court's subsequent instructionthat "[y]ou may not consider any aggravating circumstance, other than the circumstance that you have been instructed about"merely refers back to the first erroneous instruction, and therefore exacerbates, rather than ameliorates, the error.
The State initially notes that Stewart's trial counsel did not object to the instruction, and therefore argues that, to be reversible, the instruction must rise to the level of "plain error"; see A.R.App.P. 39(k). The State concedes that the trial court incorrectly said that the jury could generally consider the facts of the case as aggravating circumstances. It contends, however, that the instruction, when considered as a whole, adequately apprises the jury that it was to consider only the second and fourth aggravating circumstances enumerated in § 13A-5-49. It specifically argues that the subsequent instruction noted above clearly refers to the two statutory aggravating circumstances § 13A-5-49(2) and (4), and argues that that subsequent instruction thus cures the isolated, erroneous remark. The Court of Criminal Appeals employed this rationale in holding that the instructions did not constitute error.
The State is certainly correct in arguing that a reviewing court must construe challenged jury charges in their entirety. Harris v. State, 412 So. 2d 1278 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). However, it is also true that the sentencing stage is a "due process hearing of the highest magnitude," Richardson v. State, 376 So. 2d 205, 224 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), aff'd 376 So. 2d 228 (Ala.1979), and that a reviewing court must carefully analyze the jury instructions to determine if the trial court has fulfilled its duty to properly inform the jury. Proper instructions are absolutely indispensable if the jury is to effectively perform its role[4] in this crucial proceeding.
In light of these requirements, we must reject the argument that this instruction, when viewed in its entirety, clearly apprised the jury of the proper law. The learned and experienced circuit judge inadvertently instructed the jury that it could find other aggravating circumstances from the facts of the case itself. The trial court nowhere explicitly informed the jury that it could not consider nonstatutory aggravating circumstances. Although the trial court obviously did attempt to convey this proposition of law when it stated "You may not consider any aggravating circumstance, other than the circumstance that you have been instructed about," this instruction is itself fraught with ambiguity, because the trial court had at that point already told the jury that "we are concerned with only two out of this list besides any aggravating circumstances you might find from the facts of the case itself," and that "the fact that I instruct you on such aggravating circumstances or define them, does not mean that the circumstances or any other aggravating circumstances have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt."
This potential for confusion is illustrated by comparing the trial court's instructions on aggravating circumstances with its instructions on mitigating circumstances. After informing the jury of the statutory mitigating circumstances in § 13A-5-51, the trial court stated:
(Emphasis added.) The emphasized phrase here is remarkably similar to the first objectionable phrase used by the trial court in describing the aggravating circumstances. Therefore, the jury could have reasonably believed that it was to find aggravating circumstances in the same manner as mitigating circumstances.
*128 This error is crucial, for it is always presumed that the jury will follow the instructions given to it by the trial court.
Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 73, 99 S. Ct. 2132, 2139, 60 L. Ed. 2d 713 (1979) (White, J., dissenting). Although the court correctly instructed the jury in other portions of the charge, the inadvertent erroneous statements directly contradicted the correct ones, and we cannot tell which portion of the charge the jury may have followed. Because the ambiguity in the instruction may well have prevented the jury from correctly carrying out its function, we hold that the instruction constitutes plain error.
It is true that the trial court, in fulfilling its duty as the ultimate sentencing authority pursuant to § 13A-5-47, properly found in its sentencing order that the State had proved two statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this does not render the erroneous jury instruction harmless, because this Court held in Ex parte Williams, 556 So. 2d 744 (Ala.1987), that a sentencing jury's mere consideration of an improper aggravating circumstance requires that the sentence of death be set aside, despite the trial court's proper exercise of its sentencing authority:
556 So. 2d  at 745.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed as to Stewart's conviction for capital murder, but reversed as to the sentence of death, and the cause is remanded for the Court of Criminal Appeals to order a new sentencing hearing before a jury.
AFFIRMED AS TO CONVICTION, REVERSED AS TO SENTENCE, AND REMANDED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON, SHORES and KENNEDY,[*] JJ., concur.
ADAMS, J., dissents.
[1]  For example, in part XV of its first opinion, 601 So. 2d 491, the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Stewart's arguments that the trial court erred in its instructions during the guilt phase. The court discussed at length only the "reasonable doubt" instruction, and then concluded, "We have reviewed appellant's other allegations concerning the court's instructions in the guilt phase and find no error." 601 So. 2d  at 505. We agree that Stewart's other arguments regarding the instructions during the guilt phase are not sufficiently meritorious to require individual discussion, and we agree similarly with the resolution by the Court of Criminal Appeals of other subissues within the larger issues that are addressed.
[2]  Stewart also cites Ex parte Beam, 512 So. 2d 723 (Ala.1987), but that case, like Jenkins and Nettles, involved a challenge for cause, and so is not pertinent.
[3]  The indictment was returned on September 27, 1990, and Stewart's trial began on October 22, 1990.
[4]  See discussion of Ex parte Williams, 556 So. 2d 744 (Ala.1987), infra.
[*]  Although Justice KENNEDY did not sit at oral argument, he has studied the record and listened to the tapes of oral argument.