Title: Ex Parte Hardy

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

804 So. 2d 298 (2000)
Ex parte John Milton HARDY.
(Re John Milton Hardy v. State).
1981646.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 3, 2000.
Rehearing Denied June 1, 2001.
*299 Donald A. Chapman, Decatur; James R. Mason, Jr., Decatur; and John Mays, Decatur, for petitioner.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Michael B. Billingsley, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
JOHNSTONE, Justice.
John Milton Hardy was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for the robbery-murder of Clarence Nugene Terry, a capital crime defined by § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed his conviction and death sentence. Hardy v. State, 804 So. 2d 247 (Ala.Crim. App.1999). He petitioned us for a writ of *300 certiorari on July 9, 1999, which we granted as a matter of right in compliance with Rule 39, Ala.R.App.P., as it existed before the recent amendments which became effective for death penalty cases on May 19, 2000. We affirm.
The opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals describes the robbery-murder itself:
804 So. 2d  at 255. The opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals continues:
804 So. 2d  at 255-56.
Hardy was tried jointly with Sneed for the capital robbery-murder. Both Hardy and Sneed objected strenuously and persistently to being tried together.
At trial, Hines identified the image of the gunman on the videotape as Hardy. Likewise at trial, Decatur Officer Eric Partridge, Decatur Investigator Thomas Townsend, and the Decatur chief investigator for the case, Dwight Hale, identified the videotape image of the gunman as Hardy.
*302 804 So. 2d  at 271-72. "Hale, the chief investigator for this case, testified that he spent a total of about 15 hours around Hardy after Hardy's apprehension, which included interviewing Hardy in Louisville and transporting him to Alabama." 804 So. 2d  at 271.
Similarly, at trial, Hines and Hale identified the videotape image of the unarmed intruder as Sneed.
Sneed v. State, 783 So. 2d 841, 855 (Ala. Crim.App.1999).
Id., at 855. Moreover, at trial, the State introduced a version of a purported statement by Sneed admitting to being the unarmed robber. The statement had been redacted extensively to eliminate all references to Hardy.
Hardy, 804 So. 2d  at 260. Neither Hardy nor Sneed testified at trial. The jury rejected both defenses and returned guilty verdicts and death penalty recommendations against both Hardy and Sneed. The trial court sentenced both to death.
Hardy contended at trial and on appeal, and still insists before us, that Sneed's defense was so antagonistic to Hardy's that the trial court's trying the two defendants jointly constituted reversible error. Indeed, although the trial court had ordered Sneed's counsel not to identify Hardy as the gunman, Sneed's counsel's cross-examination of the State's witnesses and Sneed's counsel's closing arguments necessarily implied that Hardy was the gunman. Among numerous statements by Sneed's counsel implying that Hardy was the gunman are the following typical remarks in argument:
(R. 3590-3623.) (Emphasis added.)
While the arguments of counsel do not constitute evidence and the trial court repeatedly so instructed the jury, these remarks by counsel would necessarily convey to the jurors the impression that they were learning the inside story on the robbery-murder, a bell that no instructions or rulings could unring.
The particular rulings at issue are the trial court's denials of Hardy's timely filed and heard motion for a severance of his trial from Sneed's trial and his several renewals of this motion for severance during the trial. The law establishes two tests for determining whether two defendants' respective defenses are so antagonistic that a joint trial constitutes error. Neither of the two tests identifies reversible error in Hardy's case.
The first test is that "[t]he defenses must be so antagonistic that the jury, in order to believe the defense of one defendant, must necessarily disbelieve the other defendant's defenses[;]" that is, "severance is required because of mutually antagonistic defenses only when the defenses are so antagonistic that the acceptance of one party's defense will preclude the acquittal of the other." Hill v. State, 481 So. 2d 419, 424 and 425 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). On the one hand, we must disagree with the rationale of the Court of Criminal Appeals that,
Hardy, 804 So. 2d  at 260. As a matter of practical psychology and advocacy, the only way for Sneed to persuade the jury to acquit him of capital murder and to convict him of only a lesser included offense on his theory that he was an accomplice only in the robbery, with no intent to kill anyone, was to deflect all of the blame for the capital murder onto the only other party within the jurisdiction of this jury, namely Hardy himself. As a practical matter, as distinguished from a mere theoretical possibility, the jury would not accept Sneed's defense without redressing Terry's murder by convicting Hardy. The jury could hardly acquit Hardy of the capital murder if Sneed successfully deflected all the blame for the capital murder from himself to Hardy. The jury could hardly accept Sneed's defense that Hardy was the gunman and the sole intentional murderer and still accept Hardy's defense that he was not a participant in the crime at all. Thus this first test identifies the defendants' respective defenses as so antagonistic as to require separate trials.
On the other hand, the terms of this very same test coupled with the eventuality that the jury, in fact, disbelieved and rejected Sneed's defense, renders harmless the rulings by the trial court denying Hardy's motion, and his renewals thereof, for a severance. That is, because the jury did not believe Sneed's defense, it did not necessarily preclude the jury from accepting Hardy's defense.
The second test is
Greathouse v. State, 624 So. 2d 202, 205 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 624 So. 2d 208 (Ala.1993) (emphasis added) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This second test may be more appropriate than the first test to the dynamics of the particular case before us. That is, while the jury apparently disbelieved the self-serving aspect of Sneed's defense, his denial of complicity in the intentional murder itself, the jury likely inferred from Sneed's defense that Hardy was, in fact, the gunman. The second test, however, does not entitle Hardy to a reversal because, as already quoted, "it does not apply when independent evidence of each defendant's guilt supports the jury's verdict." Id., at 205 (internal quotation marks omitted). In the case before us, superabundant evidence, entirely independent of Sneed's influence on the trial, proves Hardy's guilt of capital robbery-murder. The independent evidence consists of Hardy's own inculpatory statements, Hines's testimony about the prelude to and the aftermath of the robbery-murder, the videotape of the robbery-murder, and the identification of the videotape image of the gunman as Hardy by Hines, Partridge, and Townsend, who were all thoroughly knowledgeable of Hardy's features and appearance before and after the commission of the robbery-murder.
While our analysis of the issue of antagonistic defenses differs in part, as discussed, from the rationale of the Court of Criminal Appeals, we have relied on the authorities cited by that Court and we agree with the result reached by that Court. While trying Hardy jointly with Sneed was judicially risky in this case, it did not prejudice Hardy in the final analysis, and, accordingly, it does not entitle him to relief.
Hardy further claims that he was not validly arrested in Kentucky and that, therefore, the Alabama courts did not acquire jurisdiction to try him. Specifically, Hardy claims that his arrest in Kentucky was illegal because he was not arrested pursuant to a valid fugitive arrest warrant signed by the Governor of the State of Alabama. Therefore, Hardy maintains, his extradition to Alabama was not valid. The evidence, however, shows that Alabama courts properly acquired jurisdiction over Hardy to conduct the proceedings in this case.
The record contains a copy of a warrant for Hardy's arrest for this capital robbery-murder and a supporting affidavit. The affidavit was sworn by Lieutenant Richard H. Crowell of the Decatur, Alabama, Police Department on September 10, 1993, and the warrant was issued by District Judge David J. Breland of Morgan County, Alabama, on September 10, 1993. The arrest warrant is not a fugitive arrest warrant. On September 11, 1993, on this warrant, Hardy was arrested in Kentucky, and he was soon returned to Alabama, where he appeared before Judge Breland at an initial appearance hearing, where Judge Breland advised him of the charge against him. A second arrest warrant was issued on October 25, 1993, after the grand jury had indicted Hardy for capital murder on October 22, 1993. After the indictment was served on Hardy pursuant to this second warrant, he was arraigned on January 6, 1994, in the Morgan County, Alabama, Circuit Court. At the arraignment, the trial judge granted the defense an additional 30 days in which to file "pre-arraignment motions." *306 On February 4, 1994, Hardy moved to dismiss the indictment against him on the ground that he was "illegally arrested pursuant to an invalid arrest warrant which was served upon [him] in the State of Kentucky, outside the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court." After hearing testimony and arguments, the trial court denied the motion.
At the hearing on Hardy's motion to dismiss, Sergeant Mark Fox of the Jefferson County, Kentucky, Police Department testified that he arrested Hardy on September 11, 1993, after Fox received a copy of the warrant issued on September 10, 1993, for Hardy's arrest for allegedly committing the capital offense in Decatur, Alabama. Sergeant Fox testified that he served this arrest warrant on Hardy during this arrest. After Hardy's arrest and during his interrogation in Kentucky by Decatur, Alabama, Detectives Boyd and Hale, Hardy told the detectives that he wanted to return to Alabama. Hale then explained to Hardy that he would have to appear before a Kentucky judge before he could return to Alabama. Hardy testified, at the hearing on his motion to dismiss in the Morgan County, Alabama, Circuit Court, that he appeared before a Kentucky judge and signed a form waiving his right to any extradition proceedings. Hardy testified that he voluntarily signed the extradition waiver because he wanted to return to Alabama.
Even though Sergeant Fox did not arrest Hardy pursuant to a valid fugitive arrest warrant, his arrest of Hardy was valid under Kentucky law, specifically § 440.280, Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. (Michie 1985), the Kentucky counterpart of Alabama's § 15-9-41, Ala.Code 1975. Section 440.280, Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann., provides:
Likewise, § 15-9-41, Ala.Code 1975, provides:
The facts in the case before us show that Sergeant Fox, the Kentucky officer, arrested Hardy, although without a Kentucky warrant or a fugitive warrant, upon "reasonable information that [Hardy stood] charged in the courts of [Alabama] with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year." § 440.280, Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. (Michie 1985). Thus Sergeant Fox's arrest of Hardy was validly authorized by statute. See Ex parte Hamm, 564 So. 2d 469 (Ala.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1008, 111 S. Ct. 572, 112 L. Ed. 2d 579 (1990); § 440.280, Ky.Rev. Stat.Ann. (Michie 1985), and § 15-9-41, Ala.Code 1975. Further, Hardy's waiver of extradition and voluntary agreement to *307 return to Alabama operated not only to validate his return to Alabama but also to waive the requirement of the Kentucky statute for a formal complaint and further proceedings in the Kentucky courts. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 535 So. 2d 225, 228 (Ala.Crim.App.1988); and Davis v. State, 536 So. 2d 110, 114-16 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). Finally, "by [the service of the indictment], the [Alabama] court acquir[ed] jurisdiction of [Hardy's] case." Fields v. State, 121 Ala. 16, 17, 25 So. 726, 726 (1898). See also Ross v. State, 529 So. 2d 1074, 1078 (Ala.Crim.App.1988).
Hardy contends further that the trial court erred in overruling his objections to certain witnesses' identifying the videotape image of the gunman as Hardy. Part V of the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals addresses this issue of the circumstances that will justify a witness's identifying a person's image on a videotape. Hardy, 804 So. 2d  at 268-75. We expressly approve the splendid discussion of this issue by the Court of Criminal Appeals. These rulings by the trial court do not constitute reversible error.
Hardy argues that the prosecutor's jury argument prejudiced Hardy's defense by stating that the prosecutor had signed the indictment and by implying that the Grand Jury had returned the indictment. Hardy contends that the prosecutor's remarks implied that he had special knowledge of the case and a belief in the truth of the indictment itself. Hardy did not object to the prosecutor's remarks to this effect at trial. We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals to the extent that its rationale is that the trial court's jury instructions limiting the purposes for which the jurors could consider the indictment and the arguments of counsel prevented the prosecutor's remarks from putting the trial court itself into plain error. This Court has recently noted:
Ex parte Burgess, [Ms. 1980803, August 25, 2000] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.2000).
On the other hand, we do not agree that such remarks cannot prejudice a defendant. Any suggestion that a grand jury and a prosecutor have adversely judged the defendant's case to the extent of returning and signing an indictment against the defendant cannot improve the jurors' *308 impartiality or their respect for the defendant's presumption of innocence. While reading the indictment and explaining its function to the jury is a traditional and accepted practice, any statement or intimation that a grand jury returned the indictment or that the district attorney signed it is superfluous and potentially prejudicial. The truth of such a remark neither eliminates the prejudice nor supplies any relevance. A motion in limine to prevent such remarks followed by the remarks themselves, an apt objection by the defense, and an adverse ruling by the trial court could present this Court with an issue of substance in this regard.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has not erred to reversal in its treatment of any of the other issues argued by Hardy. Likewise, our search of the record reveals no plain error either argued or not argued. Moreover, we agree with the independent assessment by the Court of Criminal Appeals that the death penalty is appropriate in this case.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HOOPER, C.J., and HOUSTON, COOK, BROWN, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
MADDOX, SEE, and LYONS, JJ., concur in the result.