Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/supreme-court/2000/1971109-1.html
Timestamp: 2019-08-25 18:20:53
Document Index: 749052678

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13']

Ex Parte Hyde :: 2000 :: Supreme Court of Alabama Decisions :: Alabama Case Law :: Alabama Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Alabama Case Law › Supreme Court of Alabama Decisions › 2000 › Ex Parte Hyde
778 So. 2d 237 (2000)
Ex parte James Matthew HYDE. (Re James Matthew Hyde v. State).
1971109.
*238 Terry Huffstutler, Guntersville; and Ruth E. Friedman, Montgomery, for petitioner.
James Matthew Hyde was convicted of capital murder for the death of Ernest Andrew Whitten, an Albertville police officer. The murder was made capital (1) because it occurred during a burglary, see § 13A-5-40(a)(4), Ala.Code 1975; (2) because Whitten had served as a grand-jury witness, see § 13A-5-40(a)(14); and (3) because Whitten had been subpoenaed to testify at the trial of Larry Whitehead, see § 13A-5-40(a)(14).[1] By a vote of 7 to 5, the jury recommended a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole; however, the trial court overrode that recommendation and sentenced Hyde to death by electrocution. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Hyde's conviction and the sentence of death. Hyde v. State, 778 So. 2d 199 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). This Court granted Hyde's petition for the writ of certiorari, pursuant to Rule 39(c), Ala. R.App. P., and heard oral argument. We affirm.
On the night of the shooting, Hyde asked Tammy Chamblee and Sabrina Self to help him dispose of the clothes he had been wearing at the time of the shooting. The next day Tammy Chamblee contacted the police and told them about helping Hyde dispose of the clothes. According to *239 Chamblee and Self, Hyde told them he had shot someone to help a friend. Chamblee stated that Hyde told her he had shot "Andy Whitten, a cop."
Hyde has raised 24 issues, including numerous subissues, for this Court to review. The opinion of the Court of Criminals Appeals thoroughly addressed all of these issues and the facts of the case.[2]
Because this case involves the death penalty, we have reviewed the record for any "error [that] has or probably has adversely affected the substantial rights" of the defendant. Rule 39(k), Ala.R.App.P. Having carefully considered the record, together with the petition, the briefs, and the arguments of counsel, we find no error, plain or otherwise, in either the guilt phase or the penalty phase of Hyde's trial that would warrant reversal. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
[1] Hyde was originally indicted on four counts, including an additional count alleging the capital murder of a law-enforcement officer. See § 13A-5-40(a)(5), Ala.Code 1975. The State later dropped that charge.
[2] We reject the alternative theory stated by the Court of Criminal Appeals that "the entry of the bullet into the house constituted an entry under the burglary statute," 778 So. 2d at 212, and we reject the rationale of that court in this regard. In requiring an entry, the burglary statute requires an entry by some part of the defendant's body or the body of someone acting in complicity with the defendant. § 13A-7-5(a), Ala.Code 1975.
The theory that the entry by the bullet satisfies the element of entry would render entirely superfluous § 13A-11-61, Ala.Code 1975, specifically condemning shooting into dwellings, because under that theory every shooting into a dwelling would constitute a burglary. Rather, because § 13A-11-61 specifically condemns shooting into a dwelling and does not include any element of physical entry by the defendant himself or herself, this Code section, rather than those statutes defining burglary, govern Hyde's conduct under the rule of statutory construction known as expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
The Court of Criminal Appeals should have restricted the rationale for its affirmance to the evidence of record, which supports the conclusion that the defendant did, in fact, bodily enter the victim's dwelling to shoot him. The alternative holdingthat the entry by the bullet satisfied the "entry" element of the burglary statuteis bad and unnecessary law. It abandons the fundamental rule that criminal statutes are construed strictly against the State. See Ex parte Jackson, 614 So. 2d 405 (Ala.1993).