Title: Ex Parte Taylor
Citation: 666 So. 2d 73
Docket Number: 1940151
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 5, 1995

666 So. 2d 73 (1995)
Ex parte Michael Shannon TAYLOR.
(In re Michael Shannon Taylor v. State).
1940151.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 5, 1995.
Rehearing Denied July 21, 1995.
Certiorari Denied February 20, 1996.
*75 Ellen R. Finn and Bryan A. Stevenson, Montgomery, Charles C. Hart, Gadsden, for petitioner.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Jean A. Therkelsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Certiorari Denied February 20, 1996. See 116 S. Ct. 928.
BUTTS, Justice.
Michael Shannon Taylor was convicted of the capital murders of Ivan Moore and his wife Lucille, and the trial judge sentenced him to death following the jury's recommendation of that sentence. We affirm both the convictions and his death sentence.
On November 4, 1991, Taylor, then a 19-year-old high school graduate who had returned to his hometown of Gadsden while absent without leave from the Navy, solicited a ride to the home of the Moores, an elderly couple he knew. Taylor left a duffel bag outside the house and asked Mr. Moore, who was age 83, if he could use the telephone. Once inside, Taylor pretended to make a telephone call, and then Mr. Moore asked him if he would like something to drink. Taylor said he would, and Mr. Moore got him a glass of water and a doughnut. After Taylor had eaten, Mr. Moore asked him if he would like something else. Taylor said he would, and Mr. Moore went back into the kitchen.
Taylor then went outside and removed a metal bar from his duffel bag. Taylor followed Mr. Moore into the kitchen, and, as the man bent into the refrigerator, Taylor began to strike him about the head with the metal bar. Mr. Moore fell to the floor. Mrs. Moore, who was age 79, entered the kitchen and bent down to see what was wrong with her husband. Taylor then struck her repeatedly about the head with the metal bar. As Mr. Moore attempted to crawl away and get up, Taylor again struck him with the bar. Taylor then took Mr. Moore's wallet, Mrs. Moore's purse, their checkbook, and their 1986 Cadillac automobile. He drove to Birmingham, cashed several checks made out to his name for a total of about $1500, and made several clothing and jewelry purchases at the Galleria shopping mall.
The Moores were discovered in their home by a neighbor two days after their beating. Mr. Moore was dead at that time; Mrs. Moore was then unconscious, but later died. The cause of both their deaths was severe blunt force injuries to their heads, which had fractured their skulls. Mr. Moore had been struck with the bar approximately 17 times and had 11 wounds on his head; Mrs. Moore had been struck with the bar at least 10 times.
Taylor was arrested outside the Galleria shopping mall, after he had entered the *76 Moores' vehicle and attempted to drive away. Upon being returned to Gadsden, Taylor confessed to beating the Moores during the course of a robbery. It is disputed whether he stated, while giving his confession, that he had intended to kill the Moores.
Taylor was indicted on two counts of murder committed during a robbery in the first degree, made capital by Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(2), and on one count of murder of two or more persons during one act or course of conduct, made capital by § 13A-5-40(a)(10). The jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts and unanimously recommended the death sentence. The trial judge imposed the recommended sentence.
Taylor appealed his convictions and sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeals, raising more than 25 issues. After remanding for the trial court to make specific written findings regarding each aggravating and mitigating factor, as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-47(d), see Taylor v. State, 666 So. 2d 36 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence in Taylor v. State, 666 So. 2d 71 (Ala. Crim.App.1994). Because of Taylor's death sentence, we automatically granted his petition for a writ of certiorari to review his convictions and sentence. Rule 39(c), A.R.App.P.
Taylor has raised 25 issues for our review; all were raised on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals and were discussed in that court's lengthy opinion. We have thoroughly reviewed all those issues. We also have carefully reviewed the record for "plain error," in accordance with Rule 39(k), Ala. R.App.P., and we have found none. We discuss here only the three issues that Taylor's counsel specifically addressed on oral argument before this Court. As to the other issues raised by Taylor, we find no error in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Taylor contends that he should receive a new trial, because, he claims, his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated when the trial judge failed to strike for cause three prospective jurors that Taylor claimed were fixed in their opinion that death would be the only appropriate sentence if he were found guilty. Taylor also claims that one of the three prospective jurors should have been struck for another cause, claiming that that prospective juror viewed Taylor's young age, a statutory mitigating factor, as an aggravating factor in determining the appropriate sentence. Taylor argues that because he was forced to use preemptory strikes to remove these prospective jurors from the jury, he was not able to freely strike a jury from a body of impartial prospective jurors, and that this situation violated the requirements of Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 112 S. Ct. 2222, 119 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1992); Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 105 S. Ct. 844, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841 (1985); and Ex parte Beam, 512 So. 2d 723 (Ala.1987).
In response, the State contends that these three prospective jurors were impartial and did not have a fixed opinion regarding death as the proper sentence in this case, but, rather, only stated that they thought death would be the appropriate sentence, given the hypothetical facts provided to them by defense counsel on voir dire examination. The State argues that the trial court was not required to strike these prospective jurors for cause, because each of them stated that he would be able to render a verdict based on the evidence presented and would consider any mitigating factors. Citing Thomas v. State, 539 So. 2d 375 (Ala.Crim.App.), affirmed, 539 So. 2d 399 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 3201, 105 L. Ed. 2d 709 (1989), the State notes that under Alabama law, a trial court's ruling on challenges for cause will be accorded great weight and will not disturbed on appeal unless shown to be an abuse of discretion, which, the State says, Taylor has not shown.
In reviewing this issue, we first keep in mind that "[n]o right of an accused felon is more basic than the right to `strike' a petit jury from a panel of fair-minded, impartial prospective jurors." Ex parte Beam, 512 So. 2d  at 724. In Morgan, the United States Supreme Court held that a capital murder defendant has the constitutional right to conduct voir dire examination of prospective jurors *77 to inquire whether they "would unwaveringly impose death after a finding of guilt." 504 U.S.  at 732, 112 S. Ct.  at 2232. The trial judge allowed Taylor such an opportunity, and he acted upon it; Taylor's counsel extensively questioned the prospective jurors regarding their views on sentencing. Thus, the focus here is on the specific statements made by the three prospective jurors in response to that questioning. We must determine whether the views expressed by those prospective jurors required that they be struck for cause.
As to whether the three prospective jurors were impermissibly biased in favor of the death penalty, we note that the applicable standard was explained by the United States Supreme Court in Morgan:
504 U.S.  at 727-31, 112 S. Ct.  at 2229-30 (emphasis added). Under that standard, a prospective juror is disqualified if he is so biased in favor of the death penalty that he would automatically vote to impose it in every case, regardless of the evidence presented and the trial court's instructions to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors.[1]
The record shows that the following colloquy occurred during voir dire examination of the panel of prospective jurors of which prospective juror Mr. Nance was a member:
Under Alabama's capital murder sentencing statute, the jury is required to weigh both the aggravating and the mitigating factors that have been proved during the penalty phase of the trial. The weighing of these factors is "a process by which circumstances relevant to sentence are marshalled and considered in an organized fashion for the purpose of determining whether the proper sentence in view of all the relevant circumstances in an individual case is life imprisonment without parole or death." Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-5-48. The possible aggravating factors are limited to those listed in § 13A-5-49. Mitigating factors are listed in § 13A-5-51, but that list is not exclusive. A juror is not required to give a set weight to any particular factor, and one aggravating factor may outweigh several mitigating factors and vice versa. See Magwood v. State, 548 So. 2d 512 (Ala.Crim.App.), affirmed, 548 So. 2d 516 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 923, 110 S. Ct. 291, 107 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1989). However, a juror may not arbitrarily ignore any applicable mitigating or aggravating factor. See Whisenhant v. State, 482 So. 2d 1225 (Ala.Crim.App.1982), affirmed in part and remanded, 482 So. 2d 1241 (Ala.1985).
We must first decide whether juror Nance, juror Maise, or juror C. Lasseter was so biased in favor of the death penalty that he could not impartially perform the duties of a juror in rendering an advisory sentence, as described above. As to this issue, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded:
Taylor, 666 So. 2d  at 47 (emphasis original).
We agree with that conclusion. Taylor's counsel provided each panel of prospective jurors with an exhaustive description of the murders, describing photographs they would be shown of the murder scene as "gory," "bloody," and "gruesome." Defense counsel then described Taylor and his family background. Instructing the prospective jurors to assume that the facts just provided to them were true and that Taylor was guilty of the murders, his counsel then asked them whether they would consider the mitigating factors of Taylor's youth and lack of prior criminal history in determining their recommended punishment. Each of the prospective jurors that Taylor argues should have been struck for cause repeatedly stated that he would consider the mitigating evidence. What Taylor now takes issue with is that the three went further and stated that, based on the facts Taylor's counsel had instructed them to assume were true, they had considered the mitigating factors and, given the nature of the murders, had accorded the mitigating factors little or no weight and believed death to be the appropriate sentence.
We believe Taylor's counsel went a step beyond questioning whether prospective jurors Nance, Maise, and C. Lasseter would automatically vote for the death penalty in every case, as was recognized in Morgan as one of a defendant's due process rights. In effect, defense counsel forced prospective jurors to make an immediate decision on Taylor's sentencing based solely on the facts presented during voir dire. We find it quite telling that upon continued questioning by defense counsel, prospective juror Maise stated, "You're asking me to make a judgment now or asking all of us to make a judgment now." (Emphasis added.)
*82 Thus, rather than simply attempting to identify those jurors who were not impartial and who would vote for the death penalty in every case regardless of the facts, Taylor's counsel sought to identify any prospective juror who would vote for death under the facts of this particular case and then to eliminate that prospective juror by using strikes for cause. The due process protections recognized in Morgan do not extend that far. Accordingly, we conclude that Nance, Maise, and C. Lasseter were impartial prospective jurors who would not automatically vote for the death penalty in every case. The trial court did not err in refusing to strike them for cause on that basis.
Taylor also asserts another basis for arguing that prospective juror Nance should have been struck for cause. Taylor claims that on voir dire Nance revealed that he viewed Taylor's young age as a aggravating factor rather than as a mitigating factor, in direct violation of Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-51(7).
It is true that prospective juror Nance stated during voir dire that he believed there was no life to be lived in prison and that it would be in Taylor's best interest for him to be sentenced to death rather than to spend the rest of a natural life in prison. However, "`the test to be applied is whether the juror can set aside [his or] her opinions and try the case fairly and impartially, according to the law and evidence.'" Hunter v. State, 585 So. 2d 220, 222 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), quoting Knop v. McCain, 561 So. 2d 229, 232 (Ala.1989). Moreover, the statement cannot be viewed in isolation; in reviewing a trial court's decision on a challenge for cause, this Court must review the voir dire questions and answers as a whole. Morrison v. State, 601 So. 2d 165 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992); Hunter, supra.
"The qualification of prospective jurors rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge." Morrison, 601 So. 2d  at 168. A trial judge's ruling on a challenge for cause is accorded great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous and represents an abuse of discretion. Morrison, supra; Hunter, supra. After examining the entire record of the voir dire as it involved prospective juror Nance, we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to strike Nance for cause. As a whole, the record reflects that Nance indicated he was willing to follow the law and the instructions given to him by the trial judge. Accordingly, there was no reversible error in the trial judge's refusal to strike prospective juror Nance for cause.
Taylor argues that his conviction should be reversed because, he says, both the prosecutor and the trial judge improperly defined "reasonable doubt" to the jurors when they described the State's burden of proof. He argues that it was improper for the prosecutor to tell the jury that for a juror to have a reasonable doubt, the reason attached to the juror's doubt must be a "good" reason. He also argues that the prosecutor improperly told the jury that it was the State's burden to prove Taylor guilty to a "moral certainty," and that, in essence, that instruction had the same effect as if the prosecutor had told the jurors to follow their individual moral codes rather than the law. In sum, Taylor argues that the trial court committed reversible error by not curing statements made by the prosecutor regarding reasonable doubt that Taylor says were improper and committed further reversible error by repeating a definition of "reasonable doubt" that Taylor claims violated the holding of Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 111 S. Ct. 328, 112 L. Ed. 2d 339 (1990).
In response, the State first argues that the prosecutor's comments regarding reasonable doubt were not improper. The State also argues that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the State's burden of proof and on the meaning of "reasonable doubt" and that its instruction did not include any of the improper language condemned by the United States Supreme Court in Cage.
Taylor correctly asserts that while explaining the State's burden of proof to each of the panels of prospective jurors, the prosecutor *83 said that reasonable doubt is a doubt for which one can give a good reason. For example, he told one of the panels:
(Emphasis added.) Taylor did not object to these statements, or to any others regarding the meaning of "reasonable doubt" that were made to prospective jurors during voir dire.
The prosecutor also further defined the State's burden of proof to the jury during closing arguments in the guilt phase of the trial:
(Emphasis added.) Taylor also failed to object to these statements.
We note that following the attorneys' closing arguments, but before charging the jury on the law, the trial judge clearly instructed the jury that statements made by the attorneys were not evidence or law and that any such statements should be disregarded if they were "not supported by the evidence or by the law as given to you by the court." The trial judge then proceeded to charge the jury on the law, including an instruction on the State's burden of proof. The portions of *84 that jury instruction most relevant to Taylor's claim of error are as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
As noted previously, Taylor failed to object during trial to any of the prosecutor's statements regarding the meaning of "reasonable doubt." He also failed to make a sufficient objection to the trial judge's jury instruction. Defense counsel objected only on the basis that the trial court's jury charges had not come from an approved book of charges. Defense counsel made no specific objection to the reasonable doubt charge, and counsel's general objection was insufficient to preserve for review the alleged error now complained of. Reuther v. City of Leeds, 599 So. 2d 1246 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Hagood v. State, 588 So. 2d 526 (Ala.Crim. App.), cert. denied, Martin v. Alabama, 504 U.S. 911, 112 S. Ct. 1943, 118 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1992). Thus, Taylor has raised this issue for the first time on appeal; therefore, it can be reviewed only under the "plain error" rule. Rule 39(k), Ala.R.App.P. Plain error is error that "has or probably has adversely affected the substantial rights of the petitioner." Id. "In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be `used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice *85 would otherwise result. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S. Ct. 1038, 1046, 84 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163, n. 14, 102 S. Ct. 1584, 1592, n. 14, 71 L. Ed. 2d 816 (1982).
In Cage, the United States Supreme Court condemned a jury instruction in a first-degree murder trial that equated reasonable doubt with "such doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty," an "actual substantial doubt," and a doubt believed to a "moral certainty." 498 U.S.  at 40, 111 S. Ct.  at 329 (emphasis original). The Supreme Court held:
498 U.S.  at 41, 111 S. Ct.  at 329 (emphasis added).
In this case, neither the prosecutor nor the trial judge used the term "actual substantial doubt" or "grave uncertainty" in explaining the reasonable doubt standard. The use of those terms by the trial court in Cage was the major flaw in that court's jury charge. See Gaskins v. McKellar, 500 U.S. 961, 111 S. Ct. 2277, 114 L. Ed. 2d 728 (1991) (Justice Stevens, concurring specially). Thus, the prosecutor's comments and the trial judge's jury charge in this case are clearly distinguishable from the charge that was condemned in Cage. Even though the prosecutor and the trial judge equated the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" with "to a moral certainty"terms this Court has previously noted are not exactly synonymous, Ex parte McWilliams, 640 So. 2d 1015 (Ala.1993)we conclude that neither the prosecutor's comments nor the jury charge violates Cage and that they do not suggest a finding of guilt based on a burden of proof lower than that required by constitutional due process protections.
This Court has previously reviewed similar jury instructions regarding the meaning of "reasonable doubt," without finding reversible error. See Ex parte McWilliams, supra; Ex parte Adkins, 600 So. 2d 1067 (Ala.1992); Ex parte Beavers, 598 So. 2d 1320 (Ala.1992). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court recently noted that although it does not condone the use of the words "moral certainty" in a jury charge, it found no reversible error in the trial judge's use of that phrase. Victor v. Nebraska, ___ U.S.___, 114 S. Ct. 1239, 127 L. Ed. 2d 583 (1994). It is clear that neither the prosecutor's comments nor the trial court's jury charge in this case was plain error.
Taylor contends that his death sentence should be vacated because, he says, the prosecutor and the trial judge made statements to the jury that undermined the importance of its role in sentencing, in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi 472 U.S. 320, 105 S. Ct. 2633, 86 L. Ed. 2d 231 (1985). He argues that the prosecutor made improper statements to each group of prospective jurors during voir dire and to the jury during the penalty phase of trial. Taylor argues that the trial judge committed reversible error when, Taylor claims, he failed to instruct the jurors on the crucial importance of their role in sentencing.
The State responds by arguing that Taylor's objection on this issue, which was made by motion in limine before closing arguments in the penalty phase, and which was overruled by the trial judge, did not preserve for review any error relating to comments made before that point in the trial (such as errors made during voir dire or during the opening remarks of the penalty phase) and, thus, that this Court must review Taylor's argument primarily via the plain error standard. The State further contends that the prosecutor's comments and the judge's instruction regarding the jury's role in sentencing were correct statements of Alabama law. Thus, the State *86 argues that the statements were not error, plain or otherwise.
Taylor is correct in saying that during voir dire the prosecutor repeatedly told each panel of prospective jurors that the jury's verdict on sentencing was only a recommendation and that the ultimate decision belonged to the trial judge. Taylor did not object to any of those statements. The prosecutor also made similar statements to the jury in opening remarks at the penalty phase of the trial:
(Emphasis added). In its opinion in this case, the Court of Criminal Appeals condemned the statement of the prosecutor that is emphasized immediately above. Taylor, 666 So. 2d  at 49. However, Taylor's defense counsel did not object to it.
As noted previously, defense counsel filed a motion in limine just before closing arguments in the penalty phase of trial, seeking to prevent the prosecution from "reminding [the jury] over and over again that their verdict is a recommendation only," because, counsel said, such comments would "reduce their importance of being jurors in this phase as far as recommending a sentence." The trial judge denied the defense motion. Thereafter, in his first remarks to the jury during closing arguments, the prosecutor emphasized the importance of the jury's role in the sentencing process:
Defense counsel then made his final argument to the jury regarding sentencing and concluded by saying that if it recommended that Taylor be sentenced to death, then it would also be sentencing Taylor's mother to death:
(Emphasis added.) That comment was immediately referred to by the prosecutor in his rebuttal argument:
(Emphasis added). This statement just quoted regarding the jury's role in sentencing is the only statement made by the prosecutor on that subject that followed Taylor's objection by motion in limine regarding that subject.
We must determine whether the statement of the prosecutor and the trial judge indicating to the jury that it would only render "an advisory verdict" or "a recommended sentence" require Taylor's death sentence to be vacated. Taylor claims that the statements misled the jury as to the importance of its role in sentencing, in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S. Ct. 2633, 86 L. Ed. 2d 231 (1985). In Caldwell, the United States Supreme Court stated that "it is constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere." 472 U.S.  at 328-29, 105 S. Ct.  at 2639-40.
Because Taylor failed to object to the prosecutor's remarks, made during voir dire and during his opening statement at the penalty phase of trial, and to the trial judge's instructions, we review those statements under the plain error standard. Rule 39(k), Ala.R.App.P. First, we find no conflict between the prosecutor's statements and the trial judge's instructions regarding the jury's role in sentencing (as that of offering only a recommended or advisory verdict) and Alabama lawthat is the jury's role under Alabama's unique capital sentencing scheme. Under Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-46, the jury's role in sentencing in a capital case is to render an advisory verdict recommending a sentence to the trial judge. It is the trial judge who ultimately decides the capital defendant's sentence, and, "[w]hile the jury's recommendation concerning sentence shall be given consideration, it is not binding upon the courts." § 13A-5-47 (emphasis added).
Even though we find no error with regard to the prosecutor's statements regarding the jury's role in sentencing, we note *88 that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury that statements made by the attorneys were not evidence and were not law and that those statements should be disregarded if they were "not supported by the evidence or by the law as given to you by the court." We also find no error in the trial judge's instructions to the jury on its role in sentencing. It is well established that "the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the trial court accurately informing the jury of the extent of its sentencing authority and that its sentence verdict was `advisory" and a `recommendation' and that the trial court would make the final decision as to sentence does not violate Caldwell." Martin v. State, 548 So. 2d 488, 494 (Ala.Crim.App.), affirmed, 548 So. 2d 496 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970, 110 S. Ct. 419, 107 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1989). See White v. State, 587 So. 2d 1218 (Ala.Crim. App.1990), affirmed, 587 So. 2d 1236 (Ala. 1991); cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076, 112 S. Ct. 979, 117 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1992); Kuenzel v. State, 577 So. 2d 474 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affirmed, 577 So. 2d 531 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886, 112 S. Ct. 242, 116 L. Ed. 2d 197 (1991). In sum, we find no error, plain or otherwise, in the comments of the prosecutor, or in those of the trial judge, regarding the jury's role in sentencing in a capital murder trial.
Although Taylor does not argue that Alabama's capital sentencing scheme is unconstitutional, we note that this issue was recently addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Harris v. Alabama, ___ U.S.___, 115 S. Ct. 1031, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1004 (1995). In Harris, the petitioner sought a mandate from the Supreme Court stating that the United States Constitution requires Alabama trial judges to give "great weight" to the jury's advisory verdict. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Alabama's death penalty sentencing scheme, which does not prescribe the weight the trial judge is to give the jury's verdict, is not unconstitutional. The Court stated: "The Constitution permits the trial judge, acting alone, to impose a capital sentence. It is thus not offended when a State further requires the sentencing judge to consider a jury's recommendation and trusts the judge to give it the proper weight." ___U.S. at___, 115 S. Ct.  at 1037.
Finally, we must review the final comments the prosecutor made to the jury during the penalty phase of the trial, in which he told the jurors they were "not going to kill anybody." Taylor claims that the prosecutor's comment misled the jurors regarding the importance of their responsibility in rendering an advisory verdict. This statement by the prosecutor was the only one to which Taylor's objection by motion in limine, made before closing arguments, would apply. We conclude, however, that the prosecutor's comment was a fair response to defense counsel's statement made immediately before, by which defense counsel argued to the jury that a recommendation of death would kill both Michael Taylor and his mother. "[A] prosecutor has the right to `reply in kind' to statements made by defense counsel in the defense's closing argument." Ex parte Musgrove, 638 So. 2d 1360, 1369 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, Rogers v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 136, 130 L. Ed. 2d 78 (1994). The prosecutor's remark was not reversible error.
As noted previously, this Court has reviewed the record and the briefs, has considered the arguments made before the Court on oral argument, and has examined the determinations of the Court of Criminal Appeals in relation to all of the issues raised by Taylor. This Court has also thoroughly examined the record for plain error, but has found none. We conclude that the Court of Criminals Appeals committed no error in affirming Taylor's convictions and sentence. Moreover, we find that the record contains overwhelming evidence of Taylor's guilt. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the defendant's convictions and death sentence is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, HOUSTON, and COOK, JJ., concur.
[1]  The Supreme Court further explained that standard by stating that "the belief that death should be imposed ipso facto upon conviction of a capital offense reflects directly on that individual's inability to follow the law. Any juror who would impose death regardless of the facts and circumstances of conviction cannot follow the dictates of law." (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) Morgan, 504 U.S.  at 735, 112 S. Ct.  at 2233.