Opinion ID: 1129388
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trial Court's Override of the Jury's Recommendation of Life Imprisonment Without Parole

Text: In Ex parte Carroll, 852 So.2d 833, 836 (Ala.2002), we stated: [A jury's recommendation of life imprisonment without parole] is to be treated as a mitigating circumstance. The weight to be given that mitigating circumstance should depend upon the number of jurors recommending a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, and also upon the strength of the factual basis for such a recommendation in the form of information known to the jury, such as conflicting evidence concerning the identity of the `triggerman' or a recommendation of leniency by the victim's family; the jury's recommendation may be overridden based upon information known only to the trial court and not to the jury, when such information can properly be used to undermine a mitigating circumstance. Regarding the weight given the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment without parole, in its sentencing order the trial court stated: This Court, as is required by law, gives great deference to the jury's advisory verdict. This deference, however, does not preclude this Court from recognizing its duty to independently weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances as is required by law. The Court finds that the aggravating circumstances in this case far outweigh the mitigating circumstances and the punishment should be death. This explanation fails to allow the defendant the benefit of having the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment without parole treated as a mitigating factor as required by Ex parte Carroll. [9] We reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case for that court to remand the case to the trial court for the entry of a new sentencing order. As we held in Carroll, the weight to be given the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment without parole as a mitigating circumstance should depend upon the number of jurors recommending that sentence and also upon the strength of the factual basis for such a recommendation in the form of information known to the jury, such as the conflicting evidence concerning Martin's alleged confession to his fellow inmate and the probable cross-contamination of Martin's clothing. As we noted in Carroll, the jury's recommendation may be overridden based upon information known only to the trial court and not to the jury, when such information can properly be used to undermine a mitigating circumstance. 852 So.2d at 836.