Court Opinion

ID: 9673657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:16:09.962475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:23.379264
License: Public Domain

MADDOX, Justice.
Petitioner, Samuel Lee Brown, was convicted of murder and was sentenced to die by electrocution. The Court of Criminal Appeals initially held that sentence of death could not be carried out because Kil*685by Prison, the place designated by statute in which the execution was to be made, had been torn down and a new prison built. The Court modified the sentence of death to one of life imprisonment and affirmed the judgment. Brown v. State, 1971, 6 Div. 128, 48 Ala.App. 304, 264 So. 2d 529.
This Court reversed. Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Attorney General (In Re Brown v. State of Alabama) 6 Div. 858, 1971, 288 Ala. 680, 264 So.2d 549.
After remandment, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court without an opinion.
Brown subsequently petitioned this Court for certiorari and the writ was granted. Briefs .were filed and the cause was argued’ and submitted. Brown argues substantially two points: (1) that the jury should not have been asked whether they had personal conscientious or religious scruples against the imposition of the death penalty, and (2) a photograph of the deceased in the morgue was so prejudicial that it was inadmissible.
Petitioner argues that he was entitled to have a jury picked from a cross section of the community and that the State should not have been permitted to ask any question concerning a juror’s attitude about capital punishment except a question which would elicit information which would constitute a ground of challenge for cause under Witherspoon v. State of Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). As we understand petitioner’s argument, he would have us follow the rationale of the dissenting opinion in Witherspoon, supra. This we do not think is constitutionally required. .Therefore, there is no merit in this argument.
• Petitioner’s other principal argument is that a picture - of the deceased which was admitted in evidence was so prejudicial that a reversal should result. We disagree. We have looked at the picture of the deceased and since it clearly shows what appears to be a bullet hole in the head of the deceased, there was no error in its admission. 6 Ala. Digest,- Criminal Law, ^438.
The Judgment of the Court of Criminal-Appeals of November 9, 1971 affirming, without opinion, the judgment of the trial court, is due to be affirmed.
Affirmed.
LAWSON, MERRILL, COLEMAN, HARWOOD, BLOODWORTH and McCALL, JJ., concur.
PIEFLIN, C. J., dissents.