Ex parte Bohannon, 222 So. 3d 525

Background

Around 7:30 a.m. on Dec. 11, 2010, Bohannon pursued and shot two men (DuBoise and Harvey) after a confrontation in a nightclub parking lot; both victims died and surveillance video captured the events.
Bohannon was indicted on two counts of capital murder based on killing two or more persons by one act or pursuant to one scheme (Ala. Code § 13A-5-40(a)(10)).
A jury convicted Bohannon of capital murder; penalty-phase jury recommended death 11–1; the circuit court imposed death.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed one capital conviction, vacated the other for double-jeopardy error, and on remand affirmed the remaining death sentence; Bohannon sought certiorari.
This Court granted review on four issues: effect of Hurst v. Florida on the sentence, whether calling the jury’s penalty verdict “advisory” conflicts with Hurst, whether State cross‑examination of defense character witnesses was improper, and whether the court erred by not sua sponte instructing on victims’ intoxication.

Issues

Issue	Bohannon's Argument	State/Respondent Argument	Held
Whether Hurst requires vacatur of death sentence	Hurst requires jury, not judge, to make all critical findings (including that aggravators outweigh mitigators); Alabama scheme thus unconstitutional	Alabama jury already finds aggravating circumstance at guilt phase making defendant death‑eligible; weighing is non‑factual and may be performed by judge	Denied. Hurst/Ring require jury finding of aggravator(s) that make defendant death‑eligible; Alabama satisfied that requirement and weighing is not a jury‑fact requirement
Whether labeling jury’s penalty‑phase decision “advisory” conflicts with Hurst	Calling the jury’s penalty determination advisory renders it insufficient under Hurst	Advisory recommendation is permissible after the jury has already made the factual finding of an aggravator that makes defendant death‑eligible	Denied. Advisory recommendation language does not conflict with Hurst where jury has already found necessary aggravator
Whether plain error occurred when State questioned defense character witnesses about conduct shown on surveillance tape	Questions about Bohannon’s conduct undermined character evidence and prejudiced jury given centrality of state of mind	Questions concerned a tape already admitted and viewed by jury; cross‑examination probative and not plainly prejudicial	Denied. No plain error; jury saw the tape and could assess state of mind independently
Whether court plainly erred by failing sua sponte to instruct on victims’ intoxication (self‑defense inference)	Victims’ intoxication could support self‑defense inference; instruction should have been given sua sponte	Evidence of intoxication was presented and argued; jury was instructed to consider all evidence; no presumption of prejudice requiring sua sponte instruction	Denied. Not plain error; evidence and argument allowed jury to consider intoxication without special sua sponte instruction

Key Cases Cited

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact that increases the penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (Sixth Amendment requires jury finding of aggravating circumstance necessary for death eligibility)
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (Florida scheme unconstitutional because judge, not jury, made the findings necessary to impose death)
Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So.2d 1181 (Ala. 2002) (Alabama holding that jury verdict establishing an aggravator at guilt phase satisfies Ring; weighing is non‑factual)
Ex parte McNabb, 887 So.2d 998 (Ala. 2004) (reaffirming requirement that jury, not judge, must find at least one aggravator for death eligibility)
Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967 (1994) (sentencer may consider myriad factors; no specific method for weighing required)
Harris v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 (1995) (Constitution does not require a particular method or specific weight for balancing aggravating and mitigating factors)