Ex parte State
223 So. 3d 954
Ala. Crim. App.2016Background
- Four defendants (Billups, Chatman, McMullin, Acton) indicted for capital murder; each moved to bar the State from seeking death and to declare Alabama’s capital-sentencing scheme unconstitutional in light of Hurst v. Florida.
- Jefferson Circuit Court consolidated the motions and entered an order declaring Alabama’s capital-sentencing scheme unconstitutional and barring the State from seeking the death penalty.
- The State sought mandamus from the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate the circuit court’s order and restore the State’s ability to seek death sentences.
- The issues: whether mandamus was proper and whether Alabama’s statutory death-penalty procedure violates the Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Apprendi, Ring, and Hurst.
- The appellate court concluded mandamus was appropriate given the absence of an appeal under the cited statutory provision and the extraordinary disruption the circuit court’s order caused; it held Alabama’s scheme constitutional as applied and directed the lower court to set aside its order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper remedy to review the circuit court order | State: mandamus appropriate because no statutory appeal and order causes extraordinary disruption | Respondents: State could appeal under § 12-22-91 | Court: mandamus proper—§ 12-22-91 did not apply because the lower court invalidated sentencing procedures, not the indictment statute; mandamus warranted to prevent gross disruption |
| Whether Hurst invalidates Alabama’s capital scheme | Respondents: Hurst requires jury, not judge, to make findings necessary to impose death; Alabama’s judge-made findings make scheme unconstitutional | State: Alabama already requires jury findings of aggravating circumstances (guilt or penalty phase); statute construed by Alabama caselaw satisfies Ring/Hurst | Court: Alabama scheme constitutional—jury (not judge) must unanimously find at least one aggravating circumstance before defendant is eligible for death; court’s order was erroneous |
| Effect of jury advisory verdicts in Alabama (unanimity and binding effect) | Respondents: advisory jury verdicts and judge findings combine to make eligibility judge-dependent | State: Alabama requires unanimity on aggravating circumstances and, when overlap exists, the jury’s guilt verdict can supply the required factual finding | Court: Jury must unanimously find aggravating circumstance; in overlap cases that finding occurs at guilt phase; advisory recommendations can be nonunanimous so long as the unanimity requirement on the aggravating fact was met |
| Scope of trial-court factfinding after jury eligibility finding | Respondents: Trial-court findings on aggravators/weighting improperly increase punishment by judge factfinding | State: Trial court may make discretionary sentencing findings once jury has established eligibility; additional judge findings guide sentencing and appellate review | Court: Once jury unanimously finds an aggravator (making defendant eligible), the judge may exercise discretion and make findings for sentencing—this does not violate Apprendi/Ring/Hurst |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury beyond reasonable doubt)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (aggravating-fact necessary for death eligibility must be found by a jury)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (applied Ring to Florida; struck scheme that made judge the finding necessary to authorize death)
- Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So.2d 1181 (Ala. 2002) (Alabama Supreme Court construing statute to require jury finding of aggravator)
- Ex parte McGriff, 908 So.2d 1024 (Ala. 2004) (endorsing special verdict forms and unanimity instructions in non-overlap cases to show jury found aggravator)
- Ex parte Nice, 407 So.2d 874 (Ala. 1981) (mandamus available to supervise lower courts in criminal matters)