observing that even before the ratification of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, “in cases involving egregious conduct, discretionary awards of punitive damages by juries were subject to post-judgment review by the courts under an abuse of discretion standard”
How later courts described this case
- observing that even before the ratification of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, “in cases involving egregious conduct, discretionary awards of punitive damages by juries were subject to post-judgment review by the courts under an abuse of discretion standard”
- 'It is clear, then, that the question whether the jury's decision might have been affected is answered not by a bare showing of juror misconduct, but rather by an examination of the circumstances particular to the case.' (Emphasis [on 'might'] original.)
- a plurality agreed that "[t]o the extent they held that § 11 restricted the Legislature from removing from the jury the unbridled right to punish, Henderson and [Smith v.] Schulte[, 671 So.2d 1334 (Ala.1995),][2] were wrongly decided."
- abrogated on other grounds by the United States Supreme Court in Betterman v. Montana , 578 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1609 , 194 L.Ed.2d 723 (2016)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by Betterman v. Montana, 136 S. Ct. 1609 (2016)
In Apicella v. State, 809 So.2d 865 (Ala. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by the United States Supreme Court in Betterman v. Montana, --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1609, 194 L.Ed.2d 723 (2016), before the jury began deliberations, a juror spoke with an attorney with whom he was acquainted.
The opinion
I concur in Part I, dealing with the speedy-trial issue, and in Part II, dealing wit the juror-misconduct issue. As to Part III, dealing with the jury-override issue, I concur in the result.
I endorse the analysis in Crowe v. State , 485 So.2d 351 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984), rev'd on other grounds , 485 So.2d 373 (Ala. 1985), cert. denied , 477 U.S. 909 (1986) (the § 11 preservation of the right to trial by jury is a preservation of that right as it existed at the time of the enactment of Alabama's first constitution). Because the jury had no role in sentencing until 1841, after the ratification of our first constitution in 1819, our jury-override statute does not violate § 11, Ala. Const. 1901. Moreover, if we followed Smith v. Schulte , 671 So.2d 1334 (Ala. 1995), cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1220 (1996), and Henderson v. Alabama Power Co ., 627 So.2d 878 (Ala. 1993), and gave primacy to the jury in matters dealing with punishment, then we would perhaps be reverting to a system that would violate the United States Constitution. See Furman v. Georgia , 408 U.S. 238 (1972), and Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153 (1976).