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 those portions of the main opinion dealing with the delay in sentencing and the juror misconduct. However, with regard to that portion of the opinion which holds that a trial judge's statutory right to override a jury's recommendation is constitutional under Article I, § 11, of the Ala. Const. of 1901, I concur in the result. As the main opinion states: "This Court has indicated that the constitutional *Page 875
right to trial by jury does not encompass assessing punishment in capital cases, Ex parte Jackson , 672 So.2d 810 (Ala. 1995) (Houston, J., concurring in the result); Ex parte Giles , 632 So.2d 522 (Ala. 1993)." 809 So.2d at 873. Today's opinion is consistent with those precedents and, therefore, any discussion of Smith v. Schulte , 671 So.2d 1334 (Ala. 1995) and Henderson v. Alabama Power Co ., 627 So.2d 878 (Ala. 1993), is unnecessary.
Harwood, J., concurs.