Directed by the U.S. Supreme Court to recon­sid­er its rul­ings uphold­ing the death sen­tences imposed upon four Alabama defen­dants, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed three of the death sen­tences on December 16. The state court ruled that the death sen­tences imposed upon Ronnie Kirksey, Corey Wimbley, and Ryan Gerald Russell do not vio­late the Supreme Court’s January 16, 2016 deci­sion in Hurst v. Florida. It has not yet ruled on the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of the death sen­tence imposed on Bart Johnson in the fourth case. In Hurst, the Supreme Court ruled that “[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact nec­es­sary to impose a sen­tence of death. A jury’s mere rec­om­men­da­tion is not enough.” In that case, the Court struck down Florida’s cap­i­tal sen­tenc­ing law, rul­ing that it uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly reserved for the judge, rather than the jury, the ulti­mate pow­er to decide whether the pros­e­cu­tion had proven the exis­tence of aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances that would make the defen­dant eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty. In late January, three Justices not­ed in con­nec­tion with a deci­sion deny­ing a stay of exe­cu­tion to Alabama death-row pris­on­er Christopher Brooks that Hurst had over­ruled the deci­sions upon which the Court had relied in pre­vi­ous­ly uphold­ing Alabama’s judge-sen­tenc­ing statute. The Court lat­er vacat­ed the Alabama court’s deci­sions uphold­ing the four death sen­tences, send­ing them back to the Alabama courts for recon­sid­er­a­tion in light of the Hurst deci­sion. In August and October, the Delaware and Florida Supreme Courts ruled that oth­er por­tions of their statutes that per­mit­ted judges to over­ride jury rec­om­men­da­tions of a life sen­tence or impose death sen­tences after a non-unan­i­mous jury sen­tenc­ing rec­om­men­da­tion vio­lat­ed Hurst, leav­ing Alabama as the only state that con­tin­ues to allow either prac­tice. In issu­ing its opin­ions, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals dis­tin­guished its law from the Florida statute the Supreme Court declared uncon­sti­tu­tion­al in Hurst, say­ing that as part of the deci­sion find­ing a defen­dant guilty of cap­i­tal mur­der, Alabama juries already unan­i­mous­ly find facts that prove a penal­ty-phase aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stance and make the defen­dant eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty. Without address­ing the rul­ings of the Delaware and Florida state courts, the court of appeals upheld Alabama’s pro­vi­sions allow­ing non-unan­i­mous juries to rec­om­mend a death sen­tence and per­mit­ting judges to over­ride a jury’s rec­om­men­da­tion of a life sen­tence. The state court said that the weigh­ing of aggra­vat­ing and mit­i­gat­ing cir­cum­stances is not a find­ing of fact, so Hurst does not apply to the jury’s sen­tenc­ing rec­om­men­da­tion or the sen­tence ulti­mate­ly imposed by the judge. It also not­ed that in Kirksey’s and Russell’s cas­es, the sen­tenc­ing juries had unan­i­mous­ly recommended death.

(K. Faulk, Alabama court rules death penal­ty law con­sti­tu­tion­al in 3 cas­es SCOTUS sent back for review,” AL​.com, December 17, 2016.) See Sentencing and U.S. Supreme Court. Read the opin­ion in State v. Russell; read the opin­ion in State v. Kirksey; read the opin­ion in State v. Wimbley.

Citation Guide