Jerry Jerome Smith v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/07/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 CR-97-1258 J e r r y Jerome Smith v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t Court (CC-97-270) On R e t u r n t o F i f t h WINDOM, P r e s i d i n g Jerry resulted Judge. Jerome S m i t h from Remand appeals the t h i r d capital-murder t r i a l . h i s sentence penalty-phase of death proceeding that of h i s I n 1998, S m i t h was c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l murder f o r k i l l i n g W i l l i e F l o u r n o y , T h e r e s a Helms, and D a v i d CR-97-1258 Bennett b y one a c t o r p u r s u a n t conduct, see conclusion § t o one 13A-5-40(a)(10), of the t h i r d A l a . Code o f 12-0, t h a t death. with circuit or course of 1975. At the proceeding, penalty-phase recommended, b y a v o t e In accordance scheme the j u r y Smith the jury's be s e n t e n c e d recommendation, to the c o u r t sentenced Smith t o death. The f a c t s o f t h e S m i t h ' s S m i t h v. S t a t e , (Ala. Crim. offense are stated i n d e t a i l i n [Ms. CR-97-1258, December 22, 2000] App. 2000), and w i l l n o t be So. 3d repeated here e x c e p t as n e c e s s a r y f o r an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court. S m i t h , who was a d r u g d e a l e r , went t o F l o u r n o y ' s r e s i d e n c e t o c o l l e c t $1,500, w h i c h F l o u r n o y owed h i m f o r c r a c k cocaine. When F l o u r n o y t o l d money, S m i t h s h o t a n d k i l l e d rifle. also Smith t h a t he d i d n o t have t h e him w i t h a sawed-off .22 c a l i b e r S m i t h t h e n s h o t a n d k i l l e d Helms a n d B e n n e t t , who were at Flournoy's residence. The jury capital murder f o r i n t e n t i o n a l l y pursuant t o one a c t o r p u r s u a n t t o one scheme conduct, see § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . Code s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h ; he killing c o n v i c t e d Smith two o r more people or course of 1975. Smith appealed. "On appeal, this Court affirmed Smith's c a p i t a l - m u r d e r c o n v i c t i o n , b u t remanded t h e c a u s e 2 of was CR-97-1258 for the c i r c u i t c o u r t to c o r r e c t i t s s e n t e n c i n g order. See S m i t h v. State, [Ms. CR-97-1258, December 22, 2000] So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000). A f t e r remanding the cause a second time f o r the c i r c u i t c o u r t t o c o r r e c t i t s s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r , this Court a f f i r m e d Smith's death sentence. See S m i t h v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-97-1258, A u g u s t 31, 2001] So. 3d , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000) ( o p i n i o n on r e t u r n to second remand). T h e r e a f t e r , the Alabama Supreme Court reversed Smith's death s e n t e n c e and o r d e r e d a new p e n a l t y - p h a s e h e a r i n g . See Ex p a r t e S m i t h , [Ms. 1010267, M a r c h 14, 2003] So. 3d ( A l a . 2003). " A f t e r a second penalty-phase h e a r i n g , the j u r y recommended by a vote o f 10-2 that Smith be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h . The c i r c u i t c o u r t f o l l o w e d t h e j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n and a g a i n s e n t e n c e d S m i t h t o d e a t h . On r e t u r n t o remand, t h i s C o u r t ' c o n c l u d e d t h a t S m i t h i s m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d and, t h e r e f o r e , ... i n e l i g i b l e f o r t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y and d i r e c t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o s e t a s i d e S m i t h ' s d e a t h s e n t e n c e and to sentence him t o l i f e imprisonment w i t h o u t the possibility of p a r o l e . ' Ex p a r t e S m i t h , [Ms. 1080973, O c t o b e r 22, 2010] So. 3d , (Ala. 2010) (citing S m i t h v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-97-1258, S e p t e m b e r 29, 2006] So. 3d , ( A l a . Crim. App. 2003) ( o p i n i o n on r e t u r n t o t h i r d r e m a n d ) ) . The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h i s C o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and remanded t h e c a u s e f o r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o c o n d u c t [a h e a r i n g p u r s u a n t t o A t k i n s v. V i r g i n i a , 536 U.S. 304 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , ] t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r S m i t h i s m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d and t o make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t p u r s u a n t t o Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , 851 So. 2d 453 (Ala. 2002). S m i t h v. S t a t e , [Ms. 1060427, May 25, 2007] So. 3d , ( A l a . 2007) . After conducting the A t k i n s h e a r i n g , the c i r c u i t c o u r t concluded t h a t Smith i s not m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d . T h i s Court a f f i r m e d the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , and t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t g r a n t e d certiorari review. 3 CR-97-1258 "On O c t o b e r 22, 2010, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t again reversed Smith's sentence of death and remanded t h e c a u s e f o r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o c o n d u c t a new p e n a l t y - p h a s e proceeding before a jury. Ex p a r t e S m i t h , [Ms. 1080973, O c t o b e r 22, 2010] So. 3d , ( A l a . 2010) . Specifically, after d e t a i l i n g why t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o r r e c t l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Smith i s n o t m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d , the Alabama Supreme Court held that improper, prejudicial c o n t a c t between the v i c t i m ' s mother and the j u r y venire e n t i t l e d Smith t o a new penalty-phase proceeding. Id. at S m i t h v. S t a t e , (Ala. Supreme [Ms. CR-97-1258, C r i m . App. Court's 2011). opinion O c t o b e r 22, 2010] Feb. 4, 2011] So. 3d In accordance w i t h i n Ex So. 3d parte , Smith, that Smith, to conduct [Ms. CR-97-1258, On third court January 23, court before a c o n c l u s i o n of the p r e s e n t a t i o n of evidence, the regarding aggravating instructed the j u r y circumstances. jury that i t jury on the law. that i t could . Smith's At the c i r c u i t the consider began jury. During circumstances, hearing." So. 3d a t circuit proceeding instructed instructions t h i r d penalty-phase the 1080973, ( A l a . 2010), t h i s Court Feb. 4, 2011] 2012, penalty-phase a t h e Alabama [Ms. remanded t h e c a u s e t o t h e " t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t w i t h for , the court i t s jury charge circuit court four aggravating S p e c i f i c a l l y , the c i r c u i t court i n s t r u c t e d the could consider 4 the following aggravating CR-97-1258 c i r c u m s t a n c e s : 1) " [ t ] h e d e f e n d a n t was p r e v i o u s l y c o n v i c t e d o f another capital offense threat of violence or a felony to the person," 1975; 2) " [ t ] h e defendant death t o many p e r s o n s , " involving the use o r § 13A-5-49(2), knowingly A l a . Code created a great risk of § 13A-5-49(3), A l a . Code 1975; 3) " [ t ] h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was e s p e c i a l l y h e i n o u s , a t r o c i o u s , o r c r u e l compared t o o t h e r c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s , " § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975; a n d 4) death "the defendant o f two o r more p e r s o n s scheme o r c o u r s e 1975. A l a . Code court's instructions, caused the b y one a c t o r p u r s u a n t of conduct." 49(9), intentionally (R. 948-49.) t o one See § 13A-5- At the c o n c l u s i o n of the Smith r a i s e d the f o l l o w i n g circuit objection: "Judge, I do n o t b e l i e v e the aggravating c i r c u m s t a n c e o f c a u s i n g t h e d e a t h o f more t h a n one p e r s o n b y a common p l a n o r scheme o r c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t -- I d o n ' t e v e n b e l i e v e t h a t a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e even a p p l i e d a t t h e time t h a t t h e s e c r i m e s were c o m m i t t e d . I don't even t h i n k t h a t a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e was A l a b a m a l a w a t t h a t time." (R. 951-52.) After the c i r c u i t c o u r t charged the jury, i t returned a u n a n i m o u s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h a t S m i t h be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h . April 18, sentencing 2012, t h e c i r c u i t hearing. court conducted a On judicial At the conclusion of the sentencing 5 CR-97-1258 hearing, the c i r c u i t c o u r t accepted the j u r y ' s recommendation and s e n t e n c e d S m i t h t o d e a t h . On a p p e a l , S m i t h a r g u e s , and t h e S t a t e c o n c e d e s , t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h must be r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e be remanded for a fourth penalty-phase p r o c e e d i n g because the circuit c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y t h a t i t c o u l d c o n s i d e r an a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t was i n a p p l i c a b l e . the parties instructed agree that the j u r y that the circuit i t could court Specifically, incorrectly consider the aggravating c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t S m i t h " i n t e n t i o n a l l y c a u s e d t h e d e a t h o f two or more p e r s o n s b y one a c t o r p u r s u a n t t o one scheme o r c o u r s e of conduct," § 13A-5-49(9), A l a . Code 1975, b e c a u s e that aggravating c i r c u m s t a n c e d i d n o t e x i s t when S m i t h his capital offense. the j u r y t o c o n s i d e r an a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t d i d n o t exist a t the time According to the p a r t i e s , Smith committed h i s offense, committed by the allowing circuit c o u r t v i o l a t e d h i s s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o an a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t b y a jury. This Court agrees. S m i t h c o m m i t t e d t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e f o r w h i c h he h a s b e e n s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h on O c t o b e r 19, 1996. At that point, the m u r d e r o f "two o r more p e r s o n s b y one a c t o r p u r s u a n t t o one 6 CR-97-1258 scheme o r c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t , " § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 9 ) , was n o t an a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e . A l a . Code 1975, R a t h e r , t h e amendment t o § 13A-5-49, A l a . Code 1975, t o i n c l u d e t h e m u r d e r o f "two o r more p e r s o n s b y one a c t o r p u r s u a n t t o one scheme o r c o u r s e o f conduct," § 13A-5-49(9), circumstance became A l a . Code effective on S e p t e m b e r 1, 1999, three years a f t e r Smith committed As the Stephens, State explains 982 So. 2d 1148 1975, as an a g g r a v a t i n g h i s offense. i n i t s brief, ( A l a . 2006), A l a b a m a was p r e s e n t e d w i t h the c i r c u i t " [ i ] n Ex parte t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h e same i s s u e r e v e r s a l of Smith's death sentence." I n Ex p a r t e S t e p h e n s , almost that warrants the ( S t a t e ' s b r i e f , a t 12.) court instructed the jury t h a t i t c o u l d c o n s i d e r t h r e e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , one o f w h i c h was "that Stephens 'intentionally two o r more p e r s o n s b y one a c t . ' " 2d a t 1150. caused the death of Ex p a r t e S t e p h e n s , L i k e Smith, however, Stephens 982 So. had committed h i s c a p i t a l o f f e n s e b e f o r e § 13A-5-49, A l a . Code 1975, was amended to i n c l u d e " i n t e n t i o n a l l y c a u s [ i n g ] t h e d e a t h o f two o r more p e r s o n s b y one a c t " as an a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e . 1150. error The A l a b a m a Supreme f o r the t r i a l court Court then to i n s t r u c t 7 held that Stephens's Id. at "[i]t jury was to CR-97-1258 consider as circumstance case statutory t h a t was the o f f e n s e . " this a aggravating a not l i s t e d i n the s t a t u t e a t the time I d . a t 1153. erroneously Similarly, instructed the c o n s i d e r an a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e Smith circumstance the c i r c u i t jury that of court i n i t could t h a t d i d n o t e x i s t when committed h i s o f f e n s e . Having that i t determined could circumstance, Rather, t h a t i t was consider however, an does not e r r o r to i n s t r u c t the inapplicable end this Court's jury aggravating analysis. as t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n S t e p h e n s : "An e r r o r i n a p e n a l t y - p h a s e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n i s subject to harmless-error review. Ex parte B r o a d n a x , 825 So. 2d 233, 236 ( A l a . 2001) . However, ' [ t ] h e h a r m l e s s e r r o r r u l e i s t o be a p p l i e d w i t h extreme caution i n capital cases.' Ex parte W h i s e n h a n t , 482 So. 2d 1247, 1249 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . To f i n d the e r r o r i n t h i s c a p i t a l case h a r m l e s s , we must be a b l e t o s t a t e 'beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ' t h a t a p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d j u r y would n e v e r t h e l e s s have recommended a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h . 482 So. 2d a t 1248. Ex p a r t e S t e p h e n s , 982 After So. 2d a t 1153-54. e x p l a i n i n g t h a t the erroneous penalty-phase jury i n s t r u c t i o n s are s u b j e c t t o h a r m l e s s - e r r o r r e v i e w , the Alabama Supreme C o u r t h e l d : " A f t e r r e v i e w i n g the evidence presented of the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating 8 CR-97-1258 c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we c a n n o t s a y w i t h t h e n e c e s s a r y c e r t a i n t y t h a t the e r r o r d i d not a f f e c t the j u r y ' s recommendation. "Stephens's defense counsel presented significant mitigating evidence during the s e n t e n c i n g phase o f t r i a l . C a t h e r i n e Lee B o y e r , a f o r e n s i c p s y c h o l o g i s t , t e s t i f i e d t h a t S t e p h e n s has a v e r b a l IQ o f 73 and a p e r f o r m a n c e IQ o f 86, and a c o m b i n e d f u l l - s c a l e IQ s c o r e o f 77. She d e s c r i b e d t h i s s c o r e as ' b o r d e r l i n e . ' Boyer a l s o t e s t i f i e d that the circumstances of the murders were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h r a g e o r 'extreme e m o t i o n a l s t a t e , ' as o p p o s e d t o a c a l c u l a t e d o r p l a n n e d k i l l i n g , and t h a t Stephens's b e h a v i o r i n the hours f o l l o w i n g the murder indicated remorse. Stephens's mother testified that Stephens loved his children, i n c l u d i n g N i c h o l a s , t h a t he h a d b e e n a c a r i n g and r e s p o n s i b l e f a t h e r , and t h a t he ' c o u l d n o t have b e e n i n h i s " r i g h t m i n d " ' when he c o m m i t t e d t h e m u r d e r s . " D e s p i t e e v i d e n c e o f t h e h e i n o u s , a t r o c i o u s , and c r u e l n a t u r e o f t h e o f f e n s e , and d e s p i t e S t e p h e n s ' s 1992 a t t a c k on A n n i e , two jurors voted for a sentence of l i f e imprisonment without p a r o l e . The j u r y m i g h t have v o t e d f o r t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y i f i t had b e e n i n s t r u c t e d on o n l y t h e two v a l i d s t a t u t o r y aggravating circumstances. However, we a r e u n a b l e to conclude, beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt, t h a t i t w o u l d have done s o . "A r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f d e a t h must be b a s e d on a v o t e o f a t l e a s t 10 j u r o r s . § 13A-5-49(f), A l a . Code 1975. I n t h i s c a s e , a change i n o n l y one j u r o r ' s v o t e w o u l d have p r e v e n t e d t h e j u r y from recommending a d e a t h s e n t e n c e . A t t h a t p o i n t , one of s e v e r a l t h i n g s m i g h t have h a p p e n e d -- t h e t r i a l c o u r t m i g h t have i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y t o d e l i b e r a t e further, resulting i n a vote for either life imprisonment o r d e a t h , o r t h e c o u r t m i g h t have d e c l a r e d a m i s t r i a l and e m p a n e l e d a new s e n t e n c i n g jury. § 13A-5-46(g), A l a . Code 1975. This 9 CR-97-1258 uncertainty requires us to reverse Stephens's s e n t e n c e a n d remand t h e c a s e f o r r e s e n t e n c i n g . " Ex p a r t e S t e p h e n s , Here, erroneous as 982 So. 2d a t 1154. i n Ex jury parte Stephens, instruction the circuit regarding an court's inapplicable a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e c a n n o t be deemed h a r m l e s s . 45, A l a . R. App. P. Smith's "defense See R u l e counsel presented s i g n i f i c a n t m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e d u r i n g the s e n t e n c i n g phase o f trial," Ex p a r t e Stephens, 982 So. 2d a t 1154, including evidence o f Smith's mental d e f i c i e n c i e s , o f h i s d y s f u n c t i o n a l u p b r i n g i n g , o f h i s drug and a l c o h o l abuse, abuse he s u f f e r e d . and o f the s e x u a l In i t s sentencing order, the circuit c o u r t found t h a t Smith's c o u n s e l p r e s e n t e d m i t i g a t i n g evidence i n d i c a t i n g the f o l l o w i n g : of a t h i r d life, IQ, 1) S m i t h has t h e l e a r n i n g g r a d e r , was i n s p e c i a l - e d u c a t i o n capacity classes a l l his a n d q u i t s c h o o l i n t h e e i g h t h g r a d e ; 2) S m i t h h a s a l o w has a l o w f r u s t r a t i o n tolerance, and has poor impulse c o n t r o l ; 3) S m i t h c a n n o t r e a d o r w r i t e ; 4) S m i t h h a s a h i s t o r y of excessive alcohol and drug abuse, and first consumed a l c o h o l a t t h e age o f e i g h t ; 5) S m i t h was on d r u g s a n d a l c o h o l when he arrest; committed 6) Smith his capital grew up o f f e n s e and d i d n o t i n a dysfunctional 10 resist home w i t h an CR-97-1258 a l c o h o l i c m o t h e r ; 7) S m i t h d i d n o t d e v e l o p a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s n a t u r a l f a t h e r ; 8) S m i t h ' s m o t h e r , f a t h e r , a n d a l l o f h i s siblings had criminal s i s t e r being raped; cousin. 1154 histories; Smith witnessed his a n d 10) S m i t h was s e x u a l l y a b u s e d b y h i s (C. 480-82.) (placing 9) great See Ex p a r t e significance Stephens, on 982 So. 2d a t mitigating evidence r e l a t i n g t o Stephen's mental d e f i c i e n c i e s i n f i n d i n g t h a t the erroneous j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n was n o t h a r m l e s s ) . Further, although the jury was three aggravating circumstances, c o u r t i n Stephens, found See Ex p a r t e "only Stephens, two o f t h o s e available as properly the c i r c u i t aggravating statutory (recognizing that were circumstances c r e a t e d a g r e a t r i s k o f d e a t h t o many p e r s o n s , " s e e ... a 1975; a n d t h a t he felony violence t o the person," involving Smith "was p r e v i o u s l y t h e use o r t h r e a t o f see § 1 3 A - 5 - 1 9 ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. A f t e r reviewing the evidence the found this "knowingly of court in Specifically, convicted circuit actually case"). § 1 3 A - 5 - 1 9 ( 3 ) , A l a . Code the circumstances. circumstances aggravating on court, l i k e the o n l y two a g g r a v a t i n g 982 So. 2d a t 1151 instructed presented aggravating this circumstances, 11 i n m i t i g a t i o n and Court cannot "state CR-97-1258 'beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ' that a properly instructed jury w o u l d n e v e r t h e l e s s have recommended a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h . " p a r t e S t e p h e n s , 982 So. 2d a t 1153-54. in i t s brief, "just as i n Stephens, As t h e S t a t e the court's Ex concedes erroneous i n s t r u c t i o n c a n n o t be deemed h a r m l e s s b e c a u s e S m i t h ' s c o u n s e l presented among ... other considerable things, his mitigation low evidence intellectual regarding, functioning, [ d y s f u n c t i o n a l u p b r i n g i n g , d r u g and a l c o h o l a b u s e , and abuse]." 982 (State's b r i e f , So. 2d balanced "cannot at 1154). against say w i t h the a t 17) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e S t e p h e n s , When S m i t h ' s mitigating the necessary c e r t a i n t y t h a t the e r r o r d i d Ex p a r t e S t e p h e n s , Smith's that court proceeding. On action to conduct remand, to see a the fourth circuit that the jury court circuit instructions penalty-phase shall clerk take a l l makes r e t u r n t o t h i s C o u r t a t t h e e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e t i m e and 180 days 982 s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h i s r e v e r s e d , and t h i s c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t w i t h necessary Court 1154. Accordingly, for evidence i s aggravating circumstances, this not a f f e c t the j u r y ' s recommendation." So. 2d a t sexual from the date o f t h i s 12 opinion. due within CR-97-1258 REVERSED AND REMANDED. Welch, Kellum, Burke, and J o i n e r , 13 J J . , concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.