Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 13A-5-42 (2026)
Guilty Plea; Burden of Proof Upon State; Waiver; Sentencing.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
A defendant who is indicted for a capital offense may plead guilty to it, but the state, only in cases where the death penalty is to be imposed, must prove the defendant’s guilt of the capital offense beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. The guilty plea may be considered in determining whether the state has met that burden of proof. The guilty plea shall have the effect of waiving all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceeding resulting in the conviction except the sufficiency of the evidence. A defendant convicted of a capital offense after pleading guilty to it shall be sentenced according to the provisions of Section 13A-5-43(d).
(Acts 1981, No. 81-178, p. 203, §4; Act 2013-354, p. 1267, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Mashburn v. State.
Mashburn v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). “Although Mashburn did list in his petition the names of 14 prosecution witnesses who testified against him at the guilt phase of his trial, he included only one- or two-sentence summaries of the witnesses’ testimony, followed by conclusory statements that his counsel did not…”
State v. Davis (N.J. 1989). “Ala. Code § 13A-5-42 (1972) (West Supp. 1988).”
Mashburn v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). “By a vote of eleven to one, the jury recommended that the appellant be sentenced to death. The trial court accepted the jury’s recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death.”
Stallworth v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “The trial court found three aggravating circumstancesthat the murder was committed during the course of a robbery (§ 13A-5-49(4)); that the murder was committed while Stallworth was on probation (§ 13A-5-42(1)); and that the murder was especially, heinous, atrocious, or cruel…”
Key v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “Key's guilty plea was taken pursuant to the provisions of § 13A-5-42, Ala.Code 1975, which provides that a defendant indicted for a capital murder may plead guilty to the crime, but that the State must prove to a jury the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Benton v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “Thus, § 13A-5-42 provides an exception to the general rule that a guilty plea waives a challenge on appeal to the sufficiency of the evidence.”
Davis v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2014). “As required by § 13A-5-42, Ala. Code 1975, the State presented evidence to a jury in order to prove Davis’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Harris v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). “See § 13A-5-42, Code of Alabama 1975. The prosecutor's reference to the fact that Alex Hood and Michael Sockwell invoked their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent was made pursuant to her explanation of the agreement made by the State to obtain McCarter's testimony.”
Ex parte State (Ala. Crim. App. 2016). “§ 13A-5-42, Ala.Code 1975. . If a jury finds the defendant not guilty of the capital offense, or if the defendant waives his right to jury participation in sentencing, the jury portion of the proceedings end.”
Johnson v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). “) The cause was then submitted to the jury in accordance with § 13A-5-42, Ala.Code 1975, and the jury found Johnson guilty of capital murder.”
Largin v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2015). “The prosecutor stated that, if Largin actually admitted-his guilt and the case proceeded under § 13A-5-42, Ala.Code 1975, it was understood that Largin "would reserve the denial of the motion to suppress for purposes of appeal and would challenge the testimony of [inmate] George…”
Harris v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). “See § 13A-5-42, Code of Alabama 1975." Harris v.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-42(1) — 1 case
Stallworth v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “The trial court found three aggravating circumstancesthat the murder was committed during the course of a robbery (§ 13A-5-49(4)); that the murder was committed while Stallworth was on probation (§ 13A-5-42(1)); and that the murder was especially, heinous, atrocious, or cruel…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.