(a) Upon conviction of a defendant for a capital offense, the trial court shall conduct a separate sentence hearing to determine whether the defendant shall be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole or to death. The sentence hearing shall be conducted as soon as practicable after the defendant is convicted. Provided, however, if the sentence hearing is to be conducted before the trial judge without a jury or before the trial judge and a jury other than the trial jury, as provided elsewhere in this article, the trial court with the consent of both parties may delay the sentence hearing until it has received the pre-sentence investigation report specified in Section 13A-5-47(b). Otherwise, the sentence hearing shall not be delayed pending receipt of the pre-sentence investigation report.
(b) The state and the defendant shall be allowed to make opening statements and closing arguments at the sentence hearing. The order of those statements and arguments and the order of presentation of the evidence shall be the same as at trial.
(c) At the sentence hearing evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence and shall include any matters relating to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances referred to in Sections 13A-5-49, 13A-5-51, and 13A-5-52. Evidence presented at the trial of the case may be considered insofar as it is relevant to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances without the necessity of re-introducing that evidence at the sentence hearing, unless the sentence hearing is conducted before a trial judge other than the one before whom the defendant was tried or a jury other than the trial jury before which the defendant was tried.
(d) Any evidence which has probative value and is relevant to sentence shall be received at the sentence hearing regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence, provided that the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements. This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the State of Alabama.
(e) At the sentence hearing the state shall have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of any aggravating circumstances. Provided, however, any aggravating circumstance which the verdict convicting the defendant establishes was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial shall be considered as proven beyond a reasonable doubt for purposes of the sentence hearing.
(f) Unless at least one aggravating circumstance as defined in Section 13A-5-49 exists, the sentence shall be life imprisonment without parole.
(g) The defendant shall be allowed to offer any mitigating circumstance defined in Sections 13A-5-51 and 13A-5-52. When the factual existence of an offered mitigating circumstance is in dispute, the defendant shall have the burden of interjecting the issue, but once it is interjected the state shall have the burden of disproving the factual existence of that circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence.
(Acts 1981, No. 81-178, p. 203, §7; Act 2017-131, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
224
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case:
Ex Parte Waldrop, 859 So. 2d 1181 (Ala. 2002).
Ex Parte Waldrop, 859 So. 2d 1181 (Ala. 2002).
· cites it 12× “" Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(e); see also Ala.”
Clark v. State, 896 So. 2d 584 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
· cites it 16× “Clark contends that the State should have the burden of disproving the existence of a mitigating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence rather than by a preponderance of the evidence as set out in § 13A-5-45, Ala.Code 1975. (Issue XIII in…”
Ex parte Bohannon, 222 So. 3d 525 (Ala. 2016).
· cites it 11× “’ Ala. Code 1976, § 13A-5-45(e); see also Ala.”
Lewis v. State, 889 So. 2d 623 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “After the jury convicted Lewis of the capital offenses charged in the indictment, a separate sentencing hearing was held before the jury in accordance with §§ 13A-5-45 and -46, Ala.Code 1975. After hearing evidence concerning the aggravating circumstances (Lewis presented no…”
Dill v. State, 600 So. 2d 343 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 11× “" Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(d). See also Stephens v.”
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 9× “In reference to the convictions for the capital offenses (CC-92-1552 and CC-92-1553), a sentencing hearing was held before the jury in accordance with §§ 13A-5-45 and -46, and the jury recommended, by a vote of 10 to 2, that the sentence be death.”
Barber v. State, 952 So. 2d 393 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
· cites it 10× “) Based on this court's holding in Taylor, the opinions of Dryer and Barber about punishment were not relevant mitigating circumstances for the jury to consider during the penalty phase of the appellant's capital trial.”
VanPelt v. State, 74 So. 3d 32 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009).
· cites it 10× “’ Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(e); see also Ala.”
Ex Parte Hodges, 856 So. 2d 936 (Ala. 2003).
· cites it 6× “We concluded: "Because the jury convicted Waldrop of two counts of murder during a robbery in the first degree, a violation of Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(2), the statutory aggravating circumstance of committing a capital offense while engaged in the commission of a robbery,…”
Lewis v. State, 24 So. 3d 480 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007).
· cites it 7× “Specifically, Lewis contends that when disproving the existence of a mitigating circumstance, the State should be required to do so “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “by clear and convincing evidence,” rather than by a preponderance of the evidence, as set out in § 13A-5-45,…”
Wilson v. State, 142 So. 3d 732 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
· cites it 8× “’ Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(e).... “Because the jury convicted Waldrop of two counts of murder during a robbery in the first degree, a violation of Ala.”
Thompson v. State, 153 So. 3d 84 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “Four of the victims’ family members and a friend of one of the victims testified at the penalty phase about how they heard about the murders, their reactions to the murders, and the impact of the victims’ deaths on their lives.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-45(3) — 1 case
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
“In reference to the convictions for the capital offenses (CC-92-1552 and CC-92-1553), a sentencing hearing was held before the jury in accordance with §§ 13A-5-45 and -46, and the jury recommended, by a vote of 10 to 2, that the sentence be death.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-45(4) — 1 case
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
“In reference to the convictions for the capital offenses (CC-92-1552 and CC-92-1553), a sentencing hearing was held before the jury in accordance with §§ 13A-5-45 and -46, and the jury recommended, by a vote of 10 to 2, that the sentence be death.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-45(a) — 15 cases
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-45(c) — 23 cases
Dill v. State, 600 So. 2d 343 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).
“" Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(d). See also Stephens v.”
Clark v. State, 896 So. 2d 584 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
“Clark contends that the State should have the burden of disproving the existence of a mitigating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence rather than by a preponderance of the evidence as set out in § 13A-5-45, Ala.Code 1975. (Issue XIII in…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-45(d) — 50 cases
Clark v. State, 896 So. 2d 584 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
“Clark contends that the State should have the burden of disproving the existence of a mitigating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence rather than by a preponderance of the evidence as set out in § 13A-5-45, Ala.Code 1975. (Issue XIII in…”
Dill v. State, 600 So. 2d 343 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).
“" Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(d). See also Stephens v.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-45(e) — 86 cases
Ex parte Bohannon, 222 So. 3d 525 (Ala. 2016).
“’ Ala. Code 1976, § 13A-5-45(e); see also Ala.”
VanPelt v. State, 74 So. 3d 32 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009).
“’ Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(e); see also Ala.”
Ex Parte Waldrop, 859 So. 2d 1181 (Ala. 2002).
“" Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(e); see also Ala.”
Wilson v. State, 142 So. 3d 732 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
“’ Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(e).... “Because the jury convicted Waldrop of two counts of murder during a robbery in the first degree, a violation of Ala.”
Lewis v. State, 889 So. 2d 623 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
“After the jury convicted Lewis of the capital offenses charged in the indictment, a separate sentencing hearing was held before the jury in accordance with §§ 13A-5-45 and -46, Ala.Code 1975. After hearing evidence concerning the aggravating circumstances (Lewis presented no…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-45(f) — 56 cases
Ex Parte Waldrop, 859 So. 2d 1181 (Ala. 2002).
“" Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(e); see also Ala.”
Ex parte Bohannon, 222 So. 3d 525 (Ala. 2016).
“’ Ala. Code 1976, § 13A-5-45(e); see also Ala.”
Lewis v. State, 889 So. 2d 623 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
“After the jury convicted Lewis of the capital offenses charged in the indictment, a separate sentencing hearing was held before the jury in accordance with §§ 13A-5-45 and -46, Ala.Code 1975. After hearing evidence concerning the aggravating circumstances (Lewis presented no…”
Clark v. State, 896 So. 2d 584 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
“Clark contends that the State should have the burden of disproving the existence of a mitigating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence rather than by a preponderance of the evidence as set out in § 13A-5-45, Ala.Code 1975. (Issue XIII in…”
Ex Parte Hodges, 856 So. 2d 936 (Ala. 2003).
“We concluded: "Because the jury convicted Waldrop of two counts of murder during a robbery in the first degree, a violation of Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(2), the statutory aggravating circumstance of committing a capital offense while engaged in the commission of a robbery,…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-45(g) — 42 cases
Lewis v. State, 24 So. 3d 480 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007).
“Specifically, Lewis contends that when disproving the existence of a mitigating circumstance, the State should be required to do so “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “by clear and convincing evidence,” rather than by a preponderance of the evidence, as set out in § 13A-5-45,…”
Dill v. State, 600 So. 2d 343 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).
“" Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(d). See also Stephens v.”
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
“In reference to the convictions for the capital offenses (CC-92-1552 and CC-92-1553), a sentencing hearing was held before the jury in accordance with §§ 13A-5-45 and -46, and the jury recommended, by a vote of 10 to 2, that the sentence be death.”
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.