section 13 circumstance enumerated in Alabama

2010In applying the a harmless-error analysis to a circuit court’s failure to make specific findings of facts concerning each aggravating circumstances enumerated in § 13A-5-49, Ala.Code 1975, we further noted in Fortenberry : “While the trial court’s sentencing order is defective, the errors are not so egregious or substantial as to require a new sentencing order. ‘The sole purpose of requiring that the trial judge, as the sentencing authority, make a written finding of the aggravating circumstance is to provide for appellate review of the sentence of death.’ Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 338 (A

2009“In Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 334 (Ala.1981), this Court held that the standard applicable to the ‘especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel’ aggravating circumstance under § 13A-5-49(8) is that for a crime to fit within that section it must be one of ‘those conscienceless or pitiless homicides which are unnecessarily torturous to the victim.’ ” Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So.2d 112, 124 (AIa.1991), rev’d on other grounds, 625 So.2d 1146 (Ala.1993).

2016Many capital offenses listed in Ala. Code 1975, § 13A- 6-40, include conduct that clearly corresponds to certain aggravating circumstances found in § 13A-5-49: “ ‘For example, the capital offenses of intentional murder during a rápe, § 13A-5-40(a)(3), intentional murder during a robbery, § 13A-5-40(a)(2), intentional murder during a burglary, § 13A-5-40(a)(4), and intentional murder during a kidnapping, § 13A-5-40(a)(l), parallel the aggravating circumstance that “[t]he capital offense was committed while the defendant was engaged ... [in a] rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping,” § 13A-5-49(4

2016Many capital offenses listed in Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-5-40, include conduct that clearly corresponds to certain aggravating circumstances found in § 13A-5-49: " ' "For example, the capital offenses of intentional murder during a rape, § 13A-5-40(a)(3), intentional murder during a robbery, § 13A-5-40(a)(2), intentional murder during a burglary, § 13A-5-40(a)(4), and intentional murder during a kidnapping, § 13A-5-40(a)(1), parallel the aggravating circumstance that '[t]he capital offense was committed while the defendant was engaged ... [in a] rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping,' § 13A-5-49(

2014Dobard v. State , 435 So.2d 1338 , 1347 (Ala.Crim.App.1982), aff'd, 435 So.2d 1351 (Ala.1983).

1986By way of illustration and not limitation, the aggravating circumstance specified in section 13A-5-49 (4) shall be found and considered in determining sentence in every case in which a defendant is convicted of the capital offenses defined in subdivisions (1) through (4) of subsection (a) of section 13A-5-40 ." Pursuant to this code provision and the decisions in Kyzer , supra, and Dobard , supra, we can find no basis for the appellant's contention that this charge should have been given.

2015See Bui v. State , 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 551 So.2d 1125 (1989), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 499 U.S. 971 , 111 S.Ct. 1613 , 113 L.Ed.2d 712 (1991) ; Hallford v. State , 548 So.2d 526 , 541-42 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 945 , 110 S.Ct. 354 , 107 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)." Freeman v. State , 776 So.2d 160 , 196 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).

2015See Bui v. State , 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 551 So.2d 1125 (1989), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 499 U.S. 971 , 111 S.Ct. 1613 , 113 L.Ed.2d 712 (1991) ; Hallford v. State , 548 So.2d 526 , 541-42 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 945 , 110 S.Ct. 354 , 107 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)." Freeman v. State , 776 So.2d 160 , 196 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).

2015See Bui v. State , 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 551 So.2d 1125 (1989), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 499 U.S. 971 , 111 S.Ct. 1613 , 113 L.Ed.2d 712 (1991) ; Hallford v. State , 548 So.2d 526 , 541-42 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 945 , 110 S.Ct. 354 , 107 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)." Freeman v. State , 776 So.2d 160 , 196 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).

2015See Bui v. State , 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 551 So.2d 1125 (1989), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 499 U.S. 971 , 111 S.Ct. 1613 , 113 L.Ed.2d 712 (1991) ; Hallford v. State , 548 So.2d 526 , 541-42 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 945 , 110 S.Ct. 354 , 107 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)." Freeman v. State , 776 So.2d 160 , 196 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).

2014See Duke v. State, 889 So.2d 1 (Ala.Crim.App.2002); Ingram v. State, 779 So.2d 1225 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 779 So.2d 1283 (Ala.2000); Freeman v. State, 776 So.2d 160 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 776 So.2d 203 (Ala.2000); Bui v. State, 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), aff'd, 551 So.2d 1125 (Ala.1989), judgment vacated on other grounds, 499 U.S. 971 , 111 S.Ct. 1613 , 113 L.Ed.2d 712 (1991); and Hallford v. State, 548 So.2d 526 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.1989).” Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372, 437 (Ala.Crim.App.2004).

2014See Duke v. State, 889 So.2d 1 (Ala.Crim.App.2002); Ingram v. State, 779 So.2d 1225 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff 'd, 779 So.2d 1283 (Ala.2000); Freeman v. State, 776 So.2d 160 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff' d, 776 So.2d 203 (Ala.2000); Bui v. State, 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), aff'd, 551 So.2d 1125 (Ala.1989), judgment vacated on other grounds, 499 U.S. 971 , 111 S.Ct. 1613 , 113 L.Ed.2d 712 (1991); and Hallford v. State, 548 So.2d 526 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.1989).’ “[Minor v. State,] 914 So.2d [372] at 437 [ (Ala.Crim.App.2004) ].

2014This statutory notice satisfies constitutional requirements.' " Bush v. State , 695 So.2d 70 , 87 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.1997).

2011This statutory notice satisfies constitutional requirements.’ “Bush v. State, 695 So.2d 70, 87 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.1997).

2009“In Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 334 (Ala.1981), this Court held that the standard applicable to the ‘especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel’ aggravating circumstance under § 13A-5-49(8) is that for a crime to fit within that section it must be one of ‘those conscienceless or pitiless homicides which are unnecessarily torturous to the victim.’ ” Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So.2d 112, 124 (AIa.1991), rev’d on other grounds, 625 So.2d 1146 (Ala.1993).

2004In Ex parte Bankhead , 585 So.2d 112 (Ala. 1991), this Court, relying on Kyzer , held that the trial court was not required to inform the jury of other capital offenses where the death penalty was based on a finding of the existence of the aggravating circumstance in § 13A-5-49 (8).

2014See Duke v. State, 889 So.2d 1 (Ala.Crim.App.2002); Ingram v. State, 779 So.2d 1225 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 779 So.2d 1283 (Ala.2000); Freeman v. State, 776 So.2d 160 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 776 So.2d 203 (Ala.2000); Bui v. State, 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), aff'd, 551 So.2d 1125 (Ala.1989), judgment vacated on other grounds, 499 U.S. 971 , 111 S.Ct. 1613 , 113 L.Ed.2d 712 (1991); and Hallford v. State, 548 So.2d 526 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.1989).” Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372, 437 (Ala.Crim.App.2004).

2010See Duke v. State, 889 So.2d 1 (Ala.Crim.App.2002); Ingram v. State, 779 So.2d 1225 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), affd, 779 So.2d 1288 (Ala.2000); Freeman v. State, 776 So.2d 160 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), affd, 776 So.2d 203 (Ala.2000); Bui v. State, 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Crim.

2010Nothing said by the Court suggests the Court intended to broaden the scope of relevant mitigating evidence to include the opinion of a victim’s family member that the death penalty should not be invoked.... [[Image here]] “Under Alabama law, nonstátutory mitigating evidence must be relevant. ‘“In addition to the mitigating circumstances specified in section 13A-5-51, mitigating circumstances shall include any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant offers as a basis for a sentence of life imprisonment without parole instead of

1995"Under Alabama Law, nonstatutory mitigating evidence must be relevant. "`In addition to the mitigating circumstances specified in Section 13A-5-51, mitigating circumstances shall include any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant offers as a basis for a sentence of life imprisonment without parole instead of death, *1142 and any other relevant mitigating circumstance which the defendant offers as a basis for a life of imprisonment without parole instead of death.' "Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-52. `"[S]ubject only to the loose evide

2010Nothing said by the Court suggests the Court intended to broaden the scope of relevant mitigating evidence to include the opinion of a victim’s family member that the death penalty should not be invoked.... [[Image here]] “Under Alabama law, nonstátutory mitigating evidence must be relevant. ‘“In addition to the mitigating circumstances specified in section 13A-5-51, mitigating circumstances shall include any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant offers as a basis for a sentence of life imprisonment without parole instead of

2005"Under Alabama law, nonstatutory mitigating evidence must be relevant. "`In addition to the mitigating circumstances specified in section 13A-5-51, mitigating circumstances shall include any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant offers as a basis for a sentence of life imprisonment without parole instead of death, and any other relevant mitigating circumstance which the defendant offers as a basis for a sentence of life imprisonment without parole instead of death.' "Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-52. `"[S]ubject only to the loose ev

2015See Bui v. State , 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 551 So.2d 1125 (1989), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 499 U.S. 971 , 111 S.Ct. 1613 , 113 L.Ed.2d 712 (1991) ; Hallford v. State , 548 So.2d 526 , 541-42 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 945 , 110 S.Ct. 354 , 107 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)." Freeman v. State , 776 So.2d 160 , 196 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).

2015See Bui v. State , 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 551 So.2d 1125 (1989), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 499 U.S. 971 , 111 S.Ct. 1613 , 113 L.Ed.2d 712 (1991) ; Hallford v. State , 548 So.2d 526 , 541-42 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 945 , 110 S.Ct. 354 , 107 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)." Freeman v. State , 776 So.2d 160 , 196 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).

2016This is known as "double-counting" or "overlap," and Alabama courts "have repeatedly upheld death sentences where the only aggravating circumstance supporting the death sentence overlaps with an element of the capital offense." Ex parte Trawick , 698 So.2d 162 , 178 (Ala. 1997) ; see also Coral v. State , 628 So.2d 954 , 965 (Ala. Crim.

1992On Return to Remand In Coral v. State , 628 So.2d 954 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), we found it necessary to remand this cause to the trial court with the instruction that the trial court comply with the requirements of § 13A-5-47 (d), Code of Alabama 1975, by entering specific written findings as to the existence or nonexistence of each aggravating circumstance enumerated in § 13A-5-49 , of each mitigating circumstance enumerated in § 13A-5-51 , and of any mitigating circumstance offered pursuant to § 13A-5-52 , and summarizing the facts surrounding the crime and the appellant's participation in it. 1

2014See Duke v. State, 889 So.2d 1 (Ala.Crim.App.2002); Ingram v. State, 779 So.2d 1225 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff 'd, 779 So.2d 1283 (Ala.2000); Freeman v. State, 776 So.2d 160 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff' d, 776 So.2d 203 (Ala.2000); Bui v. State, 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), aff'd, 551 So.2d 1125 (Ala.1989), judgment vacated on other grounds, 499 U.S. 971 , 111 S.Ct. 1613 , 113 L.Ed.2d 712 (1991); and Hallford v. State, 548 So.2d 526 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.1989).’ “[Minor v. State,] 914 So.2d [372] at 437 [ (Ala.Crim.App.2004) ].

2011See Duke v. State, 889 So.2d 1 (Ala.Crim.App.2002); Ingram v. State, 779 So.2d 1225 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), affd, 779 So.2d 1283 (Ala.2000); Freeman v. State, 776 So.2d 160 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), affd, 776 So.2d 203 (Ala.2000); Bui v. State, 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Crim.

2003See, e.g., Wynn v. State, 804 So.2d 1122 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), cert. denied, 804 So.2d 1152 (Ala.2001); McGriff v. State, [Ms. CR-97-0179, September 29, 2000] ___ So.2d ---- (Ala.Crim.App.2000); West v. State, 793 So.2d 870 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Apicella v. State, 809 So.2d 841 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff'd, 809 So.2d 865 (Ala.2001); and Borden v. State, 769 So.2d 935 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), aff'd, 769 So.2d 950 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 961 , 121 S.Ct. 389 , 148 L.Ed.2d 299 (2000).

1998This cause was originally remanded to the trial court "with directions that that court enter specific written findings concerning the existence or nonexistence of each aggravating circumstance enumerated in § 13A-5-49, [Ala.Code 1975,] each mitigating circumstance enumerated in § 13A-5-51, and any additional nonstatutory mitigating circumstances offered pursuant to § 13A-5-52." See Borden v. State, 769 So.2d 935 , 945 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997).

2016The Alabama legislature has chosen in some cases to have the jury make the finding that an aggravating circumstance exists during the guilt phase of the trial and has chosen in some cases to have the jury make that finding during the penalty phase of the trial. 12 “Many capital offenses listed in Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-5-40, include conduct that clearly corresponds to certain aggravating circumstances found in § 13A-5-49.” Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So.2d at 1188 .

2016See Ex parte McGriff, 908 So.2d at 1037-38 ; Ex parte McNabb, 887 So.2d at 1005 ; and Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So.2d at 1187-90 .

2015See Bui v. State , 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 551 So.2d 1125 (1989), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 499 U.S. 971 , 111 S.Ct. 1613 , 113 L.Ed.2d 712 (1991) ; Hallford v. State , 548 So.2d 526 , 541-42 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 945 , 110 S.Ct. 354 , 107 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)." Freeman v. State , 776 So.2d 160 , 196 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).

2015See Bui v. State , 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 551 So.2d 1125 (1989), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 499 U.S. 971 , 111 S.Ct. 1613 , 113 L.Ed.2d 712 (1991) ; Hallford v. State , 548 So.2d 526 , 541-42 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 945 , 110 S.Ct. 354 , 107 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)." Freeman v. State , 776 So.2d 160 , 196 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).

2007“We specifically held in Stewart v. State, 730 So.2d 1203 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (opinion on second return to remand), aff'd, 730 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1999), that when there is proof that a murder occurred during the commission of two felonies enumerated in § 13A-5-49(4), Ala.Code 1975, both felonies may be considered two separate aggravating circumstances.

2007This Court acknowledged the omission, but found the error to be harmless, stating: “[I]n Stewart v. State, 730 So.2d 1203 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), aff'd, 730 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1999), this Court held that a trial court’s failure to make specific written findings regarding those aggravating circumstances in § 13A-5^9, Ala.Code 1975, that it found not to exist was harmless.

2016This is known as "double-counting" or "overlap," and Alabama courts "have repeatedly upheld death sentences where the only aggravating circumstance supporting the death sentence overlaps with an element of the capital offense." Ex parte Trawick , 698 So.2d 162 , 178 (Ala. 1997) ; see also Coral v. State , 628 So.2d 954 , 965 (Ala. Crim.

2009This is known as "double-counting" or "overlap," and Alabama courts "have repeatedly upheld death sentences where the only aggravating circumstance supporting the death sentence overlaps with an element of the capital offense." Ex parte Trawick , 698 So. 2d 162 , 178 (Ala. 1997); see also Coral v. State , 628 So. 2d 954 , 965 (Ala. Crim.

2011With regard to the constitutional challenge, specifically, in Minor, 914 So.2d 372 , this Court rejected an identical constitutional challenge to the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance, noting: ‘With respect to Minor’s constitutional challenge to the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating ' circumstance in § 13A-5-49(8), Ala.Code 1975, this Court has repeatedly upheld that circumstance against similar challenges.

2010In addition, in Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), this Court rejected an identical constitutional challenge to the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance, noting: “With respect to Minor’s constitutional challenge to the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance in § 13A-5-49(8), Ala.Code 1975, this Court has repeatedly upheld that circumstance against similar challenges.