Ex parte Hall

844 So. 2d 571 (Ala. 2002) · Supreme Court of Alabama · September 6, 2002 · No. 1010573

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama held that a capital defendant whose motion for bail was denied without a hearing was entitled to a bail hearing. The court issued a writ directing the trial court to set aside its prior order and schedule a hearing, while denying the remaining requested relief.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the Court
Woodall; Houston; See; Lyons; Brown; Johnstone; Harwood; Stuart; Moore
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Decision date
September 6, 2002
Docket number
1010573
Procedural posture
Hall petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, habeas corpus after the Montgomery Circuit Court denied his request for bail without a hearing. The Supreme Court granted the petition in part and directed the trial court to vacate its bail order and conduct a bail hearing.
Standard of review
The opinion does not expressly identify a standard of review. It reviews the trial court's denial of bail and determines whether extraordinary relief is warranted.
Precedential value
Published opinion; precedential
Parties
Tarus Hall v. State of Alabama
Disposition
writ_granted

Topics

bailcriminal procedurehabeas corpusappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedurebailhabeas corpusmandamus

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a defendant charged by indictment with a capital offense is entitled to a hearing on a motion for bail before the trial court denies bail.
  2. Whether an appellate court may consider evidentiary materials submitted for the first time on appellate review to determine whether a capital defendant is entitled to bail.
  3. Whether Hall was entitled to have the trial court's no-hearing bail order set aside and to obtain a bail hearing.

Holdings

  1. A defendant accused by indictment of a capital offense must be afforded an opportunity in the trial court to present proof to overcome the presumption supporting denial of bail; denying a request for bail without a hearing improperly denies that opportunity.
  2. A proper evidentiary record must first be developed in the trial court before such evidence may be considered by an appellate court in reviewing entitlement to bail.

Key quotations

It is well established that a person accused by indictment of a capital offense must overcome the presumption of his guilt by proof, in order to be entitled to bail. (573)
By denying, without a hearing, Hall's motion to be released on bail, the trial court denied him the opportunity to offer the proof necessary to overcome that presumption. (573)
However, a proper record must be developed in the trial court, before such evidence can be considered by an appellate court. (573-574)

Factual background

Hall was arrested on September 5, 2001, under a warrant charging murder made capital because it was committed during a first-degree robbery. He moved for release on bail and requested a hearing, but the Montgomery Circuit Court denied the motion without conducting one. The State later submitted evidentiary materials to the appellate courts that had not been presented to the trial court, and Hall had not received a bail hearing when the Supreme Court considered his petition.

Procedural history

Hall was arrested on a warrant charging capital murder and moved for release on bail, expressly requesting a hearing. The Montgomery Circuit Court denied the motion without a hearing. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals denied Hall's habeas petition without an opinion, and Hall then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama. While the petition was pending, a grand jury indicted Hall on eight counts, including capital murder.

Remand instructions

The Montgomery Circuit Court must set aside its October 18, 2001, order denying bail and schedule a bail hearing. All other relief sought by Hall was denied.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…