Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Connolly v. State
Citation: 500 So. 2d 68Docket: 85-548
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; October 3, 1986; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Rodney Connolly and Jack Herriman II were charged with the strangulation murder of Kathy Jo Sands, Connolly's ex-girlfriend. Evidence indicated that Herriman strangled Sands at Connolly's suggestion, although Connolly was not present during the act. After the murder, Herriman contacted Connolly, and they subsequently stole Sands's car and other belongings, using her bank card to withdraw funds. Connolly faced charges of capital murder during a first-degree robbery and murder for hire, the latter of which was dismissed at trial. During the trial, Connolly's defense counsel requested jury instructions on lesser-included offenses, including murder, but the trial court only instructed on murder-robbery, first-degree robbery, and first-degree theft. The defense objected to the omission of the murder instruction. The jury convicted Connolly of murder-robbery and recommended life imprisonment without parole. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, ruling that Connolly was entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of murder. The State petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of certiorari to determine if an oral objection to the omission of a jury instruction was sufficient for appellate review in the absence of a written request. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision, holding that Connolly's oral request for the murder instruction and subsequent objection to its omission were sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under Temporary Rule 14, A.R. Crim. P. The Court confirmed its agreement with the earlier ruling in Matkins v. State regarding the adequacy of oral objections. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in all respects.