The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Warren Hardy’s capital murder conviction and death sentence in a unanimous decision last week. Finding that Mr. Hardy’s trial was unfair because the trial judge’s instructions to the jury improperly lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof, the court ordered a new trial.
A Focus on Intent
Evidence at trial showed that Warren Hardy was responsible for the shooting death of 72-year-old Kathleen Lundy, who died of a gunshot wound from a single shot fired from Mr. Hardy’s gun on August 26, 2016.
Mr. Hardy—who had a history of psychiatric hospitalizations—had attempted to take his own life the previous day. When he failed, he checked himself into the hospital for psychiatric treatment but, before the treatment could take effect, he left the hospital and went to his ex-girlfriend’s apartment to see her one last time before ending his life.
When her stepfather and daughter came home instead, Mr. Hardy went with them by car to meet his ex-girlfriend, trial testimony showed. He got out of the car and the driver sped away, hitting Mr. Hardy with the car door and knocking him over. Frantic to find a vehicle, Mr. Hardy, who was holding a gun, saw Mrs. Lundy on her doorstep nearby and approached while demanding her car keys.
Rusty Lundy testified that he went out to his front porch, where Mr. Hardy was holding Mrs. Lundy. He said Mr. Hardy pointed the gun at him and demanded the keys. When Mr. Lundy turned away to pick up the keys, he heard a single gunshot and then saw that his wife had been shot.
Mr. Hardy testified that the gun discharged accidentally and he had not planned to shoot Mrs. Lundy. He admitted he took the keys and left in the Lundy’s car.
Mr. Hardy, who is Black, was charged in Madison County with capital murder during the robbery of Kathleen Lundy, an elderly white woman. After the prosecutor struck seven of the eight eligible Black jurors, Mr. Hardy was tried in Huntsville by an all-white jury that had to determine whether the shooting was accidental or intentional. Even the trial court agreed it was a close call.
Before jurors deliberated, the trial court instructed the jury that it could find Mr. Hardy guilty of capital murder during a robbery for robbing either Kathleen Lundy or Rusty Lundy even though he was not indicted for the robbery or attempted robbery of Rusty Lundy.
The jury convicted Mr. Hardy of capital murder during a robbery and returned a 11-1 verdict for death.
Reversible Error
On appeal, EJI attorneys argued that the trial court improperly amended the indictment for capital robbery-murder by instructing the jury, over objection, that it could find Mr. Hardy guilty of capital murder during the robbery of either Kathleen Lundy or Rusty Lundy.
The erroneous instruction, the brief explained, “diminished the State’s burden of proof with respect to the charge of capital murder during a robbery, rendered it impossible to know the statutory element upon which the jury based its verdict, and deprived Mr. Hardy of fair notice of the charges against him.”
The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that “the trial court’s instructions to Hardy’s jury, by naming Rusty Lundy as an additional robbery victim, impermissibly charged him with an additional and different offense for which he was not charged and, thus, had no notice that he was required to defend against.”
“This error resulted in a ‘substantial likelihood’ that Hardy was convicted of an offense for which he was not charged or that different jurors reached their guilty verdict for different reasons,” the court found.
“Based on well-settled caselaw,” the court concluded, “we agree with Hardy that the trial court’s instruction was erroneous and constitutes reversible error.”
Because Mr. Hardy’s capital trial was unfair, the criminal appeals court ordered a new trial.