Steven Allen Thompson

Case details

Steven Allen Thompson was convicted of killing Robin Balarzs, 25, in Huntsville on May 12, 1984, and was sentenced to death.

Timeline

• May 11, 1984 — David Roberts was absent from Huntsville due to military service. Thompson was aware of Roberts’s absence.
• May 11-12, 1984 — Thompson went to the Huntsville home where Robin Balarzs resided with her parents and her young child. Robin and her friend Cindy McElroy were at the residence; Thompson slept on a sofa while the girls retired to separate bedrooms.
• Early morning of May 12, 1984 — Thompson left the residence.
• Night of May 12, 1984 — Thompson returned to the household, entered on invitation of his friend, bound and gagged Robin Balarzs, beat her, cut her with a knife, took a meager $1.00 bill from her purse, and took her engagement ring. He positioned his rental vehicle near the garage, concealed blood and physical tracings, placed Robin still alive in the vehicle, and drove to Green Mountain.
• May 12, 1984 (during ordeal on Green Mountain) — Thompson proceeded to brutalize Robin Balarzs, including sexual intercourse, tying her to the vehicle, and dragging her through mud, over rocks and on pavement for a distance in excess of 3000 feet. Robin Balarzs died during her ordeal.
• Early morning of May 13, 1984 — Two uniformed officers saw Thompson in his vehicle and stopped him. They stopped and questioned him after advising him of his constitutional rights. After first denying knowledge of the fate of Robin Balarzs, Thompson made statements admitting his activities and led an officer to the scene atop Green Mountain.
• August 9, 1985 — A jury convicted Thompson of robbery-murder under ALA.CODE § 13A-5-40(a)(2) (1975), kidnapping-murder under ALA.CODE § 13A-5-40(a)(1) (1975), and rape-murder under ALA.CODE § 13A-5-40(a)(3) (1975). The jury recommended life imprisonment without the possibility of parole by an eight to four vote; the trial court overrode the recommendation and sentenced Thompson to death by electrocution.
• 1988 — The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Thompson’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal: Thompson v. State, 542 So.2d 1286 (Ala.Crim.App.1988).
• 1989 — The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed: Thompson v. State, 542 So.2d 1300 (Ala.1989). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari and denied Thompson’s petition for rehearing (Thompson v. Alabama, 493 U.S. 874; Thompson v. Alabama, 493 U.S. 986).
• 1992 — The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief: Thompson v. State, 615 So.2d 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 19, 1993.
• July 30, 1997 — The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• May 8, 1998 — Thompson was executed by electrocution in Alabama.

Background

Robin Balarzs was engaged to marry David Roberts, a longtime friend of Thompson. On May 11, 1984, David Roberts was absent from Huntsville due to military service, and Thompson was aware of this absence.

Thompson was absent without leave from the Navy at the time of the killing. Defense attorneys argued that Thompson was mentally disturbed. Thompson blamed his acts on a drug problem that began in his youth.

The offence

On the day of May 11, 1984, Thompson went to the Huntsville home where Robin Balarzs resided with her parents and her young child. Her parents and the child were also out of town. Robin and her friend Cindy McElroy were at the residence. Thompson engaged in normal conversation with Robin and Cindy and slept on a sofa while the girls retired to separate bedrooms.

Early on May 12, Thompson left the residence, and Cindy McElroy left at a later time. Cindy noticed no unusual behavior on Thompson.

Thompson had need for money and goods which he could convert to cash. He planned to return to the Balarzs household to feloniously take money, gold or silver. In his planning he bought tape, bandages and other items with which to bind Robin.

On his arrival at the night of May 12, 1984, Thompson entered the household on invitation of his friend and followed conduct described as beyond human comprehension in its vileness. Thompson bound and gagged Robin with a sock, bandage, rope and tape he had brought into the home with premeditated design. He cut her clothes from her person and beat her with his fists. He took a meager $1.00 bill from her purse, and at some point he took her engagement ring. He stuffed a sock in her mouth and cut her with a knife.

Thompson positioned his rental vehicle near the garage to facilitate removal from the residence. He made some effort to conceal blood and physical tracings of his acts of brutality, placed Robin still alive in the vehicle, left the home and drove to secluded Green Mountain, a rugged area in Huntsville, Madison County.

There, he proceeded to brutalize Robin Balarzs, including sexual intercourse upon her, shoving a large knife into what he thought to be her vagina, binding her breasts with a rope, tying her to the vehicle and dragging her through mud, over rocks and on pavement for a distance in excess of 3000 feet. At some point he pulled and shaved her hair with a razor especially purchased. He stabbed her about her breasts and cut her with the knife.

Some of the atrocities were against her corpse. Thompson realized that left in the Balarzs home were items which would reveal his crimes, if not his identity. He returned to the residence for the purpose of securing these items, leaving Robin Balarzs on Green Mountain. While he was attempting to re-enter the home, David Roberts returned. Seeing David drive up, Thompson evaded detection and drove away to spend the rest of the night in his vehicle.

David Roberts entered the home, noticed signs of the defendant’s depravity, contacted neighbors and friends of Robin, called hospitals, and tried to locate her. Finally, David Roberts called Huntsville Police Department and the investigation began.

Robin Balarzs had a 3-year-old son and was engaged to marry David Roberts. Her parents and son were out of town when Thompson went into the home.

Investigation and arrest

Early in the morning of May 13, 1984, two uniformed officers saw Thompson in his vehicle and stopped him. The vehicle was dirty and damaged, and Thompson had what appeared to be blood and mud about his person. The officers advised Thompson of his constitutional rights, took him into custody, removed him to police headquarters and questioned him.

Robin’s battered body was found. Robin’s parents and David Roberts were advised that she was dead.

After his arrest, Thompson made two statements to police. On the day of his arrest, Thompson described the events that occurred at Balarzs’ house, including dragging Balarzs to his car, putting her in the backseat, placing a sleeping bag over her, and driving her to Green Mountain. Thompson told police that Balarzs “moaned and groaned” during the drive to Green Mountain.

The next morning, Thompson gave another statement describing in more detail the events at Balarzs’ home. Thompson told police that Balarzs was bleeding and “vomit was coming out of her mouth” when he took her out of the car on Green Mountain. Thompson told police he had sexual intercourse with Balarzs and described thrusting a butcher knife into her vaginal area, tying her to his car, and dragging her body.

Trial

On August 9, 1985, a jury convicted Thompson of:

1. robbery-murder under ALA.CODE § 13A-5-40(a)(2) (1975),
2. kidnapping-murder under ALA.CODE § 13A-5-40(a)(1) (1975), and
3. rape-murder under ALA.CODE § 13A-5-40(a)(3) (1975).

By an eight to four vote, the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The trial court held a sentencing hearing, reviewed aggravating and mitigating factors, overrode the jury’s recommendation, and sentenced Thompson to death by electrocution.

Sentencing

The trial court imposed death by electrocution. The Alabama courts affirmed Thompson’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal.

The appellate decision discussed aggravating and mitigating findings in the sentencing context. The sentencing judge found two aggravating circumstances:

• the commission of murder during the course of each of the felonies to be an aggravating circumstance, and
• that each of the three capital offenses were especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel compared to other capital offenses.

The judge found Thompson’s lack of adult criminal activity to be a mitigating circumstance.

Appeals

Direct appeal and certiorari

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Thompson’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal in Thompson v. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed in Thompson v. State, 542 So.2d 1300 (Ala.1989). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari and denied Thompson’s petition for rehearing in Thompson v. Alabama, 493 U.S. 874 and Thompson v. Alabama, 493 U.S. 986.

Post-conviction and federal habeas

Thompson filed a petition for post-conviction relief under Temporary Rule 20 (now Rule 32) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure in the Circuit Court of Madison County. The court held an evidentiary hearing, and the trial court denied the petition. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in Thompson v. The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari, Thompson v. State, No. 1920696 (March 19, 1993). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, Thompson v. Alabama, 510 U.S. 976 (1993).

Thompson then filed a present habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. A magistrate judge entered a 74-page report and recommendation that the district court deny the petition. The district court adopted the magistrate’s report and denied Thompson’s habeas corpus petition. The district court denied Thompson’s motion for a certificate of appealability, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted it, heard oral argument, and affirmed in the decision issued July 30, 1997.

Issues raised on appeal

In the appeal of the denial of habeas corpus relief, Thompson raised issues including:

• whether the evidence was sufficient to support Thompson’s rape conviction,
• whether the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals violated the Ex Post Facto Clause,
• whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Thompson formed the specific intent to kill Balarzs,
• whether trial counsel were ineffective, including five sub-claims, and
• whether a prejudicial variance existed between the evidence and the indictment.

Appellate reasoning preserved as factual statements

The court addressed the sufficiency of the evidence for rape and discussed Alabama’s definition of rape requiring sexual intercourse “by forcible compulsion.” The court stated that Dr. Embry, the State’s forensic pathologist, testified he could not determine whether intercourse occurred before or after Robin Balarzs died, but testified she aspirated vomit into her lungs and that this caused her death; and that, in Dr. Embry’s opinion, strangling or gagging caused her to aspirate. The court stated that, under its standard, it would presume conflicting inferences were resolved by the jury in favor of the State and that a rational jury could conclude, based on Thompson’s own statements, that Balarzs was alive at the time intercourse occurred.

The court discussed the Ex Post Facto Clause issue and stated that, because sufficient evidence supported the rape conviction, it did not reach the Ex Post Facto issue; it further stated that Thompson would not prevail even if it were reached.

The court addressed the specific intent to kill issue and discussed procedural default and cause. The court stated that Thompson procedurally defaulted the intent-to-kill claim and could not show cause and prejudice. The court also discussed that Thompson had counsel argue to the jury that Thompson did not have the intent to rob or murder Balarzs, and that the jury could infer intent from the evidence.

The court addressed ineffective assistance claims in five parts, including:

• failure to show that no rape occurred,
• failure to show that Thompson did not intend to kill,
• failure to present a mental health defense,
• failure to prevent introduction of inadmissible evidence, and
• failure to call character witnesses.

The court discussed the mental health defense, stating that Thompson’s trial counsel called only one mental health expert, Dr. Hopkins, and pursued a strategy based on testimony from Thompson’s father and hypothetical questions. It also described conflicting expert testimony at the Rule 20 hearing, including testimony by Dr. Goff for Thompson and Dr. McClaren for the State, and stated that the evidence was inconclusive regarding mental health.

The court addressed the claim about inadmissible juvenile-related testimony and stated that the testimony complained about did not refer to a juvenile adjudication; it also stated that Thompson’s counsel objected and argued outside the presence of the jury that the State was attempting to get into Thompson’s juvenile record.

The court addressed the claim about character witnesses. It stated that defense counsel misunderstood Alabama law regarding character testimony and that Thompson called five unrelated character witnesses at the Rule 20 hearing. The court stated that it concluded the testimony would not have affected the outcome because it was unbelievable and biased, and it quoted the Rule 20 trial court’s assessment: “The individuals who were called as purported character witnesses at the Rule 20 proceedings are either not credible witnesses because of their evident bias or lack of knowledge, or they had such weak testimony to offer that the presentation of their testimony would have detracted from the strength of other testimony offered by the defendant at trial.”

The court addressed prejudicial variance and stated that the indictment stated that Thompson caused Balarzs’ death by “striking her with his fists and dragging her behind an automobile, either or both of which acts resulted in the aspiration of stomach contents and suffocation.” The court stated the cause of death was aspiration of stomach contents and suffocation, and it described that it was impossible to determine the exact time of death or which particular acts caused aspiration. The court concluded that the State’s inability to pinpoint which part of the transaction caused death did not mean a material variance existed, and it further concluded Thompson could not show substantial prejudice because Thompson admitted committing the crimes.

Case caption and decision format preserved

The Eleventh Circuit appeal was styled: “Steven A. THOMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John Eddy NAGLE, Respondent-Appellee.”

The panel included: HATCHETT, Chief Judge, and DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

The opinion discussed standards of review and affirmed the district court’s judgment denying habeas corpus relief. The conclusion stated: “Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment denying Thompson’s petition for habeas corpus. AFFIRMED.”

Other details

Thompson waived any last-minute appeal and said he wanted to spare further pain to his family and his victim’s family.

Before the execution at Holman Prison, the victim’s mother, Ruby Balarzs, who was taking care of her grandson, said: “It's something you live with. It's there all the time,” and: “At least now, it will be over.”

Ruby Balarzs said she would witness the execution not for vengeance but to show that someone cared about her daughter.

Cindy McElroy noticed no unusual behavior on Thompson. David Roberts was absent from Huntsville due to military service on May 11, 1984, and returned when he drove up to the residence.