David Dwayne Riley, Jr., alias v. State of Alabama
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 12/18/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-06-1038 D a v i d Dwayne R i l e y , J r . v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WISE, P r e s i d i n g from Lauderdale C i r c u i t (CC-05-431) Court Judge. The a p p e l l a n t , D a v i d Dwayne R i l e y , c a p i t a l murder f o r t h e k i l l i n g capital J r . , was c o n v i c t e d o f of Scott Michael murder w a s made b e c a u s e he c o m m i t t e d course of a f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery Kirtley. The i t during the o r an a t t e m p t thereof, a CR-06-1038 violation of unanimously trial § 13A-5-40(a)(2), him t o death. the Riley Because this been imposed, we 45A, A l a . R. will the death prejudice 1106 1 975. The recommendation and a motion denied. is a App. jury's filed court summarily trial Code jury recommended t h a t R i l e y be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h . court followed trial Ala. case f o r a new This appeal i n which Although the the lack penalty, Riley death may ( A l a . 1985). i t will raise. Rule weigh See 45A, Ex an any p a r t e Kennedy, App. the P., See has Rule objection i n a case against A l a . R. which penalty error. of n o t b a r o u r r e v i e w o f an i s s u e sentenced followed. have r e v i e w e d i t f o r p l a i n P. trial, The at involving claim 472 So. of 2d provides: "In a l l c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y has been imposed, the C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s shall n o t i c e any p l a i n e r r o r o r d e f e c t i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r r e v i e w ... w h e n e v e r s u c h e r r o r h a s o r p r o b a b l y has a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t o f t h e appellant." " [ T h i s ] p l a i n - e r r o r exception to the rule in i s t o be ' u s e d which sparingly, a m i s c a r r i a g e of solely justice U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Y o u n g , 470 U.S. 84 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985) contemporaneous-objection i n those would 1, 1 5 , circumstances otherwise 105 S. C t . 1 0 3 8 , ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. 2 result.'" Frady, 1046, 456 CR-06-1038 U.S. 816 152, 163 n.14, n.14 following S. Ct. 1584, 1592 n.14, 71 L. Ed. 2d (1982)). The 102 by the t r i a l summary o f t h e c o u r t , may relevant facts, as be h e l p f u l t o a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g prepared of case: "Thomas N e w b e r n , t h e State's first witness, testified he went t o the Dandy's Package Store N u m b e r Two l o c a t e d on H i g h w a y 72 in Lauderdale County, Alabama at approximately 7:30 p.m. on J a n u a r y 10, 2 0 0 5 . A n o t h e r c u s t o m e r was w a i t i n g t o be s e r v e d b u t t h e r e was no c l e r k t o a c c e p t p a y m e n t . Mr. N e w b e r n w e n t t o t h e b a c k o f t h e s t o r e t o f i n d t h e c l e r k and d i s c o v e r e d the body o f S c o t t M i c h a e l K i r t l e y w i t h obvious major trauma to h i s head. Mr. Newbern found a c o r d l e s s phone b e h i n d the counter a n d c a l l e d t h e 911 o p e r a t o r . " L i s a Etienne, the keeper of the records f o r the 911 s y s t e m , t e s t i f i e d t h a t M r . N e w b e r n ' s c a l l was r e c e i v e d a t 7:49 p.m. " S u z a n n a T a y l o r , an i n v e s t i g a t o r f o r t h e C i t y o f Florence Police Department, testified that she r e s p o n d e d t o t h e scene and i d e n t i f i e d f o r t h e j u r y a c r i m e scene v i d e o and numerous p i c t u r e s w h i c h were t a k e n by law e n f o r c e m e n t p e r s o n n e l . There were a t o t a l of t h r e e cameras a t t a c h e d t o r e c o r d i n g d e v i c e s i n the package s t o r e at the time of the murder. The t a p e s f r o m two o f t h e r e c o r d e r s h a d b e e n r e m o v e d b u t t h e t h i r d c a m e r a a n d r e c o r d e r was o p e r a t i n g w h e n l a w enforcement a r r i v e d . " J a c k i e B e a v e r , t h e owner o f Dandy's Package S t o r e s N u m b e r One a n d Two, t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had operated the package s t o r e s f o r about twenty-two y e a r s a n d t h a t S c o t t M i c h a e l K i r t l e y was e m p l o y e d a s a clerk. He had been w o r k i n g at the s t o r e f o r 3 this CR-06-1038 a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w o y e a r s . On t h e d a y i n q u e s t i o n M r . Kirtley began his shift a t 4:00 p.m. a n d was s c h e d u l e d t o w o r k u n t i l c l o s i n g a t 1 1 : 0 0 p.m. She w e n t t o t h e s t o r e when s h e h e a r d t h a t s o m e t h i n g h a d happened and i d e n t i f i e d t h e body o f Mr. K i r t l e y . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e s t o r e h a d t h r e e f u n c t i o n i n g c a m e r a s r e c o r d i n g t h e e v e n t s i n t h e s t o r e 24 h o u r s e a c h d a y . T h e o n e c a m e r a t h a t was s t i l l operating at t h e s t o r e when o f f i c e r s a r r i v e d h a d o n l y b e e n f u n c t i o n i n g s i n c e t h e F r i d a y b e f o r e t h i s m u r d e r on Monday. After checking the register and t h e inventory she determined that $459.17 had been s t o l e n a l o n g w i t h t w o b o t t l e s o f l i q u o r a n d some Newport brand c i g a r e t t e s . " O f f i c e r Bennie Johnson, o f t h e F l o r e n c e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t , was o n d u t y a n d r e s p o n d e d t o t h e s c e n e . When h e a r r i v e d o t h e r o f f i c e r s w e r e r e v i e w i n g t h e t a p e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e r o b b e r y made b y t h e o n e c a m e r a system that still had a tape i n i t when they arrived. T h e d e c i s i o n was made t o make c o p i e s o f the t a p e and d i s t r i b u t e them t o t h e l o c a l media and to ask f o r the p u b l i c t o help i d e n t i f y the robber shown i n t h e v i d e o . O f f i c e r Johnson took the tape to t h e l o c a l newspaper o f f i c e t o have i t d u p l i c a t e d . Later, a f t e r r e c e i v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n from the p u b l i c , h e w e n t t o t h e home o f M r . Dewon J o n e s a n d c o l l e c t e d a p i s t o l f r o m Mr. J o n e s ' c l o s e t a n d two magazines for t h e gun f r o m a d r a w e r . " R e g i n a l d O w e n s , who l i v e s i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f the package store, testified that he saw t h e d e f e n d a n t on t h e d a y i n q u e s t i o n b e t w e e n fifteen m i n u t e s u n t i l e i g h t o ' c l o c k and e i g h t o ' c l o c k . They spoke f o r a few minutes and t h e d e f e n d a n t w a l k e d away. The d e f e n d a n t was p o l i t e a n d c a l m . L a t e r Mr. Owens g a v e p o l i c e p e r m i s s i o n t o s e a r c h a t r e e h o u s e in h i s backyard. " O f f i c e r E r i c P o l l a r d c o l l e c t e d evidence from Mr. O w e n s ' t r e e h o u s e . O f f i c e r P o l l a r d f o u n d two v i d e o t a p e s f r o m t h e package s t o r e , two b o t t l e s o f 4 CR-06-1038 l i q u o r a n d one b u l l e t . O f f i c e r s had responded t o the Owens' house because of i n f o r m a t i o n given to t h e m b y Mr. O w e n s ' s o n . The v i d e o s w e r e t h e t a p e s from the package store a n d when p l a y e d clearly showed t h i s d e f e n d a n t a p p r o a c h t h e c o u n t e r and p u l l a gun on Mr. K i r t l e y . Mr. K i r t l e y f u l l y c o o p e r a t e d with Mr. R i l e y by putting a l l money from the r e g i s t e r i n a p a p e r b a g a l o n g w i t h two b o t t l e s o f l i q u o r and Newport c i g a r e t t e s . During the robbery a customer arrived. Mr. Riley backed away, i n s t r u c t e d M r . K i r t l e y t o 'make t h e s a l e ' t o t h a t c u s t o m e r and h i d t h e gun. W h i l e Mr. K i r t l e y was w a i t i n g on t h a t c u s t o m e r M r . R i l e y c a l m l y c o u n t e d the money. After the customer departed, the d e f e n d a n t o r d e r e d M r . K i r t l e y t o go t o t h e b a c k o f the s t o r e , beyond the range of the v i d e o cameras. The a u d i o p o r t i o n o f t h e t a p e r e c o r d s a g u n s h o t , a scream, a pause, a s e c o n d gunshot, a pause and a t h i r d gunshot. Mr. R i l e y i s t h e n s e e n c o l l e c t i n g the paper bag containing t h e money, l i q u o r and c i g a r e t t e s a n d t a k i n g t h e t a p e s f r o m two o f t h e three video recorders. The v i d e o s a l s o s h o w t h a t the defendant had been i n the s t o r e e a r l i e r i n the e v e n i n g t o p u r c h a s e two s o f t d r i n k s a n d show t h e d e f e n d a n t l o o k i n g i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e two s t o r e cameras whose t a p e s were t a k e n a f t e r t h e murder. " O f f i c e r Chuck Hearn and two o t h e r F l o r e n c e P o l i c e o f f i c e r s went t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s h o u s e i n an unmarked p a t r o l c a r . Defendant ran toward the car and t h e o f f i c e r s a r r e s t e d him. Mr. R i l e y t o l d t h e m he m i s t o o k t h e i r c a r f o r t h a t o f a f r i e n d c o m i n g t o p i c k h i m up. " D o c t o r Adam C r a i g , m e d i c a l e x a m i n e r , t e s t i f i e d t h a t u p o n e x a m i n i n g t h e b o d y o f Mr. Kirtley he d e t e r m i n e d t h a t he h a d b e e n s h o t t h r e e t i m e s i n t h e head. One s h o t was to the r i g h t side of Mr. K i r t l e y ' s h e a d a n d was a c o n t a c t w o u n d . Two s h o t s were t o t h e l e f t s i d e o f the head and were fired from c l o s e range. A n y one o f t h e s h o t s w o u l d h a v e 5 CR-06-1038 been f a t a l was f i r s t . but Dr. Craig could not t e l l which shot "Amanda D a v e n p o r t , age s e v e n t e e n , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d M r . Dewon J o n e s came t o h e r h o u s e o n t h e d a y i n q u e s t i o n a r o u n d 5:15 p.m. a n d s t a y e d f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h i r t y m i n u t e s . M r . J o n e s was i n possession of a p i s t o l . Mr. R i l e y d i d n o t a p p e a r t o be u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a n y i n t o x i c a n t . "Doug S a n d e r f e r J r . , a f r i e n d o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , testified that h e saw M r . R i l e y a n d M r . J o n e s b e t w e e n 4:30 p.m. a n d 5:00 p.m. o n J a n u a r y 1 0 t h . Mr. R i l e y t o l d Mr. S a n d e r f e r t h a t he n e e d e d money t o pay h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t . Mr. R i l e y d i d n o t a p p e a r t o be u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a n y i n t o x i c a n t a t t h a t t i m e b u t he a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s a f r e q u e n t u s e r o f i l l e g a l s u b s t a n c e s . A f t e r he h e a r d about the shooting a t t h e package store, Mr. Sanderfer c a l l e d the defendant. The d e f e n d a n t t o l d Mr. S a n d e r f e r t h a t he h a d c o m m i t t e d t h e r o b b e r y , t h a t a c u s t o m e r h a d i n t e r r u p t e d t h e r o b b e r y , t h a t he t o o k t h e c l e r k t o t h e b a c k o f t h e s t o r e a n d t h a t he h a d s h o t h i m . M r . R i l e y a s k e d M r . S a n d e r f e r t o come t o h i s house and p i c k h i m up. A f t e r t h e phone c o n v e r s a t i o n , M r . S a n d e r f e r d e c i d e d n o t t o go t o M r . R i l e y ' s house. "The defendant t e s t i f i e d i n h i s own behalf. O u t s i d e t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e j u r y he a c k n o w l e d g e d t o t h e C o u r t t h a t he u n d e r s t o o d t h a t he h a d a r i g h t t o t e s t i f y i f he w i s h e d a n d a r i g h t n o t t o t e s t i f y i f h e w i s h e d n o t t o . He f u r t h e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t h i s a t t o r n e y s h a d a d v i s e d h i m n o t t o t e s t i f y b u t t h a t he w i s h e d t o t e s t i f y anyway. Mr. R i l e y t o l d t h e j u r y t h a t he c o m m i t t e d t h e r o b b e r y t o g e t money t o p a y a d r u g d e b t t o Mr. J o n e s b u t t h a t he h a d no i n t e n t i o n of k i l l i n g t h e c l e r k . He d i r e c t e d M r . K i r t l e y t o t h e b a c k o f t h e s t o r e t o l o c k h i m i n t h e b a c k room b u t when Mr. K i r t l e y t u r n e d a r o u n d q u i c k l y Mr. R i l e y f e a r e d Mr. K i r t l e y was g o i n g t o h i t h i m . In r e s p o n s e t o Mr. K i r t l e y ' s a c t i o n s Mr. R i l e y s a i d he 6 CR-06-1038 s t r u c k Mr. K i r t l e y w i t h t h e gun a n d i t f i r e d . Mr. R i l e y s a i d h i s e a r s b e g a n t o r i n g a n d he r e m e m b e r s nothing thereafter. Mr. R i l e y c l a i m e d t o be u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f c o c a i n e t h a t he i n g e s t e d shortly b e f o r e the murder." (C.R. 221-26.) The following understanding In also and of t h i s addition to of tell that, January him talked he shot the v i c t i m he shot the v i c t i m done. why He he the t h e gun each time stated had that, helped had he he saw 2005, be helpful a second Riley Jones l a t e r that that set forth Riley but to an and testified above, Sanderfer and started told night, the v i c t i m Jones to him Riley was Riley on the to him talk to be quiet. t o l d him that screaming, that a t h i r d t i m e , and that Sanderfer that was testified that i t was said he d i d not that, at one r e c o v e r e d from Jones. a d e f e c t and put a that cartridge in a p p r o x i m a t e l y two him also know victim. owned t h e gun that 10, once, Additionally, had when to Riley further shot testimony something, When he may case: to the testified afternoon evidence sell the gun he h a d the He time, explained t o work w i t h the chamber. Finally, weeks b e f o r e t h e murder, to 7 Jones. he gun he Riley CR-06-1038 The State also introduced recordings calls Riley During one a m o n e y he t h a t one he his in Riley jail told after a on January stepmother, and conversation brother to snitching, tell that Jones w i t h him -- together"; because that i s , and to tell doesn't t h a t he know can say w h a t was the one talking did not really He running really "the he made what has said, Riley he is she s--- " and mouth and could he w a n t t o do i t . 8 who is get in to don't get " f - - - to get said; to know i f "f up" and will to tell have t o to t e l l t h a t , i f she t h a t he was his one needs but tell a told trying also told his brother her during Finally, the been not f o r him. not are both going did statement is that someone the same s t o r y a n d Sanderfer that 2005, 2005, p l a y dumb a l l d a y , something e v e n t u a l l y . Davenport to stop 19, that so t h e y have the i s a punk or they he Sanderfer January Sanderfer touch Sanderfer on offense. t h a t he 13, Riley telephone the friend b o r r o w e d from him Also, with was t a p e i s w h a t s c r e w e d e v e r y t h i n g up a up had choice. conversation during while conversation, wanted the have made of s e v e r a l them t h a t say Amanda does not Jones was t e l l i n g him that he CR-06-1038 Riley that testified o c c u r r e d on o n h i s own b e h a l f January 10, 2005. regarding He the events testified that h i s mother had taken him t o a couple of j o b i n t e r v i e w s and that, during explained wanted call time, Jones had telephoned him. day Riley t h a t h e o w e d J o n e s some m o n e y a n d t h a t h e knew J o n e s i t . He spoke t o Jones briefly and t o l d h i m he would him back. Riley and that that told they testified Jones walked Davenport's Riley that he t e l e p h o n e d J o n e s they could around house, the and that afternoon get together to talk. Afterward, neighborhood, at Amanda friend's house. stopped stopped a t Jones's a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d u s e d d r u g s on a r e g u l a r basis. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t J o n e s h a d b e e n g i v i n g h i m d r u g s a n d t h a t he h a d $20 o r $30 and o f f e r e d t o g i v e him, but that talking about Jones other regard choice w a n t e d more. robbing excuses, but that i t t o J o n e s t o w a r d w h a t he owed a store He and stated that he that Jones tried to kept make "one t h i n g [ l e d ] t o a n o t h e r a n d [ h e ] h a d no b u t t o go into this store." t o t h e r o b b e r y a t Dandy's, R i l e y " I t was a l a s t m i n u t e me t o g e t some m o n e y kind of planned." call that 9 (R. 7 0 1 . ) stated: b u t i t was p u s h e d o n t o I o w e d s o , y e s , i t was With CR-06-1038 (R. of 696.) the He also incident before walking stated and that that, in that in he was strung fact, door." (R. he out "had just went i n t o the influence was that Jones of was drugs and supposed to outside c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e i f a n y o n e d r o v e up. do that, robbery. and another Regarding customer shooting He time a was also and hit under testified telephone his However, Jones d i d came i n t o t h e the took s t o r e and nervous. wait the 698.) R i l e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he the at store victim, Riley not during the testified: " I t o o k Mr. K i r t l e y b a c k t h e r e i n t h a t s t o r e t o l o c k him i n a room. Not t o h u r t him. I had no i n t e n t i o n s t o h u r t t h i s man. I wanted him out of t h e r o o m s o he c o u l d n ' t s e e w h i c h way I went and couldn't c a l l the p o l i c e r i g h t then. I would have e x t r a t i m e t o g e t away. A n d a s we was w a l k i n g i n t o t h a t r o o m , he t u r n e d a r o u n d a n d c a u g h t me o f f g u a r d and I went t o h i t him. I h a d -- I'm l e f t h a n d e d s o as I went t o h i t him, t h e gun w e n t o f f a n d that's p r e t t y much a l l I c a n r e m e m b e r b e c a u s e t h a t scared me t h a t t h e g u n w e n t o f f , a n d t h e n I s e e n h i m fall a n d t h e n my m i n d j u s t k i n d o f g o e s o f f i n t o a b l u r , y o u know, p a n i c a n d I'm high." (R. 7 0 2 . ) to He also testified h i t him, did not the gun first that he swung t h i n k about the went shot, off, that he t h a t the v i c t i m made a move a s i f reflexively f a c t t h a t he that his ears was high on 10 was to holding started crack h i t the victim the ringing cocaine, that gun, after his and that the mind CR-06-1038 went b l a n k , he woke and t h a t up i n a j a i l Riley trigger take t h e gun if and t h a t into he he d i d not He to k i l l stated also a liar sorry or that a n d i f h e was i f , instead, testified he o n l y remorseful. intended sorry immediately lying he c e l l ; i f he d i d n o t i n t e n d h e was t r u l y that pull the had t o remind him t o h e was the State was b a s e d o n c o m m e n t s h e h a d made d u r i n g if to proud number of times not remember a n y t h i n g and t h a t he f o r the k i l l i n g Riley i f he a telephone c a l l was famous from h i s t o happen; and I t also questioned h i s testimony to put the v i c t i m i t fired, after asked of being i n t h e back and then h i s testimony about the l o c a t i o n the even the v i c t i m . to the j u r y ; t o r u n away, h i s t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e v i c t i m t u r n e d accidentally, that, the v i c t i m . cross-examination, h e was jail intend Jones a c t u a l l y the s t o r e . repeatedly not intend really that until morning. t h e r o b b e r y , he n e v e r t h o u g h t a b o u t k i l l i n g Finally, On the next else on t h e g u n , t h a t h e a n d J o n e s n e v e r p l a n n e d t o h a r m o r the victim, did cell testified kill during he d i d n o t remember a n y t h i n g 11 shot. shot o f t h e gun a n d and h i s t e s t i m o n y the f i r s t a n d was that he d i d CR-06-1038 The State store before see questioned Riley why he w e n t about h i s testimony victim. but that that the victim prosecutor and stated: capital questioned the again first The h e made stated that there he c o u l d that t o execute him jury that The between t o Sanderfer he d i d n o t h i m i n a room, t h e this 720.) the time times, prosecutor the three about because also shots and the shooting, n o t remember a n y t h i n g and after shot. prosecutor inconsistent offense. about and that to lock him back (R. to k i l l the After Riley stated you can't t e l l murder." Riley statement Riley the "You t o o k y o u j u s t know t h a t it's shots. t o the back questioned the v i c t i m three i t was n o t on p u r p o s e remember t h e s e c o n d a n d t h i r d I t also he d i d n o t i n t e n d R i l e y d i d n o t deny s h o o t i n g insisted took into the t h e r o b b e r y a n d s u g g e s t e d t h a t he was l o o k i n g t o where t h e v i d e o c a m e r a s were l o c a t e d . Riley he about questioned statements he Riley had p r e v i o u s l y about made seemingly about He a l s o q u e s t i o n e d R i l e y a b o u t h i s t e s t i m o n y head injuries and about that questioning, h i s mental the following 12 health occurred: history. the about During CR-06-1038 "[PROSECUTOR:] health professional you? You've never even seen a m e n t a l f o r t r e a t m e n t o f any k i n d , have "[RILEY:] When I was on j u v e n i l e p r o b a t i o n I was s u p p o s e d t o s e e some b u t t h e y n e v e r d i d s e n d m e , sir. "[PROSECUTOR:] D a v i d R i l e y w a s n ' t g o i n g t o do what t h e a u t h o r i t i e s t o l d h i m t o d o , d i d you? "[RILEY:] I'm sorry. "[PROSECUTOR:] They t r i e d t o h e l p you i n t h e juvenile court system and you j u s t wouldn't l e t them? "[RILEY:] No, s i r . me t o a d o c t o r b u t t h e y camp." (R. They were supposed t o send i n s t e a d s e n t me t o a b o o t 724.) F i n a l l y , the following occurred during the State's cross- examination of Riley: "[PROSECUTOR:] I'm s a y i n g t h e t r u t h t o y o u , s i r , i s whatever you need t o say a t t h e time t o t r y t o save y o u r s e l f ? "[RILEY:] S i r , I ' v e been t r u t h f u l . I owed Dewon some m o n e y . He l e f t me n o c h o i c e b u t t o g o i n t o t h a t s t o r e a n d g e t t h e money. I went t o g e t t h e money w i t h no i n t e n t i o n t o h u r t Mr. K i r t l e y . I c a n ' t make y o u b e l i e v e t h a t . I can't. "[PROSECUTOR:] "[RILEY:] You s u r e That's "[PROSECUTOR:] can't. the truth. I t ' s not the truth. 13 CR-06-1038 "[RILEY:] I'm sorry. "[PROSECUTOR:] You're a c o n v i c t e d f e l o n , aren't you? I've "[RILEY:] Yes, s i r . I been took t o t r i a l been a r r e s t e d , y e s ,s i r . since "[PROSECUTOR:] You were c o n v i c t e d o f b u r g l a r y and you a r e c o n v i c t e d o f t h e f t i n t h e s e c o n d d e g r e e , right? "[RILEY:] Yes, s i r . "[PROSECUTOR:] Y e t you want t h i s jury to b e l i e v e what you're s a y i n g i n t h e f a c e o f a l l t h i s overwhelming evidence i s t o the contrary. this (R. "[RILEY:] case." S i r , t h a t case has n o t h i n g t o do w i t h 727-28.) On r e d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n , cocaine, crack, occurred. He j u s t before he w e n t i n t o t h e s t o r e a n d t h a t , w h e n h e w e n t i n t o the he w a s store, also really focusing. do things him marijuana stated high 14 incident a h i t of crack a n d was n o t makes a p e r s o n do and a f f e c t s h i s a b i l i t y t o He a l s o that the racing that cocaine reiterated that the victim, that around, day he h a d t a k e n Riley testified t o harm o r k i l l the a n d h i s m i n d was decisions. when he t u r n e d on that he w o u l d n o t n o r m a l l y make r a t i o n a l intend and R i l e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d u s e d he d i d n o t the v i c t i m surprised he r e a c t e d reflexively, that CR-06-1038 t h e gun w e n t o f f , t h a t he d i d n o t that he was On re-cross-examination, the State questioned R i l e y s o r r y f o r what whether h i s motive or to get the he took a b o u t t h e two location more d r u g s from video During his the o n l y argument the defense did not killing to the audio had t o be kill v i c t i m ' s head. t o you today." During the left he screwed a video up and occurred. at t r i a l He that was that Riley a l s o argued argued that three t h a t the the shots video and trying to being support argued that his argument, the he about h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n being deluded; r e c o r d i n g i n t h e s t o r e ; and 15 counsel n o t w o r k i n g p r o p e r l y on To testimony Riley the 746.) m e s s e d u p a n d was offense him noted " i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h what he's (R. pointed to Sanderfer's all Finally, did with s t o r e and prosecutor h i s c l o s i n g argument, defense R i l e y ' s m i n d was night victim. o f f Jones store. the raised the i n t e n t i o n a l because R i l e y f i r e d r e c o r d i n g s were sell the about It also questioned took from argument, the t o pay a b o u t w h a t he s p a t t e r i n the closing intend to and store. r e c o r d i n g s he of the b l o o d and happened. f o r t a k i n g t h e m o n e y was money t o buy money remember a n y t h i n g e l s e , the fact that Riley testimony that Riley CR-06-1038 r a n t o w a r d o f f i c e r s when t h e y w e n t t o h i s h o u s e t o a r r e s t h i m . Defense counsel and a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e g u n R i l e y h a d was u n r e l i a b l e because location i t d i d n o t work p r o p e r l y unsafe and t h a t t h e o f t h e g u n s h o t wounds and t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e body supported intentional During Riley's testimony that the shooting was not b u t was a c c i d e n t a l . his rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor argued: "You know, p e o p l e a c c e p t i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r what they've done, I mean, not accepting r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r what t h e y ' v e done i s a m a j o r problem i n our country today. The c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system i s c r i t i c i z e d . We're n o t d o i n g something a b o u t i t when s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h i s h a p p e n s . What a r e we going t o do about i t ? Well, manslaughter. E v e r y b o d y g o home. Sorry about i t . That's i t . I t does n o t g e t any worse than t h i s case. The f a c t s don't g e t any worse and you can see t h a t , and I r e s p e c t [defense c o u n s e l ] as a l a w y e r . He's done a f i n e j o b b u t he's d e a l i n g w i t h very d i f f i c u l t f a c t s t h a t h e ' s somehow t r y i n g t o s a y s o m e b o d y w i t h common s e n s e , y o u have t o c h e c k i t a t t h e d o o r t o go w i t h what t h e y ' r e s a y i n g . "When h e f i r s t s a y s -- w e l l , t h e t h i n g a b o u t what they're saying -- t h e t h i n g that I'm so t h a n k f u l a b o u t i s t h a t we d o h a v e v i d e o s o t h e s e a r e t h i n g s t h a t t h e y c o u l d s a y a n d c o u l d t r y t o do i f t h e r e was no v i d e o , b u t t h e r e i s . A n d w a t c h i t . W a t c h i t a g a i n i f y o u h a v e some q u e s t i o n a b o u t i t , a l l t h i s s t u f f . And he's h i g h . He's a whacked o u t , drug addict j u n k i e . 16 CR-06-1038 " W e l l t h a t n i g h t you saw i t . I've seen the video. I f he was some w h a c k e d out junkie and somebody comes i n t h e r e and i n t e r r u p t s a r o b b e r y i n p r o g r e s s , i s he g o i n g t o h a v e t h e w i t s a b o u t h i m t o step back calmly, put t h a t gun away so t h e guy d o e s n ' t see i t and s t a r t c o u n t i n g t h e money? T h a t ' s on t h e v i d e o . He h a d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y r i g h t t h e n t o r u n o u t o f t h a t s t o r e . S o m e t h i n g has gone w r o n g . The l o o k o u t h a s m e s s e d u p f o r me. I ' v e g o t t o g e t o u t o f h e r e . He c h o s e t o do s o m e t h i n g e l s e a n d now he s a y s I'm s o r r y . I'm s o r r y . W h a t d i d he s a y w h e n he's t a l k i n g t o h i s c o u s i n on the phone i n j a i l ? L e t ' s hear that c l i p . "(Jail phone c a l l played) "Yes, t h a t ' s remorse. They want t o say again t h a t we d o n ' t k n o w w h a t h a p p e n e d b a c k i n t h a t b a c k r o o m . We k n o w t h e y o n l y h a d t h r e e v i d e o s i n a s m a l l liquor store. T h e y d i d n ' t p u t one i n t h e b a c k r o o m b u t y o u c a n h e a r w h a t h a p p e n e d a n d , y o u know, a g a i n I r e s p e c t t h e way t h i s man h a s t r i e d t h i s c a s e . But f o r h i m t o s a y -- f o r h i m t o t r y t o t e l l y o u t h a t S c o t t K i r t l e y d i d n o t s u f f e r -- y o u h e a r d i t . I h a v e w a t c h e d t h a t t a p e many t i m e s a n d I c a n n o t w a t c h i t w i t h o u t -- i t j u s t s e n d s c h i l l s t h r o u g h me to hear him d i e . I m e a n , i t ' s j u s t -- i t ' s a w f u l . "Common s e n s e . L i s t e n t o i t a g a i n i f y o u -- i f t h e r e ' s any q u e s t i o n i n y o u r m i n d a b o u t i t . What d i d h i s f r i e n d s a y he s a i d t h e n i g h t i t h a p p e n e d ? It's funny to me -not funny. But i t ' s interesting. I'm g o i n g t o g e t on t h e s t a n d a n d t e l l you t h e t r u t h b u t when he's c o n f r o n t e d w i t h f a c t s t h a t he c a n ' t e x p l a i n , w h a t d o e s he d o ? I don't remember t h a t . I d o n ' t know w h a t h a p p e n e d . I don't remember. He can remember s m o k i n g dope, s m o k i n g t h i s , doing t h i s , going here, doing a l l t h i s s t u f f b u t when he's i n t h e r e i n t e n t i o n a l l y e x e c u t i n g t h e man, and he can't explain. I d o n ' t know w h a t happened. 17 CR-06-1038 "And they want to say, well, that was unintentional? I mean w h a t d i d he d o ? If this was u n i n t e n t i o n a l , a g a i n he was s o h i g h he d i d n ' t k n o w w h a t he was d o i n g . W h a t w o u l d he h a v e d o n e n e x t ? I g u e s s he w o u l d ' v e r u n o u t o f t h e s t o r e i f t h a t ' s -- t h i s i s some o o p s b u t w h a t d i d he d o ? Again the video. Goal driven behavior. He h a s k i l l e d the o n l y l i v e w i t n e s s t o h i s c r i m e a n d now w h a t d o e s he do? He g e t s t h e v i d e o t a p e s a n d f l e e s w i t h t h e m . S t o r e s t h e m up i n a t r e e h o u s e . He t h i n k s he's g o t t e n away w i t h i t . "You h e a r d w h a t J a c k i e B e a v e r s s a i d . The v i d e o he l e f t t h e r e w a s n ' t e v e n w o r k i n g u n t i l F r i d a y , t h e 4th. T h e y -- i f t h e y w e r e c a s i n g i t . He t h o u g h t he h a d g o t t e n a w a y w i t h i t s o w h a t d o e s he t r y t o d o ? He t r i e s t o l i e t o t h e p o l i c e w h e n t h e y p i c k h i m up a n d t h e y t a k e h i m down t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n . He d o e s n ' t know t h a t t h e y h a v e s e e n t h e v i d e o . He t h i n k s he can shoot bull h i s way through that. Watch t h a t tape. He a i n ' t some f o a m i n g a t t h e m o u t h d r u g a d d i c t . He's i n t h e r e t r y i n g t o BS t h e p o l i c e . I was out w a l k i n g around, a l l t h a t k i n d of s t u f f w h e n R a n d y E n g l a n d s a y s d o n ' t B S me. We k n o w w h a t y o u ' v e d o n e , y o u know, I ' v e g o t y o u . And Randy t e l l s h i m p o i n t b y p o i n t w h a t ' s on t h a t v i d e o . The g i g i s up f o r h i m . about " C a p i t a l murder. i t in this j a i l "(Jail W h a t d o e s he recording? phone c a l l say t o h i s mother played) " T h a t one t a p e s c r e w e d t h e w h o l e t h i n g up f o r him. You can see t h a t . Common s e n s e . Use i t . We want you t o use i t . They want t o say t h a t t h e r e ' s n o t a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t he s h o t t h i s man w h i l e he was down. T h e r e ' s n o t a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t he s h o t him w h i l e he was u p . I f t h e r e ' s some c r i t i c i s m o f o u r p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t f o r n o t h o s i n g down t h e p l a c e w i t h l u m i n o l o r t h e y d i d n ' t do a v a l i d e n o u g h s e a r c h o f this crime scene, watch the crime scene video 18 CR-06-1038 m e t i c u l o u s l y going through there l o o k i n g , showing y o u t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n 17 i n c h e s a n d below i n that l i t t l e c l o s e t ; t h a t ' s s i g n i f i c a n t , the absence o f s o m e t h i n g t h a t t h e y s a y s h o u l d be t h e r e . We w a n t y o u t o c o n s i d e r t h a t w h e n y o u d o -- w h e n y o u look at that. I t ' s obvious what your v e r d i c t s h o u l d be. "And they talk about sympathy. We're sympathetic. What t h e y ' r e t r y i n g t o do i s g e n e r a t e sympathy f o r t h i s guy i s what t h e y want t o do. P o o r David. I t ' s a tragedy. T h i s i s an i n t e n t i o n a l k i l l i n g t h a t he c a u s e d . I f you have any sympathy f o r him you s h o u l d check t h a t a t t h e door. "We t r i e d t o h e l p t h i s g u y . He s a i d I'm i n j u v e n i l e c o u r t . Y e a h , we t r i e d t o r e h a b i l i t a t e h i m . D i d n ' t work. That's what's wrong w i t h our system t h a t p e o p l e c r i t i c i z e and you have t h e power and t h e a u t h o r i t y t o do s o m e t h i n g a b o u t i t , a n d y o u s h o u l d . " (R. 759-64) (emphasis added). intentionally statement court, shot the Riley lesser jury any and officers the t r i a l i t s oral included court charge, offenses gave of on v o l u n t a r y i n t o x i c a t i o n . instruct the jury in making his (R. 7 6 4 . ) i t s instructions court felony-murder, I t also The t r i a l to the instructed on intentional instructed the court d i d not, at as t o t h e purposes 19 Riley and i n t e s t i f y i n g i n the t r i a l and r e c k l e s s manslaughter. time, that, " t r i e d t o B S h i s way t h r o u g h . " During murder, victim t o law enforcement Afterward, jury. the F i n a l l y , he a r g u e d t h a t f o r which i t CR-06-1038 could and could not consider evidence about Riley's prior convictions. Riley argues that his p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s o n l y f o r impeachment purposes evidence a l s o contends with evidence not first R. App. With i t could consider evidence of g u i l t . I n an about and not interrelated about juvenile these adjudications. arguments to argument, r e v i e w them f o r p l a i n e r r o r . him H o w e v e r , he the as trial did court. See R u l e 45A, Ala. P. r e g a r d t o impeachment by a crime, Rule the i t did t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r i m p r o p e r l y impeached present T h e r e f o r e , we that court e r r e d because instruct he jury trial not substantive the the 609, A l a . R. evidence of conviction Evid., provides, i n relevant "(a) G e n e r a l R u l e . For the purpose c r e d i b i l i t y of a witness, of "(1)(A) evidence that a witness t h a n an a c c u s e d has b e e n c o n v i c t e d c r i m e s h a l l be a d m i t t e d , s u b j e c t t o 4 0 3 , i f t h e c r i m e was p u n i s h a b l e b y o r i m p r i s o n m e n t i n e x c e s s o f one y e a r the law under which the witness c o n v i c t e d , and attacking other of a Rule death under was "(B) e v i d e n c e t h a t an a c c u s e d has been c o n v i c t e d of such a crime s h a l l be admitted i f the c o u r t determines t h a t the p r o b a t i v e value of a d m i t t i n g t h i s evidence 20 of part: CR-06-1038 outweighs accused i t sp r e j u d i c i a l effect to the " "(d) Juvenile or youthful offender adjudications. Evidence of juvenile or youthful o f f e n d e r a d j u d i c a t i o n s i s n o t a d m i s s i b l e under t h i s rule." Also, regarding purposes, Rule evidence that i s 1 0 5 , A l a . R. E v i d . , "When e v i d e n c e w h i c h i s p a r t y o r f o r one p u r p o s e b u t another party or f o r another t h e c o u r t , upon r e q u e s t , s h a l l to i t s proper scope and accordingly." In Ex p a r t e Minor, convicted fourteen of years was t h a t the victim's counsel, Minor admitted second-degree rape On of a victim son, Ebious death. assault, jail murder Minor was less was than f o rthe k i l l i n g Jennings. At t r i a l , the injuries that examination by his resulted defense had p r i o r convictions f o r unlawful possession of cocaine, and and that he who t o death During d i r e c t that limited a d m i s s i b l e a s t o one n o t a d m i s s i b l e as t o purpose i s admitted, r e s t r i c t the evidence instruct the jury 780 S o . 2 d 7 9 6 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , he d i d n o t c a u s e second-degree for provides: o f age a n d s e n t e n c e d h i s two-month-old defense in of c a p i t a l admitted he h a d e s c a p e d w h i l e he was a w a i t i n g t r i a l the county on t h e c a p i t a l m u r d e r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , he a d m i t t e d 21 from that h e h a d made charge. several CR-06-1038 i n c o n s i s t e n t statements about the i n c i d e n t , but contended he d i d s o t o g e t r e l e a s e d on b o n d a n d to protect the that victim's mother. After this court affirmed Minor's conviction, p e t i t i o n e d t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t f o r r e v i e w , a r g u i n g the trial court committed properly instruct 1) that i t reversible error the j u r y r e g a r d i n g h i s p r i o r could consider the evidence c o n v i c t i o n s o n l y f o r impeachment purposes not c o n s i d e r the p r i o r Minor's g u i l t . " agreed 780 w i t h Minor, convictions So. 2d a t 799. r e a s o n i n g as of in convictions Minor's -¬ prior as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e The to a n d 2) t h a t i t c o u l d A l a b a m a Supreme follows: "When a d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e s a t t r i a l , t h e S t a t e e n t i t l e d t o impeach the defendant's credibility i n t r o d u c i n g evidence of p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . See 22 "that failing "Minor did not at trial request a limiting instruction regarding the evidence of h i s prior convictions and d i d n o t a t t r i a l object to the court's failure to give such an instruction. However, t h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w of a d e a t h - p e n a l t y case a l l o w s us t o a d d r e s s any p l a i n e r r o r o r d e f e c t f o u n d i n the p r o c e e d i n g under review, even i f the e r r o r was n o t b r o u g h t t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . R u l e 3 9 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) a n d ( k ) , A l a . R. A p p . P. ... E v e n under the s t r i n g e n t standards a p p l i c a b l e t o p l a i n error review, we conclude that the failure to p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t the j u r y i n a c a p i t a l - m u r d e r case as t o t h e p r o p e r use o f e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g p r i o r convictions constitutes reversible error. is by he of Court CR-06-1038 R u l e 6 0 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , A l a . R. E v i d . In considering the a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s f o r impeachment purposes, t h i s Court has s t a t e d : "'The h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y o f p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t a d e f e n d a n t makes t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f h i s previous criminal convictions a controversial issue. "'This n o t i o n o f p r e j u d i c e has been s a i d t o encompass two t e n d e n c i e s o f j u r i e s : 1) T h e t e n d e n c y t o c o n v i c t n o t b e c a u s e t h e defendant i s g u i l t y of the charged offense, b u t b e c a u s e e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d s h o w s he i s a b a d p e r s o n who s h o u l d b e incarcerated r e g a r d l e s s o f h i s p r e s e n t g u i l t , a n d 2) t h e tendency to infer that, because the defendant committed a prior crime, he committed the crime charged. Thus, a defendant wishing t o t e s t i f y i n h i s own behalf faces t h i s dilemma: T e s t i f y and run the r i s k o f g r e a t l y p r e j u d i c i n g h i s defense by introduction of p r i o r convictions t o impeach, o r r e f r a i n from t e s t i f y i n g and damage h i s d e f e n s e b y n o t t e l l i n g h i s s i d e of t h e s t o r y . "'The rationale for admitting i m p e a c h m e n t e v i d e n c e when a d e f e n d a n t , o r any other witness, testifies i s that c e r t a i n evidence of p r i o r c r i m i n a l acts and general character relates t o a person's propensity to l i e ; therefore, the jury s h o u l d have and use t h i s e v i d e n c e , b u t o n l y for the l i m i t e d purpose of evaluating the witness's v e r a c i t y . ' " M c I n t o s h v. S t a t e , 443 So. 2 d 1 2 8 3 , 1285 ( A l a . 1983). ( C i t a t i o n s omitted.) The l a w i n A l a b a m a i s clear that 'evidence of p r i o r criminal convictions f o r i m p e a c h m e n t p u r p o s e s may n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d or taken i n t o account i n determining a defendant's 23 CR-06-1038 g u i l t o f t h e o f f e n s e f o r w h i c h he i s p r o s e c u t e d . ' K i n g v. S t a t e , 521 So. 2d 1360, 1361 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ( q u o t i n g 81 Am. J u r . 2 d W i t n e s s e s § 5 6 9 a t 575 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ) . I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t when p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s a r e i n t r o d u c e d f o r impeachment purposes t h e d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d , upon r e q u e s t , t o have t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t e d t h a t those p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s cannot be c o n s i d e r e d as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f g u i l t o f the crime charged. King, supra. The i s s u e i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e i s w h e t h e r , a b s e n t a r e q u e s t o r an o b j e c t i o n by t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t has a duty t o i n s t r u c t the j u r y that evidence of p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s i s n o t t o be c o n s i d e r e d as s u b s t a n t i v e evidence of g u i l t . We h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t does have such a d u t y i n a c a p i t a l - m u r d e r case. " T h i s C o u r t has never a d d r e s s e d t h e q u e s t i o n whether a t r i a l c o u r t has a d u t y t o sua sponte i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y as t o t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h i t may c o n s i d e r e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s h a s h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t does n o t have a duty, sua sponte, t o inform the jury that evidence of inconsistent s t a t e m e n t s may b e c o n s i d e r e d o n l y f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f impeaching a witness's credibility. Varner v. State, 497 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 5 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986); W e a v e r v . S t a t e , 466 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 7 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1985). However, V a r n e r and Weaver were n o t c a p i t a l c a s e s , and t h e d o c t r i n e o f p l a i n - e r r o r r e v i e w d i d not apply. I n a d d i t i o n , t h o s e c a s e s do n o t c o n t a i n any h o l d i n g o r a n a l y s i s w i t h r e s p e c t t o impeachment by p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s h e l d i n P a r d u e v . S t a t e , 5 7 1 S o . 2 d 3 2 0 , 327 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 571 So. 2 d 333 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o request a l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n or t o object t o the t r i a l court's f a i l u r e to instruct the jury regarding the defendant's p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s waived the issue f o r r e v i e w . H o w e v e r , P a r d u e was n o t a c a p i t a l c a s e , 24 CR-06-1038 and the apply. doctrine of plain-error review did not "The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was n o t required to give the jury a l i m i t i n g instruction, a b s e n t a r e q u e s t b y M i n o r , c i t i n g C h a r l e s W. G a m b l e , M c E l r o y ' s Alabama E v i d e n c e , § 165.01(2) (5th ed. 1996): "'Once t h e a c c u s e d h a s b e e n i m p e a c h e d by one of the p e r m i s s i b l e impeachment f o r m s , t h e d e f e n s e may w a n t t o t a k e s t e p s to minimize or o f f s e t the impact of the impeachment. The a c c u s e d i s e n t i t l e d t o have t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t e d t h a t such e v i d e n c e i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d o n l y as a f f e c t i n g t h e a c c u s e d ' s c r e d i b i l i t y as a w i t n e s s and n o t as t e n d i n g t o show g u i l t . The c o u r t i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o g i v e s u c h an i n s t r u c t i o n u n l e s s t h e a c c u s e d r e q u e s t s t h a t i t be g i v e n . ' "However, this Court has acknowledged the inherently prejudicial nature of evidence of a defendant's p r i o r convictions. C o f e r v . S t a t e , 440 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 1 , 1124 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ( ' [ e ] v i d e n c e o f p r i o r bad a c t s of a c r i m i n a l defendant i s p r e s u m p t i v e l y prejudicial to the defendant'). 'The general e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e bars the s t a t e from introducing e v i d e n c e o f an a c c u s e d ' s p r i o r c r i m i n a l a c t s f o r t h e sole purpose of p r o v i n g the p r o p e n s i t y of the a c c u s e d t o commit t h e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e . ' Hobbs v. S t a t e , 669 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 2 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) . Thus, e v i d e n c e of p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s i s a d m i s s i b l e only f o r l i m i t e d purposes. 'The b a s i s f o r t h e r u l e l i e s i n the b e l i e f that the p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t of p r i o r c r i m e s w i l l f a r o u t w e i g h any p r o b a t i v e v a l u e t h a t m i g h t be g a i n e d f r o m them. Most agree that such evidence of prior crimes has almost an i r r e v e r s i b l e i m p a c t upon t h e minds o f t h e j u r o r s . ' Cofer, 440 So. 2d a t 1123 (quoting Charles W. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 69.01 (3d e d . 1977)). The g e n e r a l e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e ' p r o t e c t s t h e 25 CR-06-1038 d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o a f a i r t r i a l ' by s e e k i n g ' " t o p r e v e n t c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d on a j u r y b e l i e f t h a t [ t h e ] accused i s a person of bad c h a r a c t e r . The jury's d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f g u i l t o r i n n o c e n c e s h o u l d be b a s e d on e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t t o t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d . " ' Cofer, 440 So. 2 d a t 1 1 2 3 (citation omitted). Thus, i t n a t u r a l l y f o l l o w s t h a t the t r i a l court should take all necessary precautions to ensure that when evidence of a defendant's prior convictions i s admitted into evidence, the jury is properly i n s t r u c t e d on t h e p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h i t may c o n s i d e r that evidence. This i n c l u d e s i n s t r u c t i n g the jury, s u a s p o n t e , t h a t i t may n o t c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e defendant committed the charged offense. II "In the p r e s e n t vague instruction evidence: case, the t r i a l c o u r t gave t h i s on the use of impeachment "'Now, e v i d e n c e h a s b e e n i n t r o d u c e d i n t h i s case f o r the purpose of impeaching c e r t a i n w i t n e s s e s and d i s c r e d i t i n g their testimony. "'The law allows witnesses to be i m p e a c h e d i n any number o f ways. For e x a m p l e , a w i t n e s s may be impeached by p r o o f of c o n v i c t i o n s of crimes involving moral turpitude or a witness may be i m p e a c h e d b y c o n t r a d i c t o r y s t a t e m e n t s made b y t h e w i t n e s s e i t h e r on t h e s t a n d w h i l e testifying or at other times and other p l a c e s , whether under oath or not. "'But t h e f a c t t h a t a w i t n e s s has been impeached and s u c c e s s f u l l y impeached does not mean that you must necessarily disregard that witness' testimony, either i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t , f o r t h e r e may be o t h e r 26 CR-06-1038 f a c t s and evidence or other testimony or o t h e r e v i d e n c e t h a t i n y o u r j u d g m e n t may tend t o corroborate e i t h e r a l l or part of that witness' testimony. And as I have already t o l d you, you a r e t h e s o l e and e x c l u s i v e judges of the c r e d i b i l i t y of the witnesses and t h e weight that you w i l l accord t h e i r testimony.' "The trial court d i d not t e l l the jury that the e v i d e n c e o f M i n o r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s c o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d a s s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t he c o m m i t t e d the crime charged. Because t h e j u r o r s were n o t so i n s t r u c t e d , t h e y were f r e e t o c o n s i d e r the p r i o r convictions f o r any purpose; thus, they could consider the p r o b a b i l i t y that Minor committed the c r i m e b e c a u s e he h a d d e m o n s t r a t e d a p r i o r c r i m i n a l tendency. A l l o w i n g t h e j u r y t o make s u c h u s e o f t h e evidence was h i g h l y prejudicial and c o n s t i t u t e s reversible error. S e e R a n d o l p h v . S t a t e , 348 S o . 2 d 858 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1977) ( c o n v i c t i o n reversed because the t r i a l court failed to adequately distinguish between impeachment evidence and substantive evidence). "The failure to instruct a jury i n a capitalmurder case as t o t h e p r o p e r use o f e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s i s e r r o r , and t h a t e r r o r meets t h e d e f i n i t i o n of 'plain error.' T h a t f a i l u r e i s 'so obvious that [an a p p e l l a t e court's] failure to notice i t would s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t the f a i r n e s s or i n t e g r i t y of the j u d i c i a l proceedings.' [Ex p a r t e ] Womack, 4 3 5 S o . 2 d [ 7 6 6 , 7 6 9 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ] . The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r e was no p l a i n e r r o r b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d h a v e ' r e a s o n a b l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t ... d e f e n s e c o u n s e l h a d e l i c i t e d Minor's admission of the p r i o r convictions as p a r t o f t r i a l s t r a t e g y a n d d i d n o t want t o c a l l additional a t t e n t i o n t o t h e e v i d e n c e t h r o u g h an instruction to the jury.' 780 S o . 2 d a t 7 7 3 . We disagree. Assuming t h e t r i a l court d i d b e l i e v e that t h e f a i l u r e t o r e q u e s t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was a t r i a l 27 CR-06-1038 t a c t i c , the t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have e a s i l y i n q u i r e d as t o w h e t h e r d e f e n s e c o u n s e l w a n t e d t h e i n s t r u c t i o n given. Considering the presumptively prejudicial nature of evidence of a defendant's prior c o n v i c t i o n s , we c o n s i d e r i t i n c u m b e n t on t h e trial c o u r t t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d on t h e p r o p e r use of s u c h e v i d e n c e . We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f a i l u r e of the t r i a l c o u r t t o i n s t r u c t the j u r y t h a t it could not use such evidence as substantive evidence of guilt 'has or probably has' s u b s t a n t i a l l y prejudiced Minor; thus, i t s a t i s f i e s the p l a i n - e r r o r standard. See R u l e 3 9 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) and ( k ) , A l a . R. A p p . P. "Furthermore, the prosecutor drew increased attention to Minor's p r i o r convictions through his cross-examination. On cross-examination, Minor provided details concerning each of the prior convictions. He claimed that the second-degree a s s a u l t c h a r g e was b a s e d on a s h o o t i n g t h a t was d o n e i n s e l f - d e f e n s e ; t h a t the second-degree rape charge was b a s e d on t h e s t a t u t o r y r a p e o f a f e m a l e who had l i e d a b o u t h e r age; and t h a t the drug-possession c h a r g e was b a s e d on d r u g s t h a t w e r e n o t h i s . The prosecutor used these e l a b o r a t i o n s to argue that Minor f a i l e d to take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for his actions. Specifically, a f t e r Minor t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance but that the drugs were not his, the following colloquy occurred: "'[Prosecutor]: drugs, e i t h e r ? "'[Minor]: No, So i t was "'[Prosecutor]: Ebious? "'[Minor]: Ebious.' that And No, 28 not your d i d not kill not. you I was did not kill CR-06-1038 "(R. 1259.) T h e r e a f t e r , the prosecutor commented: ' A c t u a l l y , Mr. M i n o r , you h a v e g o t an explanation for everything to minimize your responsibility, don't you?' Considering these statements i n l i g h t o f '1) [t]he tendency [of j u r i e s ] t o c o n v i c t not because the defendant is guilty of the charged o f f e n s e , b u t b e c a u s e e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d s h o w s he i s a b a d p e r s o n who s h o u l d be i n c a r c e r a t e d r e g a r d l e s s of his present guilt, and 2) the tendency [of juries] to infer that, because the defendant committed a p r i o r crime, he committed the crime c h a r g e d , ' M c I n t o s h , 443 So. 2d a t 1285, we must conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e to i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t h a t M i n o r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s c o u l d n o t be used f o r those purposes c o n s t i t u t e s a p a r t i c u l a r l y e g r e g i o u s e r r o r . T h e r e f o r e , we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t of t h e C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s and remand f o r t h a t c o u r t t o o r d e r a new trial." Ex parte Minor, Shortly 780 So. 2d at 799-804 t h e r e a f t e r , i n Ex 485-87 (Ala. 2001), the holding i n Ex parte Minor, parte Alabama (footnote Snyder, Supreme reasoning as 893 Court omitted). So. 2d limited follows: "This Court, in finding that plain error had o c c u r r e d i n Ex p a r t e M i n o r , r e c o g n i z e d t h a t M i n o r ' s t e s t i m o n y was e x t r e m e l y d a m a g i n g , t h a t t h e n e e d f o r an i n s t r u c t i o n l i m i t i n g t h e u s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e was obvious, and that the failure to give the i n s t r u c t i o n was so p r e j u d i c i a l that i t affected Minor's s u b s t a n t i a l rights. While the Court found p l a i n e r r o r i n the t r i a l court's f a i l u r e to i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f M i n o r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n , the Court's h o l d i n g i n t h a t regard d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h a p e r se r u l e . See U n i t e d S t a t e s v . W a l d r i p , 981 F . 2 d 799 (5th C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( c l a r i f y i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v . D i a z , 585 F . 2 d 116 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) , and h o l d i n g t h a t w h e t h e r a f a i l u r e t o i n s t r u c t on the l i m i t e d use of p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n evidence was 29 482, its CR-06-1038 e r r o r was t o be d e t e r m i n e d on a c a s e - b y - c a s e basis). Thus, each i n q u i r y r e g a r d i n g the p r o p r i e t y of an instruction on the use of evidence of prior c o n v i c t i o n s p r e s e n t e d f o r impeachment purposes must b e d e t e r m i n e d on a c a s e - b y - c a s e basis. " I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , S n y d e r t e s t i f i e d on d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t he h a d p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o seconddegree t h e f t of p r o p e r t y . At the b e g i n n i n g of the s t a t e ' s c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , the f o l l o w i n g occurred with regard to that p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n : "'[Prosecutor]: Of c o u r s e , y o u s a i d t h a t -- I b e l i e v e y o u s a i d y o u c a u g h t a c a s e i n '87. Is t h a t your word? You caught a case. I s t h a t what you s a i d ? "'[Snyder]: May have, yes, s i r . " ' [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : T h a t you c a u g h t a c a s e i n '87 a n d t h a t c a s e was t h e f t o f p r o p e r t y ? "'[Snyder]: Yes, s i r . ' "(R. 3 1 1 1 . ) The p r o s e c u t o r d i d n o t q u e s t i o n S n y d e r further about this conviction. Nor did the prosecutor emphasize Snyder's prior conviction during his closing argument. Thus, u n l i k e the e v i d e n c e i n Ex p a r t e M i n o r , t h e e v i d e n c e o f S n y d e r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n was p r e s u m p t i v e l y p r e j u d i c i a l , b u t i t s i m p a c t was n o t e g r e g i o u s . "The s t a t e r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t g i v e t h e s t a n d a r d c h a r g e on t h e p r o p e r u s e o f S n y d e r ' s prior conviction. The trial court instructed the j u r y as f o l l o w s : "'Now, t h e r e h a s b e e n some t e s t i m o n y o f f e r e d to the e f f e c t t h a t a w i t n e s s p r i o r to t a k i n g the w i t n e s s stand d u r i n g this t r i a l has been c o n v i c t e d of a c r i m e . This t e s t i m o n y i s a l l o w e d t o go t o y o u f o r one 30 CR-06-1038 p u r p o s e , and t h a t i s f o r your c o n s i d e r a t i o n in determining what c r e d i b i l i t y you w i l l give a witness's testimony from the witness stand in this case. This i s f o r your consideration along with a l l the other f a c t o r s i n determining whether a witness i s w o r t h y o f b e l i e f i n w h a t he s a y s f r o m t h e witness stand.' "(Emphasis error trial added.) "The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t p l a i n had o c c u r r e d i n Snyder's t r i a l because the court "'did not s p e c i f i c a l l y t e l l the j u r y that it could not consider [Snyder's] prior c o n v i c t i o n a s s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t he committed the c a p i t a l offenses with which he was c h a r g e d . ... [ T ] h e j u r y c o u l d h a v e concluded that [Snyder] committed the c h a r g e d o f f e n s e s b e c a u s e he h a d p r e v i o u s l y demonstrated a c r i m i n a l tendency.' "893 S o . 2d a t 4 4 7 . " I n E x p a r t e M i n o r , t h e C o u r t was confronted w i t h a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e t h e j u r y was n o t o f f e r e d a n y d i r e c t i o n as t o t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n evidence. We m u s t now d e t e r m i n e i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s case e r r e d by n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y instructing the j u r y t h a t i t c o u l d not use p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n e v i d e n c e as ' s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f g u i l t . ' "It i s well-settled law t h a t , provided the i n s t r u c t i o n s a c c u r a t e l y s t a t e the law, a t r i a l court has b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n f o r m u l a t i n g i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s to the j u r y . Broadnax v. S t a t e , 825 S o . 2 d 134 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . I n Gaddy v. S t a t e , 698 S o . 2d 1 1 0 0 , 1132-33 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , a f f ' d , 698 So. 2d 1150 (Ala. 1997), Gaddy r e q u e s t e d an i n s t r u c t i o n to the e f f e c t that evidence of p r i o r 31 CR-06-1038 c o n v i c t i o n s d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e e v i d e n c e t h a t he h a d committed the charged crime. The r e q u e s t e d c h a r g e stated: ' " I charge you t h a t evidence of other offenses than those charged i n the indictment i s not t o be c o n s i d e r e d as e v i d e n c e o f t h e t r u t h o f t h e matters contained i n the indictment."' 698 S o . 2 d 1132. The trial court refused to issue the i n s t r u c t i o n but issued the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n : "'"I d i d not t e l l y o u when we first talked that the prior robbery conviction that Mr. Gaddy has s u f f e r e d s u b s e q u e n t t o the e v e n t s i n December here i n Birmingham i s admitted f o r the s o l e and l i m i t e d purpose f o r you to have at your disposal in assessing h i s c r e d i b i l i t y as a witness. The l a w p r o v i d e s i f one has s u f f e r e d a c o n v i c t i o n f o r an offense involving moral t u r p i t u d e , s u c h as r o b b e r y , t h e n t h e s e c o n v i c t i o n s may be c a l l e d to the j u r y ' s a t t e n t i o n . But i t is f o r the l i m i t e d purpose f o r you having that information at your d i s p o s a l i n a s s e s s i n g h i s trustworthiness."' "698 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 3 3 . The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s concluded that that i n s t r u c t i o n properly informed t h e j u r y as t o t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e p r i o r c r i m e s -- c r e d i b i l i t y -- a n d t h a t t h e g i v i n g of that i n s t r u c t i o n was n o t p l a i n e r r o r . T h i s C o u r t d i d n o t o v e r r u l e Gaddy i n i t s a n a l y s i s i n Ex p a r t e M i n o r . See a l s o J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 292 A l a . 208, 291 So. 2d 336 (1974)(stating that an instruction on t h e l i m i t e d u s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e s a t i s f i e s any need t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e may n o t b e u s e d a s e v i d e n c e o f t h e c r i m e charged). 32 CR-06-1038 "The h o l d i n g i n G a d d y i s r e a s o n a b l e , s o u n d , a n d worthy of a p p l i c a t i o n to t h i s case. Here, the t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y as t o t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f S n y d e r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n . I f an i n s t r u c t i o n c l e a r l y informs the j u r y of the sole purpose of prior-conviction evidence -the w i t n e s s ' s c r e d i b i l i t y -- i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t the j u r y w o u l d not use the e v i d e n c e f o r any other purpose. See, e.g., T a y l o r v . S t a t e , 666 So. 2d 36 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , a f f ' d , 666 So. 2d 73 (Ala. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 (1996)(recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions). U n l i k e the circumstances in Ex p a r t e M i n o r , w h e r e t h e j u r y c o u l d h a v e u s e d t h e testimony f o r w h a t e v e r p u r p o s e i t d e s i r e d -to d e t e r m i n e a w i t n e s s ' s c r e d i b i l i t y o r as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t -- t h e t r i a l c o u r t in this case informed the jury that the priorc o n v i c t i o n e v i d e n c e h a d 'one p u r p o s e ' a n d t h a t t h a t p u r p o s e was t o d e t e r m i n e c r e d i b i l i t y ; consequently, i t e r a d i c a t e d the n e c e s s i t y of i n f o r m i n g the j u r y t h a t i t w o u l d be i m p r o p e r t o u s e t h e e v i d e n c e as substantive e v i d e n c e of g u i l t . The unambiguous instruction adequately cautioned the jury, e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d the s o l e purpose of the testimony, a n d e l i m i n a t e d t h e r i s k t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w o u l d be used improperly. Therefore, the emphasis i n the instruction on the one purpose of the evidence o v e r c o m e s a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r 'has or probably has adversely a f f e c t e d the substantial r i g h t of [Snyder].' R u l e 45A, A l a . R. A p p . P. To h o l d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t i s r e q u i r e d to i n f o r m the j u r y t h a t p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n e v i d e n c e c a n n o t be u s e d as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e , would u n n e c e s s a r i l y limit the trial court's discretion in forming jury i n s t r u c t i o n s , would r e s t r i c t defense counsel's trial s t r a t e g y , c f . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. B a r n e s , 586 F.2d 1052, 1059 (5th Cir. 1978), and in certain circumstances may unnecessarily emphasize the prejudicial evidence. Therefore, while the i n s t r u c t i o n to the j u r y must state either that p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n e v i d e n c e c a n be u s e d o n l y f o r t h e 33 CR-06-1038 purpose of a s s e s s i n g a w i t n e s s ' s c r e d i b i l i t y or state that such evidence may not be used as s u b s t a n t i v e evidence of the defendant's g u i l t of the c r i m e c h a r g e d , i t i s n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r p e r se i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t d o e s n o t i n s t r u c t b o t h as t o t h e a d m i s s i b l e purpose of the p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n evidence a n d t h e p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h s u c h e v i d e n c e may n o t be considered, u n l e s s c o u n s e l r e q u e s t s such a twop r o n g e d i n s t r u c t i o n and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . "Under the facts presented here, the trial c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e j u r y on t h e u s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f S n y d e r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n was a c o r r e c t statement of the law; i t d i d not c o n s t i t u t e plain error. The judgment of the Court of Criminal A p p e a l s i s r e v e r s e d and t h i s c a u s e i s remanded t o that court for further review consistent with this opinion." (Footnote omitted.) Finally, have this recognized that parte Snyder about p r i o r See both are State, Key In v. State, this situation was i n Ex to parte 891 So. the Alabama i n Ex cases purposes. 353 34 Ex Ex f o r impeachment 931 6, 2006] So. 2d (Ala. Crim. evidence and and evidence about So. 759 App. (Ala. 2002). Riley's f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s , parte Minor Court i n which Martin, 2d Supreme parte Minor 1041313, October Ex offered the those i s offered [Ms. case, convictions and decisions limited ( A l a . 2006); 2004); the convictions J o h n s o n v. 3d court p a r t e Snyder, a s was rather prior the than CR-06-1038 for other permissible J o h n s o n , Ex court's parte failure evidence decisions i n Ex In this Martin, to about purposes, and Key. instruct Riley's parte case, the the prior Minor was the T h u s , we jury on Ex court parte situation review the convictions and trial as in the in trial proper use light of of the Snyder. d i d not instruct the jury t h a t the evidence about R i l e y ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s c o u l d not considered a s s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t he c o m m i t t e d t h e charged. See Ex jury the prior that parte Minor. In fact, guidance as to prior was the the purposes case testimony i n Ex for parte whatever Riley's credibility guilt. Specifically, that Riley or intended demonstrated a p r i o r court c o u l d not Minor, as the to the be used. kill parte jury any about R i l e y ' s j u r y c o u l d have used the could -- to evidence have victim c r i m i n a l tendency. 35 Ex the as i t desired the the for the Therefore, substantive jury See give f o r which evidence purpose or used s o l e l y d i d not crime instruct Riley's credibility. trial convictions could the d i d not c o n v i c t i o n s c o u l d be sole purpose of determining Snyder. It also be determine of Riley's improperly because found he had CR-06-1038 In this case, like in Ex parte Minor, the prosecutor emphasized the evidence about R i l e y ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s d u r i n g his of cross-examination Riley. Subsequently, during his r e b u t t a l c l o s i n g argument, the p r o s e c u t o r s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d : "We t r i e d t o h e l p t h i s g u y . He s a i d I'm i n j u v e n i l e court. Y e a h , we t r i e d t o r e h a b i l i t a t e h i m . Didn't work. That's what's wrong w i t h our system t h a t people c r i t i c i z e and you have t h e power and the a u t h o r i t y t o do s o m e t h i n g a b o u t i t , a n d y o u s h o u l d . " (R. 763-64) (emphasis adjudications may not p a r t e M c C o r v e y , 686 So. 2d 165 (Ala. Crim. 63 So. 1291 2d added). be So. (Ala. Crim. 285 2 d 425 App. App. 1976); (1953). With "[e]vidence adjudications regard 1975, to i s not juvenile a general rule, juvenile used to impeach a defendant. of ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; Bone v. State, S t a t e , 333 L o v e v. 36 regard State, 609(d), juvenile A l a . R. or proceedings, § 693, provides offender rule." Also, with 12-15-72, Ala. Code provides: "(a) An order of disposition or other a d j u d i c a t i o n i n p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n (a) o f S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 0 s h a l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d t o be a conviction or impose any civil disabilities o r d i n a r i l y r e s u l t i n g from a c o n v i c t i o n of a crime or 36 2d evidence Evid., youthful Ex 706 So. A l a . App. t o impeachment by a d m i s s i b l e under t h i s court See 1 9 9 7 ) ; Moore v. of c o n v i c t i o n of a crime, Rule that As CR-06-1038 o p e r a t e t o d i s q u a l i f y t h e c h i l d i n any a p p l i c a t i o n or appointment. civil service " ( b ) The d i s p o s i t i o n o f a c h i l d and evidence given in a hearing i n the court s h a l l not be a d m i s s i b l e as e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t h i m i n a n y c a s e o r proceeding i n any other court whether before or a f t e r reaching majority, except i n a disposition hearing in a juvenile court or in sentencing proceedings a f t e r c o n v i c t i o n of a crime f o r the p u r p o s e s o f a p r e s e n t e n c e s t u d y and r e p o r t . " We recognize prosecutor, juvenile that Riley that, volunteered adjudications were the dispositions, regard. we and had not information his being of the during his worked, person. had thus intended sent juvenile about the by prior camp. If adjudications and error in that closing argument, the State of Alabama had t r i e d t o r e h a b i l i t a t e him implying the his to boot i n v i t e d any rebuttal s p e c i f i c a l l y argued that t h a t he h a d a bad cross-examination m i g h t f i n d t h a t he t r i e d t o h e l p R i l e y and it and only mention However, prosecutor during that Riley was and a bad that person t o c o m m i t t h i s o f f e n s e b e c a u s e he T h a t i s p r e c i s e l y w h a t R u l e 609, A l a . R. was Evid., forbids. Based parte court on Minor should the and Ex have Alabama parte given Supreme Snyder, the we jury 37 Court's decisions conclude a that limiting the in Ex trial instruction CR-06-1038 regarding the proper convictions. We understood, without about Riley's use cannot of evidence assume that i n s t r u c t i o n , that prior convictions p a r t i c u l a r l y after the prosecutor's and h i s inference the Riley's jury i t could only would use for Rather, we must was egregious instruct to conclude and that, under the jury error. judgment Accordingly, and consistent remand with this R E V E R S E D AND Welch, result. Windom, circuit agree court trial court's the proper use of rose t o the l e v e l of reverse case prejudicial the trial f o r proceedings court's that are opinion. REMANDED. J . , concurs. WINDOM, JUDGE, I this the regarding we these Minor, the evidence that evidence about R i l e y ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s plain evidence r e b u t t a l c l o s i n g argument a s was t h e c a s e i n E x p a r t e i t s impact failure have impeachment, a b o u t R i l e y ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s was p r e s u m p t i v e l y and prior t h a t R i l e y was a b a d p e r s o n who c o u l d n o t b e rehabilitated. circumstances, about Kellum and Main, J . , dissents, with J J . , concur i n the opinion. dissenting. with erred the plurality's by f a i l i n g 38 determination to i n s t r u c t the jury that the that i t CR-06-1038 could only consider Riley's purposes. I also See E x p a r t e agree prosecutor with the improperly utilized evidence presented defense, I disagree respectfully "The S o . 2 d 796 determination and commented However, based the that State these 45A, ( A l a . 2000). and on the rise App. Riley's of Riley's to the l e v e l of Therefore, I P. of review doctrine i n reviewing i s stricter than a c l a i m under the standard on a p p e a l . " Crim. Hall App. 1999). claimed error 'substantial prejudicial must v. S t a t e , "'"To r i s e impact 11 Bryant, 951 S o . 2 d 7 2 4 , 727 is, State, 778 3d i t must 933, 938 affect also a error, the defendant's have an ( A l a . 2008 ) ( q u o t i n g (Ala. 2002), quoting So. 2d 199, 209 "'[t]he of p l a i n the j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s . " ' " Brown, v. So. on seriously but (Ala. plain-error 39 court So. 2d 113, 121-22 ( A l a . to the l e v e l not only rights,' 820 the used i n r e v i e w i n g a n i s s u e t h a t was p r o p e r l y r a i s e d i n t h e t r i a l or the overwhelming the nature errors A l a . R. on that dissent. standard plain-error by Rule 780 plurality's adjudications. error. c o n v i c t i o n s f o r impeachment Minor, juvenile plain prior Crim. App. exception unfair Ex parte Ex parte i n turn 1998)). to Hyde That the CR-06-1038 contemporaneous-objection is to circumstances in which solely in justice would otherwise r e s u l t . " ' " a t 938 [appellate] 1111 "used a claim Although the " f a i l u r e review in a capital of p r e j u d i c e . " sparingly, miscarriage Ex p a r t e Brown, i n t u r n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Frady, (1982)). any be ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Y o u n g , 470 U.S. quoting 14 those rule 11 S o . 3 d 1, 15 456 U.S. of (1985), 1 5 2 , 1 6 3 , n. t o o b j e c t does not p r e c l u d e case, i t does weigh Ex p a r t e K e n n e d y , against 472 So. 2d 1106, relied upon i n the the circuit ( A l a . 1985). I n Ex p a r t e M i n o r , main o p i n i o n , court's t h e A l a b a m a Supreme failure consideration constituted the case p r i m a r i l y to of plain give Minor's error. an Court held instruction prior 780 that limiting convictions to So. 2d 796, 802-04 the jury's impeachment ( A l a . 2000). M i n o r was c h a r g e d w i t h c a p i t a l m u r d e r f o r c a u s i n g t h e d e a t h o f his infant testified Ebious 799. son, Ebious. i n h i s defense and t h a t Id. at 797-98. trial Minor a n d " m a i n t a i n e d t h a t he d i d n o t he d i d n o t s t r i k e Ebious D u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y , M i n o r was "convictions At i n a n y way." Id. at impeached w i t h h i s p r i o r for assault i n the second degree, of c o c a i n e , and f o r rape i n the second degree." 40 kill for possession Id. At the CR-06-1038 conclusion of the trial, the circuit court d i d not the j u r y t h a t i t c o u l d o n l y c o n s i d e r Minor's p r i o r for impeachment. The Alabama consider purposes. convictions Id. Supreme erred i n f a i l i n g only instruct Court t o sua sponte Minor's the that instruct prior Specifically, held the circuit court the j u r y that i t could convictions Supreme C o u r t for impeachment stated: "The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t t e l l t h e j u r y t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e o f M i n o r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s c o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t he c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d . B e c a u s e t h e j u r o r s were n o t so i n s t r u c t e d , t h e y were f r e e t o c o n s i d e r the prior convictions f o r any purpose; thus, they could consider the p r o b a b i l i t y that Minor committed the c r i m e b e c a u s e he h a d d e m o n s t r a t e d a p r i o r c r i m i n a l tendency." Id. at 803. The "presumptively prior Supreme Court because constituted In Minor's i t has plain Snyder v. prior d i d not to hold not been error. State, create the p o s s i b i l i t y c o n v i c t i o n s as given Id. at 893 So. A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d Minor on that the p r e j u d i c i a l n a t u r e of evidence of a defendant's convictions" coupled with considered went a per se a that the substantive limiting jury evidence instruction 804. 2d that 482, 485 ( A l a . 2001), i t s d e c i s i o n i n Ex the parte r u l e r e q u i r i n g r e v e r s a l when 41 a CR-06-1038 limiting prior i n s t r u c t i o n was convictions. instruction parte So. 6, must Martin, not given Instead, be 931 Snyder So. Ex 2 d 7 5 9 , 768 ( A l a .2004); Snyder, 893 Johnson v. S t a t e , , l i m i t e d the holding the court's failure limiting basis. [Ms. 1 0 4 1 3 1 3 , O c t . ( A l a . 200 6) o f Ex p a r t e a l t h o u g h t h e C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e trial a case-by-case 3d on to give ("This Court M i n o r by s t a t i n g Minor found regard to i n s t r u c t the j u r y instruction presented on of evidence basis.'")(quoting a case-by-case Supreme Court, failure to limit convictions plain use f o r impeachment purposes case-by-case Applying 'each i n q u i r y r e g a r d i n g the I must analysis conclude the jury's error. 42 of holding such t h e p r o p r i e t y o f an of must prior be Snyder, convictions determined on a So. 2d a t 4 8 5 ) . as mandated by the Alabama that 893 the consideration and t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s that on t h e p u r p o s e d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h a p e r se r u l e ' r e g a r d i n g e v i d e n c e and t h a t in ' p l a i n error i n the evidence of Minor's p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n , the Court's in that of a 2d a t 485; see a l s o 200 6] the f a i l u r e reviewed So. on t h e u s e o f e v i d e n c e comment circuit of R i l e y ' s d i d not court's prior constitute CR-06-1038 As t h e p l u r a l i t y overwhelmingly damning, store established Riley's surveillance and crime video. calmly the robbery. outside He Although the store After the of the the events be the clerk can pause, Riley fires fires a third Riley videos took on then c a l m l y proceeds two State semiautomatic most entering When Riley the clerk a the customer be heard a second clerk Having from into the presented pistol the they shot used the room the be he clerk surveillance heard. fires a a pause, three Riley times, cameras. and He of h i s robbery. indicating to of After in pain. another room the main area of the s t o r e evidence 43 back can backroom, After store Riley a with i n the back screaming just into to camera. video, shot. customer proceeded place into the then c a l m l y leaves the s t o r e w i t h the proceeds The and package-store Riley allows store that seen shot. then surveillance the collects the clerk. i s gone, forces the and First on depicts store purchase, forces shot guilt. captured video customer cannot Riley The a then the view Riley's trial R i l e y c a l m l y c o n c e a l s h i s weapon, a l l o w s the make Once leave. to the evidence p r e s e n t e d at was robbing enters the s t o r e , customer details, shoot that the the clerk CR-06-1038 malfunctioned. load a new Specifically, cartridge into been f i r e d . the the Because of t h i s to f i r e between the next each of surveillance shot. the and to murdering the clerk the package robbed the robbery Sanderfer incident The a that Riley firing a shot, the the f i r e a r m to e x p l a i n e d the can be ready pauses heard had entered on the the had shot clerk also Riley had while explained to i s w h a t s c r e w e d e v e r y t h i n g up In other three his the leave without times. of telephone In that Johnson, Riley attempted g e t t i n g his story straight with other 44 he informed step-mother conversations, the He awaiting t r i a l . f o r him." the that during to to Riley murdered Sanderfer evidence in jail crime, store. customer presented admitted r o b b e d and the allowed the the s t o r e and had conversation, orchestrate had informed he State . pistol After then and at properly the video, Riley clerk. at the package customer Riley 3d that t h a t he h a d store. clerk conversations tape shots surveillance t o Doug S a n d e r f e r had evidence not video. admitted of after manipulate This three In a d d i t i o n to the robbing chamber would defect, after s h o o t e r would have to m a n u a l l y it weapon one "one So. to individuals CR-06-1038 and attempted witnesses to to stop Based on relay a running the message to one of evidence the of State's h e r mouth. overwhelming guilt, prosecutor's i m p r o p e r comment a n d t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s to the jury instruct convictions plain could error. be c o n s i d e r e d Rule N.H. 317, 965 A . 2 d the f a i l u r e t o sua sponte prior-conviction overwhelming F.2d 1200, failure to give d i d not r i s e to the l e v e l 1059, ( 7 t h C i r . 1991) in light overwhelming evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g the of f a i l u r e to give prior-conviction "base[d] testimony very pointing insignificance 942 of that 748 to the the testimonial 45 error based regarding guilt and references the to that the use plain nature on guilt); (197 3 ) ( f i n d i n g overwhelming defendant's the the use of the defendant's evidence d i d not c o n s t i t u t e upon the that regarding a limiting instruction largely i t s use S t a t e s v. Cooper, was n o t p l a i n 62 N . J . 3 8 8 , 301 A . 2 d that the (holding the of of a limiting instruction conviction (holding harmless United prior Hebert, regarding defendant's p r i o r v. L a i r , (2009) the jury the State See S t a t e v . 1067 was evidence of g u i l t ) ; 1205 f o r which instruct evidence failure the purpose 45A, A l a . R. A p p . P. 158 of 306, regarding the error, of the relative his prior CR-06-1038 convictions"). beyond have a reasonable been Price, of or without the So. 2d State erroneous during his closing light of the regarding did affect prejudicial Brown, robbery 11 and would the prior of comment. Ex not evidence not of r i s e to So. 2d the guilt, level 507 plain (Ala. conduct error establishing plurality's that the 495, amount t o evidence parte 1998 ) ( h o l d i n g in guilt). decision the causing the jury's 938. the and f a i l u r e to substantial the at of impeachment State's Riley's 3d light defense j u r y to c o n s i d e r h i s p r i o r than i m p a c t on So. 686 trial a prosecutor's improper with in the other comment not the convinced to conviction. importantly, purposes (Ala. State, that I am admission v. disagree of overwhelming argument d i d presented, allowing for 1072 overwhelming Riley's the evidence did (holding I result of Ivery 1996) Accordingly, 1063, admission error); More the prosecutor's presented C r i m . App. reverse that without the plain doubt same 725 because i r o n c l a d case of g u i l t , the convictions the W i t h an 46 rights or admitted death. convictions prosecutor's rehabilitate have deliberations. Riley clerk's the Riley He See an Riley unfair Ex committing argued, parte the however, CR-06-1038 t h a t he d i d not testified dealer pay t h a t he money, his shot first accidental defense was the and not The the on his the blacked blackout; capital that (two and to out and a third and shots therefore, he does the were was Riley had been i n which addiction Cal. App. anyone. 911, and 3d was no one 914 See (E.D. c r i m e go 1551, addicted was the after the Riley's s h o t was the an r e s u l t of of a felony United Wis. 285 47 theft and supported t o d r u g s , t h a t he committed States 2004) hand-in-hand"); 1555, of injured) r o b b e r y t o s u p p o r t h i s d r u g a d d i c t i o n , and S u p p . 2d that Thus, convicted the F. then murder. crimes kill He remember guilty a s s e r t i o n t h a t he to had not first his intend he that Riley, time. that third to r o b b e r y and According drug clerk robbery/murder. the Riley owed h i s asserted assertion second fact burglary he Specifically, package-store further accident. shot, the drugs during c l e r k a second drug-induced murder, robbed before on clerk. t o d r u g s , t h a t he Riley was an centered accident he shortly first shooting that t h a t he the addicted dealer. drugs testified to k i l l was and drug ingested intend Cal. v. t h a t he Rutherford, (recognizing P e o p l e v. Rptr. did 410, that Miller, 412 not 323 "drug 233 (1991) CR-06-1038 ("Narcotics addiction breeds crime."). State had supported drugs. and crime Likewise, go hand i n hand. the prosecutor's unsuccessfully attempted to Addiction comment t h a t t h e rehabilitate Riley R i l e y ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t he was h o p e l e s s l y a d d i c t e d t o Because Riley's defense centered around h i s bad c h a r a c t e r , i . e . , d r u g a d d i c t i o n and w i l l i n g n e s s t o commit nonfatal crimes consider fatal to support his prior crimes) failed Riley's defense. limit the the attempts f o r t h e f t and b u r g l a r y prosecutor's comment at r e h a b i l i t a t i o n Therefore, prosecutor's jury's comment rights, have d i d not Ex p a r t e Brown, Finally, bad court's the supported failure to f a v o r a b l e e v i d e n c e and seriously an u n f a i r p r e j u d i c i a l d e l i b e r a t i o n s , or result (non- regarding actually the c i r c u i t the j u r y ' s considerations of t h i s substantial his addiction, allowing the jury to convictions and State's that affect Riley's impact i n a miscarriage of on t h e justice. 11 S o . 3 d a t 9 3 8 . as d i s c u s s e d character, above, i.e., his w i l l i n g n e s s t o commit c r i m e s e s t a b l i s h e d h i s bad c h a r a c t e r a l l e g i n g that the robbery Riley's drug to support addiction relied and that addiction. by a d m i t t i n g was d r u g - r e l a t e d . 48 defense his Riley to the robbery The o n l y on and question CR-06-1038 Riley left felony f o r the murder c o m m i t t e d as murder the the jury consider not deny murder). robbery, for the 965 theft jury's A.2d the and parte Because burglary the 1067 regarding the involvement the So. 2d the failure for offense 802-04 and of the the his an prior unfair 158 N.H. to i n s t r u c t which jury i t was same e v e n t ) , (holding that was admitted of have of capital could h a r m l e s s when t h e d e f e n d a n t versions at Riley not l i m i t e d purpose in murder Compare H e b e r t , (holding that p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s was guilty or of admission did deliberations. at M i n o r , 780 1 unchecked a s k e d t o d e c i d e b e t w e e n two Ex because was a r e s u l t of a d r u g - i n d u c e d b l a c k o u t convictions i m p a c t on w h e t h e r he ( u n i n t e n t i o n a l murder) (intentional committing a t 317, j u r y t o d e c i d e was the did only with circuit R i l e y ' s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t he a c c i d e n t a l l y s h o t t h e c l e r k once t h e n b l a c k e d out and d i d n o t remember a n y t h i n g e l s e u n t i l t h e n e x t d a y was r e f u t e d b y h i s own testimony. During his t e s t i m o n y , the p r o s e c u t o r a s k e d R i l e y a b o u t t h e gun u s e d i n the robbery/murder. (R. 713.) S p e c i f i c a l l y , the prosecutor a s k e d : " I s n ' t t h a t the gun? You l e f t t h a t s t o r e a n d t o o k i t t o -- a f t e r g o i n g t o t h e t r e e h o u s e a n d g a v e i t b a c k t o Dewon to hide i t ? " R i l e y r e s p o n d e d t h a t he " l e f t i t i n Dewon's h a n d s o u t i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t . " The p r o s e c u t o r t h e n a s k e d : " A t h i s h o u s e , r i g h t ? " R i l e y c o r r e c t e d t h e p r o s e c u t o r and s t a t e d , "Out i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t . " (R. 713.) The f a c t t h a t R i l e y was a c u t e l y aware of the e v e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d i n the p a r k i n g l o t of the package s t o r e i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r the robbery/murder r e f u t e s h i s t e s t i m o n y t h a t a f t e r the f i r s t s h o t , h i s mind went b l a n k a n d he d o e s n o t r e m e m b e r anything. 1 49 CR-06-1038 court's f a i l u r e to give convictions defendant a limiting constituted maintained plain that i n s t r u c t i o n regarding error in h i s d i d not a case strike cause h i s c h i l d ' s d e a t h ) ; c f . B a r n e s v. S t a t e , 843 ( A l a . Crim. evidence App. indicating 1998) that (holding that the defendant (murder/burglary) t r i a l had u n r e l a t e d burglary was committing the burglary, thus l e a v i n g where the his child the in a admission 3d 866, 905-06 warrants f o r the defendant admitted the j u r y only Riley has not e s t a b l i s h e d instruction plain ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007) error. affected Rule that (same). the f a i l u r e to give t h e outcome o f h i s t r i a l 45A, A l a . R. A p p . to decide or the fact that supported court's Riley's a limiting constituted P. failure convictions or t h e e v i d e n c e and comments c o m p l a i n e d defense, to the prejudicial impact a injustice. manifest I do n o t b e l i e v e instruct the jury prosecutor's on t h e j u r y ' s Ex parte 50 11 Therefore, With overwhelming evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g R i l e y ' s g u i l t given of c a p i t a l murder between f e l o n y murder and c a p i t a l m u r d e r ) ; Brown v. S t a t e , So. or 727 S o . 2 d 8 3 9 , outstanding not p r e j u d i c i a l because prior that regarding comment had the about circuit the an and prior unfair d e l i b e r a t i o n or r e s u l t e d i n Brown, 11 So. 3d at 938. CR-06-1038 Accordingly, his conviction Riley has s h o u l d be failed to affirmed. dissent. 51 establish plain Therefore, I error, and respectfully
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
