Heath Lavon McCray v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/17/2010 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 be 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, 2010-2011 CR-06-0360 Heath L a v o n McCray v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WINDOM, from H o u s t o n C i r c u i t (CC-05-1532) Judge. Heath Lavon McCray appeals and Court sentence capital burglary, of death. because i t was h i scapital-murder M c C r a y was c o n v i c t e d committed see § 13A-5-40(a)(4), during A l a . Code conviction o f m u r d e r made the course 1975. of a After the CR-06-0360 p e n a l t y phase o f t h e t r i a l , 1975, the sentenced s e e §§ 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 a n d - 4 6 , A l a . C o d e jury unanimously to death. After recommended receiving that McCray a presentence be r e p o r t and c o n d u c t i n g a s e p a r a t e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , see § 13A-5-47, A l a . Code 1975, t h e t r i a l court followed the jury's and to death. sentenced The McCray evidence On W e d n e s d a y , was adduced August at t r i a l 10, 2005, indicated Brandy Jean the following. Bachelder's body f o u n d i n h e r m o b i l e home i n t h e Cayman B a y T r a i l e r P a r k i n Dothan. with Testimony McCray death, asked McCray indicated on T h u r s d a y , After a year August Bachelder told A c c o r d i n g t o Dean, M c C r a y l e f t Bachelder left on t h e f r o n t that 2005, Bachelder and back doors she n o t i c e d that night 2 had home. testified McCray that that she had August he 4, had t o w i t h a bag of c l o t h i n g . the mobile t i m e a n d r e t u r n e d w i t h t w o new d o o r knobs 4, living before her a t h e r m o b i l e home on T h u r s d a y , time McCray l e f t , had been and a h a l f Dean, B a c h e l d e r ' s m o t h e r , at which leave. Bachelder t o move o u t o f t h e m o b i l e v i s i t e d her daughter 2005, that f o r approximately but that Rolande said recommendation home f o r a s h o r t knobs t o r e p l a c e t h e door of the mobile that Bachelder home. Dean and McCray CR-06-0360 were i n t e r a c t i n g d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n t h e y had p r e v i o u s l y and it appeared Dean telephone that she as i f Bachelder testified the n e x t day, saw Bachelder before Bachelder at the that local she that Tuesday unable the Family supposed and son She during the Bachelder t o s c h o o l and discount day, and store mobile manager to and S u n d a y , Dean day Tuesday but look she home, saw of the for was 8, on Monday work said while Monday but was 2 0 0 5 , Dean w e n t the park, who was Dean there. b l o o d on trailer night, and 2005, also Bachelder, not the t h e n went t o store. d u r i n g the on t r i e d telephoning Bachelder the t o work t h a t day, notified with On W e d n e s d a y , A u g u s t 10, Dollar went t o B a c h e l d e r ' s McCray. t h e m o r n i n g o f Monday, A u g u s t Dollar to reach her. of a s w e l l a s on S a t u r d a y at work. night, afraid spoke spoke w i t h B a c h e l d e r B a c h e l d e r was to she took her Family was that then front who door, notified police. Tim M i l l e r , testified an o f f i c e r w i t h t h e D o t h a n P o l i c e t h a t on A u g u s t Cayman Bay T r a i l e r P a r k and s p o k e w i t h t h e m a n a g e r a n d w i t h D e a n , who was visibly Officer upset. 10, 2 0 0 5 , he Miller 3 saw went to the Department, b l o o d s t a i n s on the front CR-06-0360 d o o r , w h i c h was l o c k e d , the ground so he u s e d 1 t o f o r c e t h e f r o n t door open. door opening, 401.) Miller floor and a l l over t h e couch there was trail hallway. After blood he found saw " b l o o d trail Bachelder's officers A d o g was s h u t from body was room, and that a n d down t h e t o be f r o m someone b e i n g body lying Miller i n the hallway. s e c u r e d t h e scene, and and paramedics arrived. There on i n t h e m o b i l e home when h e i n the blood t r a i l inside leading down one o f t h e bedrooms a n d the scene. S t a t e ' s t h e o r y of t h e case Bachelder's (R. the kitchen appeared t o be any l i g h t s removed everywhere." i n the l i v i n g through a n d h e saw f o o t p r i n t s was l a t e r I m m e d i a t e l y upon t h e t h e r e was b l o o d a l l o v e r t h e l i v i n g - r o o m other police hallway. The Miller h e r body, O f f i c e r not appear entered the stated finding several did a Officer The b l o o d dragged; a cement b l o c k he f o u n d on found, while was t h a t two days Bachelder was before at work, M c C r a y b r o k e i n t o B a c h e l d e r ' s m o b i l e home u s i n g a s c r e w d r i v e r . McCray then down l o c k e d B a c h e l d e r ' s dog i n a bedroom and s t r i p p e d t o h i s underwear McCray then unscrewed 1 Officer Miller to avoid contaminating h i s clothing. a l l the l i g h t bulbs i n the mobile said t h e back 4 door was a l s o locked. home CR-06-0360 so that i t would be d a r k inside when B a c h e l d e r g o t home a n d removed t h e b a t t e r i e s f r o m t h e c o r d l e s s t e l e p h o n e so she c o u l d not c a l l f o r help. After disabling the lights and telephone, M c C r a y w a i t e d f o r B a c h e l d e r t o a r r i v e home, a t w h i c h p o i n t h e brutally ending pair attacked her with their relationship. o f socks and f o l l o w i n g bathtub, McCray to avoid leaving knife covered as revenge f o r h i s hands w i t h a h i sf i n g e r p r i n t s a t t h e scene t h e a t t a c k washed t h e b l o o d o f f h i s body i n t h e got dressed, Mike a butcher Etress, and f l e d t h e scene. a corporal with the criminal investigations d i v i s i o n o f t h e D o t h a n P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t , was i n c h a r g e o f t h e investigation found. and went He t e s t i f i e d t o t h e scene that t h e r e was a l a r g e throughout Bachelder's mobile the mobile home w e r e s t r e w n had taken place. several The floor about amount o f b l o o d indicating that a struggle C p l . E t r e s s n o t i c e d t h e r e were i n the blood o f the mobile was home a n d t h a t v a r i o u s i t e m s i n I n addition, footprints t h e day Bachelder home throughout had a the mobile type of tile home. that i s s e c u r e d w i t h a d h e s i v e , s o C p l . E t r e s s was a b l e t o remove 12 o f the tiles evidence. containing He also the footprints took several 5 and samples secure them of the blood as from CR-06-0360 v a r i o u s l o c a t i o n s i n t h e m o b i l e home. in the mobile lights, he the oven. one when he of the Cpl. Etress collected living-room floor i n b l o o d on lying He the i n blood, the bulbs on the sofa, evidence. kitchen it. knife i n the bulbs hood the a pair o f s o c k s on the a Pepsi brand soda the l i v i n g - r o o m f l o o r , One -- a l l of was which were of the drawers utensils, Blood b e l i e v e d t o be was also the bathroom appeared open a cordless bottle telephone found t o be 2 As trial person. home. collected t h e r e was diluted, No as box and but and lying secured which a pool i n the bathroom, t o wash o f f b l o o d i n t h e b a t h t u b . the mobile t h e m u r d e r w e a p o n -- i n the k i t c h e n , and in working. w i t h t h e b a t t e r i e s r e m o v e d l y i n g on t h e l i v i n g - r o o m f l o o r , a butcher on in also found light lights checked light l i g h t b u l b i n t h e m o b i l e home was m o b i l e home a s e v i d e n c e . lying and, home h a d b e e n u n s c r e w e d t o s t o p t h e m f r o m only working over arrived, d i s c o v e r e d t h a t a l l but the mobile The home w h e n h e T h e r e w e r e no contained of blood the blood i f someone had c u t t e r was as in in tried found in 2 e x p l a i n e d l a t e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n , McCray t e s t i f i e d at t h a t Bachelder always c a r r i e d a box c u t t e r on her 6 CR-06-0360 Cpl. both E t r e s s d e s c r i b e d the c o n d i t i o n when autopsy he the arrived following secured t i g h t l y into a noose around she her was at around around the day. her fingers and and almost again saw He chest, had had plastic bag been observed as well to the the bone. wounds to During a l e a s h was as torn and s t a b wounds to several on t h e s o f a . He also saw completely neck, cuts her arm. knife. described to which appeared wound elbow was Cpl. Etress also further d e f e n s i v e w o u n d s t h a t o c c u r r e d when B a c h e l d e r " h a d grabbed the knife He saw was being Bachelder's found as she wounds Cpl. Etress hands while numerous her thumb t h a t Bachelder's That c o n s i s t e n t i n width to the butcher the on k n i f e t h a t had been a k n i f e wound n e a r through down in half, autopsy, Bachelder's looped s h o r t s were several the c o n s i s t e n t i n width w i t h the butcher went the a d e e p wound b e t w e e n h e r f o r e f i n g e r and went that attended Bachelder's underwear body, w h e n he Bachelder neck. covered i n b l o o d . neck and h e r h e a d ; a b l a c k dog ankles, her Bachelder's scene of Bachelder's stabbed." (R. 594.) also s e v e r a l p u n c t u r e w o u n d s t o B a c h e l d e r ' s c h e s t , i n c l u d i n g one her left breast that went "completely 7 through" the to breast. CR-06-0360 (R. 595.) width The of width the butcher of t h a t wound knife found was consistent with at the scene. Dr. Stephen Boudreau, a m e d i c a l examiner Department of F o r e n s i c Sciences p r e s e n t when t h e a u t o p s y was 11, 2005. deep Bachelder 3 gash on continuous her gash her left all of which, pain and and Dr. severe Bachelder's right across hand, had on arms -- a gash the top underside on h e r of along Boudreau bleeding. The hand was large the on B a c h e l d e r wounds the of the said, left one at the middle grabbing a sharp o b j e c t . her several hand three side been caused by arm p a i n and of gash most the caused by a thumb, fingers left caused across likely the of her August hands her of would have s t a b wound t o h e r the butcher a l s o have caused her on was hand a on -¬ Bachelder fingers on Bachelder I n a d d i t i o n , B a c h e l d e r had wounds t o elbow Both to base and went left elbow t h a t began completely o f t h e u p p e r p a r t o f t h e arm, forearm. w i t h the Alabama ( " D F S " ) , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he performed the through as w e l l as to the a deep cut wounds were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h knife found at the severe bleeding. scene and having would B a c h e l d e r had two I t appears from the r e c o r d t h a t another m e d i c a l examiner, who was no l o n g e r e m p l o y e d w i t h D F S a t t h e t i m e o f M c C r a y ' s t r i a l , a c t u a l l y p e r f o r m e d t h e a u t o p s y on B a c h e l d e r . 3 8 CR-06-0360 deep s t a b wounds and s e v e r a l s u p e r f i c i a l cuts of been which butcher severe side (R. have 759.) penetrated part blood stab they were had wounds to began her suffered on the a This the right artery, wound would have been (R. 771.) stab and wound of separately. genitals. to her left breast and the t i s s u e , e n d i n g on t h e t o p w o u n d was a t l e a s t f o u r found a t the scene. made and in a l l directions. breast underside through the e n t i r e breast knife This the carotid a l linflicted was a l s o c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h a v i n g cut on by pain caused wounds to "spurt" neck, of the breast. bleeding. have a c t u a l l y cut Bachelder's Bachelder that and would caused on t h e l o c a t i o n a n d d i r e c t i o n o f t h e w o u n d s also Specifically, having o f t h e deep caused Based Bachelder's breast One the neck would with a t the scene bleeding. Bachelder and consistent knife of which on were on h e r n e c k , a l l inches long been caused by t h e b u t c h e r Dr. Boudreau a l s o s t a t e d that "very painful" and would caused also suffered a t h a t " w e n t up t h r o u g h t h e w a l l o f t h e v a g i n a . " (R. 779.) particular by assuredly" the I n addition, Bachelder have this wound butcher would have was also knife consistent found been at painful; 9 with the having scene; would have been "[m]ost caused CR-06-0360 bleeding; and could have u n t r e a t e d , b u t t h a t i t was (R. death not the cause eventually i f of Bachelder's left death. 779.) B a c h e l d e r had as caused numerous body. other (R. contusions torso, a t o t a l of nine "major" superficial 778.) on Bachelder body, legs. and her The found around wounds, Dr. all that Dr. her Boudreau also including bruises c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h a v i n g been been stab neck. the Boudreau carotid opined exsanguination and had on artery was t h a t the could by the dog minutes t o over 15 minutes of and bruises and arms, on was neck the she samples taken were the of alive wound. was of the a few from died. from w i t h DFS, testified Bachelder's t h a t some o f t h e b l o o d s a m p l e s mobile taken f r o m B a c h e l d e r ' s m o b i l e home c o n s i s t e d o f a m i x t u r e o f t w o 10 the neck death sequence had when the fatal s u r v i v e d anywhere before hands, leash that Bachelder's Kristen Maturi, a forensic biologist some o f t h e b l o o d her t h a t t h e w o u n d on ultimately well on h i s examination cause have cuts Bachelder's depending that Bachelder home m a t c h e d h e r DNA neck, believed that Bachelder wounds, that and numerous her B a s e d on t h e wounds were i n f l i c t e d and cut wounds on caused s t a b wounds as DNA CR-06-0360 profiles -- B a c h e l d e r ' s and McCray's. McCray's DNA w e r e on t h e b l a d e found Both Bachelder's and of the butcher Shannon F i t z g e r a l d , a c e r t i f i e d l a t e n t - p r i n t examiner Alabama Bureau o f I n v e s t i g a t i o n , footprints on t h e t i l e s footprints o f McCray, which He a l s o tested latent print thumbprint. 13 l i g h t from 1 from the mobile bulbs Finally, he with the t e s t i f i e d t h a t he m a t c h e d t h e had been home taken from t h e scene matched compared patent t o t h e known after which bulb, knife. h i s arrest. and obtained a McCray's prints known found on B a c h e l d e r ' s t e l e p h o n e t o M c C r a y ' s known f i n g e r p r i n t s a n d f o u n d that a print Frank on t h e t e l e p h o n e Meredith, Department, testified a matched McCray's detective with thumbprint. t h e Dothan Police t h a t a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 : 0 0 p.m. on t h e a f t e r n o o n t h a t B a c h e l d e r ' s b o d y was f o u n d , M c C r a y voluntarily came t o t h e p o l i c e ("be o n t h e lookout") that station had as a r e s u l t been issued Detective Meredith i n i t i a l l y room o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s Miranda 4 f o r him Miranda that morning. e s c o r t e d McCray t o t h e conference d i v i s i o n and a d v i s e d McCray of h i s r i g h t s , a l t h o u g h when M c C r a y i n i t i a l l y not under a r r e s t 4 o f a BOLO arrived a n d was f r e e t o l e a v e a t a n y t i m e . v . A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. 4 3 6 11 (1966). he was Detective CR-06-0360 Meredith his be testified rights, under Meredith that agreed the McCray indicated to waive h i s r i g h t s , i n f l u e n c e o f a l c o h o l or further officer present McCray testified promised t o make a that that understood and d i d n o t a p p e a r t o narcotics. neither McCray he anything he Detective nor in the order to w i t h McCray, Detective Meredith l o n g s c r a t c h on M c C r a y ' s n e c k . noticed a McCray t o l d D e t e c t i v e M e r e d i t h t h a t he h a d s c r a p e d h i s n e c k i n an a t t i c w h e r e he was At approximately Detective Meredith sample from statement sergeant 7:00 p.m. In different McCray evening. recorded versions initially Meredith that spraying afternoon, f r o m McCray to take and gave Michael Department, at a a DNA recorded Cirulli, a approximately 5 statement, of the events denied p.m. subsequently the Dothan P o l i c e that his McCray Detective with 3:00 obtained consent him. to get statement. When s p e a k i n g insulation. other being McCray provided o f Monday, A u g u s t present several 8, at Bachelder's 2005. mobile The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e l e n g t h y d e l a y i n t a k i n g McCray's statement was because McCray took a polygraph examination, i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t was n o t , p e r Alabama law, submitted to the jury. S e e , e . g . , E x p a r t e H i n t o n , 548 S o . 2 d 562 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . 5 12 CR-06-0360 home o r e v e n said that s e e i n g or he and speaking Bachelder before her claimed t h a t he he spent the night that the next had stated mother's not see on the murder house and and and had dropped mobile Bachelder him off. house to see before him. home. drove McCray story and telephone After stated m u r d e r was further that he had to his did and on that the telephone they Bachelder's mobile his w o u l d use key to had home. the that the l a s t spoken with but came the t i m e he Later i n h i s statement, McCray s a i d t h a t he saw on or his the McCray had spoken was at A c c o r d i n g t o M c C r a y , b e c a u s e he had a screwdriver to enter 13 he told the mobile that Sunday at home, meet his evening mobile to to Bachelder's Monday m o r n i n g w h i l e she agreed that changed Bachelder a d m i t t i n g t h a t he w e n t t o home M o n d a y a f t e r n o o n . Bachelder stated that t h a t he said she he McCray him q u e s t i o n i n g , McCray on S u n d a y a f t e r n o o n . again changed h i s s t o r y , murder, McCray night s e x and her morning He Afterwards, consensual Bachelder's morning Friday Sunday to her. lost bowling. had the again that Saturday, spoke work gone Bachelder morning before Bachelder's to together t h a t day. or speak w i t h Bachelder mother's mobile were had at with Bachelder Bachelder that home when he he got CR-06-0360 off work home from mobile that work. home Bachelder left With his neck, recorded and would then said he a r r i v e d McCray about 4:00 g o t home from work and walked respect McCray f o r h e r t o come at Bachelder's television at approximately until 7:30 p.m., a t t a l k e d f o r a b o u t an h o u r a n d he t o h i s nephew's apartment. t o t h e c u t on h i s h a n d a n d t h e s c r a t c h e s gave statement. However, a f t e r b e i n g varying McCray explanations first said throughout h i s that he h a d c u t w o r k i n g on h i s n e p h e w ' s confronted with on his automobile. the fact that h i s nephew t o l d law-enforcement o f f i c e r s t h a t McCray had not r e c e n t l y worked his wait and watched he a n d B a c h e l d e r h a n d on Monday n i g h t w h i l e had that p.m. which point, then afternoon on h i s a u t o m o b i l e , McCray h a n d when h e was w a l k i n g his nephew's apartment McCray s t a t e d t h a t w h i l e knife and c u t h i s hand. that glass Monday walking t o b r e a k up a f i g h t stated had found lying on Specifically, t w o men, o n e o f whom h a d a i n h i s statement, the ground B a c h e l d e r ' s m o b i l e home M o n d a y n i g h t . 14 home t o t o h i s nephew's a p a r t m e n t , he between Later he h a d c u t mobile night. he h a d i n t e n t i o n a l l y c u t h i s own h a n d he that from Bachelder's that tried then with after Finally, McCray a piece he had McCray said of left stated CR-06-0360 that he knife so had intentionally w h i l e he was upset that initially said while c u t h i s own at Bachelder's their relationship a t work, but then wrestling. denied his establish recorded Alphonzo not him McCray the his murder. h i m i f he was approximately apartment. 9:00 State automobile stated the h u s b a n d , who that McCray night, had telephoned p.m. and that evening. At s c r a t c h e s on M c C r a y ' s 5:00 came to his neck and a c u t McCray said that he c a u g h t b y t h e woman's b o y f r i e n d a knife to the h o s p i t a l from surrounding had McCray to Sanders, in t h a t McCray t h a t McCray p.m. pulled McCray testimony days t o be home l a t e r According they murder. going b e e n w i t h a woman a n d was took also one o f h i s statement, presented in Sanders s a i d S a n d e r s saw on M c C r a y ' s h a n d . had was of McCray's v a r y i n g s t o r i e s M c C r a y ' s n e p h e w , who on and s a i d on M o n d a y , A u g u s t 8, 2 0 0 5 , a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y asked or ended. h i s recorded the f a l s i t y Sanders, Bachelder's butcher s c r a t c h e d h i s neck w h i l e i n Bachelder's statement, worked had a home b e c a u s e he changed h i s s t o r y Throughout any i n v o l v e m e n t To mobile with t h a t he h a d s c r a t c h e d h i s n e c k on some c o n d u i t young nephews had a c c i d e n t a l l y were hand on h i m and f o r treatment 15 c u t him. Sanders f o r the c u t . CR-06-0360 Avery Lerenzo testified August that he Sanders, was another of at h i s brother's 8, 2 0 0 5 , when M c C r a y came o v e r . and heard McCray with caught woman a n d was by nephews, apartment Monday, A v e r y S a n d e r s a l s o saw a c u t on M c C r a y ' s h a n d a McCray's say that t h e woman's he h a d b e e n boyfriend or h u s b a n d , who p u l l e d a k n i f e a n d c u t h i m . Zaccheus McCray, a who was n o t r e l a t e d t o M c C r a y , coworker of McCray's that he Zaccheus worked and that while working The McCray that McCray following morning, with a c c i d e n t a l l y gotten After work or scratches Bay T r a i l e r McCray t o be f i n g e r n a i l "tussling" Monday, A f t e r work he g o t t h e s c r a t c h e s , been on Construction, d i d not suffer day. t o t h e Cayman appeared how with s a i d he saw no c u t s time McCray at Southeast Park arrived scratches McCray h i s nephews scratched on T u e s d a y , McCray's mother's house 8, i n Ashford 16 at that scratches afternoon, he d r o v e and dropped him o f f . a t work Zaccheus the night 2005, 2005. or with he what When asked that before by t h e i r f i n g e r n a i l s . August 8, on M c C r a y on h i s n e c k . told testified August any cuts that b u t was he h a d and had (R. 3 5 9 . ) drove McCray t o and dropped him o f f . CR-06-0360 The -- main defense specifically, home, with theory of the case t h a t McCray permission, simply point lost to had a t t a c k e d him w i t h testified three sons control and approximately a year with talk to her mobile to her and that knife, the butcher stabbed on h i s own b e h a l f . had l i v e d of passion had gone t o B a c h e l d e r ' s Bachelder he was h e a t at which death. McCray He s t a t e d t h a t he a n d t w o o f h i s Bachelder and a h a l f at her mobile before home f o r her death. He said t h a t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h B a c h e l d e r was c a l m i n t h e b e g i n n i n g but t h a t when he s t a r t e d ex-wife, Tammy speaking Tidwell, their Bachelder would get aggravated (R. 876.) According box cutter on h e r p e r s o n , and s a y s h e was 2005, He McCray said, testified that repossessed. situation Bachelder t o c u t him w i t h he m o v e d he He changed, always and i t . In e a r l y out of Bachelder's Bachelder and and carried and sometimes she would t a k e t o g e t h e r b u t t h a t he h a d m i s s e d been relationship his e a s i l y a n d "was mean t o [ h i m ] . " t o McCray, going t o , a n d s e e i n g more o f , had i t out August mobile purchased a home. a van some p a y m e n t s a n d t h e v a n h a d Bachelder t h e week b e f o r e h e r d e a t h , had discussed on a M o n d a y e v e n i n g , n o t T h u r s d a y e v e n i n g as B a c h e l d e r ' s mother t e s t i f i e d , 17 the and t h e y had CR-06-0360 agreed t h a t he a n d h i s s o n s mother. his On T u e s d a y , M c C r a y two s o n s ' clothing, move t o h i s m o t h e r ' s s h o u l d l e a v e a n d move i n w i t h h i s said, he p a c k e d and T i d w e l l residence. take e v e r y t h i n g he owned only and a f r i e n d McCray said he the night with Bachelder Bachelder went t o work. helped him that drove home he d i d n o t at the mobile went t o work. speak w i t h B a c h e l d e r McCray coworker home. McCray s a i d , approximately son. screwdriver that that on Monday, him to Bachelder's mobile 3:00 p.m., Because approximately said two he so t h a t had l o s t weeks before to gain entrance done i n t h e p a s t . her death, spent The following house and then Bachelder an h o u r came before he d i d n o t s e e o r again that day. testified drove McCray time, A f t e r w a r d s , he him to h i s mother's On S u n d a y m o r n i n g , at that night before h i s mother's house and they spoke f o r about Bachelder her the Friday and B a c h e l d e r went b o w l i n g t o g e t h e r . morning, to t o McCray, the mobile and clothing. According from h i s clothing August 8, home a f t e r he c o u l d s p e a k he moved a work, a t t o h e r about h i s key t o the mobile to the mobile o u t , he home, l i k e A c c o r d i n g t o M c C r a y , he w a t c h e d 18 2005, home used a he h a d television CR-06-0360 until Bachelder g o t home f r o m w o r k b e t w e e n 7:30 p.m., at point which conversation wife, was they initially Bachelder got talked. physical altercation. Bachelder swung upset" (R. and her fingernails. knife out McCray was of a claimed According drawer that and 891.) that the scratched him t o McCray, i n the they and into claimed then swung a that on h i s n e c k Bachelder kitchen h i s ex- got McCray he p u t h i s a r m up c u t on h i s r i g h t 8:00 c a l m , b u t when he m e n t i o n e d "really her hand and stated McCray p.m. with got i t at a him. to block the k n i f e and hand. McCray t e s t i f i e d and " l o s t i t . " 896.) (R. t h a t he t h e n b e c a m e a n g r y said knife McCray that he got B a c h e l d e r ' s hand and began c u t t i n g h e r . how many believed times gotten the hanging on by the putting had cut or i t was m o r e t h a n o n c e . altercation neck. he first knife the began -- wall He r e m e m b e r e d dog leash the p l a s t i c -- the He c o u l d stabbed but he M c C r a y a d m i t t e d t h a t when t h e before Bachelder dog had had grabbed a and had wrapped i t around dragging Bachelder around her bag over of n o t remember Bachelder, he around out neck, her head. 19 but he allegedly leash that was Bachelder's the mobile d i d not McCray d e n i e d home recall that he CR-06-0360 had covered h i s hands d u r i n g t h e f i g h t , h a d w a s h e d h i s h a n d s a f t e r he k i l l e d arrived his at Bachelder's shoes and socks, only that light be u n s c r e w e d , problems light fixture denied having but nonetheless with left i n the c e i l i n g home that that t h a t i t was the light McCray w i t h h i s body or with area but that during the fight. when what time he he l e f t , he H i s nephew d r o v e McCray asked him t o a and then t o on h i s c h i l d r e n . After h i s nephew t o t a k e h i m t h e m e d i c a l c e n t e r , w h e r e he r e c e i v e d s t i t c h e s t o h i s hand. He t h e n w e n t b a c k t o h i s m o t h e r ' s h o u s e a n d w a t c h e d 20 with bulb. he d i d n o t remember h o u s e , w h e r e he c h e c k e d c h e c k i n g on h i s c h i l d r e n , had had a n d t h e o n l y way h o u s e , who was n o t a t home a t t h e t i m e , mother's home w o u l d A c c o r d i n g t o McCray, t h e genital night clad particularly f a n was b r o k e n , t o h i s nephew's a p a r t m e n t . friend's fixtures, o f f was t o u n s c r e w testified g o t home, h e was he a n d B a c h e l d e r room. first o f f h i spants and He a d m i t t e d had any c o n t a c t , e i t h e r Bachelder's walked to light t h a t he When h e inside Bachelder's mobile object, with Bachelder's McCray his bulbs fan i n the l i v i n g turn the light any home, h e t o o k a n d when B a c h e l d e r i n the past the c e i l i n g to Bachelder. i n h i s underwear and a t - s h i r t . unusual all mobile but admitted television CR-06-0360 with his children. h a p p e n e d , and on McCray d i d not T u e s d a y , and had again Wednesday. the that his police he he On the w h e r e he lied to the was questioned. police not seen B a c h e l d e r He admitted about the scratches lied when he that repeatedly during his recorded also medical lied center himself. to his nephews about the cuts, McCray a d m i t t e d leaving Bachelder's Bachelder. He also s o c k s , and left so t h a t no that after been wearing testimony Bachelder's he admitted that would left that and had day head. shirt see i n the McCray the an to he his put at to prevented had and him fight on the b l o o d . put garbage. said 21 that, He his the that the from with pants, had admitted he had also changed his plastic bag He the further to protect o v e r h i s T - s h i r t b e f o r e he putting told lied doctors effort during t h a t n i g h t , he admitted to statement t h a t n o t h i n g had home another one and a l l in mobile on Monday. c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , M c C r a y a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d had went t h a t he t h e c u t on h i s h a n d a n d had police shoes, l e f t w o r k e a r l y on W e d n e s d a y a n d station, initially n e c k and police he anyone about what he w e n t t o w o r k t h e n e x t d a y , M c C r a y s a i d t h a t he to tell while clothing he was over stabbing CR-06-0360 Bachelder, but he she dragged her McCray a l s o for her wanted opened Bachelder his back i n t o when he the was repeatedly so i n the Tidwell's throat that domestic-violence stabbing she had Tidwell's stated that charge, throat could for 45A, "plain Ala. R. he error." but that had he not had pleaded denied escape, dog that leash. begging but that identify him. conviction for held incident a knife guilty he had to to the actually hand. been sentenced to death, P., Rule this 45A according C o u r t must s e a r c h the states: added.) 22 to record "In a l l cases i n which the death p e n a l t y has been imposed, the Court of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s s h a l l 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 under review, whether or not brought to the a t t e n t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t , and t a k e appropriate a p p e l l a t e a c t i o n by r e a s o n t h e r e o f , whenever such e r r o r has or p r o b a b l y has adversely affected the s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of the a p p e l l a n t . " (Emphasis he Review or App. her, a previous he B e c a u s e McCray has Rule the to s c r e a m i n g and Standard of cut effort s e c o n d d e g r e e r e l a t i n g t o an McCray and i n an m o b i l e home b y die to ex-wife. door B a c h e l d e r was M c C r a y a d m i t t e d t h a t he domestic violence with front admitted that life Finally, the CR-06-0360 I n E x p a r t e B r o w n , 11 S o . 3 d 933 Supreme C o u r t (Ala. 2008), the Alabama explained: "'"To r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f p l a i n e r r o r , t h e claimed e r r o r must n o t o n l y seriously affect a d e f e n d a n t ' s ' s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s , ' b u t i t must a l s o have an u n f a i r p r e j u d i c i a l i m p a c t on t h e j u r y ' s deliberations.'" E x p a r t e B r y a n t , 951 S o . 2 d 7 2 4 , 727 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g H y d e v . S t a t e , 778 S o . 2 d 199, 209 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ) . In United States v . Y o u n g , 470 U.S. 1, 15 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , construing the federal plain-error rule, stated: "'The R u l e a u t h o r i z e s t h e C o u r t s o f A p p e a l s to correct only "particularly egregious e r r o r s , " U n i t e d S t a t e s v . F r a d y , 456 U.S. 152, 163 (1982), those errors that "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings," U n i t e d S t a t e s v. A t k i n s o n , 297 U.S. [ 1 5 7 ] , a t 160 [ ( 1 9 3 6 ) ] . In other words, the p l a i n - e r r o r e x c e p t i o n t o the contemporaneous-objection rule i s t o be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances i n which a miscarriage of j u s t i c e would otherwise r e s u l t . " United S t a t e s v . F r a d y , 456 U.S., a t 1 6 3 , n . 1 4 . ' "See a l s o E x p a r t e H o d g e s , 856 S o . 2 d 9 3 6 , 9 4 7 - 4 8 ( A l a . 2003) (recognizing that plain error exists only i f failure to recognize the error would 'seriously 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 judicial proceedings,' and t h a t the p l a i n - e r r o r d o c t r i n e i s t o be 'used s p a r i n g l y , s o l e l y i n t h o s e circumstances i n which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result' ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n marks omitted))." 23 CR-06-0360 11 So. claim 3d the 113, 938. under standard in at the used trial 121 2001). "The standard plain-error i n reviewing court or on Although an any claim prejudice. C r i m . App. reviewing than t h a t was Hall v. aff'd, any in stricter is properly State, 820 McCray's f a i l u r e to o b j e c t t h i s Court from reviewing (Ala. issue 1999), bar of review doctrine appeal." ( A l a . C r i m . App. of So. issue, i t will Dill v. aff'd, 1991), See State, 600 So. 2d the State 372 not against So. (Ala. 2d (Ala. will weigh 600 So. 152 at t r i a l the raised 820 2d a 2d 343 1992). I. McCray peremptory first contends strikes in African-Americans and Kentucky, 79 a 127 a 476 (1994), hearing U.S. and at women, (1986), the exercised its against both d i s c r i m i n a t o r y manner this which r a c e - n e u t r a l and Court that that in and Court State violation Batson J . E . B . v . A l a b a m a , 511 should would gender-neutral of be remand t h i s required cause to v. U.S. for provide reasons f o r i t s s t r i k e s . This disagrees. The record initial consists contained only list of 128 of 236 prospective names. names, and 24 jurors contained However, prospective the in strike jurors nos. the list 101 CR-06-0360 through 128 o n t h a t indicating that venire panel 100 names listed on t h e s t r i k e jurors the court Therefore, prospective was reporter the beginning prospective present. pretrial jurors were a large not on t h e I n a d d i t i o n , 30 o f t h e list are crossed "X," first out with no called at the beginning d i d not transcribe of the r o l l voir call. t h i s Court cannot p o s i t i v e l y determine whether a l l 100 v e n i r e m e m b e r s l i s t e d at out with Although the t r a n s c r i p t indicates that the r o l l 6 prospective dire, those are crossed f o r McCray's t r i a l . explanation. of list jurors of proceedings, 7 voir whose However, g i v e n motion on t h e j u r y s t r i k e for dire names or were that the t r i a l a that the t r i a l full court l i s t were whether not only crossed court granted recordation of present the out 70 were McCray's a l l the stated after the r o l l call A n o t h e r 56 o f t h e f i r s t 1 0 0 names a r e a l s o c r o s s e d o u t o n t h e s t r i k e l i s t ; h o w e v e r , t h o s e names h a v e n o t a t i o n s n e x t t o them i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e y were e i t h e r e x c u s e d by t h e c o u r t , c h a l l e n g e d f o r c a u s e , o r s t r u c k b y one o f t h e p a r t i e s . 6 We n o t e t h a t M c C r a y r e q u e s t e d i n h i s m o t i o n t h a t " v o i r d i r e a n d j u r y s e l e c t i o n " be r e c o r d e d , b u t he d i d n o t r e q u e s t t h a t t h e r o l l c a l l be r e c o r d e d . ( C . 73.) In a d d i t i o n , Rule 1 9 . 4 ( a ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., r e q u i r e s c o u r t r e p o r t e r s t o t a k e f u l l stenographic notes of "voir d i r e of the j u r y " i n a l l c a p i t a l cases b u t does n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u i r e r e c o r d a t i o n o f the r o l l c a l l o f t h e j u r y before v o i r d i r e begins. 7 25 CR-06-0360 that a l l prospective names that j u r o r s were p r e s e n t , are crossed o u t on t h e j u r y anywhere i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t , argument whose must are crossed presume before voir appeared that dire those ever f o rv o i r Of t h o s e listed list appear makes a n y 30 p r o s p e c t i v e o u t on t h e s t r i k e 30 p r o s p e c t i v e list, jurors this j u r o r s were only initial excused 70 v e n i r e m e m b e r s 70 v e n i r e m e m b e r s , t h e r e w e r e 34 men, 36 12 A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s , indicates list that as "other." after a n d 1 whose race (C. 366-89.) The the t r i a l court's initial q u a l i f i c a t i o n and q u e s t i o n i n g o f t h e v e n i r e , t h e court 11 p r o s p e c t i v e reasons. jurors Of t h o s e Caucasian, and following f o rmedical, 11 j u r o r s , a lunch 4 were break Caucasian break. male, After African-American. (which remained, of f o r being the t r i a l whom 27 employment, occurred and personal late men, 26 Additionally, during the defense's court excused another court's were excused 6 w e r e men, 5 w e r e women, 7 w e r e voir dire questioning), thet r i a l a Court dire. on t h e v e n i r e transcript strike neither party began, and t h a t women, 57 C a u c a s i a n s , was and t h a t (or even acknowledges) these names t h a t n o n e o f t h e 30 returning excusals, 31 were from the juror, lunch 58 v e n i r e m e m b e r s women, 49 were CR-06-0360 Caucasian, The 8 were A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n , record indicates that after dire questioning, cause. Those the t r i a l 8 jurors women, 9 C a u c a s i a n s , juror whose Americans race 43, from which A l l five f o r cause, the parties struck The S t a t e was g i v e n 4 men, 11 and t h e p r o s p e c t i v e African- by the State. 43 veniremembers the jury. 23 w e r e men, 20 w e r e women, 40 w e r e C a u c a s i a n , Of those and 3 were 16 p e r e m p t o r y strikes t h e d e f e n s e 15 p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s , w i t h t h e l a s t s t r i k e o f each p a r t y 16 included as " o t h e r . " the challenges African-American. and 5 African-Americans, voir 15 c h a l l e n g e s f o r removed f o r cause were c h a l l e n g e d Following remained, granted f o r cause was l i s t e d race. t h e group and i n d i v i d u a l court removed a n d 1 was a n o t h e r strikes sitting as an a l t e r n a t e . t o remove women T h e S t a t e u s e d 11 o f i t s and 2 o f i t s s t r i k e s t o remove The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e court and both p a r t i e s i n i t i a l l y q u e s t i o n e d t h e e n t i r e v e n i r e as a group; d u r i n g t h a t q u e s t i o n i n g , t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s were t o l d t h a t t h e y d i d not have t o answer any q u e s t i o n s i n f r o n t o f t h e e n t i r e v e n i r e i f t h e y d i d n o t w a n t t o a n d w e r e i n s t r u c t e d t o come t o t h e bench a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f group v o i r d i r e t o answer any questions they had n o t answered. I n a d d i t i o n , f o l l o w i n g group voir dire, the t r i a l court specifically asked several v e n i r e m e m b e r s t o come t o t h e b e n c h f o r f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n i n g o n such i s s u e s as media coverage and t h e death p e n a l t y . The record reflects that 21 veniremembers were questioned individually. 8 27 CR-06-0360 African-Americans. remove men The d e f e n s e u s e d and a l l of 11 o f i t s 15 s t r i k e s t o i t sstrikes to remove Caucasians. M c C r a y ' s j u r y c o n s i s t e d o f 8 men, 4 women, 11 C a u c a s i a n s , 1 African-American, the other motion, a n d 1 a l t e r n a t e was a C a u c a s i a n f e m a l e a n d a l t e r n a t e was a C a u c a s i a n After t h e j u r y was s t r u c k , arguing that challenges court, defense counsel f o u r t h and seventh American that McCray racial not jurors. strikes The t r i a l had f a i l e d motion, t h i s reviewing court excusals by the trial denied prospective Africanthe motion, t o e s t a b l i s h a prima a trial facie of the State. i n the t r i a l court's court gives deference a trial questioning against those d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e p a r t "'When two o f t h e o n l y on t h e v e n i r e a f t e r After Batson also noted that the State had used i t s make a J . E . B . m o t i o n reverse 9 made a t i m e l y had struck remaining f o r cause. male. McCray the State three African-Americans and and finding case of McCray d i d court. ruling to the t r i a l on a Batson court and w i l l court's decision only i f the ruling i s clearly Defense counsel initially argued that the State had struck the only African-Americans remaining on t h e v e n i r e ; however, a f t e r t h e p r o s e c u t o r p o i n t e d o u t t h a t one A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n was, i n f a c t , s e a t e d on t h e j u r y , d e f e n s e counsel changed h i s argument. 9 28 CR-06-0360 erroneous.'" 2009] Vanpelt So. 3d Yancey v. S t a t e , find plain , the prosecutor was record 78 (quoting A p p . 2007) e r r o r i n the Batson find that discrimination App. 2009) supply in the an Ex p a r t e a Batson (quoting record practice of Watkins, J.E.B. that the purposeful 509 So. 2 d 1074, [ o r J.E.B.] c o n t e x t , an "To 7 So. 3 d 3 9 7 , 425 ( A l a . ("For an a p p e l l a t e raises or inference See a l s o S a u n d e r s v . S t a t e , plain the of Blackmon v. S t a t e , 1987)). ( A l a . Crim. context must 'engaged C r i m . App. 2005) (Ala. ( A l a . Crim. i n the discrimination.'" 1076 [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 1 5 3 9 , D e c e m b e r 1 8 , 8 1 3 S o . 2 d 1, 3 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) ) . error violation, v. S t a t e , inference by the State i n the exercise evaluating a Batson, o r J.E.B., 10 S o . 3 d 5 3 , court to find the court must of purposeful of peremptory a three-step challenges."). In p r o c e s s must be f o l l o w e d . explained i n Miller-El As t h e U n i t e d v. C o c k r e l l , claim, States Supreme 537 U.S. 3 2 2 (2003): " F i r s t , a d e f e n d a n t m u s t make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t a p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e h a s been e x e r c i s e d on the b a s i s o f race. [ B a t s o n v . K e n t u c k y , ] 4 7 6 U.S. [79,] 96-97[, 1 0 6 S. C t . 1712, 1723 (1986)]. Second, i f that showing has been made, the prosecution must o f f e r a race-neutral basis f o r s t r i k i n g the juror i n question. I d . , a t 97-98. Third, i n l i g h t of the p a r t i e s ' submissions, the 29 Court CR-06-0360 t r i a l c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t shown p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . I d . , a t 98." 537 U.S. at has 328-29. With respect to the f i r s t s t e p o f t h e p r o c e s s -- t h e a t i s s u e h e r e i n b o t h t h e B a t s o n a n d J . E . B . c o n t e x t s -p a r t y a l l e g i n g d i s c r i m i n a t o r y use of a peremptory the burden of establishing discrimination." 1997). "A Ex a parte Brooks, defendant makes surrounding defendant's C r i m . App. trial." 2006) facie case, 1987). In Ex facie 2d prima case 184, facie State, conduct 24 So. 190 court which Ex is case during 3d 480, could lead parte Branch, parte consider Branch, to 526 the an So. 2d Alabama ' a l l 489 the (Ala. 24 So. prima relevant inference 609, of relevant supra at 94), a f f ' d , to of (Ala. "In determining whether there i s a the discrimination." a prosecutor's L e w i s v. ( A l a . 2009). So. "[t]he s t r i k e bears 'the t o t a l i t y o f the (quoting Batson, 3 d 540 circumstances' a 695 out d i s c r i m i n a t o r y j u r y s e l e c t i o n by facts' prima step of 622 (Ala. Supreme Court s p e c i f i c a l l y s e t f o r t h a number o f " r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s " t o consider i n determining whether discrimination has been a prima established: 30 facie case of racial CR-06-0360 "The f o l l o w i n g a r e i l l u s t r a t i v e of the types of e v i d e n c e t h a t c a n be u s e d t o r a i s e t h e i n f e r e n c e o f discrimination: "1. Evidence that the 'jurors i n question share[d] only this one characteristic -their m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e g r o u p -- a n d t h a t i n a l l o t h e r respects they [were] as heterogeneous as the c o m m u n i t y a s a w h o l e . ' [ P e o p l e v . ] W h e e l e r , 22 C a l . 3d [ 2 5 8 ] a t 2 8 0 , 5 8 3 P . 2 d [ 7 4 8 ] a t 7 6 4 , 148 C a l . R p t r . [ 8 9 0 ] a t 905 [ ( 1 9 7 8 ) ] . F o r i n s t a n c e ' i t may be s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e p e r s o n s c h a l l e n g e d , a l t h o u g h a l l b l a c k , i n c l u d e b o t h men a n d women a n d a r e a v a r i e t y o f ages, o c c u p a t i o n s , and s o c i a l o r economic conditions,' W h e e l e r , 22 C a l . 3 d a t 2 8 0 , 5 8 3 P . 2 d a t 7 6 4 , 148 C a l . R p t r . a t 9 0 5 , n . 2 7 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t r a c e was t h e d e c i d i n g f a c t o r . "2. A p a t t e r n o f s t r i k e s a g a i n s t b l a c k j u r o r s on the particular v e n i r e ; e.g., 4 o f 6 peremptory challenges were used to strike black jurors. B a t s o n , 476 U.S. a t 9 7 , 106 S. C t . a t 1 7 2 3 . " 3 . The p a s t c o n d u c t o f t h e s t a t e ' s a t t o r n e y i n using peremptory challenges t o s t r i k e a l l blacks from the j u r y v e n i r e . S w a i n [ v . A l a b a m a , 380 U.S. 202 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ] . "4. The type and manner of the state's attorney's questions and statements during voir dire, i n c l u d i n g n o t h i n g more t h a n d e s u l t o r y v o i r dire. B a t s o n , 476 U.S. a t 9 7 , 1 0 6 S. C t . a t 1 7 2 3 ; W h e e l e r , 22 C a l . 3 d a t 2 8 1 , 5 8 3 P.2d a t 7 6 4 , 1 4 8 4 2d 148 C a l . R p t r . a t 905. " 5 . The t y p e a n d m a n n e r o f q u e s t i o n s d i r e c t e d t o the challenged j u r o r , i n c l u d i n g a l a c k of q u e s t i o n s , or a l a c k of meaningful questions. Slappy v. S t a t e , 503 S o . 2 d 3 5 0 , 3 5 5 , ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ; P e o p l e v . T u r n e r , 42 C a l . 3 d 7 1 1 , 7 2 6 P . 2 d 1 0 2 , 230 C a l . R p t r . 656 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ; P e o p l e v . W h e e l e r , 22 C a l . 3 d 2 5 8 , 5 8 3 P . 2 d 7 4 8 , 7 6 4 , 148 C a l . R p t r . 890 (1978). 31 CR-06-0360 "6. D i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t o f members o f t h e j u r y v e n i r e w i t h t h e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , o r who a n s w e r a q u e s t i o n i n t h e same o r s i m i l a r m a n n e r ; e . g . , i n S l a p p y , a b l a c k e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l t e a c h e r was s t r u c k as b e i n g p o t e n t i a l l y t o o l i b e r a l b e c a u s e o f h i s j o b , but a white elementary school teacher was not challenged. S l a p p y , 5 0 3 S o . 2 d a t 352 a n d 3 5 5 . "7. Disparate examination o f members o f t h e venire; e.g., i n Slappy, a question designed to provoke a certain response that i s likely to d i s q u a l i f y a j u r o r was a s k e d t o b l a c k j u r o r s , b u t not t o white j u r o r s . S l a p p y , 503 So. 2 d a t 3 5 5 . "8. C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e of p r o v e n by d i s p a r a t e impact where a l l c h a l l e n g e s were u s e d t o s t r i k e b l a c k s Batson, 476 U.S. a t 93, 106 S. W a s h i n g t o n v . D a v i s , 426 U.S. [229] C t . [2040] a t 2049 [ ( 1 9 7 6 ) ] . i n t e n t may b e o r most o f t h e from the j u r y . C t . a t 1721; a t 2 4 2 , 96 S. "9. The s t a t e u s e d p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s t o d i s m i s s a l l o r most b l a c k j u r o r s . See S l a p p y , 503 So. 2 d a t 3 5 4 , T u r n e r , supra." 526 So. (Ala. in 2d a t 622-23. 1997), the Court a manner I n Ex p a r t e reiterated Trawick, 698 So. 2d t h e Ex p a r t e B r a n c h f a c t o r s a p p l i c a b l e t o g e n d e r as f o l l o w s : "(1) e v i d e n c e that the j u r o r s i n question shared o n l y t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f gender and were i n a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s as h e t e r o g e n o u s as t h e community as a w h o l e ; (2) a p a t t e r n o f s t r i k e s a g a i n s t j u r o r s o f o n e g e n d e r o n t h e p a r t i c u l a r v e n i r e ; (3) t h e p a s t conduct of the s t a t e ' s attorney i n using peremptory c h a l l e n g e s t o s t r i k e m e m b e r s o f o n e g e n d e r ; (4) t h e type a n d manner of the state's questions and s t a t e m e n t s d u r i n g v o i r d i r e ; (5) t h e t y p e a n d m a n n e r of questions d i r e c t e d to the challenged juror, including a lack of questions; (6) disparate 32 162 CR-06-0360 t r e a t m e n t o f m e m b e r s o f t h e j u r y v e n i r e who h a d t h e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o r who a n s w e r e d a q u e s t i o n i n t h e same m a n n e r o r i n a s i m i l a r m a n n e r ; a n d (7) separate examination o f members o f t h e v e n i r e . Additionally, t h e c o u r t may c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e State used a l l o r most o f i t s s t r i k e s against members o f one g e n d e r . " 698 So. 2d a t 168. With these principles each o f McCray's claims i n mind, this Court will address i n turn. A. McCray peremptory first strikes Because this appeal, this 45A, argues the State exercised i t s i n a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y manner a g a i n s t claim Court that i s being reviews A l a . R. A p p . P. raised f o r the f i r s t i t for plain Specifically, error only. women. time on See R u l e McCray contends t h a t t h e r e c o r d r a i s e s an i n f e r e n c e o f p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e p a r t of the State because almost a l l the f a c t o r s l i s t e d parte This Branch Court In and Ex p a r t e Trawick are present i n h i s case. disagrees. support o f h i s argument, McCray asserts number a n d p a t t e r n o f t h e S t a t e ' s s t r i k e s s u p p o r t of i n Ex discrimination against women. As noted u s e d 11 o f i t s 16 p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s 33 that the an i n f e r e n c e above, the State t o r e m o v e women f r o m t h e CR-06-0360 venire. However, men, the next were strikes the State's five strikes against men, against women. against women, peremptory of gender 246 strikes were two s t r i k e s against there was no the State's discrimination. seven of Land, were pattern 11 not raise See Ex p a r t e against strikes apparent use a g a i n s t women d o e s were women, t h e n e x t t w o and t h e f i n a l Because strikes first of i t s 16 an i n f e r e n c e 678 S o . 2 d 2 2 4 , ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s u s e o f 11 o f i t s 14 peremptory strikes against whites d i dnot raise an i n f e r e n c e that the State purposefully discriminated against whites). addition, striking jury, the defense used only with McCray 11 o f i t s 15 s t r i k e s one o f t h e a l t e r n a t e s a l s o b e i n g also argues that t h e Houston O f f i c e "has a l o n g h i s t o r y challenges i n a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y manner." 16.) Court, A l t h o u g h McCray i n which conviction Attorney's using on against 4 women, a n d 4 women u l t i m a t e l y s a t o n Attorney's in of this t o numerous Court either the ground that men, McCray's a woman. County of using cites In District i t s peremptory (McCray's brief, at opinions from reversed t h e Houston a this defendant's County District O f f i c e had d i s c r i m i n a t e d against African-Americans i t s peremptory strikes 34 o r remanded t h e cause f o ra CR-06-0360 h e a r i n g on a c l a i m t h a t t h e H o u s t o n C o u n t y D i s t r i c t Office its had discriminated peremptory strikes, Morris v. 1994), from Houston This of County County cites So. to only 2d involving i n Morris, District Although not CR-05-0935, App. 659 African-Americans 659 979 So. cited September 2007), this Attorney's 28, Court 2d 2007] remanded for single case, a t 979, was v. had engaged in r e t u r n t o remand, t h i s that the Houston engaged in Trawick, i n determining whether discrimination has Attorney's discrimination. been As courts [Ms. on the Attorney's however, court's Office noted a prima facie established, involved hearing discrimination; District the (Ala. Crim. Court upheld the t r i a l County gender gender that State, defendant's c l a i m t h a t the Houston County D i s t r i c t Office however, not 3d a App. discrimination. i n Floyd So. using conviction Office by McCray, a in (Ala. Crim. gender f r o m an a p p e a l f r o m a m u n i c i p a l Houston 1 0 McCray Dothan, Court's opinion resulted in. City against Attorney's in on finding had not Ex parte case of gender should look at l n a d d i t i o n , i n t h a t c a s e , t h i s C o u r t remanded f o r t h e t r i a l court t o determine only whether a prima f a c i e case of gender discrimination in striking the jury had been e s t a b l i s h e d ; t h i s C o u r t d i d not h o l d t h a t t h e r e had, i n f a c t , been any gender d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . 1 0 35 CR-06-0360 "the past conduct of the s t a t e ' s attorney challenges 168 to strike members (emphasis added). indicating District a on Attorney's discrimination, Therefore, o f one g e n d e r . " l nthis history i nusing case, the part Office peremptory 698 S o . 2 d a t McCray has c i t e d of of t h e Houston engaging n o r does t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t t h i s f a c t o r does n o t support nothing County i n gender any such h i s t o r y . an i n f e r e n c e o f gender discrimination. McCray shared also only argues the that t h e women characteristic struck of by t h e State gender and were heterogeneous i na l l other respects, s p e c i f i c a l l y p o i n t i n g out t h a t t h e 11 women s t r u c k v a r i e d i n a g e , r a c e , marital some status. variance therefore, struck this shared The only among alone veniremembers discrimination. Branch However, t h e r e i s almost prospective always going who are so as to Trawick, support as n o t e d i s whether an the characteristic i n both Ex the struck t h a t t h e women s t r u c k o f gender. 36 To of the inference only t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a t i s s u e , i n t h i s case, r e c o r d here does n o t r e f l e c t t o be struck; does n o t e s t a b l i s h h e t e r o g e n e i t y The q u e s t i o n , and Ex p a r t e jurors employment, and of parte jurors gender. shared the contrary, the CR-06-0360 record r e f l e c t s that characteristics For on outcome juries of those criminal by other jury the t r i a l as a l t e r n a t e s trials. Only a s an a l t e r n a t e , resulted the only on a c r i m i n a l or i n a hung previously that before both two other another responded during juror the jury group a n y o n e who h a d e v e r b e e n verdict who had j u r i e s , o n e man a n d o n e woman, s a t deliberations two struck women, who h a d jurors indicated jury during service had begun, of Two o f t h e women voir t h e women dire that struck they cut or stabbed with 37 voir dire had pleaded and t h e female i n her previous m e m b e r s who h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d addition, h a d s a t on a S i m i l a r l y , the State jurors, Although a guilty verdict. State had family of the a C a u c a s i a n m a l e , b u t h e knew i n h i sprevious that juror had ended i n a n o t - g u i l t y t h e male jury indicated returned that jury. the defendant guilty juror jury jury, n o t aware i n a g u i l t y v e r d i c t , a n d he was s a t on c r i m i n a l McCray's similar had previously s a t b u t were one o t h e r two p r o s p e c t i v e sat shared gender. the defense using i t s seventh s t r i k e . struck on than e x a m p l e , t h r e e o f t h e women s t r u c k criminal that many o f t h e women s t r u c k service struck had by t h e of crimes. by the l n State had never seen a knife only -- CR-06-0360 five prospective removed f o r cause, eighth strike, had never these not jurors one was s t r u c k i n that manner: by the defense two were using its a n d t h e S t a t e s t r u c k t h e o n l y r e m a i n i n g t w o who seen anyone facts, responded cut or stabbed with a knife. case were heterogeneous i n a l l respects b u t gender; t h e r e f o r e , this factor t h e women s t r u c k b y t h e S t a t e does n o t s u p p o r t McCray also argues an i n f e r e n c e that there i n this B a s e d on ofdiscrimination. was a l a c k of meaningful q u e s t i o n i n g b y t h e S t a t e , i n d i c a t i n g an i n t e n t t o d i s c r i m i n a t e against women. women struck dire and dire, struck McCray by t h e State the record ultimately voir Although i s correct answered reflects that no q u e s t i o n s that four of two o f t h e during voir t h e men who s a t on M c C r a y ' s j u r y a n s w e r e d no q u e s t i o n s 1 1 the record by t h e State also also reflects answered that during o n e o f t h e men no q u e s t i o n s during voir d i r e a n d t h a t t h r e e o f t h e f o u r women who s a t o n M c C r a y ' s j u r y a l s o a n s w e r e d no q u e s t i o n s record reflects during voir dire. l naddition, the no d i s p a r a t e q u e s t i o n i n g b y t h e S t a t e between T h i s C o u r t n o t e s t h a t M c C r a y a r g u e s t h a t o n l y t h r e e men who s a t on h i s j u r y a n s w e r e d no q u e s t i o n s d u r i n g v o i r d i r e ; however, a review o f t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t there were a c t u a l l y f o u r men who s a t o n t h e j u r y who d i d n o t a n s w e r a n y questions during voir dire. 1 1 38 CR-06-0360 male and female j u r o r s . the As e x p l a i n e d court and t h e p a r t i e s questioned veniremembers were a l s o q u e s t i o n e d 12 w e r e women a n d 9 w e r e men. i n n o t e 8, s u p r a , after t h e v e n i r e a s a w h o l e , 21 individually. The r e c o r d Of t h o s e 2 1 , reflects that the m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e q u e s t i o n i n g was c o n d u c t e d by the t r i a l did court not question that and t h a t , i n most the jurors. However, t h e S t a t e d i d pose q u e s t i o n s jurors, this t w o o f whom w e r e Court does that women who a n s w e r e d n o q u e s t i o n s in t h e manner o r t y p e dire supports Finally, disparate arguing says, juror, supported who o f gender argues o f male voir circumstances, s t r i k i n g o f two dire was that or anything during voir discrimination. the and female State jurors, engaged i n specifically s t r u c k o n e f e m a l e j u r o r , V.A., who, h e answered a question McCray's j u r y . not McCray that the State R.G., these the State's during reflects of the prospective o f q u e s t i o n i n g by t h e State an i n f e r e n c e treatment Under the parties the record t o three women. not find instances, during voir dire not struck However, a n d who McCray's argument by the record. s i m i l a r l y t o a male actually i n this s a t on regard i s One o f t h e e l e m e n t s o f c a p i t a l 39 CR-06-0360 murder t h e S t a t e McCray had entered m o b i l e home. remained was r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e unlawfully that the home. mobile that he During remained unlawfully c a s e was in i n the t r a i l e r McCray had used McCray, by Bachelder's presenting a screwdriver on t h e o t h e r hand, h a d a s k e d h i m t o come t o t h e t r a i l e r could use group v o i r the dire screwdriver by t h e S t a t e , to enter evidence t o break into asserted that and had agreed the the following trailer. occurred: "[Prosecutor]: Okay. L e t me a s k y o u t h i s , i f I could: Anybody t h a t ' s ever a l l o w e d d u r i n g your l i f e t i m e -- j u s t r a i s e y o u r h a n d . I need you t o g i v e me a r e s p o n s e , s o we c a n t a k e i t d o w n . A n y b o d y t h a t ' s e v e r d a t e d someone, s o c i a l i z e d , g i r l f r i e n d , boyfriend, a common law husband and wife r e l a t i o n s h i p , w h a t e v e r , t h a t y o u e v e r d a t e d someone, and t h e y e v e r h a d t o u s e a s c r e w d r i v e r t o g e t i n t o your house? In other words, someone y o u dated s o c i a l l y , b o y f r i e n d , g i r l f r i e n d -- I d o n ' t w a n t t o b e r e a l s p e c i f i c -- b u t d i d y o u h a v e t o a l l o w t h e m to use a s c r e w d r i v e r t o g e t i n t o your l o c k e d house? A n y b o d y e v e r do t h a t ? A n y b o d y o v e r h e r e ? " P R O S P E C T I V E JUROR: I l o s t my k e y b e f o r e . My husband [has] had t o use a s c r e w d r i v e r t o g e t i n . "[Prosecutor]: Your husband. Right? fine. "And that The S t a t e s o u g h t t o p r o v e t h a t M c C r a y e n t e r e d o r indicating Bachelder or i n this y o u r name? I'm s o r r y , " P R O S P E C T I V E JUROR: It's 40 Judge [V.A.]. That's CR-06-0360 "[Prosecutor]: s t a n d i n g up. T h a n k y o u , [V.A.] Thank you f o r "How a b o u t t h i s s i d e ? Anybody's b o y f r i e n d o r whatever t h a t needed a s c r e w d r i v e r t o break i n t o t h e house? That's no. Correct? "(No "[Prosecutor]: "PROSPECTIVE response.) How about JUROR: over here? I ' v e h a d t o do i t t o my own. Your "[Prosecutor]: name? H a d t o d o i t t o y o u r own " P R O S P E C T I V E JUROR: your "[Prosecutor]: own h o u s e . [R.G.]. [R.G.], you have "Okay. That w o u l d be i n c l u d e d about you were d a t i n g , s o c i a l i z i n g , they had t o use i tt o get i n . " (R. h a d t o do i t t o -- I am t a l k i n g whoever i t was, 78-79.) It that house. appears from the State's determine screwdriver prosecutor the above-quoted purpose whether anyone t o break stated on t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s i n asking t o R.G., the question had allowed into portion someone h i s o r h e r home. "[t]hat of voir above else dire was t o t o use a Although the w o u l d be i n c l u d e d , " based s t a t e m e n t i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h a t -- " I am t a l k i n g a b o u t y o u w e r e d a t i n g , 41 s o c i a l i z i n g , whoever i t was, CR-06-0360 they had to prosecutor or that the record get i n " -- (R. circumstances Bachelder, a used meant t o 79; c a s e -- screwdriver home -- R.G.'s r e s p o n s e t h a t he h a d to break allowed home, into her not of specifically question, own husband were inference his so home a n d to use State "was brief, at 6.) common-law h u s b a n d s and w i v e s , interested not arrangements, but only in also with living to gain The the used a screwdriver interested in screwdriver (McCray's into State the she had into her support an to break as to this in people to Court asking who w i t h , but access mobile himself that that, married the Given addition, were d a t i n g or a break In someone t h a t t h e y t o , use to argument r e j e c t s McCray's and i n w h i c h someone e l s e , similar discrimination. the added.) screwdriver substantially included," error, V.A.'s r e s p o n s e a had 42 let legally their home." specifically relationships marriages. the not mentioned thus showing t h a t the State dating the s t a t e , " [ t ] h a t would emphasis of t h i s a either that typographical s t a t e d , or included." i t appears s a i d " [ t ] h a t w o u l d be contains actually be specific not i t to m i s s p o k e w h e n he prosecutor [not] use or was living CR-06-0360 For the foregoing much l e s s p l a i n e r r o r , reasons, as to this this Court finds no error, claim. B. M c C r a y a l s o a r g u e s t h a t he of r a c i a l failing discrimination; therefore, to require the African-American's that the facie e s t a b l i s h e d a prima f a c i e case court case of State to give pursuant found that racial the to he trial erred i t s reasons for Batson. had court McCray failed discrimination to striking also asserts establish a based on in an prima improper ground. In support of h i s arguments, McCray m a i n t a i n s the use State's of of two of i t s peremptory s t r i k e s to three remaining African-American with the history of D i s t r i c t Attorney's discrimination. that, in American the jurors prospective discrimination in two the Houston County O f f i c e , e s t a b l i s h e s a prima f a c i e case to its jurors, for the j u r o r s , combined In h i s supplemental b r i e f , McCray a l s o addition African-American remove the cause, eight African-American a f t e r the t r i a l court's two peremptory State thus excusals. 43 challenged removing jurors strikes five a total remaining on of the of argues against Africanseven of venire McCray f u r t h e r a s s e r t s that CR-06-0360 based on t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t Circuit's decision in of Appeals McGahee v. f o r the Eleventh Alabama Department of C o r r e c t i o n s , 560 F . 3 d 1 2 5 2 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) , t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e S t a t e ' s c h a l l e n g e s f o r cause as a r e l e v a n t supporting McCray a prima finally facie maintains motion s o l e l y because the that trial this the trial discrimination. court 1 2 denied h i s i s an i m p r o p e r ground f o r denying Court notes that although McCray argued t h a t t h e S t a t e h a d s t r u c k two o f t h e t h r e e r e m a i n i n g African-Americans trial racial motion. Initially, court's of one A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n j u r o r was s e a t e d on j u r y , w h i c h he b e l i e v e s a Batson at case factor denial that a history court's on t h e v e n i r e a n d he e x c e p t e d t o t h e of h i s Batson motion, t h e Houston County of discrimination, reasoning for McCray d i d n o t argue District Attorney's Office n o r d i d he a r g u e denying trial the motion that was the at had trial flawed; t h e r e f o r e , these arguments a r e b e i n g r a i s e d f o r the f i r s t time on 45A, Ala. appeal and a r e reviewed R. A p p . P. With for plain error. See R u l e r e s p e c t t o McCray's argument t h a t t h e McCray first cited McGahee to this Court argument. This Court then asked the parties supplemental b r i e f s addressing that opinion. 1 2 44 at to oral file CR-06-0360 trial this court Court motion Nor denied observes solely that because did the t r i a l presence h i s Batson the t r i a l d i d n o t deny t h e one A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s a t on t h e j u r y . black on t h e j u r y jurors." Rather, the record reflects motion, the court specifically (R. 2 1 3 . ) (McCray's b r i e f , questioned Defense counsel and t h e t r i a l specific African-American State. The trial then that there i s one b l a c k on, I w i l l sequence (R. 2 1 4 . ) not deny McCray's motion was seated on h i s j u r y . solely against name t h e struck by the of strikes motion, and t h e f a c t deny t h e m o t i o n f o r l a c k o f because Instead, court one clearly d i d African-American i texamined t h e number o f t h e sequence o f t h e S t a t e ' s African-Americans, 45 by the Batson The t r i a l strikes against African-Americans, strikes noted denied "Well, case." that a g a i n s t t h e two who h a d b e e n stating: facie with African-American indicated that the strikes court jurors court a t 23.) him regarding "the a g a i n s t two State had used i t s f o u r t h and seventh African-Americans, negated the i l l e g a l t h a t a f t e r M c C r a y made h i s B a t s o n sequence" o f t h e State's s t r i k e s a prima ground, c o u r t , as McCray a s s e r t s , "assume[] t h a t t h e of other veniremembers. on an i m p r o p e r court o f one b l a c k p e r s o n exclusion motion and t h e names of the CR-06-0360 prospective motion. jurors struck, Consequently, made b y t h e t r i a l this context of the record, the statement only a denial couple of denying McCray's Court's reading of the Batson statement c o u r t i n denying McCray's Batson motion, the the before trial the l e a d s i t to conclude t h a t i n making c o u r t was factors of McCray's motion in merely i t had was trying to c o n s i d e r e d and not based on mention that i t s t h e s e two factors alone. Moreover, contrary African-Americans to McCray's s e a t e d on the argument, jury i s , in fact, circumstance to c o n s i d e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether case of r a c i a l Court stated App. discrimination in Mitchell v. has State, the number a 579 So. 2d relevant a prima been e s t a b l i s h e d . 45 As facie this (Ala. Crim. 1991): " ' [ A ] p r i m a f a c i e c a s e may b e made w h e r e r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n d i c a t e an i n f e r e n c e o f p u r p o s e f u l r a c e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n no m a t t e r t h a t one o r m o r e b l a c k p e r s o n s may r e m a i n o n t h e j u r y . ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. W i l s o n , 884 F . 2 d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 3 (8th C i r . 1989). 'The s t r i k i n g o f one v e n i r e p e r s o n f o r a r a c i a l reason v i o l a t e [ s ] t h e E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e , e v e n when v a l i d r e a s o n s f o r s t r i k i n g some b l a c k j u r o r s a r e shown.' W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 548 S o . 2 d 5 0 1 , 507 (Ala. C r . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 489 U.S. 1028, 109 S . C t . 1 1 5 9 , 103 L . E d . 2 d 218 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . 'Of c o u r s e , the f a c t t h a t b l a c k s a r e u l t i m a t e l y s e a t e d on t h e jury does not necessarily bar a finding of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n u n d e r B a t s o n [,] s e e [United States 46 of CR-06-0360 v.] Battle, 836 F.2d [1084] a t 1086 [(8th C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ] , b u t t h e f a c t may b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t i n a r e v i e w o f a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s as one t h a t s u g g e s t s t h a t the government d i d not seek t o r i d the j u r y of p e r s o n s who shared the defendant's race.' United S t a t e s v . Y o u n g - B e y , 893 F . 2 d 1 7 8 , 180 (8th C i r . 1990)." 579 So. parte 2d a t 48 Thomas, With prima (emphasis 659 So. 2d added; 3, 7 quoted with case of racial A l t h o u g h t h e S t a t e u s e d two remove of the he established discrimination, disagrees. two this peremptory strikes on v e n i r e a f t e r e x c u s a l s and c h a l l e n g e s f o r cause, t h i s f a c t establish a See P o w e l l v. State, 1999) (holding strikes to prima that remove facie 796 the two case So. of 2d 404, S t a t e ' s use of three racial 431 Court's 602 F.3d holding 1263, that African-Americans used three African-Americans). County violation of i t s peremptory District Further, did the Attorney's Office 47 not Powell (affirming this o c c u r r e d when strikes to App. of i t s peremptory ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2010) Batson State Houston o f two no 1270 does discrimination. e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e case of r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ) ; v. A l l e n , to the (Ala. Crim. o f two a Court three African-Americans remaining not Ex (Ala. 1994)). r e s p e c t t o McCray's argument t h a t facie approval i n t o remove two extent has a that history the of the of CR-06-0360 racial discrimination, that history is attenuated. o p i n i o n s r e v e r s i n g t h e H o u s t o n C i r c u i t C o u r t on B a t s o n date from those 1991, opinions Floyd, J., was So. County App. Circuit Accordingly, Office has improper does not the State anything argue, shared i n the type questions during voir discriminate a l a c k of jurors, were the or v. 12] recent years of using factor, a only a based prima the the dire the of jurors an time, racial reflect, and struck race, that statements i n d i c a t e d an jurors, in of of State's d i r e c t e d at With 48 not Houston strikes case does 914 Attorney's passage characteristic of 911, African-Americans dire examination differently. the ago." violation). District facie two 2d Batson on record manner voir So. i t s peremptory t h a t the or 738 of (Welch, judgment of the on that African-American treated most [over State, against African-American meaningful The Houston County Further, McCray does not 1998, based establish discrimination. ago. ( r e v e r s i n g the Court this in McCray 1998) history manner, years grounds ( o p i n i o n on r e t u r n t o r e m a n d ) See although a 20] published 3d a t dissenting). (Ala. Crim. by [almost "The intent that there or to was African-American and Caucasian nothing more jurors than an CR-06-0360 attenuated history of improper Court cannot say t h a t t h e t r i a l denying McCray's Batson Finally, McCray's case 1252, motion discriminated its 22 at generally arguing strikes to In response, for i t s strikes, denied any that remove strikes requested. the State the motion. proffered trial denial At specific specific On reasons, the conclusion of this of the defendant's at least Court reasons Batson and State, of requiring court the t r i a l , denied the the t r i a l holding reason State butthe r e a s o n s were one r a c e - n e u t r a l 49 general The the t r i a l motion, 16 o f f o reach o f i t s Instead upheld a had reasons, r e a s o n s f o r a l l o f i t s 22 s t r i k e s , appeal, had provided offered specific c o u r t made n o r u l i n g o n w h e t h e r t h o s e neutral. State to provide court made State discrimination. specific 560 F . 3 d African-American the State however, o f f e r e d t o p r o v i d e i fthe t r i a l the prima j u r o r s by using b u t no alleged McGahee, the defendant African-American jurors. explanations he e s t a b l i s h e d a I n McGahee, trial, peremptory prospective that d i s c r i m i n a t i o n under against this motion. i s unpersuasive. Batson of r a c i a l challenges, court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n argument facie peremptory race- court's that the f o r the CR-06-0360 six peremptory s t r i k e s a g a i n s t A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s t h a t had been c h a l l e n g e d by the defendant on a p p e a l . 554 S o . 2 d 454 ( A l a . Crim. App.), 1989). h i s Rule After See McGahee v . aff'd, 3 2 , A l a . R. State, 554 S o . 2 d 473 ( A l a . Crim. P., petition was d e n i e d a n d t h a t d e n i a l was a f f i r m e d o n a p p e a l , s e e M c G a h e e State, filed 885 S o . 2 d 1 9 1 (Ala. Crim. a habeas corpus p e t i t i o n That p e t i t i o n The App. 2003), States defendant i n the federal d i s t r i c t was d e n i e d , a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t United the Court of Appeals v. court. appealed. f o r the Eleventh C i r c u i t r e v e r s e d t h e j u d g m e n t a n d o r d e r e d a new t r i a l , holding t h a t t h i s Court had unreasonably a p p l i e d the h o l d i n g i n Batson to the facts of the case by f a i l i n g circumstances" discrimination holding in had this explanation determining that been established, First, Batson. although to consider " a l l relevant the Court Court of Appeals least one noted the that race-neutral fact had s i x strikes by c h a l l e n g e d on a p p e a l , t h i s C o u r t i g n o r e d t h e s i g n i f i c a n t prosecutor the required been the of at as purposeful had that f o r each found no also reasons f o r two o f t h o s e s t r i k e s . Second, the Court of Appeals stated 50 "explicitly McGahee, further that racial" 560 F . 3 d a t 1 2 6 4 . pointed out that this CR-06-0360 Court had not considered Batson analysis," of the for for through i t s indicated cause cause e i g h t of those additional specifically: African-Americans challenges jurors "two from (the -- (1) t h e the State a l l nine crucial S t a t e had venire that strikes; and (2) i t s t r u c k a l a r g e number o f of evidence i n the r e c o r d of the i n t e l l i g e n c e jurors. McGahee, for cause established State's argues "low intelligence" 560 without are a prima his F.3d when, at 1265. deciding, relevant challenges in nine facie in supplemental the fact, court), State there l e v e l o f any the racial in this brief, -- and or had was no of the 1 3 that of i t s African-Americans State's determining case f o r cause in the prospective African-American because Assuming, through c h a l l e n g e s were g r a n t e d by the t r i a l peremptory in removed a l l either challenged were facts challenges whether McCray discrimination, case support do not, an as the McCray inference of I n M c G a h e e , t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s was f o c u s e d on the t h i r d s t e p o f t h e B a t s o n i n q u i r y , n o t t h e f i r s t s t e p , as i s the case h e r e ; the S t a t e had removed a l l A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s on the v e n i r e e i t h e r through i t s c h a l l e n g e s f o r cause or i t s p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s , w h i l e h e r e one A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s a t on M c C r a y ' s j u r y ; a n d a t l e a s t one r e a s o n g i v e n b y t h e S t a t e f o r t w o o f i t s s t r i k e s was c l e a r l y r a c i a l and a g e n e r a l reason g i v e n b y t h e S t a t e f o r s e v e r a l o f i t s s t r i k e s was u n s u p p o r t e d by the r e c o r d . 1 3 51 CR-06-0360 racial discrimination. (holding that potential the "the relevant to Elliott, 89 and challenges (11th for Cir. States v. that a the the prosecution with the no [and reasons United thus are through v. (rejecting an strikes in resulted in a be [Batson peremptory given inherently] is States for-cause need 1265 challenges" ( 8 t h C i r . 1996) "that at African-American peremptory 1364-65 which States 1995) extends to that of a the area 40 defendant Blackman, of that 66 (absent different "no challenges F.3d 512, attempting F.3d racial challenge group [and] was that peremptory r a t h e r than f o r cause...") 52 (1st must d i r e c t e d at the suggests "a United 1994) prima demonstrate a member challenge[s] (internal of n.3 Cir. establish a from 1575 for cause"); 515-16 to 1572, authority r a c e - b a s e d d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ... prosecution's cognizable v. (recognizing Bergodere, case the F.3d f o r cause, w h i c h by d e f i n i t i o n r e q u i r e a showing Batson facie and 560 holding that] Batson applies only to United (holding of determination), 1360, challenge) cause"); 100% w i t h the peremptory s t r i k e s ... Batson McGahee, removed by cause Batson F.3d that ... argument combination violation for a appellant's strikes fact j u r o r s were challenges Compare of [were] citations and CR-06-0360 quotations omitted). challenged nine opinion, The however, those record reflects j u r o r s f o r c a u s e -- African-American. challenges; The defense as noted five of those objected in that Parts to V the j u r o r s were four and State of XII those of c h a l l e n g e s were e i t h e r p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d this or reasons f o r the c h a l l e n g e were race n e u t r a l . J u s t as t h e of be the jurors circumstance" be the to reasons Cf. E l l i o t t , challenged consider the for showing cause). State of s t r u c k the cause because to the until defense, proven essence, After concludes five In and Thus, t h i s i t , too, Court was too challenge properly the would jurors. they require notes the challenged for c o u l d not be fair innocent f o r c a u s e was, in s i m p l y p r e e m p t e d by the granted. record, this Court t h a t , w i t h o u t more, t h e S t a t e ' s r e m o v a l f o r cause African-American prospective 53 a that t h a t M c C r a y was t h a t was reviewing "relevant those juror i n d i c a t e d t h a t he race (recognizing that because African-American challenge thoroughly challenge different say a a n a l y s i s , so addition, this juror guilty. to may ( 8 t h C i r . 1996) i . e . , c o u l d not a defense prosecutor, are fifth that sought a t 1365 cause cause i n a Batson party 89 F . 3 d challenges for the j u r o r s and i t s striking of of CR-06-0360 two of the jurors, even District three remaining coupled with Attorney's circumstances African-American the history Office, i n this case i s discrimination. 2 d 907 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2008). not abuse of the Houston not sufficient to establish racial a prima See, e.g., S h a r i f i i t s discretion Therefore, when prospective County under facie case v. S t a t e , the t r i a l the of 993 S o . court d i d i t denied McCray's the court Batson motion. II. McCray allowing the following prior wife, during to e l i c i t trial or t o admit erred into in evidence and 1) t e s t i m o n y the details regarding c o n v i c t i o n f o r domestic 2) three violence photographs re-cross- against of h i s ex- o f t h e wounds he on T i d w e l l d u r i n g t h e i n c i d e n t t h a t r e s u l t e d i n h i s domestic-violence additional c o n v i c t i o n ; a n d 3) uncharged Specifically, conviction that h i s cross-examination o f McCray: Tammy T i d w e l l ; inflicted 609, contends the prosecutor examination his next McCray incident argues that, c o u l d p r o p e r l y be u s e d A l a . R. E v i d . , u s e o f a p r i o r 54 testimony regarding involving although an Tidwell. his f o r impeachment, see prior Rule c o n v i c t i o n f o r impeachment CR-06-0360 is l i m i t e d to the date, the name o f t h e c r i m e , c o n v i c t i o n , and t h a t that and sentence f o r the d e t a i l s of the facts c o n v i c t i o n , t h e p h o t o g r a p h s o f T i d w e l l ' s wounds, and t h e t e s t i m o n y r e l a t i n g t o t h e uncharged i n c i d e n t were as underlying impeachment. erred McCray i n allowing underlying Finally, the prosecutor his prior McCray instruction further asserts conviction asserts regarding to that the t r i a l reference during the the p r i o r that inadmissible court the facts closing argument. court's limiting trial conviction was u n t i m e l y and was n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o e n c o m p a s s t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e p r i o r c r i m e or not the photographs were introduced and, t h e r e f o r e , d i d cure the e r r o r . McCray details the that d i d not object surrounding prosecutor against when the prosecutor h i sp r i o r conviction, d i dnot object questioned h i s ex-wife, him about d i d not admission wounds, "proof he although evidence the d i d so on of a c o l l a t e r a l of the ground matter to the to the t r i a l In addition, into the uncharged object c l o s i n g argument, and d i dn o t o b j e c t instruction. elicited when incident prosecutor's court's McCray objected photographs of jury to the Tidwell's that the photographs not relevant to issues 55 the were i n this CR-06-0360 trial" and that their probative value." that Court Rule (R. 9 5 5 . ) the photographs impeachment, as he reviews "prejudicial went now McCray's impact outweighs McCray never s p e c i f i c a l l y beyond argues t h e bounds on arguments appeal. of any argued permissible Therefore, forplain error this only. See 45A, A l a . R. A p p . P. This Court holds that the admission relating violence conviction uncharged i n c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g T i d w e l l , and argument r e l a t i n g t o trial. Crim. facts See App. cross-examine were f o r assaulting inadmissible Frazier 1993) a u n d e r l y i n g McCray's and evidence those to the facts of testimony and v. S t a t e , ("The witness evidence improperly o f an admitted 632 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 2 , 1 0 0 9 presence as Tidwell, domestic- of a rule that to h i s conviction of one a at (Ala. may crime i n v o l v i n g moral turpitude n a t u r a l l y gives r i s e t o the question of how many d e t a i l s o f t h a t c r i m e may t h e i m p e a c h i n g about and, i f necessary, prove b y h i s own w i t n e s s e s . T h e l a w of Alabama, i n keeping w i t h t h e g e n e r a l r u l e is t h a t one g e n e r a l l y cannot i n this country, g o b e y o n d t h e name o f t h e c r i m e , the time and p l a c e of c o n v i c t i o n be i m p e r m i s s i b l e t o a s k a b o u t party ask and t h e punishment. or prove 56 I t would f u r t h e r d e t a i l s such as CR-06-0360 the name o f t h e v i c t i m , w h e t h e r t h e v i c t i m was a d u l t o r and general aggravating circumstances." (quoting C. child Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s Alabama Evidence § 145.01(11) (4th ed. 1991))); parte to Jackson, 33 S o . 3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 6 admit evidence Ala. was R. Evid.,the reasonably facts of this of prior State case, bad acts must necessary ( A l a . 2009) pursuant demonstrate Court to Rule "that to i t s case"). this (holding the However, further holds Ex that 404(b), evidence under the that the erroneous a d m i s s i o n o f t h e evidence and t h e erroneous argument did not r i s e Under establish to the l e v e l the aversely parte Walker, that the relating v. State, that So. t h e outcome 2d has 737, the t o an i s s u e b e i n g 824 S o . 2 d 1, 13 the to the l e v e l outcome standard, the an e r r o r o c c u r r e d , affected 972 error. to for plain prejudice error); Thomas 1999)(recognizing e r r o r , an e r r o r must t h e a p p e l l a n t must e s t a b l i s h t h a t an a l l e g e d e r r o r , "'"not So. 57 2 d 528 overruled have That 889 trial), Ex ( A l a . 2004). Carter, the See (recognizing establish ( A l a . C r i m . App. of plain that the the t r i a l . ( A l a . 2007) burden reviewed but also must other Ex p a r t e of 752 of appellant on grounds, is, that appellant to rise affected plain-error not only error of plain CR-06-0360 only seriously rights,' but affect[ed] ... also [the h a [ d ] an u n f a i r the jury's deliberations."'" 938 (Ala. 2008) (Ala. 209 2002), egregious ... parte be that applies trial 725 Hyde 1998)). v. Only [ i t ] seriously reputation appropriate Price, citations i n turn App. i n t e g r i t y or public reversal Ex p a r t e So. 'substantial p r e j u d i c i a l impact Brown, ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B r y a n t , quoting ( A l a . Crim. appellant's] 11 S o . 3 d 9 3 3 , 951 S o . 2 d 7 2 4 , State, when 778 an affects error the under the p l a i n - e r r o r and q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . and prejudiced that error has the defendant." i s "so fairness, or ( A l a . 1998) "The p l a i n e r r o r probably Ex p a r t e has Trawick, will doctrine. o n l y where 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 Ex (internal standard occurred at substantially 698 So. 2d a t 167. In addition, Rule 4 5 , A l a . R. A p p . P., provides: "No j u d g m e n t may b e r e v e r s e d o r s e t a s i d e , n o r new t r i a l g r a n t e d i n a n y c i v i l o r c r i m i n a l c a s e on the ground o f m i s d i r e c t i o n o f the j u r y , the g i v i n g or refusal of special charges or the improper a d m i s s i o n o r r e j e c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e , n o r f o r e r r o r as to any m a t t e r o f p l e a d i n g o r p r o c e d u r e , u n l e s s i n the opinion o f the court to which the appeal i s t a k e n o r a p p l i c a t i o n i s made, a f t e r an e x a m i n a t i o n of the e n t i r e cause, i t should appear that the e r r o r 58 727 So. 2d 199, of j u d i c i a l proceedings," 2d 1063, 1071-72 on CR-06-0360 complained of has probably injuriously s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f the p a r t i e s . " "The United States errors do can harmless." be (Ala. not Crim. Supreme automatically App. Court has render a trial Whitehead 1999), v. a f f ' d , 777 State, So. affected recognized unfair 777 2d 854 So. that and, 2d (Ala. thus, 781, 2000). " A f t e r f i n d i n g e r r o r , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may still a f f i r m a c o n v i c t i o n o r s e n t e n c e on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e e r r o r was h a r m l e s s , i f i n d e e d i t was. Chapman [ v . C a l i f o r n i a , 386 U.S. 18 (1967)]; S a t t a r i v. S t a t e , 577 So. 2d 535 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 990), cert. d e n i e d , 577 So. 2d 540 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; [ A l a . ] R. App. P. 4 5 . Moreover, the harmless e r r o r r u l e a p p l i e s i n c a p i t a l cases. Ex p a r t e W h i s e n h a n t , 482 So. 2d 1241 (Ala. 1 983); H e n d e r s o n v. State, 583 So. 2d 276 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f ' d , 583 So. 2d 305 (Ala. 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 503 U.S. 908, 112 S . C t . 1268, 117 L . E d . 2 d 496 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; M u s g r o v e v . S t a t e , 519 So. 2d 565 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , a f f ' d , 519 So. 2d 586 (Ala. 1 9 8 6 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 486 U.S. 1036, 108 S. C t . 2 0 2 4 , 100 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1988). In order for a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e r r o r t o be deemed h a r m l e s s under Chapman, t h e s t a t e must p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e doubt that the error d i d not contribute to the verdict and/or sentence. In order for a n o n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e r r o r t o be d e e m e d h a r m l e s s , the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w i t h ' f a i r a s s u r a n c e ... t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t was not s u b s t a n t i a l l y swayed by t h e e r r o r . ' K o t t e a k o s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 328 U.S. 750 , 7 65, 66 S. Ct. 1239, 1248, 90 L. Ed. 1557 (1946). See B r e c h t v . A b r a h a m s o n , 507 U.S. 619, 113 S. C t . 1710, 123 L. E d . 2d 353 (1993); Vines v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 28 F . 3 d 1123, 1130 (11th C i r . 1994). ... I n o r d e r f o r t h e e r r o r t o be d e e m e d h a r m l e s s u n d e r A l a . R. App. P. 4 5 , t h e s t a t e m u s t e s t a b l i s h that the error did not or probably did not injuriously affect the appellant's substantial 59 most 847 CR-06-0360 r i g h t s . ... The p u r p o s e o f t h e h a r m l e s s e r r o r r u l e i s to a v o i d s e t t i n g a s i d e a c o n v i c t i o n or s e n t e n c e for small errors or d e f e c t s t h a t have l i t t l e , i f any, l i k e l i h o o d of c h a n g i n g the r e s u l t of the trial or s e n t e n c i n g . " D a v i s v. aff'd, State, 718 So. After 2d So. 1166 that, under evidence and McCray's s u b s t a n t i a l McCray, jury's jury and did not prior its oral regarding the jury a the record, circumstances argument 1995), in this this case, did not not substantially unfair Court injuriously the affect prejudice p r e j u d i c i a l i m p a c t on the Initially, this the considering the only. charge, selecting as the ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1998). conviction impeachment p u r p o s e s of 1164 reviewing h a v e an r e s t r i c t e d to McCray's 1148, rights, did deliberations. was 2d (Ala. thoroughly concludes improper 718 just for Court evidence domestic foreperson, i t the relating the instructed trial that violence S p e c i f i c a l l y , at before notes court for conclusion the jury instructed follows: " I n a c r i m i n a l c a s e , t h e S t a t e may attempt to impeach the credibility of a d e f e n d a n t who has t e s t i f i e d by p r o v i d i n g h i s former c o n v i c t i o n of a crime or crimes i n v o l v i n g moral t u r p i t u d e . S u c h may be c o n s i d e r e d b y a j u r y i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t o b e l i e v e the t e s t i m o n y of a defendant, but not for the purpose of d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t the defendant i s guilty of the crime f o r w h i c h he is presently 60 to CR-06-0360 charged crime. just because he has committed a previous " S a y i n g t h a t more c l e a r l y , l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , there has been introduction into evidence or r e f e r e n c e t o -- w h i l e M r . M c C r a y w a s o n t h e s t a n d o f certain convictions. Y o u may n o t c o n s i d e r those c o n v i c t i o n s as evidence o f g u i l t i n t h i s case, b u t may c o n s i d e r t h e m f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f h i s c r e d i b i l i t y by i n t r o d u c i n g such e v i d e n c e t h e S t a t e i s a t t a c k i n g or impeaching t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f such a witness. And t h a t i s t h e p u r p o s e f o r t h a t . " (R. 1035.) Despite McCray's argument t i m e l y a n d was n o t s u f f i c i e n t of h i s p r i o r that t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was n o t to include the specific conviction, this Court finds that details the timing of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was a c t u a l l y b e n e f i c i a l t o M c C r a y a n d t h a t t h e content of details using t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was of h i s prior h i s acts conviction h i s ex-wife guilt. limiting instruction charge. Thus, came of they McCray's could guilt. the the jury from or the d e t a i l s at the conclusion things of and deliberations, c o n v i c t i o n as e v i d e n c e I n a d d i t i o n , as quoted 61 i t s oral i n t h e i r m i n d s when from the j u r y box t o begin not use the p r i o r of that court's the j u r o r s heard, what p r e s u m a b l y w o u l d have been r e s o n a t i n g was t h a t include As noted above, t h e t r i a l one o f t h e l a s t t h e y were r e l e a s e d to c o n v i c t i o n and t o prevent against to infer sufficient above, the trial CR-06-0360 court i n s t r u c t e d the could not only be jury u s e d as that McCray's evidence of h i s g u i l t , i n assessing his c r e d i b i l i t y trial prior court used the as but a witness. " e v i d e n c e and reference whole, a person have trial court's also reasonable his conviction; act to to would instruction testimony to the applied and on Childersburg in to his v. regarding uncharged have been police; inflicted 1996) used Although the to." Taken as understood not only that to act facts against retaliation the for photographs ex-wife. Florey, the McCray's 676 See, So. 2d underlying his but that ex-wife, which r e p o r t i n g the first of the e.g., 324, wounds 331 had Bank First he of (Ala. Civ. App. ( l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n c o u l d not used as details 2d 1161, follow substantive regarding 1204 the evidence c o n v i c t i o n ) ; See ( A l a . C r i m . App. trial court's The p r o s e c u t o r a l s o convictions in addition violence. 1 4 cured 2004) error in P e r a i t a v. ("'Jurors instructions.'" a the t h a t he h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e , to appears c o u l d be 1 4 term " c o n v i c t i o n " i n i t s i n s t r u c t i o n , i t a l s o used the phrase testimony convictions admission State, 897 are presumed (quoting Bryant be of So. to v. impeached McCray w i t h other p r i o r to the conviction for domestic 62 CR-06-0360 State, v. 727 S o . 2 d 8 7 0 , 8 7 4 - 7 5 State, are 827 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 , 162 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) presumed With to follow the court's the impeachment, did ( A l a . Crim. App. 1998)); evidence admitted credibility, of evidence In repeatedly impeachment the t r i a l . was restricted used to o f McCray Although to attack the McCray's t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t h i s c r e d i b i l i t y h a d a l r e a d y been s e v e r e l y damaged b e f o r e behalf. acts improper t h e outcome ("Jurors instructions."). the prior the prosecutor's not affect improperly of Burgess he e v e r h i s videotaped lied about being t o o k t h e s t a n d o n h i s own statement to police, a t Bachelder's mobile McCray home t h e night o f t h e murder, a b o u t t h e c u t he h a d on h i s hand, a n d about the scratches on confronted that he h i s neck. by t h e o f f i c e r s had lied, he during changed own b e h a l f , happened, he p r o v i d e d further McCray's c r e d i b i l i t y proper own calling h i s story. McCray This was evidence happened When M c C r a y t e s t i f i e d o n y e t another s t o r y about what h a d his credibility into question. was f u r t h e r a t t a c k e d b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s use of a d d i t i o n a l p r i o r inconsistencies time the interview with repeatedly throughout the interview. his Each c o n v i c t i o n s , and by McCray's i n his trial 63 testimony. Accordingly, CR-06-0360 McCray's credibility was thoroughly undermined without any c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e improper impeachment e v i d e n c e . Finally, although the on improperly admitted impermissibly this prosecutor light to The fact of that and t h a t i t were of the conviction alone, some propensity violence i n the domestic impaired his credibility. S.W.3d 402, erroneous of weighed prior some against restricted on setting the part improperly especially in and would App. of details 2004) have, by toward itself, v. S t a t e , (holding surrounding tended o f McCray See, e.g., A r e b a l o (Tex. C t . i n light a "indicated 410 admission convictions for conviction that questioned o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between McCray and Bachelder, indicate fact character, t h a t M c C r a y was p r o p e r l y conviction f o r domestic violence the details admitted. the evidence d u r i n g h i s c l o s i n g arguments and C o u r t must c o n s i d e r only commented suggested t h a t McCray had a v i o l e n t about h i s p r i o r is erroneously 143 harmless defendant's prior o f numerous f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e aggravated-assault propensity towards violence his credibility"). to considering conviction, the evidence Because and c o u l d the jury have was o f McCray's p r i o r a c t impeachment p u r p o s e s o n l y and because McCray's 64 alone, credibility CR-06-0360 had a l r e a d y been t h o r o u g h l y undermined, i f n o t d e s t r o y e d , any error i n allowing admitted the improper d i d not rise p a r t e Brown, impeachment to the level 11 S o . 3 d a t 9 3 8 - 4 0 evidence of plain error. t o be C f . Ex (holding that the erroneous admission of evidence d i d not r i s e t o the l e v e l of p l a i n because the State presented overwhelming error evidence o f g u i l t and t h e i n f e r e n c e drawn f r o m t h e i m p r o p e r e v i d e n c e was e s t a b l i s h e d by o t h e r l e g a l Finally, and evidence). t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e was l a r g e l y overwhelmingly established McCray's guilt. p r e s e n t e d an abundance o f p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e the murder, and McCray had caused he had been he h a d b e e n p r o v o k e d heat of passion. burglary. State, claimed the mobile he that home a n d , McCray f u r t h e r c l a i m e d t h a t and t h a t Bachelder's death The State l i n k i n g McCray t o McCray, however, permission to enter thus, had n o t committed The admitted during h i s testimony that Bachelder's death. given undisputed on t h e o t h e r resulted hand, from presented i r o n c l a d evidence r e f u t i n g McCray's c l a i m s . For instance, the State presented after moved out of the mobile evidence knobs, c o n t a i n i n g t h e door establishing home, Bachelder locks, 65 that McCray had replaced the on b o t h d o o r s door of the mobile CR-06-0360 home and McCray had t o use a s c r e w d r i v e r trailer, raising permission the inference to enter that Bachelder's t o break McCray mobile i n to the d i d not home. The e v i d e n c e a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t B a c h e l d e r was s t a b b e d times, drag State's multiple t h a t a d o g l e a s h was l o o p e d a r o u n d h e r n e c k a n d u s e d t o her throughout was have placed over the mobile h e r head home, a n d t h a t t o prevent a p l a s t i c bag her from breathing, e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t a n y l i c e n s e M c C r a y may h a v e h a d t o b e i n t h e trailer would have been revoked, and a f t e r remained there that evidence unlawfully. of a Brown, struggle i t was r e v o k e d , he 11 S o . 3 d a t 914 indicates that (holding any l i c e n s e t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d h a d t o b e i n t h e home w a s r e v o k e d a n d s a t i s f i e s the remained-unlawfully element of b u r g l a r y ) . M c C r a y a d m i t t e d on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n to d i e so t h a t police, she would of heat o f passion. (Ala. kill] desire t o manslaughter, by the heat to avenge that to identify he k i l l e d See P a l m o r e v. S t a t e , 1949) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t opposed t h a t he w a n t e d n o t be a b l e r e b u t t i n g h i s own c l a i m of passion, the that person but by p r i o r wrong done 66 him, Bachelder him to the Bachelder out 43 S o . 2 d 3 9 9 , 4 0 1 a person i s g u i l t y i f Additionally, o f murder, as " i s n o t moved [ t o malice, or by hatred, any a other CR-06-0360 motive..." (quoting McNeill v. State, 15 So. 352, 354 (Ala. 1894))). Because guilt is "the virtually e v i d e n c e and ex-wife 2d argument r e l a t i n g his right 341, 344 (Ala. 624 because evidence the not affect So. 2d comment o n the the trial." Crim. 208, of 211 guilt of the So. 2d ("Because beyond [Price's] statement, Sheriff the error."); Ex (the erroneous harmless error d i d not T.D.T., admission because, of 745 an even 67 Ex that to t e s t i f y to prejudice overwhelming concerning crimes, Turner to testify (Ala. 1999) o u t - o f - c o u r t statement "was 899, without level we plain 2d the 725 of So. to the an "did Ex p a r t e P r i c e , Sheriff rise parte ironclad," testimony Price 714 (holding produced Turner's i n allowing statement parte State State, otherwise trial"); connecting conclude that the e r r o r regarding the or of or otherwise See "virtually failure McCray's against his v. 1997). trial defendant's] r i g h t to a f a i r evidence, acts ( A l a . 1993) was of admission Chavers App. the defendant's outcome 1072 erroneous to h i s p r i o r [the at the evidence t h e outcome o f t h e t r i a l to a fair Greathouse, erroneous shows t h a t ironclad," " d i d not a f f e c t prejudice So. record 906 i t , the record CR-06-0360 contain[ed] guilt"). errors overwhelming evidence of [the defendant's] T h e r e f o r e , McCray has f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t these rise For to the l e v e l foregoing of p l a i n reasons, errors complained of here error, but at entitled were, t o no relief this do most, error. Court not r i s e to the l e v e l harmless. on t h e s e concludes Therefore, that of the plain McCray i s erred in claims. III. McCray allowing also what Bachelder's prosecutor elicit of mother, was when Rolande Dean. indicating Bachelder's argues testimony Dean's reviewed that from pertinent testimony for plain During trial court inadmissible state He testimony argues from that Dean's at error t h a t B a c h e l d e r was of mind the prosecutor Dean that M c C r a y t o l e a v e t h e m o b i l e home. of the the i m p r o p e r l y q u e s t i o n e d Dean i n a l e a d i n g manner t o also hearsay that claims from her evidence McCray McCray he contends trial; only. testimony, part: 68 she was not at improperly heard afraid issue. elicited Bachelder tell McCray d i d n o t o b j e c t t o any therefore, See R u l e the this claim 45A, A l a . R. A p p . following occurred, i s P. in CR-06-0360 "[Prosecutor]: Now , l e t ' s g o b a c k t o t h e t i m e s b e f o r e t h a t d a y when y o u h a d s e e n [ B a c h e l d e r ] with Heath McCray, i n other words, a t t h e t r a i l e r and i n t h e c o m m u n i t y -- b a c k i n , I ' d s a y , J u l y o r J u n e , g o i n g b a c k w a r d s , d i d y o u s e e how t h e y i n t e r a c t e d when t h e y w e r e t o g e t h e r a r o u n d t h o s e t i m e s ? "[Dean]: Yes. "[Prosecutor]: Okay. Now, l e t ' s go t o t h a t T h u r s d a y n i g h t b e f o r e t h e W e d n e s d a y when y o u f o u n d her. When y o u saw h e r w i t h H e a t h M c C r a y , w h a t y o u o b s e r v e d , was t h e o b s e r v a t i o n b e t w e e n h e r a n d H e a t h McCray d i f f e r e n t from what you had seen i n t h e p a s t ? "[Dean]: of in Yes. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : D i d [Bachelder] e x h i b i t any type -- w h a t y o u saw y o u r s e l f -- f e a r t o w a r d s a n y o n e that trailer? "[Dean]: Yes. "[Prosecutor]: Who "[Dean]: McCray. Heath was i t ? "[Prosecutor]: Now, w o u l d y o u t e l l t h e l a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n o f t h e j u r y , when y o u g o t o v e r t h e r e -- n o t w h a t [ B a c h e l d e r ] s a i d t o y o u -- b u t w e r e t h e r e a n y d i s c u s s i o n s a b o u t w h e t h e r H e a t h M c C r a y was going t o continue t o l i v e i n that t r a i l e r then? "[Dean]: Yes. "[Prosecutor]: Would you t e l l t h e l a d i e s and gentlemen o f t h e j u r y , d i d you hear [Bachelder] say anything t o Heath McCray p e r s o n a l l y i n t h e t r a i l e r that night? "[Dean]: Yes. 69 CR-06-0360 "[Prosecutor]: "[Dean]: What d i d s h e s a y t o h i m ? He h a d t o leave. "[Prosecutor]: Would you t e l l t h e l a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n o f t h e j u r y , w h e n H e a t h M c C r a y was t o l d t o leave, d i d he t a k e anything with h i m o r have anything a t that time? "[Dean]: Yes. "[Prosecutor]: "[Dean]: Tell t h e j u r y what i t was. A bag of c l o t h e s . "[Prosecutor]: Now, o n c e a g a i n , a s k i n g you a b o u t [ B a c h e l d e r ] w h e n y o u o b s e r v e d h e r a n d saw h e r , would you t e l l t h e l a d i e s and gentlemen o f t h e j u r y , was h e r d e m e a n o r and appearance different that n i g h t , t h a t T h u r s d a y , t h a n i n t h e p a s t when s h e h a d been around him? "[Dean]: Yes. "[Prosecutor]: Big d i f f e r e n c e ? What was i t ? "[Dean]: (R. 266-68.) Later difference? Little Big difference." during Dean's testimony, the following occurred: " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Now, n o t w h a t s h e s a i d , b u t d i d she i n d i c a t e -- w h a t s h e s h o w e d y o u -- w h a t y o u watched y o u r s e l f , d i d you see any type o f f e a r ? "[Dean]: Yes." (R. 283.) after In addition, McCray left the as noted mobile 70 above, home, Dean testified Bachelder went that and CR-06-0360 purchased and back To was new d o o r doors knobs w h i c h o f t h e m o b i l e home t h a t t h e e x t e n t McCray argues irrelevant, this Martin, she p l a c e d issue that on b o t h night. Bachelder's fear i s without merit. 931 So. 2 d 759 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , ofhim I n Ex parte t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court a d d r e s s e d the a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f a murder v i c t i m ' s as the front s t a t e o f mind follows: "Evidence o f t h e v i c t i m ' s s t a t e o f mind o r , as h e r e , f a c t s f r o m w h i c h one m i g h t i n f e r a s t a t e o f mind, can be r e l e v a n t where a t h e o r y p u t f o r t h b y the d e f e n s e opens t h e door t o such e v i d e n c e , t h e r e b y making t h e v i c t i m ' s s t a t e o f mind r e l e v a n t . While other j u r i s d i c t i o n s are not e n t i r e l y consistent,[ ] many c o u r t s have a l l o w e d evidence of a victim's s t a t e o f mind only i n certain situations. See U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B r o w n , 490 F . 2 d 7 5 8 , 767 (D.C. C i r . 1973) (recognizing three categories of cases i n w h i c h a h o m i c i d e v i c t i m ' s f e a r i s r e l e v a n t : 1) w h e r e the defendant claims self-defense; 2) w h e r e t h e defendant claims t h e v i c t i m committed s u i c i d e ; and 3) w h e r e t h e d e f e n d a n t a d m i t s some i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e c r i m e , b u t c l a i m s t h a t t h e d e a t h was t h e r e s u l t o f a n a c c i d e n t ) ; S t a t e v . R e v e l l e , 957 S.W.2d 4 2 8 , 432 (Mo. C t . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) ('Where a n a c c u s e d claims self-defense, t h e deceased's state o f mind i s relevant t o the issue o f which p a r t i c i p a n t i n the killing was t h e a g g r e s s o r . Where a defendant concedes h i s o r h e r presence and involvement i n a victim's death but claims an a c c i d e n t or suicide caused t h e death, t h e deceased's statements as t o f e a r o f guns o r s i m i l a r s t a t e o f mind a r e r e l e v a n t to rebut these defenses.' ( c i t a t i o n s omitted)); Bray v . C o m m o n w e a l t h , 68 S.W.3d 3 7 5 , 3 8 1 - 8 2 ( K y . 2 0 0 2 ) ('[W]here a d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t c l a i m s e l f - d e f e n s e , an a c c i d e n t a l death, o r s u i c i d e , such statements [ o f 4 71 CR-06-0360 the v i c t i m ' s f e a r of the defendant] u s u a l l y have " l i t t l e relevancy except toward p r o v i d i n g a strong inference of appellant's intent, actions or c u l p a b i l i t y . " ' ( q u o t i n g P a r t i n v . C o m m o n w e a l t h , 918 S.W.2d 2 1 9 , 222 ( K y . 1 9 9 6 ) ) ) ; P e o p l e v . A r m e n d a r i z , 37 C a l . 3 d 5 7 3 , 5 8 6 , 693 P . 2 d 2 4 3 , 2 5 1 , 209 C a l . R p t r . 664, 672 (1984) ('This c o u r t has r e p e a t e d l y held that a v i c t i m ' s out-of-court statements of fear of a n a c c u s e d a r e a d m i s s i b l e ... o n l y w h e n t h e v i c t i m ' s conduct i n conformity with that fear i s i n d i s p u t e . Absent such dispute, the statements are i r r e l e v a n t . ' ) ; H a t c h e r v . S t a t e , 735 N . E . 2 d 1155, 1161 ( I n d . 2 0 0 0 ) ('We have n o t e d t h r e e s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e [a s t a t e m e n t i n d i c a t i n g a h o m i c i d e v i c t i m ' s fear] i s admissible: (1) t o s h o w t h e i n t e n t o f t h e v i c t i m t o a c t i n a p a r t i c u l a r way, (2) w h e n t h e defendant p u t s the v i c t i m ' s s t a t e of mind i n i s s u e , and (3) sometimes to explain physical injuries s u f f e r e d b y t h e v i c t i m .... We d e c l i n e t h e S t a t e ' s invitation to extend this list to include the a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f a v i c t i m ' s s t a t e o f m i n d t o show the n a t u r e of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the v i c t i m and t h e d e f e n d a n t . ' ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d [ i n Ex parte Martin])). " I t i s u n n e c e s s a r y f o r us t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r a statement o f f e r e d not f o r the t r u t h of the matters a s s e r t e d , but t o suggest a s t a t e of mind i n d i c a t i v e of f e a r o f a spouse and t h e r e f o r e i n d i c a t i v e o f a bad m a r r i a g e , i s a d m i s s i b l e as n o n h e a r s a y under R u l e 8 0 1 ( c ) o r as an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e h e a r s a y r u l e u n d e r Rule 803(c). I t i s unnecessary because Martin suggested during h i s opening statement that the v i c t i m i n t h i s case might have committed s u i c i d e . Such a t h e o r y o f d e f e n s e p u t s i n i s s u e the v i c t i m ' s s t a t e of mind. Statements probative of the v i c t i m ' s fear of dying or of her will to live are i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h any s u i c i d a l t e n d e n c i e s on her p a r t and a r e t h e r e f o r e r e l e v a n t . Carey testified t h a t t h e v i c t i m t o l d h e r t h a t i f she d i d n o t h e a r from the v i c t i m i n 'three or four days,' t o 'call [ t h e v i c t i m ' s ] mama a n d d a d d y a n d t e l l t h e m he d i d 72 CR-06-0360 it.' S u c h a s t a t e o f m i n d , w h i c h was c o n s i s t e n t with the p o s s i b i l i t y of her death being occasioned s o l e l y b y a t h i r d p a r t y a n d n o t b y h e r own h a n d , w a s relevant t o r e b u t t a l of the defense's suggestion t h a t t h e v i c t i m may h a v e b e e n s u i c i d a l . Therefore, the statement, from which a f a c t - f i n d e r could i n f e r t h e v i c t i m ' s s t a t e o f m i n d , was r e l e v a n t t o an i s s u e i n t h e c a s e , a n d t h e s t a t e m e n t was a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e 4 0 1 , A l a . R. E v i d . Accordingly, the t r i a l court d i d not e r r i n admitting the evidence over Martin's hearsay objection. II " Some c o u r t s h a v e s i m p l y d e c l a r e d t h a t e v i d e n c e of a v i c t i m ' s s t a t e o f mind i s a d m i s s i b l e . See S t a t e v . R a d a b a u g h , 93 I d a h o 7 2 7 , 7 3 1 , 4 7 1 P . 2 d 5 8 2 , 586 (1970) ( ' E v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o show t h e m e n t a l s t a t e of t h e v i c t i m and i l l - f e e l i n g or h o s t i l i t y between decedent and defendant i s a d m i s s i b l e . ' ) ; S t a t e v . A l s t o n , 3 4 1 N.C. 1 9 8 , 2 3 0 , 4 6 1 S . E . 2 d 6 8 7 , 704 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ('[A] m u r d e r v i c t i m ' s s t a t e m e n t s f a l l i n g w i t h i n t h e s t a t e o f mind e x c e p t i o n t o t h e hearsay r u l e a r e h i g h l y r e l e v a n t t o show t h e s t a t u s o f t h e victim's r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the defendant.')." 4 931 So. 2d a t 765-67 Here, was above, burglary that he as i n Ex p a r t e placed Although (some f o o t n o t e s at issue t h e main heat by Bachelder's the defense's defense of passion, element Martin, omitted). theory into of the case. o f t h e case was, as noted the defense also challenged charge by t h e m o b i l e home w a s n o r m a l had p r e v i o u s l y used a screwdriver 73 o f mind theory of the capital-murder McCray's e n t r y state to enter the suggesting (because the mobile home CR-06-0360 w h e n he was mobile not living t h e r e ) a n d t h a t he h a d a r i g h t home b e c a u s e M c C r a y ended mobile and she home. had and B a c h e l d e r ' s agreed Indeed, to during meet opening him t o be i n t h e relationship had that the day statements, at defense c o u n s e l s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t he e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e would of fail McCray to establish just days before suggestion t h a t McCray ended tends and invited him to an u n l a w f u l e n t r y . and B a c h e l d e r ' s indicate t o meet h e r murder her that alone evidence relating relevant and a d m i s s i b l e under Rule Further, court to Bachelder's rebuts state the would trailer. was this argument have clearly Evid. t o the e x t e n t t h a t McCray argues t h a t the f r o m Dean r e g a r d i n g B a c h e l d e r ' s not not erroneously allowed the prosecutor to e l i c i t questions, had Therefore, of mind 4 0 1 , A l a . R. fear defense's relationship Bachelder i n her Bachelder's trial testimony s t a t e of mind through l e a d i n g i s likewise without merit. Because e v i d e n c e o f B a c h e l d e r ' s s t a t e o f m i n d was a d m i s s i b l e , t h e f a c t t h a t Dean's t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g B a c h e l d e r ' s f e a r o f McCray was elicited not constitute using error. some arguably Rule leading 6 1 1 ( c ) , A l a . R. questions Evid., does provides: " L e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s s h o u l d n o t be u s e d on t h e d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n o f a w i t n e s s , e x c e p t when j u s t i c e 74 CR-06-0360 r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e y be a l l o w e d . Leading questions a r e p e r m i t t e d on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . When a p a r t y c a l l s a h o s t i l e w i t n e s s , an a d v e r s e party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, i n t e r r o g a t i o n may b e b y l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s . " However, on "Alabama has never e n f o r c e d leading questions examination." Crim. Calhoun 2005). v. a prosecutor State, So. 2d 923, direct 963 ( A l a . or d i s a l l o w leading questions i s discretionary with the t r i a l c o u r t and except f o r flagrant violation Johnson v. S t a t e , , "'"Whether 932 during ban to allow a App. by an a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d reversible error."'" [Ms. C R - 9 9 - 1 3 4 9 , O c t o b e r 2, 2 0 0 9 ] So. 3d ( A l a . Crim. Alabama 1258, Supreme December 2000), March aff'd 14, Ruffin v. 1991)). will App. Court) there 2009) (quoting 22, 2000] i n part, 2003] State, 582 ( o p i n i o n on Smith So. 3d rev'd So. be on 3d So. other State, , 2d 1159, 1162 from [Ms. [Ms. issue, quoting i n turn ( A l a . Crim. App. App.), (Ala. 1996), t h i s stating: "None o f t h e q u e s t i o n s l e d t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f i l l e g a l e v i d e n c e and none p r e j u d i c e d t h e a p p e l l a n t . The q u e s t i o n s w e r e m e r e l y a t t e m p t s t o s p e e d u p t h e d i r e c t examination. The t r i a l c o u r t i s v e s t e d w i t h 75 App. 1010267, I n G e o r g e v . S t a t e , 717 S o . 2 d 82 7 ( A l a . C r i m . a similar the CR-97- (Ala. Crim. grounds, ( A l a . 2003), r e v ' d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s , 717 S o . 2 d 844 addressed v. remand Court CR-06-0360 wide d i s c r e t i o n i n t h i s a r e a 'because i t has been s a i d t h a t t h e r e i s n o f o r m o f q u e s t i o n w h i c h may n o t be l e a d i n g a n d t h a t t h e t r i a l court should look beyond t h e form t o t h e substance and e f f e c t o f t h e inquiry i n the particular circumstances of the case.' C. G a m b l e , M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e , § 121.05(3) (4th ed. 1991). We f i n d n o a b u s e o f t h e t r i a l court's discretion." 717 S o . 2 d a t 8 3 8 . N o n e o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s to Dean e l i c i t e d prejudice evidence testimony to that the extent she heard "'Hearsay' i s a McCray Bachelder home w a s i n a d m i s s i b l e hearsay, statement, other 801(c), prove to t o prove A l a . R. the truth Evid. argues tell McCray this than declarant while testifying at the t r i a l evidence and t h e r e f o r e d i d not McCray. Finally, mobile any i l l e g a l Dean's t o leave the Court disagrees. one made by the or hearing, offered i n of the matter Dean's that testimony asserted." Rule was n o t o f f e r e d t o the truth of the matter asserted; rather, i t was o f f e r e d f u r t h e r e s t a b l i s h B a c h e l d e r ' s s t a t e o f mind, i . e , t h a t she feared McCray testimony, For error, a n d w a n t e d h i m t o s t a y away. too, less this was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d . the foregoing reasons, much Therefore, plain error, testimony. 76 this Court does n o t f i n d any i n the admission of Dean's CR-06-0360 IV. McCray prosecutorial next contends misconduct prosecutorial-misconduct that there throughout claims, this his were instances trial. C o u r t has Regarding explained: "'The prosecutor's duty in a criminal p r o s e c u t i o n i s t o seek j u s t i c e , and a l t h o u g h the prosecutor s h o u l d p r o s e c u t e w i t h v i g o r , he o r she should not use improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction.' S m i t h v. State, [Ms. C R - 9 7 - 1 2 5 8 , D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 ] So. 3 d , (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , a f f ' d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , rev'd on other grounds, [Ms. 1010267, March 14, 2003] So. 3 d (Ala. 2003). 'In reviewing a l l e g e d l y i m p r o p e r p r o s e c u t o r i a l comments, c o n d u c t , and q u e s t i o n i n g o f w i t n e s s e s , t h e t a s k o f t h i s C o u r t i s to c o n s i d e r t h e i r impact i n the context of the particular trial, and not to view the a l l e g e d l y improper acts i n the a b s t r a c t . ' B a n k h e a d v. S t a t e , 585 So. 2 d 97, 106 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989), remanded on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 585 S o . 2 d 112 (Ala. 1991), a f f ' d on r e t u r n t o r e m a n d , 625 S o . 2 d 1141 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 2 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 625 So. 2 d 1146 (Ala. 1993). ' " P r o s e c u t o r i a l misconduct i s a basis f o r r e v e r s i n g an a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n o n l y i f , i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e e n t i r e t r i a l and i n l i g h t o f any curative instruction, the misconduct may have p r e j u d i c e d the s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of the accused."' C a r r o l l v . S t a t e , 599 So. 2 d 1 2 5 3 , 1268 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992), a f f ' d , 627 So. 2d 874 (Ala. 1993), q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v . R e e d , 887 F . 2 d 1 3 9 8 , 1402 (11th C i r . 1989). The r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s c o n d u c t 'so i n f e c t e d t h e t r i a l w i t h u n f a i r n e s s a s t o make t h e r e s u l t i n g c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f due p r o c e s s . ' D o n n e l l y v. D e C h r i s t o f o r o , 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974)." 77 of CR-06-0360 Minor In v. State, 914 So. 2d 372, 415 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). addition: "'In j u d g i n g a p r o s e c u t o r ' s c l o s i n g argument, the s t a n d a r d i s w h e t h e r t h e a r g u m e n t "so i n f e c t e d the trial w i t h u n f a i r n e s s as t o make t h e resulting c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f due p r o c e s s . " ' Bankhead[ v. State], 585 So. 2d [97,] 107 [(Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 8 9 ) , ] q u o t i n g D a r d e n v. W a i n w r i g h t , 477 U.S. 168, 1 8 1 , 106 S. C t . 2 4 6 4 , 2 4 7 1 , 91 L. E d . 2 d 144 (1986) ( q u o t i n g D o n n e l l y v . D e C h r i s t o f o r o , 416 U.S. 637, 94 S. Ct. 1868, 40 L. Ed. 2d 431 (1974)). 'A p r o s e c u t o r ' s s t a t e m e n t m u s t be v i e w e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d and i n t h e c o n t e x t of the complete c l o s i n g arguments to the jury.' R o b e r t s v . S t a t e , 735 So. 2 d 1 2 4 4 , 1253 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 735 So. 2d 1270 (Ala.), cert. d e n i e d , 538 U.S. 9 3 9 , 120 S. C t . 3 4 6 , 145 L. E d . 2 d 271 (1999). Moreover, 'statements of c o u n s e l i n a r g u m e n t t o t h e j u r y m u s t be v i e w e d as d e l i v e r e d i n the heat of d e b a t e ; such statements are u s u a l l y v a l u e d by t h e j u r y a t t h e i r t r u e w o r t h and a r e n o t e x p e c t e d t o become f a c t o r s i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e verdict.' B a n k h e a d , 585 So. 2d a t 1 0 6 . 'Questions of the p r o p r i e t y of argument of c o u n s e l are l a r g e l y w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n , M c C u l l o u g h v. S t a t e , 357 So. 2d 3 9 7 , 399 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1978), and that court is given broad discretion in determining what is permissible argument.' B a n k h e a d , 585 So. 2 d a t 1 0 5 . We w i l l n o t r e v e r s e the judgment of the t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s t h e r e has b e e n an a b u s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . Id." Ferguson 2000), court v. State, aff'd, 814 has So. concluded prosecutorial 814 So. 2d 970 that arguments 2d 945-46 (Ala. 2001). the ... 925, failure should 78 be to (Ala. Crim. App. Moreover, "'[t]his object improper weighed as to part of our CR-06-0360 evaluation of suggestion question So. 2d (Ala. n.6 the claim t h a t the t o be 474, defense the merits d i d not particularly 489 1991) on c o n s i d e r the Kuenzel v. App. aff'd, 577 1990), ( q u o t i n g J o h n s o n v. W a i n w r i g h t , principles its State, 577 So. 2d 531 623, 629 F.2d 1985)). With 778 of comments i n harmful.'" (Ala. Crim. (11th C i r . because these of McCray's arguments i n mind, t h i s in Court addresses each turn. A. First, presented trial McCray argues evidence and that argument at prosecutor the guilt c a l c u l a t e d s o l e l y to i n f l a m e the j u r y . argues impact that: called (1) evidence improper him the and prosecutor demonstration; and (3) names d u r i n g c l o s i n g Initially, trial, the presented improperly phase of Specifically, improper his he victim- a r g u m e n t ; (2) t h e p r o s e c u t o r e n g a g e d i n an McCray contends prosecutor argument regarding presented evidence prosecutor improperly Evidence t h a t d u r i n g the g u i l t phase improperly Bachelder's and the arguments. Victim-Impact the the two presented children, evidence and improperly argument r e g a r d i n g t h e p a i n and 79 of blood CR-06-0360 loss Bachelder endured during argued the value of Bachelder's trial prosecutor the to the Bachelder's did not value two to for plain During "[Bachelder] 223) day of evidence or life; 1 5 to two and the See R u l e children" the murder, However, those claims had he regarding regarding the will be 45A, A l a . R. A p p . P. prosecutor stated that Bachelder " w i t h h i s c h i l d r e n and h e r Bachelder during regarding argument (R. 2 2 1 ) ; t h a t f o r a p e r i o d of time before her evidence argument therefore, statements, McCray had l i v e d t o g e t h e r (R. improperly McCray o b j e c t e d presenting error only. opening had the children of Bachelder's reviewed life. and p a i n and s u f f e r i n g d u r i n g t h e a t t a c k . object Bachelder's attack, and children" h e r murder; and t h a t t h e taken one of her sons to I n a f o o t n o t e i n h i s b r i e f , McCray s t a t e s t h a t the t r i a l court granted h i s p r e t r i a l motion t o p r o h i b i t the State from i n t r o d u c i n g v i c t i m - i m p a c t evidence a t the g u i l t phase of h i s trial. However, t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t McCray f i l e d a motion t o p r o h i b i t the State from p r e s e n t i n g victim-impact evidence d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase of h i s t r i a l , not d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l . A l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t n o t e d on t h e c a s e - a c t i o n - s u m m a r y s h e e t t h a t t h e m o t i o n was g r a n t e d " a s t o g u i l t s t a g e " (C. 1 4 4 ) , t h i s n o t a t i o n i s o b v i o u s l y b a s e d on a misunderstanding of t h e argument McCray a c t u a l l y presented in h i s motion. McCray never argued i n the motion t h a t the State should be p r o h i b i t e d f r o m p r e s e n t i n g victim-impact evidence d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l . 1 5 80 CR-06-0360 school. During 1 6 Bachelder's mother's prosecutor introduced into evidence with h e r two children names a n d a g e s o f t h o s e the p r o s e c u t o r and e l i c i t e d children. testimony, a photograph testimony During the of Bachelder regarding the closing arguments, stated: " I a s k e d [ M c C r a y ] , w h e n h e t e s t i f i e d , w h a t was i t l i k e t o w a l k i n [ B a c h e l d e r ' s ] b l o o d -- t h a t y o u had p u t a dog c h a i n on h e r n e c k . You h a d p u t a p l a s t i c b a g t o c u t o f f h e r a i r . You h a d wound i t tight. You h a d s t a b b e d h e r r e p e a t e d l y , o v e r a n d o v e r a g a i n on t h e n e c k , on b o t h s i d e s . You have c u t a c a r o t i d a r t e r y . You have g o t c u t s and l a c e r a t i o n s on h e r h a n d . You s t a b b e d h e r i n t h e b r e a s t more than four inches. Y o u s t a b b e d h e r i n t h e v a g i n a -¬ w i t h t h e l a c e r a t i o n i n t h e v a g i n a w h i l e s h e was l y i n g o n t h a t t r a i l e r i n t h a t f l o o r -- i n t h a t b l o o d - s o a k e d t r a i l e r i n t h e home t h a t s h e h a d r a i s e d h e r c h i l d r e n i n -- a f t e r t h a t man s i t t i n g r i g h t o v e r there, Heath Lavon McCray, had p u l l e d down h e r p a n t s , had taken h e r underwear and c u t h e r p a n t i e s . " (R. 980.) The p r o s e c u t o r l a t e r stated: "He h a s g o t h e r down o n t h e f l o o r . What i s he saying t o her? Can you i m a g i n e t h e e f f e c t s o f b e i n g s t a b b e d , how s h e w a s g u r g l i n g , g a s p i n g t o b r e a t h e i n h e r own d i a p h r a g m , c h o k i n g o n h e r own b l o o d a s i t ' s f l o w i n g out? " A n d s h e ' s l o o k i n g a t t h e p i c t u r e -counsel] wants t o say t h e r e ' s h i s f o o t b a l l [defense picture. I t appears from t h e r e c o r d t h a t , a t t h e time o f t h e m u r d e r , B a c h e l d e r ' s o t h e r s o n was v i s i t i n g h i s b i o l o g i c a l father out of state. 1 6 81 CR-06-0360 T h e r e ' s p i c t u r e s a l s o i n t h a t h o u s e o f who? Who important to her? Her c h i l d r e n . Her c h i l d r e n . " (R. 994.) It is well admissible the s e t t l e d that during statements phase. the are T e s t i m o n y t h a t has of fact or Crymes, 630 So. 2d original). require Rule 45, Ala. explained 663 So. 2d in 999 R. of a a material probative is statements admission of addressing P. a on but the may only i f guilt material Ex parte (emphasis victim-impact does "'are the any 1993) evidence As of inadmissible.'" (Ala. that issue value 126 conviction, App. (Ala. no 125, regarding reversal to inquiry However, the argument victim-impact g u i l t phase of a c r i m i n a l t r i a l relevant question and was not evidence necessarily be harmless under Alabama Supreme Court similar issue i n Ex parte Rieber, 1995): "We a g r e e w i t h R i e b e r t h a t Mr. C r a i g ' s t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g Ms. C r a i g ' s c h i l d r e n , t h e i r a g e s , a n d t h e s t a t u s o f t h e i r c u s t o d y a f t e r t h e m u r d e r was not r e l e v a n t w i t h respect to the q u e s t i o n of h i s g u i l t or innocence and, therefore, that i t was i n a d m i s s i b l e i n the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l . The only i s s u e before the j u r y d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of t h e t r i a l was w h e t h e r R i e b e r h a d r o b b e d a n d killed Ms. C r a i g . H o w e v e r , i n E x p a r t e C r y m e s , 630 So. 2d 125 (Ala. 1993), a p l u r a l i t y of t h i s Court h e l d i n a c a p i t a l murder case i n which the d e f e n d a n t was sentenced to life-imprisonment without parole that a j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n c a n be u p h e l d i f t h e r e c o r d 82 in CR-06-0360 c o n c l u s i v e l y shows t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e v i c t i m impact evidence d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l d i d not a f f e c t the outcome of the t r i a l or o t h e r w i s e prejudice a substantial right of the defendant. See, a l s o , G i l e s v . S t a t e , 632 So. 2 d 568 (Ala. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) , a f f ' d , 632 So. 2 d 577 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , cert. denied, [ 5 1 2 ] U.S. [ 1 2 1 3 ] , 114 S. C t . 2 6 9 4 , 129 L. E d . 2 d 825 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; E x p a r t e P a r k e r , 610 So. 2 d 1181 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , [509] U.S. [929], 113 S. C t . 3 0 5 3 , 125 L. E d . 2 d 737 (1993); Lawhorn v . S t a t e , [ 5 8 1 So. 2 d 1159 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1990), a f f ' d , 581 So. 2 d 1179 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ] ; Hooks v. S t a t e , 534 So. 2 d 329 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1987), a f f ' d , 534 S o . 2 d 371 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 488 U.S. 1050, 109 S. C t . 8 8 3 , 102 L. E d . 2 d 1005 (1989); and Ex p a r t e Whisenhant, [555 So. 2 d 235 (Ala. 1989)], applying a harmless e r r o r a n a l y s i s i n death penalty cases. Our review of the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t R i e b e r ' s a t t o r n e y s d i d n o t o b j e c t t o Mr. Craig's b r i e f r e f e r e n c e s t o Ms. C r a i g ' s c h i l d r e n o r a s k h i m a n y q u e s t i o n s on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . The t r i a l c o u r t clearly instructed the jury that i t had to determine, b a s e d on a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e , whether R i e b e r h a d r o b b e d a n d k i l l e d Ms. C r a i g . The jury was i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i t c o u l d n o t f i n d R i e b e r g u i l t y unless the prosecutor had established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The j u r y was also i n s t r u c t e d not t o l e t sympathy or p r e j u d i c e a f f e c t its verdict. We caution prosecutors that the i n t r o d u c t i o n of v i c t i m impact evidence d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of a c a p i t a l murder t r i a l can r e s u l t i n r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i f the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t probably distracted the jury and kept i t from performing i t s duty of determining the g u i l t or i n n o c e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t b a s e d on t h e a d m i s s i b l e evidence and the a p p l i c a b l e law. However, after examining t h e r e c o r d i n i t s e n t i r e t y , we conclude that the aforementioned p o r t i o n s o f Mr. Craig's testimony, although they should not have been p e r m i t t e d , d i d not operate t o deny R i e b e r a fair trial. I t i s p r e s u m e d t h a t j u r o r s do n o t leave t h e i r common s e n s e a t t h e c o u r t h o u s e d o o r . I t would 83 CR-06-0360 e l e v a t e f o r m o v e r s u b s t a n c e f o r u s t o h o l d , b a s e d on the r e c o r d before us, t h a t Rieber d i d not r e c e i v e a f a i r t r i a l s i m p l y because the j u r o r s were t o l d what they p r o b a b l y had already suspected -that Ms. Craig was not a 'human i s l a n d , ' but a unique individual whose murder had inevitably had a p r o f o u n d i m p a c t on h e r c h i l d r e n , s p o u s e , p a r e n t s , f r i e n d s , or dependents (paraphrasing a p o r t i o n of J u s t i c e Souter's o p i n i o n c o n c u r r i n g i n the judgment i n P a y n e v . T e n n e s s e e , 501 U.S. 8 0 8 , 8 3 8 , 111 S. C t . 2 5 9 7 , 2 6 1 5 , 115 L. E d . 2 d 720 (1991))." 663 So. 2d at Here, 1005-06. as i n Ex parte the case record and as a testimony that issue i n this argument i t otherwise the argument inadmissible. whole, or Therefore, was was and c h i l d r e n were i r r e l e v a n t t o any regarding Bachelder's Rieber, Court the However, finds a f f e c t e d the prejudiced testimony no after indication outcome McCray's error in allowing this reviewing of that the trial the or substantial testimony the and rights. argument harmless. Next, elicited the evidence amount associated would during have of with Dr. Boudreau's testimony, the prosecutor r e g a r d i n g e a c h wound s u f f e r e d by blood that caused loss that wound, pain arguments, the p r o s e c u t o r and to would whether Bachelder. likely the Bachelder, have been specific wound During closing r e f e r r e d to the pain Bachelder 84 must CR-06-0360 have s u f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e a t t a c k and d e s c r i b e d McCray's a c t i o n s as s l a u g h t e r i n g , b u t c h e r i n g , and the prosecutor also effects of being breathe i n h e r own flowing out?" "What's asked stabbed, the how torturing. jury: she "Can was As noted you imagine gurgling, d i a p h r a g m , c h o k i n g on h e r own (R. 994.) i t like to The feel knife -- six, through your through your going to closing the be other words, muscles being t w i s t e d , being moving arguments, around?" (R. the prosecutor irrelevant, argues that prejudicial, this and o f h i s t r i a l b e c a u s e i t was going breast, going stabbed 1000.) and During asked similar evidence and eight flesh, you are rebuttal questions cruel McCray has as compared cited no that prohibits to the to r e l e v a n t only to the of guilt was phase penalty-phase e s p e c i a l l y heinous, a t r o c i o u s , other authority, capital and this offenses. Court the i n t r o d u c t i o n of evidence j u r y r e g a r d i n g the argument i n a d m i s s i b l e at the i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e m u r d e r was any, your jury: jury. McCray or in the seven, f i v e inches of t h a t s t e e l going i n t o your in to b l o o d as i t ' s inches, organ, the gasping prosecutor l a t e r asked that above, circumstances 85 has and However, not found argument s u r r o u n d i n g a murder. CR-06-0360 The pain and surrounding admissible suffering the victim t h e m u r d e r -- a c i r c u m s t a n c e during the guilt e.g., Smith 2000) (no e r r o r i n t r i a l the of v. S t a t e , phase i s a that i s r e l e v a n t and of a capital 7 9 5 S o . 2 d 7 8 8 , 812 court circumstance questioning trial. ( A l a . Crim. App. witness regarding number o f wounds on t h e m u r d e r v i c t i m ' s b o d y d u r i n g phase that of capital-murder trial despite appellant's t h e number o f wounds was r e l e v a n t phase issue atrocious, o f whether t h e murder only was See, guilt argument to the penalty- especially heinous, or cruel). In a d d i t i o n , as p a r t o f h i s d e f e n s e , McCray a s s e r t e d he d i d n o t commit permission remain the to enter unlawfully burglary However, State, a that burglary her mobile because, home i n her dwelling, elevated as t h e Alabama he had t h e murder Supreme C o u r t Bachelder's and d i d not enter as r e q u i r e d offense. i n Davis 737 S o . 2 d 480 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) : "The common l a w d e f i n e d t h e c r i m e o f b u r g l a r y f a r more n a r r o w l y t h a n i t s s t a t u t o r y s u c c e s s o r d o e s . Common-law b u r g l a r y r e q u i r e d a b r e a k i n g a n d e n t e r i n g of t h e d w e l l i n g o f another i n t h e nighttime w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o commit a f e l o n y . Wayne R. L a F a v e a n d A u s t i n W. S c o t t , J r . , S u b s t a n t i v e C r i m i n a l Law § 8.13 (1986). When A l a b a m a adopted i t s current b u r g l a r y s t a t u t e , as p a r t o f t h e Alabama C r i m i n a l 86 or to establish to a capital explained that v. CR-06-0360 C o d e , b y A c t No. 6 0 7 , R e g . S e s s i o n , A l a . A c t s 1 9 7 7 , the legislature expanded the crime of burglary b e y o n d i t s common-law b o u n d a r i e s , by eliminating most of the common-law requirements. The requirement of a 'breaking' was one requirement deleted. P e r r y v . S t a t e , 407 S o . 2 d 183 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 1 ) . The S t a t e i s no l o n g e r r e q u i r e d t o prove that the defendant broke and e n t e r e d the premises. Instead, the s t r i c t u r e s of that element have been r e p l a c e d w i t h t h e g e n e r a l requirement of " a t r e s p a s s on p r e m i s e s t h r o u g h an u n l a w f u l e n t r y o r an u n l a w f u l remaining. " W h i l e t h e S t a t e was n o t r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e ' b r e a k i n g a n d e n t e r i n g , ' i t was r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e that Davis entered or remained 'unlawfully' i n H a r r i n g t o n ' s home w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o c o m m i t a c r i m e . The ' u n l a w f u l r e m a i n i n g ' p r o n g o f A l a b a m a ' s b u r g l a r y s t a t u t e ' c o v e r [ s ] cases where a p e r s o n e n t e r s w i t h l i c e n s e or p r i v i l e g e but remains a f t e r t e r m i n a t i o n of such l i c e n s e or p r i v i l e g e . ' A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-7-1 Commentary. II "Evidence of a struggle that gives rise to c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence of revocation of a l i c e n s e or privilege c a n be used t o show an unlawful remaining, a separate prong of the offense of b u r g l a r y u p o n w h i c h a c o n v i c t i o n c a n b e b a s e d . ... "We r e i t e r a t e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e o f a c o m m i s s i o n of a crime, standing alone, i s inadequate t o support t h e f i n d i n g o f an u n l a w f u l r e m a i n i n g , b u t e v i d e n c e of a s t r u g g l e can s u p p l y t h e n e c e s s a r y evidence o f an u n l a w f u l r e m a i n i n g . I n h o m i c i d e c a s e s , t h e mere f a c t o f t h e v i c t i m ' s d e a t h c a n n o t be e q u a t e d w i t h a struggle. For example, evidence of a p r i v i l e g e d e n t r y f o l l o w e d by d e a t h f r o m an i n j u r y i n f l i c t e d b y s u r p r i s e o r s t e a l t h and c a u s i n g i n s t a n t a n e o u s death 87 CR-06-0360 w o u l d n o t c o n s t i t u t e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f an unlawful remaining. Likewise, a privileged entry f o l l o w e d by d e a t h f r o m an i n j u r y i n f l i c t e d b y a d e l a y e d m e c h a n i s m , s u c h as p o i s o n , w o u l d be e q u a l l y deficient. "The e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t f o r the j u r y to f i n d that Davis k i l l e d Harrington during a b u r g l a r y . The evidence of a struggle giving rise to the i n f e r e n c e o f an u n l a w f u l r e m a i n i n g i s s u p p l i e d b y D a v i s ' s c h o i c e t o k i l l by a l e s s - t h a n - i n s t a n t a n e o u s t e c h n i q u e o f s t r a n g u l a t i o n and by h i s use of t h r e e n o n f a t a l s t a b wounds t o t h e v i c t i m ' s l o w e r back. Based on the circumstances suggested by the e v i d e n c e , the j u r y r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d have found t h a t D a v i s , f r o m t h e p o i n t a t w h i c h he b e g a n committing his criminal acts, 'remain[ed] unlawfully' in Harrington's home w i t h the intent to commit a crime." 737 So. 3d 866, for 2d a t 482-84 914 the enter (Ala. Crim. State or (emphasis added). remain to rebut evidence established mobile a l s o B r o w n , 11 2007)(same). McCray's of amount o f b l o o d a t h a t , even lengthy lost, struggle that i f McCray had revoked the r e v o c a t i o n , he and 88 in he did not home. her The pain were circumstantially to enter i n the mobile w h e n he b r u t a l l y a t t a c k e d B a c h e l d e r u n l a w f u l l y remained So. necessary mobile permission home, h i s l i c e n s e o r p r i v i l e g e t o b e was I t was assertion that unlawfully i n Bachelder's v i c t i m ' s wounds, the direct App. See the and that mobile the home after home. CR-06-0360 Therefore, testimony this Court f i n d s no e r r o r i n the admission of o r i n the p r o s e c u t o r ' s argument i n t h i s Finally, prosecutor at the conclusion of h i s closing this regard. arguments, the stated: " I c a n t e l l y o u w h a t s h e d i d . She f o u g h t a n d s h e k i c k e d h i m , s h e t r i e d t o do a l l s h e c o u l d . She s t u c k h e r h a n d s up a n d t o o k t h a t h a n d a n d a l m o s t s p l i t i t . She h a d no c h a n c e . " A n d t h e y w a n t t o s a y h e a t o f p a s s i o n , he l o s t a l l control. He d i d n ' t l o s e n o c o n t r o l . He p l a n n e d i t out. He e x e c u t e d i t . He d i d i t . A n d t h e o n l y time Heath McCray ever d e c i d e d t o t e l l the t r u t h i n this case i s i n front o f y o u , 12 g o o d people, because he is facing what? Capital murder conviction. They want you t o f i n d h i m g u i l t y o f manslaughter. F i n d him n o t g u i l t y i f you t h i n k t h a t ' s a l l h e r l i f e was w o r t h , t h a t t h a t ' s a l l h e r l i f e was w o r t h . Woman s l a u g h t e r e r . " (R. 1 0 0 1 ; e m p h a s i s i n d i c a t e s p o r t i o n c o m p l a i n e d o f b y M c C r a y . ) Read i n context, more t h a n So. 2d this a proper at 421 Court finds this plea for justice. (urging jury not to comment was See, e.g., M i n o r , " l e thim g e t away m u r d e r " f o r t h e s a k e " o f t h e v i c t i m ' s memory was than an a p p e a l prosecutor's perform (Ala. for justice). appeal i t s duty.'" Crim. App. 1999), 914 with" n o t h i n g more " ' T h e r e i s no i m p r o p r i e t y i n a to the jury Freeman nothing v. aff'd, 89 for justice and t o p r o p e r l y State, 776 So. 2d 2d 203 ( A l a . 2000) 776 So. 160, 186 CR-06-0360 (quoting App. Price 1997), assuming v. State, 725 So. 2 d 1 0 0 3 , 1033 a f f ' d 725 So. 2 d 1063 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ) . that this comment was improper, 1 7 (Ala. Crim. However, this Court t h o r o u g h l y reviewed t h e r e c o r d and concludes t h a t t h i s comment d i d n o t s o i n f e c t the t r i a l the r e s u l t i n g a denial this Court conviction finds no error, much even has single w i t h u n f a i r n e s s a s t o make o f due p r o c e s s . less plain Therefore, error, i n this comment b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r . Demonstration McCray also contends that t h e p r o s e c u t o r engaged i n an improper demonstration w h i l e cross-examining him by r e q u e s t i n g t h a t McCray h o l d t h e murder weapon (the b u t c h e r k n i f e ) a n d t h e dog the l e a s h t h a t h a d b e e n f o u n d a r o u n d B a c h e l d e r ' s n e c k a n d show jury how he g o t t h e dog leash around h e r neck while holding the knife. McCray argues that this d e m o n s t r a t i o n was highly because jury already prejudicial photographs of the crime the scene had seen the and t h e wounds t o B a c h e l d e r ' s body and s e e i n g him i n t h e courtroom h o l d i n g t h e b u t c h e r knife T h i s Court n o t e s t h a t McCray's e n t i r e argument i n t h i s r e g a r d i s n o t h i n g b u t a q u o t a t i o n o f t h e c o m m e n t , w i t h no a r g u m e n t a s t o why h e b e l i e v e s t h e comment w a s i m p r o p e r n o r any c i t a t i o n t o a u t h o r i t y . 1 7 90 CR-06-0360 and the dog passions and 51.) leash "only prejudices McCray did of the not record examination of put inflamed (McCray's b r i e f , to allegedly See reflects this Rule the 45A, Ala. following R. at 50¬ improper claim App. during under P. cross- McCray: "[Prosecutor]: W h a t c o l o r was on [ B a c h e l d e r ' s ] neck? "[McCray]: I want t o "[Prosecutor]: Is "[McCray]: say "[McCray]: i t was leash you black. This the dog leash? i s the dog leash. Right? Uh-huh. "[Prosecutor]: you h o l d i t ? "[McCray]: this t h e dog sir. No, "[Prosecutor]: Can already t h i s Court reviews t h i s p l a i n - e r r o r standard. The the jury." object demonstration; therefore, the intensified This i s State's E x h i b i t No. 106. Uh-huh. "[Prosecutor]: K i n d o f o p e n i t up a n d t a k e i t and k i n d o f s h o w me how you got t h a t dog leash a r o u n d t h e woman t h a t y o u l o v e d t o F - i n g d e a t h [ ] -¬ how y o u g o t i t a r o u n d h e r n e c k . 1 8 The p r o s e c u t o r here during his interview with Bachelder. 1 8 i s q u o t i n g a s t a t e m e n t M c C r a y made p o l i c e r e g a r d i n g how much he loved 91 CR-06-0360 "[McCray]: W e l l , we w a s t u s s l i n g a t t h e t i m e . A n d I d o n ' t r e m e m b e r how I d i d i t , b u t somehow I g o t i t through the loop. "[Prosecutor]: L e t me a s k y o u t h i s -- somehow you d i d i t . What p a r t o f y o u r b o d y t o l d y o u r h a n d s how t o g e t t h a t a r o u n d h e r n e c k ? I t ' s your b r a i n . Right? "[McCray]: I assume s o . "[Prosecutor]: T a k e S t a t e ' s 16 [ t h e b u t c h e r k n i f e ] and h o l d i t i n your hand, p l e a s e , s i r . P i c k i t u p a n d h o l d i t . Now, p i c k u p t h e d o g c h a i n -¬ together. How d i d y o u g e t t h e d o g c h a i n o n h e r w h i l e y o u h a d t h e k n i f e a n d s h e was r u n n i n g , trying t o g e t a w a y ? Show me w i t h y o u r h a n d s . "[McCray]: I didn't "[Prosecutor]: "[McCray]: have t h e k n i f e . Okay. Who had the knife? I t was l a y i n g on t h e c o u c h . "[Prosecutor]: Is that after you had stabbed her? "[McCray]: (R. I can't recall." 924-26.) Regarding experiment or demonstrations i n court, Court has h e l d : "The r u l e o n t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e x p e r i m e n t s i n open c o u r t i s s t a t e d i n Shows v . B r u n s o n , 229 A l a . 682, 685, 159 So. 2 4 8 , 251 ( 1 9 3 5 ) . "'Experiments or t e s t s of t h i s character i n open court are usually within the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l judge, guided by a 92 this CR-06-0360 sound judgment as t o w h e t h e r t h e r e s u l t w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t l y r e l e v a n t a n d m a t e r i a l to warrant such procedure. 22 C . J . p . 7 9 0 , s 899. " ' S i m i l a r i t y of c o n d i t i o n s , and a t e s t t h a t will go to the s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n i n hand, s h o u l d appear.' " S e e a l s o H a w k i n s v . S t a t e , 53 A l a . A p p . 8 9 , 9 3 , 297 S o . 2 d 813 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . B o t h t h e scope and e x t e n t o f t h e experiment, i f allowed, rest within the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l judge. The e x e r c i s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s i t has been c l e a r l y and g r o s s l y abused. Campbell v. State, 55 A l a . 80 ( 1 8 7 6 ) ; C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama E v i d e n c e , § 81.02(1) (3rd ed. 1977). "While t h e c o n d i t i o n s of t h e e x p e r i m e n t and of the occurrence i n issue s h o u l d be s u b s t a n t i a l l y similar, t h e y n e e d n o t be identical. M c E l r o y 's 81.01(4). "'A reasonable or s u b s t a n t i a l s i m i l a r i t y s u f f i c e s and o n l y where t h e c o n d i t i o n s a r e dissimilar in an essential particular s h o u l d t h e e v i d e n c e o f an e x p e r i m e n t be rejected. I f we h a v e a c a s e w h e r e t h e conditions are not identical, then the d i s s i m i l a r i t y goes t o the weight of the evidence of the experiment but not to i t s admissibility.' "See App. Ivey v. 1979). So. a l s o Eddy v. 1977)." State, In Gobble 3d 369 State, So. 2d v. S t a t e , (Ala. Crim. 352 1276, So. 2d 1161 (Ala. Crim. App. [Ms. C R - 0 5 - 0 2 2 5 , F e b r u a r y 5, 2010] App. 93 1278-79 (Ala. Cr. 2010), this Court further CR-06-0360 explained in the a d m i s s i b i l i t y t h e c o u r t r o o m as of experiments or demonstrations follows: "'Demonstrations and e x p e r i m e n t s a r e permitted or prohibited i n the trial court's discretion. Thus, Alabama a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have a f f i r m e d t r i a l c o u r t decisions permitting an experiment on cross-examination to test the defendant's a b i l i t y t o c a l c u l a t e i n t e r e s t a s he s a i d he had; a d e m o n s t r a t i o n u s i n g a mannequin and the defendant herself to discredit her assertion that the prosecuted homicide happened a c c i d e n t a l l y ; a d e m o n s t r a t i o n of the d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n o f how a fight occurred, the solicitor playing the deceased and t h e defendant p l a y i n g h i m s e l f ; a d e m o n s t r a t i o n w h e r e i n t h e d e f e n d a n t made p r i n t s o f h i s b a r e f e e t i n t h e s a w d u s t on the c o u r t r o o m f l o o r ; a d e m o n s t r a t i o n by t h e defendant of the extent to which h i s i n j u r i e s had i m p a i r e d h i s a b i l i t y t o walk; and a d e m o n s t r a t i o n b e t w e e n a b r a i n damaged c h i l d and a s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t h e r a p i s t c a l c u l a t e d t o show t h e c h i l d ' s p h y s i c a l a n d mental a b i l i t i e s . ' " W i l l i a m A. S c h r o e d e r a n d J e r o m e A. H o f f m a n , A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 12:25 (3d e d . 2006) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . " I n I v e y v. S t a t e , 369 So. 2d 1276 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1979), this Court c o n s i d e r e d whether the c i r c u i t court erred i n allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant using a full-size[d] mannequin t o t e s t t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s version of the events. We s t a t e d : " ' "'In L u m p k i n v . S t a t e , 19 A l a . A p p . 2 7 2 , 97 S o . 1 7 1 ( 1 9 2 3 ) , i t was h e l d n o t 94 CR-06-0360 e r r o r t o r e q u i r e , upon c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n , a defendant i n a homicide c a s e , who had b e c o m e a w i t n e s s i n h i s own behalf, to i l l u s t r a t e b e f o r e t h e j u r y how the fatal f i g h t o c c u r r e d by showing the motions and a c t i o n s of the p a r t i e s to the encounter, w i t h the State's a t t o r n e y t a k i n g the p a r t of t h e deceased. A l s o i n C o a t e s v. S t a t e , 253 A l a . 2 9 0 , 45 S o . 2 d 35 ( 1 9 5 0 ) , i t was h e l d not e r r o r to permit the a p p e l l a n t , at the request of the State d u r i n g i t s cross examination and over the objection of defense counsel, to leave the witness stand and s i t i n a c h a i r , i n v i e w o f t h e j u r y , so as t o b e t t e r d e m o n s t r a t e t h e manner i n which the appellant contended he was holding the gun at the time of i t s discharge. "'The scope and extent of cross e x a m i n a t i o n r e s t i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , B r i d g e s v . S t a t e , 284 A l a . 4 1 2 , 225 S o . 2 d 821 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , a s do t h e s c o p e and extent of experiments and demonstrations. Campbell [ v . S t a t e , 55 Ala. 80 (1876)]; [C. G a m b l e ] McElroy['s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e ] , §§ 8 1 . 0 1 ( 3 ) , 81.02(1) [(3rd ed. 1977) ] . As a general rule experiments and d e m o n s t r a t i o n s s h o u l d be p e r m i t t e d t o be made i n t h e c o u r t r o o m i n the j u r y ' s presence where i t r e a s o n a b l y appears t h a t the experiment w i l l a i d the j u r y i n a s c e r t a i n i n g the t r u t h , where t h e r e exists a substantial similarity of c o n d i t i o n s and where t h e e x p e r i m e n t will not u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c e the defendant.' "369 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 7 9 - 8 0 . See a l s o A n n o t . , P r o p r i e t y of R e q u i r i n g C r i m i n a l D e f e n d a n t t o E x h i b i t S e l f , o r Perform Physical Act, or Participate in D e m o n s t r a t i o n , D u r i n g T r i a l and i n P r e s e n c e of J u r y , 3 A . L . R . 4 t h 374 (1981)." 95 CR-06-0360 So. v. 3d a t State, . Finally, So. 2d 707 grounds, other 780 780 So. 2d as t h i s Court explained i n (Ala. Crim. 796 (Ala. App. 1999), Minor rev'd on 2000): "[B]efore the demonstration, the t r i a l court should determine i f the prejudicial effect of the demonstration s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighs i t s p r o b a t i v e value. Even i f the trial court finds the demonstration t o be r e l e v a n t and h e l p f u l t o the j u r y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t may s t i l l exclude i t i f the p r o b a t i v e v a l u e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d by t h e danger of u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e . See R u l e 4 0 3 , A l a . R. Evid.; [ C h a r l e s W. Gamble,] M c E l r o y [ ' s ] Alabama E v i d e n c e § 81.02 [ ( 5 t h ed. 1 9 9 6 ) ] . 'The p o w e r t o make t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s v e s t e d i n the trial court.' H a y e s v . S t a t e , 717 S o . 2 d [ 3 0 , ] 37 [(Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ] . " 780 So. 2d at 763. 0827, A u g u s t 27, was McCray events, 1 9 and to a i d the So. Mitchell [Ms. CR-06- ( A l a . C r i m . App. 3d v. State, 2010). court p r o p e r l y allowed the p r o s e c u t o r to h o l d the relevant also 2010] Here, the t r i a l ask See murder weapon and admissible jury to test in ascertaining the dog McCray's the to leash. It version of truth about the F o r e x a m p l e , M c C r a y c l a i m 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 a c e d t h e d o g l e a s h a r o u n d B a c h e l d e r ' s t h r o a t b e f o r e she allegedly got the butcher knife out of the drawer. However, such a c l a i m i s i m p l a u s i b l e because under t h a t t h e o r y B a c h e l d e r -- a f t e r h a v i n g M c C r a y w r a p a d o g l e a s h a r o u n d h e r n e c k d u r i n g a n a r g u m e n t -- t o o k t h e t i m e t o go t o t h e k i t c h e n and g e t a b u t c h e r k n i f e out o f a drawer, b u t d i d not b o t h e r t o t a k e t h e t i m e t o remove a l e a s h f r o m a r o u n d h e r n e c k . 1 9 96 CR-06-0360 murder, and t o rebut McCray's c l a i m o f heat o f p a s s i o n and h i s repeated a l l e g a t i o n s on d i r e c t d i d not remember a l lthat reviewing effect had happened. the record, this Therefore, error, as t o t h i s that he Moreover, a f t e r Court of the demonstration value. examination finds that thoroughly the p r e j u d i c i a l d i d not outweigh i t s probative t h i s C o u r t f i n d s n o e r r o r , much l e s s plain claim. Name-Calling McCray further called h i m names McCray argues that contends during that closing the prosecutor the prosecutor arguments. improperly Specifically, improperly r e f e r r e d t o him a s a " p s y c h o p a t h , " a s a "woman s l a u g h t e r e r , " a s " e v i l , " "death" throughout record reflects prosecutor's trial. error that McCray made c l o s i n g arguments d u r i n g Therefore, only. this See R u l e Contrary to attorney may language which, opprobrious h i s c l o s i n g arguments Court to the jury. objections the g u i l t reviews this to phase claim The the of the for plain 4 5 A , A l a . R. A p p . P. McCray's characterize terms, no and as although accords contention, "'"the the accused or i t consists with 97 h i s conduct of the evidence prosecuting invective of the in or case."'" CR-06-0360 Minor, 2d 914 S o . 2 d a t 420 8 4 1 , 857 State, ( q u o t i n g Henderson v. S t a t e , ( A l a . Crim. App. 1988), 521 So. 2d 1018, 1023 that t h e p r o s e c u t o r may terms, so terms." 1992), long aff'd, as "'brute'" improper). comment 885-889 the "'animal'" (Ala. the (references evidence 2000) with not improper); App. (prosecutor's punk,'" such murderer; to were a not a capital 775 So. 2 d 8 5 7 , 7 7 5 S o . 2 d 904 ( A l a . the "'no 1998), accused as a as an remorse'" and v. 7 66 S o . 2 d State, aff'd, references 98 and ( A l a . 1999) ( p r o s e c u t o r ' s Thomas "'criminal,'" and to the 758 S o . 2 d 1, 58 ( A l a . aff'd, references ( A l a . Crim. of destruction,'" " ' i sa App. 1999), murderer'" were 933-34 "'street and 7 5 8 S o . 2 d 81 (prosecutor's i n unfavorable the use was n o t i m p r o p e r ) ; M e l s o n v . S t a t e , "'cold-blooded 860, by defendant ( A l a . Crim. 2000) ( A l a . 1994) "'death supported aff'd, that murderer'" warrants See a l s o M a p l e s v . S t a t e , App.), aff'd, 653 S o . 2 d 3 2 0 , 3 4 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 653 S o . 2 d 3 5 3 were t o an a c c u s e d the evidence "'death,'" App. 1987), "This Court has r e p e a t e d l y h e l d refer McNair v. S t a t e , accused Crim. as q u o t i n g i n t u r n N i c k s v. ( A l a . Crim. 521 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 5 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ) . 584 S o . to "'thug,'" 766 So. 2d defendant "'murderer,'" 975 as a and CR-06-0360 "'manipulator'" 2d 236, were not 249 (Ala. characterization improper); App. v. (argument is of not v. State, (prosecutor's unmitigated Handley Crim. liar and State, that App. 495 So. 214 A l a . 172, 2d homicide' who did has was 175, not committed 705, to 576 711 not she not (Ala. Crim. as "'an improper); So. So. (prosecutor's defendant 106 "'[s]he i s a murderer; some o n e State, " ' e v i l p e r s o n ' " was reference murderer'" v. 1990) o f t h e a c c u s e d as an Kinard 1986) improper); Pierce 692, 695 and (1925) i s a murderer. She some o f t h e l o w e r o f f e n s e s transcend the bounds of legitimate argument"). The p r o s e c u t o r ' s comments evidence, the as set out above, comments u n n e c e s s a r i l y Instead, their v. the here and were were not supported v a l u e d by 990 So. 2d 931, 974 (Ala. Crim. did the the jury. jury t r u e w o r t h -- a s u t t e r e d i n t h e h e a t o f d e b a t e . State, the Nor improper. inflame the p a s s i o n of comments were p r e s u m a b l y by at McGowan App. 2003) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t a p r o s e c u t o r ' s argument i s " v i e w e d as h a v i n g been made i n the heat of the debate, and such a remark u s u a l l y v a l u e d by t h e j u r y a t i t s t r u e w o r t h and not to become a factor in the formulation 99 of the is expected verdict"). CR-06-0360 Therefore, this as claim. to this Court finds no error, much l e s s plain error, B. Second, McCray argues t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r improperly and " r e p e a t e d l y m i s l e d the j u r y r e g a r d i n g the law" d u r i n g both the guilt phase brief, at and the 53.) penalty phase Specifically, prosecutor improperly guilt of the have had the phase socks found the his McCray shifted during of the argues burden trial at the by and arguments at the mitigating of (McCray's that: (1) the proof to him stating the he s c e n e t e s t e d f o r DNA; circumstances p e n a l t y phase of Burden of the could and (2) the law r e g a r d i n g the p r o s e c u t o r improperly misrepresented aggravating trial. the during his closing trial. Proof I n i t i a l l y , McCray contends t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r improperly s h i f t e d the burden of p r o o f t o him d u r i n g c l o s i n g arguments the guilt had the p a i r DNA. phase McCray of the of socks did not therefore, t h i s Court See Rule 45A, A l a . R. trial by arguing t h a t were found object reviews App. to the t h a t he at the should at have scene t e s t e d f o r prosecutor's comment; this issue for plain error only. P. 100 CR-06-0360 As noted above, t h e S t a t e ' s t h e o r y o f t h e c a s e was t h a t McCray p l a n n e d and i n t e n t i o n a l l y murdered Bachelder as revenge for her ending their enforcement officers living-room floor. the socks leaving of t o cover fingerprints relationship. found a At pair o f socks The S t a t e t h e o r i z e d h i s hands during a t t h e scene. two o f t h e S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s t h e scene, l a w lying on t h e t h a t McCray had used t h e murder to avoid During cross-examination -- t h e DNA e x p e r t , Kristen M a t u r i , a n d C p l . E t r e s s -- t h e d e f e n s e e l i c i t e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t the socks found on t h e l i v i n g - r o o m for DNA. During closing arguments, floor h a d n o t been defense counsel tested stated: " A t o n e p o i n t , I t h o u g h t we w e r e g o i n g t o h e a r some s o r t o f d e f i n i t i v e p r o o f t h a t t h e s o c k s -- n o t the ones worn b y [ B a c h e l d e r ] , b u t t h e o t h e r p a i r , materialized. They were n o t i d e n t i f i e d as b e i n g p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t when t h e y w e n t i n t o t h e crime l a b . You h e a r d t e s t i m o n y about t h a t and t h e l a c k o f a n y k i n d o f DNA t e s t i m o n y . Of c o u r s e , y o u 1^1 ./-NT.T - P K " /-\ r-y-1 -I 1 , ^ -p /-\ r-y-i - 1 - | | .-| -i r-y-i /-NT .TT wound on h i s r i g h t h a n d i n t e r m s have d i s c l o s e d about t h a t . 101 TTZ-NTT o f what ^ T T ^ DNA T S K " / - ^ might CR-06-0360 (R. 1007-08.) prosecutor During stated, rebuttal i n relevant closing arguments, the part: "Well, good people, let's talk about those socks. I submit [defense counsel's] mistaken. These are the photographs o f what he d i d to [Bachelder], how h e b u t c h e r e d h e r . He h a d t h o s e socks on. I ' l l t e l l y o u why. We d i d n ' t f i n d a n y f i n g e r p r i n t s i n t h a t w h o l e h o u s e e x c e p t on one l i g h t bulb. So t h a t ' s another t h i n g t o show y o u he planned t h i s out. "He t o o k t h a t d e a d l y w e a p o n , a n d h e t e r r o r i z e d her. She w e n t t h r o u g h p u r e h e l l . What was i t l i k e ? A n d I ' l l s i t down w i t h t h i s . What was i t l i k e a l l those times that s h e was sliced, diced, cut, stabbed, stabbed i n the aorta, stabbed i n the b r e a s t , s t a b b e d i n t h e hand? I t goes t h r o u g h h e r arm, a l l t h e way t h r o u g h t h e o t h e r s i d e . Look a t her right down here -and he wants some c o n s i d e r a t i o n b e c a u s e he s a i d t h e S t a t e d i d n ' t p r o v e it? He c o u l d h a v e t e s t e d t h e d a n g s o c k s i f h e wanted them tested, b u t he didn't test them, either." (R. 1014-19; emphasis indicates portion complained of by McCray.) Assuming, without d e c i d i n g , was i m p r o p e r , i t does n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f p l a i n e r r o r and thus does n o t w a r r a n t r e v e r s a l . "'"To rise not only to the l e v e l t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s comment S e e R u l e 4 5 A , A l a . R. A p p . P. o f p l a i n e r r o r , t h e c l a i m e d e r r o r must s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t a defendant's 102 'substantial rights,' CR-06-0360 but i t must jury's quoting heat have Ex parte i n turn, App. unfair criticism Hyde 1998)). 951 v. This to the j u r y of debate; such Brown, 2d 778 isolated So. on the So. at 938 727 2d 3d ( A l a . 2002), 1 99, r e m a r k was 209 ( A l a . uttered to defense for failing v. impact 11 724, i n response Bankhead ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989) So. State, a n d was See prejudicial parte of the S t a t e ' s case f o r DNA. argument Ex Bryant, of the debate tested an deliberations."'" (quoting Crim. also State, counsel's t o have 585 So. i n the the 2d socks 97, 106 (holding "that statements of counsel i n must be v i e w e d statements as d e l i v e r e d are usually i n the heat v a l u e d by the j u r y at t h e i r t r u e w o r t h and a r e n o t e x p e c t e d t o become f a c t o r s i n t h e formation Further, was of the v e r d i c t " ) ; prosecutor t o have t h e socks appears t o have s o c k s was u n n e c e s s a r y could tested." trial (R. court presumed 11 So. 3 d a t 909 the p r o s e c u t o r ' s remark d i d not suggest required "[h]e Brown, have 1019; been and t h a t , tested the emphasis thoroughly innocent and tested arguing that i f defense dang socks added). instructed that himself. the 103 that McCray Instead, the testing of the counsel disagreed, i f he More the j u r y burden (same). of wanted importantly, that McCray proving them the was McCray's CR-06-0360 guilt beyond a reasonable 1022-23.) See d o u b t was on t h e S t a t e . Peraita, 897 presumed t o f o l l o w t h e t r i a l Bryant, 727 ("Jurors Thus, So. 2d at 1204 So. 2d a t 8 7 4 - 7 5 ) ) ; Burgess, isolated, error or inartful instructions. confusion created 827 by are (quoting S o . 2 d a t 162 instructions."). the r e m a r k was c u r e d b y t h e t r i a l See M i n o r , 979; ("'Jurors court's instructions.'" a r e presumed t o f o l l o w t h e c o u r t ' s any (R. prosecutor's court through 914 S o . 2 d a t 4 2 3 ( h o l d i n g t h a t " a n y p o s s i b l e confusion about the burden o f proof engendered by the prosecutor's comment instructions to the jury State and Melson, that 775 prosecutor's was cured 2d comment at of 884-85 counsel that they when comment d i d not rise to the level "brief and i s o l a t e d " instruction[ed] Furthermore, are not " [ i ] ti s very i s innocent court's of proof (holding someone was the t r i a l that the burden statements So. by that of p l a i n and " t h e t r i a l he p l a n n e d evidence"); even i f the t o prove improper, the e r r o r because i t court[] proper[ly] ... t h e j u r y c o n c e r n i n g t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f " ) . McCray's use of the socks t o prevent f i n g e r p r i n t s was o n l y a p a r t o f t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e that was on t h e difficult a r e n o t " was prompt leaving establishing t h e a t t a c k and r e b u t t i n g h i s h e a t - o f - p a s s i o n 104 CR-06-0360 defense. In addition evidence indicating to the socks, the State also t h a t McCray had removed the cordless telephone The State presented all the l i g h t s i n the t r a i l e r in the dark. evidence Finally, examination, McCray to her prevent Consequently, so B a c h e l d e r the McCray's defense. Ex p a r t e Brown, the erroneous of plain evidence most the McCray damning, he w a n t e d B a c h e l d e r to die him presented admission, of g u i l t because her the evidence, h i s heat-of-passion 3d a t 938-40 State attacker. overwhelming rebutting 11 S o . as (holding that to the level presented and t h e i n f e r e n c e drawn from overwhelming the e v i d e n c e was e s t a b l i s h e d b y o t h e r l e g a l e v i d e n c e ) . any error outcome i n t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s comment h a d of the t r i a l disabled cross- admission of evidence d i d not r i s e error for help. during identifying including from to a l l o w him to a t t a c k Bachelder and State the battery could not c a l l indicating admitted that from presented and d i d not r i s e no improper Therefore, effect to the l e v e l on of the plain error. Aggravating McCray also and M i t i g a t i n g argues that the Circumstances prosecutor's arguments a t the p e n a l t y phase of the t r i a l 105 closing improperly misled CR-06-0360 the jury as to the circumstances. as the "evil" and regarding "wicked" improperly circumstance atrocious, or offenses. improperly suggested if i t determining atrocious, the and mitigating he the jury jury murder compared argues t h a t the the to that could was especially other those find the that McCray whether the itself was not prosecutor required to o f f e r e d by him but prosecutor asked improperly injected mitigating circumstances likelihood and capital references especially to exist without especially was "wicked" heinous, o r c r u e l as c o m p a r e d t o o t h e r c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s . circumstances 'squat'" "evil" crime argues t h a t the jury was the (McCray's that the jury his own at jury did mitigating circumstances s h o u l d do and by 58), not he o f f e r e d . suggested the the opinion McCray thus "did that not consider the the mean the the McCray d i d not o b j e c t to the p r o s e c u t o r ' s c l o s i n g arguments at the p e n a l t y phase of 106 that prosecutor increasing properly He mitigating so o n l y b e c a u s e that personal offered brief, improperly consider to, him regarding a t r o c i o u s , or c r u e l aggravating circumstance found further misled that cruel Specifically, heinous, aggravating S p e c i f i c a l l y , he a r g u e s t h a t r e f e r e n c e s t o aggravating heinous, law the CR-06-0360 trial; error therefore, only. In jury See this Rule context, the at the p e n a l t y Court 45A, reviews A l a . R. these App. the for plain P. prosecutor argued claims following to phase: " T h r e e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we s u b m i t , we have p r o v e d t o you beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt 100 percent beyond a l l doubt. ... II "Now, the t h i r d aggravating circumstance, I s u b m i t we have p r o v e d t o you b e y o n d a l l d o u b t , heinous, atrocious and cruel. The judge will testify [ s i c ] and t e l l you what t h o s e definitions are. Once a g a i n , I d o n ' t w a n t t o be repetitious. We h a v e a d o p t e d a l l t h e t e s t i m o n y [ f r o m t h e g u i l t phase of the t r i a l ] . Y o u h e a r d i t . T h e r e i s 12 o f you. Two t i m e s 12 i s 24 e a r s , 24 e y e s , 12 h e a r t s , s o u l s and minds. You h a v e h e a r d t h e t e s t i m o n y . " T h i s i s w h a t he d i d t o [ B a c h e l d e r ] . He t o o k that butcher knife. He t o r t u r e d h e r . He c u t h e r . He s l i c e d h e r . He d i c e d h e r . He s t a b b e d h e r . He t o o k t h a t dog c h a i n , p u t i t a r o u n d h e r t h r o a t . He put t h a t bag over her f a c e . He d r u g h e r . "He g o t o n t h e s t a n d , a n d I a s k e d h i m , t e l l t h e j u r y , H e a t h , who k i l l e d h e r ? A n d he s a i d he d i d . " I s a i d , l e t me a s k h i s s i s t e r , d i d he t e l l y o u he k i l l e d h e r ? O n c e a g a i n , t h e y p u t on w i t n e s s e s a t the p e n a l t y phase. Oh, n o , he d i d n ' t t e l l me he k i l l e d her. He d i d n ' t t e l l me. B u t he i s a g o o d person. "He i s not a good person. He i s an evil, wicked, psychopath. I ' l l submit to you, he i n f l i c t e d s u c h d e a t h a n d d e s t r u c t i o n a n d damage a n d 107 the CR-06-0360 t o r t u r e on p o o r forever. [Bachelder]. Remember t h e t e s t i m o n y " I a s k e d h i m , w h a t was i t l i k e when y o u t o o k t h i s butcher k n i f e and you had i t and you stabbed her and you c u t her? How d i d s h e r e a c t ? What d i d she do? She c r i e d . She b e g g e d f o r m e r c y . She was s u f f e r i n g , asking him t o stop. He k e p t [whaling] away, s t a b b i n g h e r a n d c u t t i n g h e r . A n d t h i s i s w h a t h e d i d . Remember t h e p i c t u r e . T h i s i s w h a t h e did. Took o f f h e r c l o t h e s i n t h e p o s i t i o n he l e f t her, p u l l e d down h e r p a n t s , c u t her underwear, p u l l e d u p h e r b r a . T h i s i s how h e l e f t h e r w i t h t h a t dog c h a i n . "And he s a y s t h a t s h e was s t r o n g e r t h a n h i m . And t h i s i s t h e b l o o d p a t t e r n s . You have seen them. I know y o u h a v e . B u t I h a v e t o s t a n d up h e r e a n d s h o w y o u a n d p r o v e i t was h e i n o u s , a t r o c i o u s and cruel. A n d w h a t t h o s e d e f i n i t i o n s mean, t h a t h e i n f l i c t e d p a i n -- h e i s e v i l a n d w i c k e d . He d i d i t for sheer enjoyment of the s u f f e r i n g of another human b e i n g , c o n s c i e n c e l e s s , p i t i l e s s a c t s t h a t h e did t o poor [Bachelder]. "And l o o k a t t h e b l o o d h e r e , o n c e a g a i n , w h e r e a f t e r he h a d s t a b b e d h e r a n d c u t h e r a n d he i s dragging her around, the c i r c l e s i n there. That i s h i s own b l o o d . Remember t h e q u e s t i o n : Heath, what was i t l i k e t o w a l k i n h e r b l o o d w i t h y o u r b a r e feet? He t o o k o f f h i s p a n t s , g o t down t o h i s b o x e r shorts. He g o t t h a t b u t c h e r knife. What was i t l i k e f o r poor [Bachelder] -- p h y s i c a l l y , mentally, e m o t i o n a l l y , what's i t l i k e t o f e e l pain? " "They have presented circumstances t o you. 108 some mitigating CR-06-0360 " B u t h e t o l d h i s own f a m i l y , I d i d n ' t d o t h i s . W h a t y o u g o i n g t o d o t o me, F r a n k ? I want t o go home a n d s e e my c h i l d r e n , t h e c h i l d r e n h e l o v e d a n d t h e p e o p l e he c a r e d a b o u t . L o o k a t t h e w i t n e s s e s he p u t on m i t i g a t i o n . Who w e r e t h e y ? H i s own m o t h e r . " " H e a t h M c C r a y -- h i s s i s t e r g o t u p t h e r e a n d s a i d , o h , he t o o k c a r e o f t h e c h i l d r e n . He came t o visit. He w a s w i t h t h e m e v e r y d a y h e g o t o f f w o r k . " T h e n t h e y p u t o n a n o t h e r woman who s a y s , w e l l , I h a d m e d i c a l p r o b l e m s , a n d he h e l p e d t a k e c a r e o f me. What was he d o i n g o v e r t h e r e on t h e j o b t i m e ? W h a t was h e d o i n g t o h e r ? U s e y o u r own i m a g i n a t i o n . II "He's s l i c k . He's s m a r t . He's i n t e l l i g e n t . He k n o w s how t o u s e p e o p l e , t o c o v e r t h i n g s u p , how t o l i e t o p r o t e c t h i s own s e l f . That's what evil, w i c k e d Heath McCray i s . " L o o k a t t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h i s c a l l s o u t . What was i t l i k e f o r [ B a c h e l d e r ] d u r i n g t h a t t i m e ? Was he t h a t g o o d p e r s o n w h e n h e w a s s l a u g h t e r i n g h e r ? When s h e w a s b e g g i n g f o r m e r c y , w h a t was h e d o i n g t o h e r t o make s u r e s h e c o u l d n ' t i d e n t i f y h i m ? II " A n d I a s k e d h i m , a d m i t i nn t h e c o u r t r o o m t o d a y i the i n f r o n t o f y o u r own f a m i l y m e m b e r s t h a t y o u k i l l e d her, you b u t c h e r e d h e r and you d i d i t . What d i d he say? I did i t . There's no d o u b t . Heinous, a t r o c i o u s and c r u e l . 109 CR-06-0360 "What i s p a i n ? What's i t l i k e ? U s e y o u r own common s e n s e w h a t i t ' s l i k e , t h e p a i n s h e s u f f e r e d a n d t h e p a i n h e h a s d o n e , p h y s i c a l l y , e m o t i o n a l l y -¬ p h y s i c a l l y , w h a t i t was l i k e f o r [ B a c h e l d e r ] a s s h e l a i d i n h e r own t r a i l e r a n d a s t h e s e c o n d s t u r n e d i n t o minutes, minutes t u r n e d i n t o a l o n g e r t i m e , she was l y i n g t h e r e , a n d h e r p o o r l i t t l e h e a r t was j u s t a pumping, pumping, pumping, t r y i n g t o g e t a i rand o x y g e n i n t o t h e b r a i n w h e r e he h a d done a l l t h e s e things. " to "I have t h e burden go f i r s t . of proof. That's why I g e t " T h e y a r e g o i n g t o t a l k r e a l q u i c k l y a b o u t some mitigating circumstances. He w a s g o o d to the siblings. He was g o o d t o t h e c h i l d r e n . He h e l p e d take care of people. He j u s t u s e d p e o p l e i s a l l h e d i d a n d h a s done a l l h i s l i f e . " "He's an e v i l a n d w i c k e d man. man. There ain't n o t h i n g good about h i m i n any manner o r f a s h i o n i n any way. "Once a g a i n , now, h e s t i l l h a s some e x c u s e s , again, e x c u s e s t o s a y , w e l l , t h e s e a r e t h i n g s -- m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. You s h o u l d c o n s i d e r them. I want you t o c o n s i d e r them. B u t t h e y d o n ' t mean s q u a t . T h i s -- t h i s -- t h i s was l i f e . A n d now I s u b m i t t o you, t h e y want you t o spare h i s l i f e . the (R. "Don't l e t i t happen. mistake. Thank y o u . " 1144-55; emphasis indicates McCray.) 110 D o n ' t do i t . portions D o n ' t make complained of by CR-06-0360 Taken portions out of of the McCray b e i n g context, prosecutor's "evil" to the jury committed, i s the focus especially heinous, quoted regarding focus inflicted, and the atrocious, the jury or cruel on the Moreover, the prosecutor's correct statement of suggest that in the the circumstances context (much of the prosecutor's and d i d not of which the i s argument improperly on t h e c h a r a c t e r o f law regarding the heinous, argument t h a t t h e j u r y and choose offered. 111 Bachelder circumstance. law, could suffering c o u r t p r o p e r l y and t h o r o u g h l y circumstances jury mitigating read pain aggravating consider the mitigating was the length of the assault, the In addition, the t r i a l instructed the crime he as compared t o o t h e r circumstance -- i n c l u d i n g not the crime whether character, but focused the murder i t s e l f endured. and argument that aggravating on M c C r a y ' s wounds closing i t i s clear this improperly i n determining complete above), a p p e a r t o be may when emphasized regarding McCray, However, quoted arguments atrocious, or cruel offenses. prosecutor's that above closing and "wicked" suggesting capital the should o f f e r e d b y M c C r a y was a d i d not to "The not impermissibly consider capital the defendant CR-06-0360 g e n e r a l l y must be a l l o w e d t o i n t r o d u c e any r e l e v a n t m i t i g a t i n g evidence regarding circumstances evidence i s of a his character the constitutionally process of i n f l i c t i n g 603 2d 368, So. (Ala. offense, record and and 389 ( A l a . Crim. also addition to the m i t i g a t i n g § any of c o n s i d e r a t i o n of indispensible the penalty of death." See 1991). or App.), 603 A l a . Code circumstances such of the Haney v. S t a t e , aff'd, 13A-5-52, part the specified So. 2d 1975 368 ("In i n Section 13A-5-51, m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s s h a l l i n c l u d e any a s p e c t o f a defendant's of the c h a r a c t e r o r r e c o r d and any o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s offense sentence of l i f e and other any defendant that imprisonment relevant offers imprisonment the defendant as a offers as a basis without parole instead of death, mitigating basis circumstance for without parole instead a which the of life sentence of death."). F u r t h e r , when r e a d i n c o n t e x t , t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s that the m i t i g a t i n g mean s q u a t " was for a circumstances offered by McCray argument "don't c l e a r l y n o t h i n g more t h a n an a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e t h r e e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f f e r e d by the p r o s e c u t i o n f a r outweighed and t h e m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f f e r e d by t h e defense t h a t M c C r a y s h o u l d be s e n t e n c e d 112 to death. T h i s , t o o , was CR-06-0360 a proper argument. defendant and the properly matters So. 2 d a t 162 matter of 136, may of the impairment of evidence 1 So. 1998) 2d 593, p r e s e n t an 595 of i t s weight f o r argument of c o u n s e l . . . . ' " ( A l a . C r i m . App. 241 A l a . 1 3 2 , prosecutor "'[I]mpeachment are Burgess, ( q u o t i n g M o s l e y v. (1941)). 827 State, "Further, argument t o the j u r y '[a] regarding the appropriate weight to a f f o r d the m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s o f f e r e d the defendant.'" V a n p e l t v. S t a t e , 18, 3d 2009] Malicoat So. v. Mullin, That i s , "the jury that little State , 426 o r no w e i g h t . " v. Storey, t h a t no e r r o r ( A l a . C r i m . App. F.3d p r o s e c u t o r , as i t should give 40 [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 1 5 3 9 , 1241, an 1257 S.W.3d 898, (quoting (10th C i r . 2005)). advocate, So. by December 2009) may argue the defendant's m i t i g a t i n g Mitchell, a 3d a t 910-11 (Mo. . to evidence See 2001) the also (holding r e s u l t e d from the p r o s e c u t o r ' s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f m i t i g a t i o n as e x c u s e s b e c a u s e t h e " S t a t e i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o agree w i t h the defendant that the evidence o f f e r e d d u r i n g penalty phase is sufficiently mitigating imposition of the death sentence argue the evidence i s not m i t i g a t i n g that 113 [, a n d ] to the State at the preclude i s free all"). to CR-06-0360 Therefore, error, this as t o these Court finds no error, much less plain claims. C. Third, argued person, the McCray facts McCray when she the when t o be B a c h e l d e r , specifically statements that Bachelder "tired" that not i n evidence pretending trial. argues came prosecutor he home argues that from work McCray d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s claim forplain the prosecutor's night s h e was she As n o t e d was above, c l o s i n g argument a t therefore, this error only. first phase o f and t h a t the by t h e evidence. the p e n a l t y phase o f t h e t r i a l ; i n the at the penalty had a "tough l i f e " murdered were u n s u p p o r t e d this argued improperly See R u l e Court reviews 45A, A l a . R. A p p . P. In his context, the prosecutor stated the following during r e b u t t a l c l o s i n g argument: "And o n t h a t t a p e [ o f M c C r a y ' s i n t e r v i e w w i t h police], lying, lying, lying. [Defense counsel] s a i d , w e l l , t h e r e ' s one t h i n g o f t r u t h on t h a t t a p e w h e r e [ D e t e c t i v e F r a n k ] M e r e d i t h s a y s he h a d known Heath McCray. Remember? So w h a t . B u t he c o u l d l i e and t e l l s t o r i e s t o save h i s neck. We t a l k a b o u t l i f e . He p u t s h i s h a n d a n d t a l k s a b o u t l i f e . I am proud to stand up h e r e f o r the State and f o r [ B a c h e l d e r ] a n d b e a v o i c e f o r h e r . A n d l e t me d o i t real quickly. H i . I'm [ B a c h e l d e r ] . You d i d n ' t 114 CR-06-0360 h e a r me. Y o u d o n ' t know me. B u t l e t me t e l l y o u a b o u t my l i f e r e a l q u i c k . I've had a tough l i f e . I have g o t a husband. I have g o t c h i l d r e n . I work. I take care of myself. I have a t r a i l e r . I have a m o t h e r who l o v e s me. A n d I g o t h o o k e d up w i t h h i m . I made m i s t a k e s . And I p u t him o u t , t o l d him t o leave. II "And how d i d I g e t p a i d b a c k ? He came -- a n d w h e n I came home f r o m w o r k , a n d I w a s t i r e d a n d I came home. A n d w h e n I came i n , h e a t t a c k e d me. He b u t c h e r e d me. He s l a u g h t e r e d me. I begged him, s p a r e me. Q u i t s t a b b i n g me. Q u i t h u r t i n g me. I have g o t c h i l d r e n . Q u i t s t a b b i n g me i n t h e b r e a s t . Quit s t a b b i n g me i n t h e a r m . I want t o l i v e . P l e a s e d o n ' t d r a g me a r o u n d . P l e a s e d o n ' t h u r t me. I w a n t t o l i v e , a s he [ w h a l e d ] a n d s l i c e d h e r a n d killed her. "And t h e y w a n t m e r c y ? They want l i f e . What's a human l i f e w o r t h ? You d o n ' t g i v e a s q u a t a b o u t [ t h e prosecutor's] life. But [Bachelder's] life was important t o h e r and h e r c h i l d r e n and h e r mother. He d o e s n ' t d e s e r v e a n y k i n d o f m e r c y i n a n y m a n n e r or f a s h i o n . " [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] s a y s , y o u w i l l d e c i d e , a n d we want you t o d e c i d e . But there's [Bachelder]. I want y o u t o remember what she s a y s . This hurts. I'm f e e l i n g p a i n . I can't b r e a t h e r e a l good. I h a v e b l o o d c o m i n g o u t o n my h a n d s . I t ' s warm. This is w h a t m a k e s me alive. I see p i c t u r e s o f my children. W o n ' t s o m e b o d y h e l p me? Who i s i n t h e bathroom washing t h e i r hands. I can't get t o the phone. No neighbor will help me. Heath i s t o r t u r i n g her, slaughtering her, doing things t o her. you. "He s i t s o v e r t h e r e l i k e h e s i t s a n d l o o k s a t And they want mercy. And what's p a i n ? How d o 115 CR-06-0360 you d e s c r i b e p a i n ? I d o n ' t know. I know w h a t p a i n is. Y o u know w h a t p a i n i s . I a s k e d t h e d o c t o r , d i d she f e e l p a i n ? Most a s s u r e d l y . Was s h e t o r t u r e d , i n your o p i n i o n ? D i d she s u f f e r ? D i d she f e e l i t ? " (R. 1168-70.) "'During defense the closing counsel, has a r i g h t evidence, 2000) (Ala. 1118 a n d may App. 1987), ( A l a . 1988), counsel the evidence," from rev'd abrogated 139 on o t h e r (Ala. a n d may legitimate (Ala. Crim. 523 So. 2d Memorial "'"A p r o s e c u t o r a s w e l l to present examine, i n h i s own w a y . " ' " App. 2007) from h i s impressions legitimate collate, sift, as from inference and treat Sneed v. S t a t e , 1 So. 3d 104, (quoting Henderson, 584 S o . 2 d a t ( q u o t i n g i n t u r n W a t s o n v . S t a t e , 398 S o . 2 d 3 2 0 , 328 Crim. Bachelder she every grounds, a n d " [ h ] e may a r g u e e v e r y (Ala. Crim. 856-57 argue by Bethea v. S p r i n g h i l l has a r i g h t the evidence the evidence h i s impressions as v. S t a t e , 523 So. 2d 1087, 1100 H o s p . , 833 So. 2 d 1 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . defense as w e l l R e e v e s v . S t a t e , 807 S o . 2 d 1 8 , 45 (quoting Rutledge Crim. the prosecutor, to present i f reasonable, inference.'" App. argument, App. 1 9 8 0 ) ) ) . was had worked a single Here, evidence mother raising t h e d a y s h e was remarks t h a t Bachelder two c h i l d r e n murdered. had a "tough 116 was p r e s e n t e d life" The that and t h a t prosecutor's a n d was " t i r e d " when CR-06-0360 she g o t home reasonable from work inferences the night from this remainder of the prosecutor's have been thinking reasonable regarding from the attack. much l e s s p l a i n evidence. murdered were In addition, the remarks about what B a c h e l d e r and saying inferences s h e was during the attack the evidence Therefore, this e r r o r , as t o t h i s were also at trial presented Court may f i n d s no e r r o r , claim. D. Fourth, compared argued McCray contends Bachelder's that mercy rights was sentencing. Because prosecutor's guilt-phase closing only. argument, See R u l e McCray improper during that the prosecutor to h i s rights not a proper and these claims improperly consideration M c C r a y made n o o b j e c t i o n closing improperly argument are reviewed or for to either the penalty-phase forplain error 4 5 A , A l a . R. A p p . P. specifically comparison challenges of h i s rights the prosecutor's guilt-phase the with following Bachelder's as rights c l o s i n g argument: "And t h e y w a n t y o u t o r e w a r d h i m b y a l l t h e l i e s and stories and what he d i d by g i v i n g him manslaughter, heat of passion. That a i n ' t going t o happen. That's t o r t u r e . W i l l f u l t o r t u r e of another human b e i n g -- t h a t h e l o v e d h e r o r h e c o u l d t r e a t 117 an CR-06-0360 her l i k e t h a t . Those a r e t h e k i n d s o f t h i n g s happen i n a war. And she i s b e g g i n g him." (R. 1 0 1 7 . ) the McCray a l s o c h a l l e n g e s prosecutor argument as Bachelder's permitted an during his improper that t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s by rebuttal comparison penalty-phase of his closing rights with r i g h t s a n d an i m p r o p e r argument t h a t mercy i s n o t at sentencing: "And t h e y want m e r c y ? They want l i f e . What's a human l i f e w o r t h ? You d o n ' t g i v e a s q u a t a b o u t [the p r o s e c u t o r ' s ] l i f e . B u t [ B a c h e l d e r ' s ] l i f e was important t o h e r and h e r c h i l d r e n and h e r mother. He d o e s n ' t d e s e r v e a n y k i n d o f m e r c y i n a n y m a n n e r or f a s h i o n . "... I t c a l l s f o r the death penalty. Loudly a n d c l e a r l y , s a y , we, t h i s j u r y , H e a t h M c C r a y , f i n d you g u i l t y o f t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . A n d w h a t we tell J u d g e J a c k s o n -- o u r d e c i s i o n i s o n e , t w o , three aggravating circumstances, a n d do i t u n a n i m o u s l y , l o u d l y and c l e a r l y , and send t h e message t h a t you c a n ' t b u t c h e r o u r women i n t h i s c o m m u n i t y a n d t h e n come i n h e r e a n d s a y l i f e . " L i f e -- h e ' l l b e p u n i s h e d b y g o i n g t o p r i s o n for the r e s t of h i s l i f e . [Bachelder's] life was w o r t h more t h a n t h a t . I t ' s her l i f e . T a k e n away forever, forever. He a i n ' t g o t no r i g h t t o do i t . M e r c y i s w h a t v i c t i m s d o n ' t g e t . He d i d n ' t g i v e h e r any. He i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a n y t o d a y . Do w h a t ' s right. S e n d t h e m e s s a g e t h a t H e a t h M c C r a y -- know t o d a y and f o r e v e r i t ' s d e a t h f o r t h e most h o r r i b l e , sick, disgusting, evil a c t s t h a t were committed a g a i n s t t h i s woman. Thank y o u . " 118 CR-06-0360 (R. 1169-73.) Contrary a of the g u i l t - p h a s e c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t q u o t e d a b o v e was prosecutor's to not comparison rather, not was of McCray's his prosecution out the To phase claim i s e n t i t l e d to a prosecutor's flaws in the the extent the of the to explained the level of of Bachelder, f a c t s of of the case passion. could plain c l o s i n g argument but did "The pointing theory of the case 807 So. 2d prosecutor's be McCray's r i g h t s w i t h Bachelder's rise the portion Reeves, argument." c l o s i n g argument rights heat during defense's that that ' s p o t l i g h t the defense's s t r a t e g y , ' remarks improper to argument t h a t McCray's and constitute rights a proper support contention, rebuttal considered rights, error. this This a do at 45. penalty- comparison of comment d i d not Court recently i n Brown: " I t i s improper f o r a p r o s e c u t o r to argue the v i c t i m ' s r i g h t s and t o compare t h o s e r i g h t s t o t h e r i g h t s of the defendant. H o w e v e r , a s we s t a t e d i n M c N a i r [ v . S t a t e , 653 So. 2 d 320 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)]: "'The p r o s e c u t o r made n u m e r o u s r e f e r e n c e s t o the v i c t i m ' s r i g h t s and s e v e r a l times i m p l i e d t h a t h e r r i g h t s w e r e t o be w e i g h e d a g a i n s t the a p p e l l a n t ' s . T h i s was clearly improper. However, we think these r e f e r e n c e s were v a l u e d by t h e j u r y a t t h e i r 119 not CR-06-0360 t r u e w o r t h , as h a v i n g been u t t e r e d i n the h e a t of debate and were not e x p e c t e d t o become f a c t o r s i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e verdict. S e e D u r e n v . S t a t e , 590 S o . 2 d 3 6 0 , 364 ( A l a . C r . App. 1990), affirmed, 590 S o . 2 d 369 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 503 U.S. 9 7 4 , 112 S . C t . 1 5 9 4 , 118 L . E d . 2 d 310 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; B a n k h e a d v . S t a t e , 585 So. 2 d 97, 106 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) , a f f i r m e d a s to instant issue and r e m a n d e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 585 S o . 2 d 112 ( A l a . 1991) (on r e h e a r i n g ) , a f f i r m e d on r e t u r n t o r e m a n d , 625 So. 2d 1141 ( A l a . C r . App. 1992); H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 539 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 7 , 1123 ( A l a . C r . App. 1988).' "653 S o . 2 d a t 3 3 7 - 3 8 . See a l s o C a l h o u n v . S t a t e , 932 S o . 2 d 923 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 548 U.S. 9 2 6 , 126 S . C t . 2 9 8 4 , 165 L . E d . 2 d 990 (2006) (no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r w h e n p r o s e c u t o r c o m m e n t e d t h a t the defendant's mother got t o p l e a d f o r h i s l i f e but t h a t the v i c t i m ' s mother d i d not get t o p l e a d f o r her son's l i f e ) ; L e w i s v. S t a t e , 889 S o . 2 d 623 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2003) (no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r w h e n prosecutor argued that jury should consider the r i g h t s of the people l i v i n g i n the county i n which t h e v i c t i m l i v e d ) ; J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 820 S o . 2 d 842 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) , a f f ' d , 820 S o . 2 d 883 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 535 U.S. 1 0 5 8 , 122 S . C t . 1921, 152 L . E d . 2 d 828 (2002) (no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r w h e n p r o s e c u t o r a r g u e d t h a t i t was n o t f a i r t o t h e v i c t i m b e c a u s e she d i d n o t g e t a two-week t r i a l l i k e t h e defendant). For the reasons s t a t e d i n McNair, we f i n d no p l a i n e r r o r . " 11 So. jury 3d at 918-19. Similarly, here, v a l u e d the p r o s e c u t o r ' s remarks uttered this at t h e i r i n t h e h e a t o f d e b a t e , and h o l d s t h a t 120 Court true finds the worth, as they d i d not so CR-06-0360 i n f e c t the t r i a l due mercy t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s argument because he proper argument. argue that was closing defendant likewise of parole. See, App. State, arguing error, the a denial of 797 that So. no (prosecutor to defense ( A l a . Crim. kind showed to t o McCray 861 asking So. jury 2000) the v i c t i m no 2d 1111 to show claims. 121 proper and Smith (prosecutor mercy counsel's was plea T h e r e f o r e , t h i s C o u r t f i n d s no e r r o r , much l e s s as t o t h e s e and possibility t h e v i c t i m was App. defense mercy." counsel's counsel's p l e a f o r mercy); 2d 503 a 775 S o . 2 d 8 5 7 . State, 2001) in victims Centobie v. was f o r the prosecutor to without the e.g., deserved to Bachelder imprisonment the defendant reply McCray t o show m e r c y t h e same m e r c y t h a t he s h o w e d permissible mercy). mercy reply-in-kind r e p l y - i n - k i n d to defense v. that See a l s o M e l s o n , asking the jury him t o l i f e Crim. defendant . a proper argument sentence show showed So. 3d a t to (Ala. d i d not " [ I ] ti s not improper the Mitchell, It sentence process. Finally, no a s t o make t h e r e s u l t i n g a for plain CR-06-0360 E. Finally, alleged fair prosecutorial trial sentence. of McCray argues t h a t and This misconduct warrants reversal misconduct of the allegations reviewing allegations of prosecutorial errors did substantial e.g., ("The rights correct particular finds that not Ex p a r t e the of is him a reversal. and misconduct rule the cumulatively, this probably injuriously and a l s o does n o t r e q u i r e i s that, while, error errors had affect under alleged McCray's reversal. the facts among m u l t i p l e errors reversal."). 122 of a may b e r e v e r s a l under R u l e 45, i f 'probably meritless. See, ( A l a . 2001) injuriously affected r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s , ' then the cumulative may r e q u i r e that After t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t o f any c a s e , no s i n g l e the errors and considering W o o d s , 7 8 9 S o . 2 d 9 4 1 , 9 4 2 - 4 3 n.1 accumulated substantial denied h i s conviction require record s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l to require the of case i n d i v i d u a l l y and has found of error thoroughly Court likewise i n this of the Court has c o n s i d e r e d each o f the a l l e g a t i o n s prosecutorial none the cumulative effect Therefore, this effect claim CR-06-0360 V. McCray removing the next contends prospective State that the j u r o r G.F. on t h e g r o u n d that trial f o r cause court erred in at the request of she had n o t answered t r u t h f u l l y during v o i r d i r e examination. Specifically, a r g u e s t h a t G.F. d i d n o t i n t e n t i o n a l l y m i s l e a d the that court, but merely when the question truthfully. questions McCray truthfully misunderstood was later further during voir that posed G.F. failing d i r e does McCray the p a r t i e s or the question clarified, argues questions and answered to answer not constitute a s t a t u t o r y o r c o m m o n - l a w g r o u n d f o r r e m o v i n g G.F. f o r c a u s e a n d that for G.F. e x h i b i t e d no a b s o l u t e bias to warrant her removal cause. The record prosecutor reflects that during group voir dire, asked the f o l l o w i n g : "Here's one of those hard questions. I m e n t i o n e d i t -- I k i n d o f s t a r t e d o u t i n my v o i r d i r e -- I n e e d t o s e e a s u b p o e n a l i s t , t o o , i f I could. " [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] , y o u w e r e t e l l i n g me -- h e r e i s my q u e s t i o n I n e e d t o know. My j o b a s t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y i s t o t r y cases i n Houston and Henry County. T h a t ' s t h e c i r c u i t we h a v e . I live here j u s t l i k e you do. I go t o W a l - M a r t . I go t o t h e b a l l games. 123 the CR-06-0360 "Thank you, back t o you. [defense counsel]. I'll " I have f a m i l y . I have c h i l d r e n . My a r e now d e c e a s e d , b u t my p a r e n t s w o u l d go Oh, t h e r e ' s [ t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s ] m o t h e r . He l o v e d one t o d e a t h r o w . [The p r o s e c u t o r ] s o n o f f t o 99 y e a r s f o r r a p e . Y o u know how are. give i t parents places. s e n t my s e n t my parents " H e r e ' s my q u e s t i o n . My j o b i n o u r c o m m u n i t y i s t o t r y cases i n Houston and Henry C o u n t i e s . I want t o a s k y o u , w h e n y o u came down h e r e f o r j u r y s e r v i c e t h i s w e e k , y o u knew how many p e o p l e w e r e g o i n g t o s i t on t h e j u r y . Right? The max n u m b e r ? How m a n y ? 12. T h e r e may be a n a l t e r n a t e o r t w o . But my q u e s t i o n t o you i s , does [the p r o s e c u t o r ] g e t t o g e t i n t h e j u r y b o x a n d g e t t o v o t e a n d go b a c k i n t o t h e r o o m w h e r e t h e 12 t h a t g e t s t o v o t e w h e t h e r s o m e o n e i s c o n v i c t e d of c a p i t a l murder or they get death? Do I g e t t o do t h a t ? I d o n ' t g e t t o do t h a t . "So h e r e ' s my question. I understand human nature. I u n d e r s t a n d t h e q u e s t i o n -- t h a t t h e S t a t e s e e k s t o p u t t h e d e f e n d a n t t o d e a t h , on t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f as t h e law s a y s i t . I u n d e r s t a n d your looks. I was l o o k i n g a t you when I a s k e d those questions about the burden of proof. B e l i e v e me, I was l o o k i n g a t y o u r m i n d , y o u r h e a r t a n d s o u l t h e b e s t I c a n a s a human b e i n g , l o o k i n g a t y o u . "My q u e s t i o n i s -- I l i v e h e r e . I n e e d t o know i f w e ' v e e v e r p r o s e c u t e d a member o f y o u r family, you, y o u r s e l f , a c l o s e f r i e n d ? A n d w h a t I mean b y t h a t , y o u know who i s a c l o s e f r i e n d . Someone y o u g r e w up w i t h . N o t j u s t a n a c q u a i n t a n c e . Okay? But y o u r n e x t - d o o r n e i g h b o r , someone you p l a y e d s p o r t s w i t h i n h i g h s c h o o l , t h a t t h e y o r a member o f t h e i r f a m i l y was sent t o p r i s o n f o r rape or robbery or m u r d e r -- a n d t h e y s a y , t h a t [ t h e p r o s e c u t o r ] , he s e n t an i n n o c e n t p e r s o n t o p r i s o n . 124 CR-06-0360 "We have a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d 1 don't g e t t o vote. Right? Okay. B u t i t ' s i m p o r t a n t f o r me t o k n o w a s t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y -- he w a n t s a f a i r trial. We w a n t a f a i r t r i a l . S o my q u e s t i o n i s this: 1 f 1 h a v e e v e r p r o s e c u t e d y o u o r a member o f your family. 1 d o n ' t w a n t t o know a b o u t s p e e d i n g tickets. B u t 1 do w a n t t o k n o w a b o u t a n y o t h e r offense. Any o t h e r f e l o n y . You d o n ' t have t o r a i s e your hand. A n y f e l o n y o r m i s d e m e a n o r -- we have p r o s e c u t e d you o r a n y members o f y o u r f a m i l y ? "1n o t h e r w o r d s , 1 h a v e t r i e d c a s e s , a n d we w a n t t o k n o w -- b e h o n e s t -- we h a v e a l i s t , t o o . So i t ' s k i n d o f h a r d b e i n g t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y -- M r . S m i t h , w o u l d you p l e a s e come up? "Now, M r . S m i t h , i t ' s such and such a day? true 1 p r o s e c u t e d you on "Yes, i t i s . "So i t p u t s me i n a b a d p o s i t i o n . 1 ' l l do i t , b e c a u s e i t ' s my j o b . 1 want a f a i r t r i a l j u s t l i k e he w a n t s a f a i r t r i a l . "So 1 g u e s s w h a t 1'm a s k i n g y o u i s -- h e r e i s the s e c o n d p a r t t h a t goes w i t h i t . 1 do w a n t t o k n o w i f w e ' v e e v e r p r o s e c u t e d a n y member o f y o u r family, i n juvenile court, circuit court. 1 don't w a n t t o know a b o u t c i v i l c o u r t . 1 don't want t o know a b o u t d i v o r c e s . T h a t ' s n o n e o f my b u s i n e s s . 1 d o n ' t w a n t t o know a b o u t c u s t o d y f i g h t s . That's n o n e o f my b u s i n e s s . 1 said criminal court. 1n o t h e r w o r d s , c i r c u i t , d i s t r i c t , y o u know, t r a f f i c court. 1 d o n ' t w a n t t o know a b o u t s p e e d i n g . "1 w o u l d w a n t t o know a b o u t a DU1, y o u know, e x c e s s i v e s p e e d i n g , w h e r e a man i s e l u d i n g . But not speeding or running a stop sign. 1 don't want t o know a b o u t t h a t . 1 d o n ' t do t h e p r o s e c u t i o n s f o r the C i t y o f Dothan. But i f t h e y a r e t h e r e , 1 want t o know, b e c a u s e we h a v e r e c o r d s , t o o . S o 1 n e e d t o 125 CR-06-0360 know t h a t . T e l l us t h a t c o n f i d e n t i a l l y . A c o u p l e o f p e o p l e have a l r e a d y r e s p o n d e d up f r o n t . Those t h a t h a v e a l r e a d y t o l d u s d o n ' t h a v e t o come u p o r tell us t h a t . So 1 would l i k e t o know that, please." (R. 99-103.) individually Following group v o i r d i r e , G.F. w a s questioned as f o l l o w s : "[G.F.]: H i . I'm "THE COURT: [G.F.]. Y e s , [G.F.]? "[G.F. ]: 1'm s u r e t h a t [theprosecutor] or [ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] , [ ] o n e , h a s p r o s e c u t e d o n e o f my family members. Not that i t would affect my j u d g m e n t , b u t 1 t h o u g h t y o u g u y s s h o u l d know. 2 0 2 1 "THE COURT: You t h i n k you have members t h a t h a v e b e e n p r o s e c u t e d ? "[G.F.]: some family Yes. "THE COURT: And 1 b e l i e v e you s a i d your p o s i t i o n i s t h a t i t s h o u l d n ' t a f f e c t you i n t h e case i n a n y way? "[G.F.]: No. "THE COURT: Any questions, "[Prosecutor]: No. [prosecutor]? Thank you f o r your h o n e s t y . T h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was s p e a k i n g h e r e ; h o w e v e r , i t i s c l e a r t h a t was a t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r . 2 0 The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t defense counsel has p r e v i o u s l y worked as a d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y and h a d a l s o p r e v i o u s l y been a c i r c u i t court judge. 2 1 126 CR-06-0360 "THE COURT: "[Defense (R. Or, [defense counsel]: No, counsel]? s i r . " 189-90.) After voir dire examination had concluded, the following occurred: "[Prosecutor]: Judge, t h e o n l y problem 1 have -- [ G . F . ] , we s h o w we h a v e a c t u a l l y p r o s e c u t e d h e r . She h a s t h e f t o f p r o p e r t y c o n v i c t i o n s a n d p o s s e s s i o n of a c o n t r o l l e d substance h e r s e l f . S o 1 am g o i n g t o strike her. Y o u know, 1 j u s t -- s h e s a i d h e r family. B u t i t ' s h e r , t o o . So 1 e i t h e r have t o b r i n g h e r back i n , unless they a r e not going t o o b j e c t -- 1 am j u s t t e l l i n g my b a s i s . 1 am g o i n g t o s t r i k e h e r f o r f a m i l y members w h e t h e r t h e y l i k e i t or n o t . "One o f them s a i d t h e y d i d n ' t -[defense counsel], like [ p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r D . H . ] , a n d 1 am g o i n g t o s t r i k e h e r , t o o . B u t , y o u know, t h e C o u r t s -- t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s e i t h e r w a n t me t o b r i n g h e r i n o r b e a b l e t o p r o v e i t . S o 1 c a n g e t my f i l e , o r i f we n e e d t o , b r i n g h e r b a c k i n . Did "THE COURT: We c a n b r i n g h e r b a c k i n , 1 e v e r y b o d y come u p t o t h e b e n c h ? guess. "[G.F.], you had i n d i c a t e d you had v a r i o u s f a m i l y m e m b e r s who h a v e b e e n p r o s e c u t e d . Have you ever been p r o s e c u t e d f o r something? "[G.F.]: 1 mean, 1 h a v e p l e d g u i l t y b e f o r e i t got t h a t f a r . 1 t w a s a d r u g c a s e w h e r e my h u s b a n d was i n v o l v e d -- my e x - h u s b a n d -- a n d 1 p l e a d e d g u i l t y , b e c a u s e 1 d i d know a b o u t i t . 1 mean, i t w a s n ' t me p e r s o n a l l y , b u t 1 d i d know a b o u t h i m -- 127 CR-06-0360 "THE COURT: So y o u h a v e had a case yourself, also? "[G.F.]: and Yes. "THE COURT: We j u s t w a n t e d t o g e t t h a t s t r a i g h t make s u r e y o u a r e t h e same p e r s o n . "[G.F.]: Uh-huh. T h a t w o u l d b e me. "[Prosecutor]: Thank you f o r your ma'am. Y o u d i d come u p . T h a n k y o u . " (R. 200-01.) prospective After jurors the parties f o r cause, challenged the following honesty, several occurred: " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : I move t o s t r i k e [ G . F . ] , b e c a u s e she w a s n ' t t r u t h f u l on h e r s . I n other words, I p r o v e d t o t h e C o u r t t h a t , y o u k n o w , i t was h e r , a n d not j u s t f a m i l y members. I am e n t i t l e d to a truthful response s p e c i f i c a l l y from h e r . And I a s k e d t h a t q u e s t i o n a n d t o b r i n g h e r b a c k i n . So I w o u l d move t o s t r i k e h e r f o r c a u s e . "THE COURT: "[Defense that does for cause. prosecutor] What s a y s counsel]: not rise the defense? Your to that Honor, level we of being feel a that strike She d i d , when s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k e d b y [ t h e i f s h e h a d b e e n p r o s e c u t e d -¬ "THE COURT: I will strike h e r f o r cause. "[Defense counsel]: We e x c e p t a n d we c i t e a s grounds a l l t h e m a t e r i a l I have s t a t e d , p l u s what's i n o u r s e p a r a t e l y f i l e d memorandum." (R. 208-09.) 128 other CR-06-0360 Without party's for-cause dishonest any, 45, during whether challenge voir A l a . R. App. 2001), "erred P. the in dire, to a prospective this Court j u r o r G.F. failing to t h a t the perform trial court holds was State, Supreme C o u r t a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r f o r cause. on trial I n D a i l e y v. Alabama after determining a of i n removing p r o s p e c t i v e (Ala. had deciding a grant juror that held So. that who a was error, i f harmless. 828 2d Rule 2 2 340, this harmless-error c o u r t had The may 343 Court analysis" improperly removed A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t went explain: "Rule 45, A l a . R. App. P., reads: "'No j u d g m e n t may b e r e v e r s e d o r s e t a s i d e , n o r new t r i a l g r a n t e d i n a n y civil or criminal case on the ground of m i s d i r e c t i o n of the j u r y , the g i v i n g or r e f u s a l of s p e c i a l charges or the improper admission or r e j e c t i o n of evidence, nor f o r error as t o any matter of p l e a d i n g or procedure, unless i n the o p i n i o n of the court to which the appeal i s taken or T h i s C o u r t h o l d s t h a t G.F.'s f a i l u r e t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s regarding her p r i o r c r i m i n a l experience t r u t h f u l l y d u r i n g v o i r d i r e w o u l d be a r a c e - n e u t r a l r e a s o n j u s t i f y i n g a p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e . See B r o w n v . S t a t e , 982 S o . 2 d 5 6 5 , 586 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006) ( h o l d i n g t h a t p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s ' f a i l u r e t o d i s c l o s e p r i o r convictions i s a race-neutral reason). 2 2 129 CR-06-0360 a p p l i c a t i o n i s made, a f t e r an examination of the e n t i r e cause, i t should appear t h a t the error complained of has probably i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d the s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s . ' "In E v a n s v. State, [794 So. 2d 411 (Ala. 2000)], the t r i a l c o u r t had granted the State's c h a l l e n g e of a veniremember f o r cause b a s e d upon the fact t h a t she was married to defense counsel's u n c l e . 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 t h e t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e c h a l l e n g e and t h a t Evans's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to a f a i r trial had been v i o l a t e d . T h e r e f o r e , the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals reversed Evans's c o n v i c t i o n s . This Court h e l d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g the State's challenge f o r cause, but h e l d t h a t the e r r o r was ' h a r m l e s s e r r o r ' u n d e r R u l e 4 5 , A l a . R. A p p . P. We reasoned in Evans that the defendant's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s had not been v i o l a t e d : "'Evans argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s error i n excusing [veniremember] E.F.W. violated his right to a trial by an impartial jury, a right guaranteed by A m e n d m e n t s 6 a n d 14 o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Constitution and § 6 of the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n . However, the U n i t e d States Supreme C o u r t has h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t ' s f e d e r a l r i g h t t o a n i m p a r t i a l j u r y was not automatically violated merely by an e r r o n e o u s r u l i n g on a c h a l l e n g e f o r c a u s e . R o s s v . O k l a h o m a , 487 U.S. 8 1 , 8 7 - 8 8 [, 108 S.Ct. 2 2 7 3 , 101 L . E d . 2 d 80] (1988); see a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M a r t i n e z - S a l a z a r , 528 U.S. 304 [, 120 S . C t . 7 7 4 , 145 L . E d . 2 d 792] ( 2 0 0 0 ) . As l o n g as t h e j u r y t h a t h e a r d t h e c a s e was i m p a r t i a l , t h e r i g h t g u a r a n t e e d b y the United States C o n s t i t u t i o n was not v i o l a t e d . See R o s s , 487 U.S. a t 8 7 - 8 8 [, 108 S . C t . 2 2 7 3 ] . T h i s r u l e w o u l d a l s o a p p l y 130 CR-06-0360 to § 6 o f t h e Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n , which gives the defendant the r i g h t t o a t r i a l "by an i m p a r t i a l j u r y o f t h e c o u n t y o r district i n which the offense was committed." The p l a i n meaning of this language i s that the defendant i s e n t i t l e d o n l y t o an i m p a r t i a l j u r y a n d t h a t u n l e s s t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n show t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t ' s erroneous ruling during jury selection prevented t h e j u r y from b e i n g impartial, t h e r e i s n o v i o l a t i o n o f § 6.' "794 So. 2d a t 414. " H e r e , D a i l e y h a s made n o s h o w i n g t h a t h e r r i g h t to an i m p a r t i a l jury was p r o b a b l y injuriously a f f e c t e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e r r o r i n r e m o v i n g K.K. T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e r r o r i n r e m o v i n g K.K. w a s n o t r e v e r s i b l e , b e c a u s e , e v e n with the error, Dailey h a d a f a i r t r i a l w i t h an impartial jury. The j u d g m e n t of the Court of Criminal Appeals i s reversed and t h e case i s remanded." Dailey, 828 S o . 2 d a t 3 4 3 - 4 4 . Similarly, to an i m p a r t i a l trial court's G.F.]" McCray " h a s made n o s h o w i n g error[, I d . a t 343. i f any,] i n removing Further, to reveal this any p r o b a b l e review prejudice trial with an i m p a r t i a l 131 juror of the resulting Therefore, the t r i a l i f a n y , i n r e m o v i n g G.F. w a s h a r m l e s s McCray had a f a i r right by the [potential Court's f r o m t h e r e m o v a l o f p o t e n t i a l j u r o r G.F. error, [his] j u r y was p r o b a b l y i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d r e c o r d has f a i l e d court's that jury. because CR-06-0360 VI. McCray next contends that the t r i a l court erred i n d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s t h e s t a t e m e n t h e made t o p o l i c e a s w e l l a s t h e DNA s a m p l e t a k e n f r o m h i m o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t h e did not knowingly Specifically, rendered his and v o l u n t a r i l y he argues him incapable rights. He also that h i s low of knowingly argues admitting i n t o evidence, objection, the videotape that that trial, h i s Miranda rights. intelligence and v o l u n t a r i l y the t r i a l and p l a y i n g level waiving court erred i n f o r the jury, over h i s o f h i s s t a t e m e n t b e c a u s e he b e l i e v e s t h e t a p e was n o t p r o p e r l y Before waive McCray authenticated. filed s t a t e m e n t i n w h i c h he a s s e r t e d a motion to suppress h i s t h e f o l l o w i n g : 1) t h e r e was no p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s t o r d e t a i n h i m a t t h e t i m e h e made h i s statement; coercive 2) " [ t ] h e q u e s t i o n i n g setting"; took place a n d 3) t h e s t a t e m e n t p r o p e r l y M i r a n d i z i n g him" and without waiver of his right against At t r i a l , to McCray requested the admission during i n an i n h e r e n t l y was taken properly self-incrimination." "obtain[ing] or a f t e r h i s statement 132 and a l l evidence o n t h e same a (C. 3 4 8 - 4 9 . ) and received a continuing of h i s statement "without grounds objection obtained as those CR-06-0360 raised i n h i s motion argued that waiver of although to suppress. McCray, h i s low i n t e l l e c t u a l h i s Miranda McCray authentication rights objected however, functioning rendered h i s involuntary. at t r i a l of the videotape to In was a f t e r evidence without Therefore, preserved plain the videotape any because of h i s statement, error only. neither of court, See R u l e lack (see these this of he d i d s o f o r the jury, had a l r e a d y been admitted objection i n the t r i a l addition, the alleged o n l y w h e n t h e v i d e o t a p e was a b o u t t o b e p l a y e d which never explanation claims into below). properly reviews Court was them f o r 4 5 A , A l a . R. A p p . P. Voluntariness At the p r e t r i a l Detective the Frank Meredith afternoon voluntarily According h e a r i n g on M c C r a y ' s m o t i o n that testified, Bachelder's came t o t h e p o l i c e to Detective arrived, he was not Although McCray Meredith nonetheless was a as he d i d a t t r i a l , body station Meredith, suspect free to advised t o suppress, and leave McCray was found, McCray t o speak w i t h police. when was at that McCray not any initially under time, of h i s Miranda arrest. Detective rights. D e t e c t i v e M e r e d i t h s a i d t h a t McCray appeared t o understand h i s 133 CR-06-0360 rights his and t h a t McCray s p e c i f i c a l l y rights. McCray then stated that signed a he waiver-of-rights M c C r a 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 narcotics said to a n d he him. completed high that McCray Meredith officer for appeared to understand According school, present threatened making a conference room polygraph he h a d r e c e i v e d Meredith that he Meredith had and that McCray the results, room. t o speak w i t h him. Detective nor any other the the a c o m p l e t e d and interrogation of h i s Miranda Detective at requested Meredith then questioned Before 2 3 stated then O n c e t h e p o l y g r a p h was reminded McCray a n d knew spoke w i t h McCray i n the i n d i c a t e d t h a t he u n d e r s t o o d h i s r i g h t s willing was language. neither Detective briefly interview that McCray Meredith, English t h a t he i n i t i a l l y examination. everything or McCray o r o f f e r e d McCray any r e w a r d statement. hearing an the form. of alcohol a n d h e knew M c C r a y p e r s o n a l l y testified suppression in to Detective understood further understood rights, and a n d t h a t he was Meredith also McCray began, McCray still testified This C o u r t has r e v i e w e d the videotape of McCray's statement, and i t s u p p o r t s D e t e c t i v e M e r e d i t h ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t he r e m i n d e d M c C r a y o f h i s r i g h t s b e f o r e the i n t e r r o g a t i o n began. 2 3 134 CR-06-0360 that a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3:00 p.m. that afternoon, just t h e p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n , he r e q u e s t e d a n d r e c e i v e d consent t o t a k e a DNA Regarding before McCray's sample. confessions, this C o u r t has explained: "The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t a c o n f e s s i o n o r o t h e r i n c u l p a t o r y s t a t e m e n t i s p r i m a f a c i e i n v o l u n t a r y and i n a d m i s s i b l e a n d t h e b u r d e n i s on t h e S t a t e t o p r o v e by a preponderance of the evidence that such a c o n f e s s i o n o r s t a t e m e n t i s v o l u n t a r y and a d m i s s i b l e . S e e , e . g . , E x p a r t e P r i c e , 725 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 3 ( A l a . 1998) . To p r o v e v o l u n t a r i n e s s , the State must e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t 'made a n independent a n d i n f o r m e d c h o i c e o f h i s own f r e e w i l l , t h a t h e p o s s e s s e d t h e c a p a b i l i t y t o do s o , a n d t h a t h i s w i l l was n o t o v e r b o r n e by p r e s s u r e s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s s w i r l i n g around him.' L e w i s v . S t a t e , 535 S o . 2 d 2 2 8 , 235 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) . I f the confession or i n c u l p a t o r y statement i s the r e s u l t of c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n , t h e S t a t e must a l s o p r o v e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was properly a d v i s e d o f , and that he v o l u n t a r i l y waived, h i s Miranda r i g h t s . See Ex parte Johnson, 620 So. 2 d 709 ( A l a . 1993), and W a l d r o p v . S t a t e , 859 S o . 2 d 1138 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , a f f ' d , 859 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 1 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . " Eggers v. 2004). State, "'Whether 914 a So. 2d [Miranda] 883, 898-99 waiver (Ala. Crim. i s voluntary, a n d i n t e l l i g e n t d e p e n d s on t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s a n d circumstances experience, of the 1156 and of each case, conduct o f t h e a c c u s e d -- circumstances.'" (Ala. Crim. App. including Waldrop 2000), v. aff'd, 135 the 859 knowing, underlying background, i . e . , the State, 859 So. App. So. 2d totality 2d 1138, 1181 (Ala. CR-06-0360 2002) App. (quoting mental a defendant impairment evidence, 557 695 S o . 2 d 2 0 9 , 218 "The 1996)). C l i c k v. S t a t e , fact render a confession impairment, affecting the ( A l a .C r i m . App. even validity of 2d ( A l a .C r i m . App. (Ala. 1995) (Ala. C r i m . App. 1987). a similar 2009] ___ (quoting issue Whittle v. State, ( A l a .C r i m . App. one State, factor and 518 S o . 2 d 7 9 3 , [Ms. other the 672 672 S o . 2 d in So. 1354 796-97 addressing CR-07-0113, May 2009): "A d e f e n d a n t ' s l o w I Q i s o n l y o n e f a c t o r t h a t must be c o n s i d e r e d when r e v i e w i n g t h e t o t a l i t y o f the circumstances. S e e D o b y n e v . S t a t e , 672 S o . 2 d 1319, 1337 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994); B e c k w o r t h v. S t a t e , 946 S o . 2 d 4 9 0 , 517 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) . ' W h i l e an a c c u s e d ' s i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d l i t e r a c y a r e i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s , ... w e a k i n t e l l e c t o r i l l i t e r a c y alone w i l l not render a confession inadmissible.' H o b b s v . S t a t e , 401 S o . 2 d 2 7 6 , 282 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) ; s e e a l s o H o d g e s v . S t a t e , 926 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 0 , 1073 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005) (same); c f ^ C o l o r a d o v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 1 5 7 , 165 ( 1 9 8 6 ) (holding that mental defects alone are i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h that a confession was i n v o l u n t a r y u n d e r t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e ) . As t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d i n B e c k w o r t h : '[A] d e f e n d a n t ' s l o w IQ d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e a f i n d i n g 136 a defendant's v. S t a t e , aff'd, v. S t a t e , from v. rights As t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n Byrd S o . 3 d ___ or Dobyne 1994), "'A i s merely h i s waiver of h i s confession.'" Baker 1990). i f i t exists, suffer not, without involuntary." voluntariness 1 3 1 9 , 1337 may or low i n t e l l i g e n c e w i l l S o . 2 d 8 5 1 , 853 mental that (Ala. Crim. 1, CR-06-0360 that a M i r a n d a w a i v e r was voluntary unless the d e f e n d a n t i s so m e n t a l l y i m p a i r e d t h a t he d i d n o t understand h i s Miranda r i g h t s . ' 946 S o . 2 d a t 517 ( c i t i n g D o b y n e , 672 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 3 7 ) ; s e e M o o r e v . D u g g e r , 856 F . 2 d 1 2 9 , 132 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) (mental d e f i c i e n c i e s , i n the absence of p o l i c e coercion, are not s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h i n v o l u n t a r i n e s s , and the fact that t h e d e f e n d a n t was generally calm and responsive during i n t e r r o g a t i o n , t h a t he d i d n o t appear confused, and that he understood the questions put t o him e s t a b l i s h e d a v a l i d waiver of Miranda r i g h t s , d e s p i t e the defendant's low I Q ) . " So. 3d a t . As n o t e d i n P a r t the record IX of t h i s indicating deficiencies or, "intellectual that abilities brief, at penalty phase education to, and the Detective McCray's trial that i n h i s youth, record does McCray's at t r i a l , intellectual he are l i m i t e d " the not was there to any mental testified McCray was no e v i d e n c e was in Further, and i t i s a b u n d a n t l y and at the special- presented indicate, statement his (McCray's sister classes. in i t , that i n a n y way. otherwise recorded i s nothing suffered refers i n special-education watched testimony that of McCray McCray Although classes M c C r a y was has 74.) as opinion, the reason this has clear that as read Court his McCray's f u n c t i o n i n g i s n o t so low as t o j u s t i f y a f i n d i n g unable Meredith, who to understand his Miranda rights. knew M c C r a y p e r s o n a l l y , t e s t i f i e d 137 that CR-06-0360 McCray had f i n i s h e d English language. high school and t h a t He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d he u n d e r s t o o d t h e t h a t McCray i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e u n d e r s t o o d h i s r i g h t s a n d t h a t h e was w i l l i n g them. After thoroughly reviewing McCray's statement knowingly and v o l u n t a r i l y DNA sample. was Therefore, knowing the record, and consented this Court t o waive i t i s clear that voluntary and to the collection that he of the f i n d s n o e r r o r , much less p l a i n e r r o r , i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of McCray's motion t o suppress. Authentication During following Detective Meredith's testimony at trial, occurred: "[Prosecutor]: O k a y . J u s t w h a t I'm a s k i n g y o u , i n o t h e r words, have you watched t h e o r i g i n a l tape from t h e time you were i n t h e r e w i t h Heath McCray a n d [ S g t . ] C i r u l l i u n t i l t h e t i m e t h e i n t e r v i e w was over, i n other words, you a c t u a l l y p l a c e d him under a r r e s t , took him i n t o custody f o r t h e c a p i t a l murder case w i t h [Bachelder]. Correct? "[Detective Meredith]: Yes,s i r . "[Prosecutor]: Now, my q u e s t i o n t o y o u : When you l e f t t h e room, c a n y o u t e l l them, t h e r e c o r d i n g e q u i p m e n t , w o u l d i t have been s t o p p e d i n any manner o r f a s h i o n a t a n y t i m e w h e n h e was b e i n g i n t e r v i e w e d b y y o u o r w h e n y o u l e f t a n d [ S g t . ] C i r u l l i was i n there? "[Detective Meredith]: 138 No, s i r . the CR-06-0360 "[Prosecutor]: Would you have had the o p p o r t u n i t y t o be o u t s i d e w a t c h i n g any q u e s t i o n s between Heath McCray and [Sgt.] C i r u l l i w h i l e you were o u t o f t h e room? "[Detective Meredith]: Y e s , s i r . We h a v e o u r -- t h e v i d e o s e t u p w h e r e i t w i l l r u n f e e d into a n o t h e r r o o m , i n t o a c o n f e r e n c e r o o m , w h e n we f i r s t s t a r t t h e i n t e r v i e w w h e r e we c a n w a t c h t h e i n t e r v i e w in progress. "[Prosecutor]: Would you t e l l t h e l a d i e s and gentlemen o f t h e j u r y , i f [Sgt.] C i r u l l i l e f t t h e room a n d y o u were i n t h e r e , d i d t h e t a p e c o n t i n u e t o run and operate? "[Detective Meredith]: I believe so, yes. "[Prosecutor]: Well, you b e l i e v e so. My q u e s t i o n i s , i n o t h e r words, you watched t h e e n t i r e tape from the f i r s t t o the end. A r e t h e r e any b r e a k s where i t goes b l a n k a t any time and then i t s t a r t s back up? That doesn't occur, doesi t ? "[Detective Meredith]: "[Prosecutor]: [ S g t . ] C i r u l l i was continued to record him. Right? No, s i r . So w h e n y o u w e r e i n t h e r e o r i n there o r whoever l e f t , i t w i t h w h i c h d e t e c t i v e was w i t h "[Detective Meredith]: Correct. Michael C i r u l l i was i n t h e r e w h i l e I was o u t o f t h e r o o m a n d then v i c e - v e r s a . "[Prosecutor]: Now, d i d y o u h a v e a n o c c a s i o n a f t e r t h e t a p e was made t o w a t c h i t , t o s e e i f i t t r u l y and a c c u r a t e l y d e p i c t e d t h e e v i d e n c e o f what you s a i d o r what [Sgt.] C i r u l l i s a i d o r what H e a t h Lavon McCray s a i d ? "[Detective Meredith]: 139 Yes, s i r . CR-06-0360 "[Prosecutor]: opinion? "[Detective And did Meredith]: i t do that in your Yes, s i r . "[Prosecutor]: A n d i n y o u r o p i n i o n , was t h e equipment working p r o p e r l y , i n other words, before the interview started, i n other words, by you, yourself, watching i t afterwards, seeing yourself, [Sgt.] C i r u l l i or Heath Lavon McCray? "[Detective Meredith]: Yes, s i r . " ( T h e r e u p o n , S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t No. 1 was m a r k e d f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . ) "[Prosecutor]: I'm s h o w i n g y o u S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t E 1 t h a t was p r e v i o u s l y m a r k e d a n d admitted at a deposition.[ ] D i d you have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o watch State's 1 under oath? 2 4 "[Detective Meredith]: Yes, s i r , I d i d . " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : And d i d i t t r u l y depict t h e i n t e r v i e w , once a g a i n , McCray and [Sgt.] C i r u l l i ? "[Detective Meredith]: and a c c u r a t e l y with you and Yes, s i r . "[Prosecutor]: I t hasn't been marked, a l t e r e d o r c h a n g e d i n a n y way f r o m t h e t i m e y o u t u r n e d i t i n t o e v i d e n c e t o t h e t i m e i t was t u r n e d o v e r t o t h e deposition. Correct? "[Detective Meredith]: The v i d e o t a p e was suppression hearing. 2 4 actually 140 Yes, s i r . admitted at the pretrial CR-06-0360 II "[Prosecutor]: Okay. I o f f e r S t a t e ' s 1 i n t o e v i d e n c e , Your Honor, a t t h i s time, the i n t e r v i e w , Judge J a c k s o n . "THE COURT: A n d i t i s a d m i t t e d o v e r previous and continuing o b j e c t i o n o f the defendant.[ ] 2 5 "[Defense Honor. counsel]: Thank you, Your "[Prosecutor]: Judge, can I p u l l him down, p l e a s e , a n d p u t on a s h o r t w i t n e s s i n between? "THE (R. 675-78.) testify, after COURT: Y e s . " The p r o s e c u t o r which, then called the following COURT: That's witness t o occurred: "[Prosecutor]: Thank y o u . go t o t h e t a p e , Y o u r H o n o r . "THE another We could correct. "[Defense counsel]: B e f o r e we p l a y t h e t a p e , I do n e e d t o a s k I n v e s t i g a t o r M e r e d i t h s o m e t h i n g on v o i r d i r e . "THE COURT: A l l right. "[Prosecutor]: I ' l lb r i n g him back in. McCray's previous statement. 2 5 his o b j e c t i o n was t o t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f 141 CR-06-0360 "[Defense counsel]: That goes t o an i s s u e b e y o n d w h a t we h a v e p r e v i o u s l y r a i s e d "THE COURT: A l l right. "[Defense counsel]: s p e c i f i c t o the tape. "THE COURT: "[Defense Honor. -- and that i s A l l right. counsel]: Thank you, Your " "[Defense counsel]: I s t h e -- y o u s a w [ t h e prosecutor] p u t t i n g a t a p e i n t o t h e m a c h i n e -- d i d you? "[Detective Meredith]: No, I d i d n o t . "[Defense counsel]: Okay. I am g o i n g t o a s k [the p r o s e c u t o r ] t o e j e c t i t j u s t f o r a moment, please. A n d I'm g o i n g t o s h o w y o u j u s t t h e t a p e t h a t i s m a r k e d a s S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t No. 1. "[Detective Meredith]: Yes, s i r . "[Defense counsel]: Okay. What i d e n t i f y i n g mark on t h e t a p e c a s e i t s e l f shows t h a t t h a t i s y o u r tape? "[Detective Meredith]: "[Defense counsel]: a c t u a l l y recorded? "[Detective anything. "[Defense That tape? Y e s , s i r , t h e one t h a t you Meredith]: counsel]: i t i s my Okay. 142 I didn't record CR-06-0360 "[Detective Meredith]: One of the d e t e c t i v e s a c t u a l l y handled the recording. other "[Defense counsel]: Okay. What police d e p a r t m e n t m a r k i n g s h o w s t h a t i t was t h e t a p e u s e d t o t a p e Mr. M c C r a y ' s a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t ? "[Detective Meredith]: m u r d e r , and i n t e r v i e w w i t h The c a s e n u m b e r , c a p i t a l Heath Lavon McCray. "[Defense counsel]: O k a y . Now, my q u e s t i o n t o you i s t h i s : On a -- a n y v i d e o -- a n y standard v i d e o t a p e , t h e r e i s a l e a d e r on t h e r e , i s n ' t t h e r e ? "[Detective to Meredith]: Yes. "[Defense counsel]: And t h e t e r m l e a d e r r e f e r s some c l e a r t a p e a t t h e f r o n t e n d , s o t o s p e a k ? "[Detective Meredith]: Correct. "[Defense counsel]: Has anybody, to your knowledge, marked or a u t h e n t i c a t e d t h a t l e a d e r ? "[Detective Meredith]: "[Defense counsel]: d e p a r t m e n t t o do t h a t ? I h a v e no Is that idea. customary in your "[Detective Meredith]: T h a t ' s -- I d o n ' t d e a l with the videotapes. S o t h a t ' s -- y o u w o u l d h a v e t o h a v e s o m e o n e t h a t -- t h e d e t e c t i v e t h a t h a n d l e s t h e t e c h n i c a l side of t h a t . "[Defense counsel]: Okay. T h e n , Y o u r H o n o r , I a d d t o my p r e v i o u s o b j e c t i o n t h e ground that the tape is inadequately authenticated. Thank you. "THE COURT: overruled." And 143 the objection is CR-06-0360 (R. 685-88.) regarding for the In After a the markings few on more questions by the the v i d e o t a p e , the tape prosecutor was played jury. Ex parte Fuller, 620 So. 2d 675 (Ala. 1993), A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h e two m e t h o d s f o r l a y i n g f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f an a u d i o t a p e "(1) a showing t h a t t h e d e v i c e or p r o c e s s or mechanism t h a t p r o d u c e d t h e i t e m b e i n g offered as evidence was capable of r e c o r d i n g what a w i t n e s s w o u l d have seen or heard had a w i t n e s s been p r e s e n t at the scene or event recorded, the or 144 operator of mechanism the or videotape: "The p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r a d m i s s i o n i n t o e v i d e n c e o f a s o u n d r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r medium by which a scene or event is recorded (e.g., a photograph, motion p i c t u r e , v i d e o t a p e , etc.) depends upon the p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I f t h e r e i s no q u a l i f i e d a n d c o m p e t e n t w i t n e s s who c a n t e s t i f y t h a t t h e s o u n d r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r medium a c c u r a t e l y and r e l i a b l y r e p r e s e n t s w h a t he o r she s e n s e d a t t h e time in question, then the 'silent witness' f o u n d a t i o n must be l a i d . Under the ' s i l e n t w i t n e s s ' t h e o r y , a w i t n e s s m u s t e x p l a i n how t h e p r o c e s s o r m e c h a n i s m t h a t c r e a t e d t h e i t e m w o r k s a n d how the p r o c e s s or mechanism ensures r e l i a b i l i t y . When t h e ' s i l e n t w i t n e s s ' theory i s used, the p a r t y seeking t o have t h e s o u n d r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r medium a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e must meet t h e s e v e n - p r o n g V o u d r i e [ v. S t a t e , 387 So. 2 d 248 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ) , ] t e s t . R e w r i t t e n t o have more g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n , the Voudrie standard requires: "(2) a showing t h a t device or process competent, the the was CR-06-0360 "(3) e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y and correctness of the resulting recording, photograph, videotape, etc., " ( 4 ) a s h o w i n g t h a t no c h a n g e s , o r d e l e t i o n s h a v e b e e n made, additions, "(5) a s h o w i n g of t h e manner i n w h i c h recording, photograph, videotape, etc., preserved, "(6) identification of persons pictured, and the the was speakers, or "(7) for c r i m i n a l cases only, a showing t h a t a n y s t a t e m e n t made i n t h e recording, t a p e , e t c . , was voluntarily made w i t h o u t any kind of coercion or improper inducement. "On the other hand, when a qualified and competent witness can testify that the sound r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r medium a c c u r a t e l y and reliably r e p r e s e n t s what the w i t n e s s sensed a t the t i m e i n question, then the foundation required i s that for the ' p i c t o r i a l communication' theory. Under this theory, the p a r t y o f f e r i n g the i t e m must p r e s e n t sufficient evidence to meet the 'reliable r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ' s t a n d a r d , t h a t i s , the w i t n e s s must t e s t i f y t h a t the w i t n e s s has sufficient personal knowledge of the scene or events p i c t u r e d or the sounds r e c o r d e d and t h a t t h e i t e m o f f e r e d a c c u r a t e l y and r e l i a b l y r e p r e s e n t s t h e a c t u a l s c e n e or s o u n d s . " 620 So. 2d Here, at Detective authenticate Meredith 678. the Meredith's videotape t e s t i f i e d that he testimony was sufficient to of McCray's statement. Detective had that 145 watched the t a p e and the CR-06-0360 tape was an a c c u r a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f what d u r i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w w i t h McCray. left t h e room transpired Although Detective Meredith a t some p o i n t d u r i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w , identification of every sound necessary f o ri t s admission." 24 had ( A l a .Crim. App. on a tape recording i s not Johnson v. S t a t e , 2001). Rule "positive 901(a), 8 2 3 S o . 2 d 1, A l a . R. Evid., p r o v i d e s t h a t " a u t h e n t i c a t i o n o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as a c o n d i t i o n precedent t o a d m i s s i b i l i t y i s s a t i s f i e d by evidence to support proponent that a finding claims." that the matter Rule "[t]estimony that i n q u e s t i o n i s what i t s 9 0 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. a matter sufficient Evid., provides i s what i t i s c l a i m e d t o be" i s s u f f i c i e n t authentication "conforming with the requirements of this rule." "pictorial Under Rule communication" 9 0 1 , A l a . R. theory, testimony was sufficient to Therefore, this Court no e r r o r , in the admission finds police. 146 Detective authenticate of the videotape Evid., Meredith's the much l e s s o f McCray's and t h e videotape. plain error, statement to CR-06-0360 VII. McCray several also contends evidentiary that errors the during trial the court guilt committed phase of his trial. Initially, this Court notes that "'[t]he admission exclusion of evidence i s a matter w i t h i n the sound of [Ms. the t r i a l 28, 2010] court.'" ___ So. Hinkle 3 d ___ , ___ T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 808 So. aff'd, 2d 1215 808 v. So. State, 2d 1148, 1191 (Ala. 2001)). "The of evidence i s g e n e r a l l y l e f t of court, trial that question w i l l of and the ( A l a . 2000). addresses each With May (quoting 2000), question to the of discretion c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n on n o t be r e v e r s e d e x c e p t upon a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n [ . ] " 1103 trial 2010) ( A l a . C r i m . App. admissibility the discretion CR-08-1778, ( A l a . C r i m . App. or E x p a r t e L o g g i n s , 771 these p r i n c i p l e s of McCray's arguments i n So. i n mind, showing 2d 1093, this Court turn. A. McCray admitting first into evidence numerous p h o t o g r a p h s photographs of argues the that a the videotape of the crime wounds on 147 trial of scene, court the and Bachelder's erred in crime scene, several autopsy body taken just CR-06-0360 before the videotape autopsy and duplicative, was photographs and were motion record in prejudicial to that, photographs. the motion. photographs the and McCray Exhibit State's photographs) photographs (a of and (a c o l l e c t i o n 31 did but (a not d i d not object the crime scene. from filed mention court deferred offered collection the to before -¬ photographs), of object the ruling photographs o f 15 a u t o p s y a numerous of Bachelder j u s t 24 autopsy crime-scene 1 8 - 2 4 , 26 a n d 2 7 , a n d 79 of the crime to State's Exhibit Therefore, this and introducing d i d not State -- S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t s 3 - 1 4 , o f 73 p h o t o g r a p h s largely McCray objected to the autopsy Exhibit -- collection likewise 25 the the any p r o b a t i v e v a l u e . State motion scene were trial, The t r i a l trial, of the crime autopsy. State's At the The that to inflame the j u r y before prohibit argues gruesome, solely videotape of the crime scene. on He e f f e c t outweighed reflects limine were offered that their prejudicial The performed. Court scene). McCray 17, t h e v i d e o t a p e reviews McCray's challenge to the admission of the crime-scene photographs and the See Rule videotape of the crime 4 5 , A l a . R. App. scene P. 148 for plain error only. CR-06-0360 "'Generally, photographs are admissible into evidence i n a criminal prosecution " i fthey tend to p r o v e o r d i s p r o v e some d i s p u t e d o r m a t e r i a l i s s u e , t o i l l u s t r a t e o r e l u c i d a t e some o t h e r r e l e v a n t f a c t or evidence, o r t o c o r r o b o r a t e o r d i s p r o v e some o t h e r e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d o r t o be o f f e r e d , and t h e i r admission i s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge."' B a n k h e a d v. S t a t e , 585 So. 2 d 97, 109 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1989), remanded on other g r o u n d s , 5 8 5 S o . 2 d 112 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f ' d o n r e t u r n t o r e m a n d , 625 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) , r e v ' d , 625 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 6 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , q u o t i n g M a g w o o d v . S t a t e , 494 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 , 1 4 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1985), aff'd, 494 So. 2d 154 ( A l a . 1986). 'Photographic e x h i b i t s a r e a d m i s s i b l e even though t h e y may b e c u m u l a t i v e , d e m o n s t r a t i v e o f u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s , o r gruesome.' W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 506 So. 2 d 368, 371 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . In a d d i t i o n , 'photographic evidence, i fr e l e v a n t , i s a d m i s s i b l e even i f i thas a tendency t o i n f l a m e t h e minds o f t h e j u r o r s . ' Ex p a r t e S i e b e r t , 555 So. 2 d 780, 784 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . 'This c o u r t has h e l d t h a t autopsy photographs, although gruesome, are admissible t o show the extent of a victim's injuries.' F e r g u s o n v . S t a t e , 814 S o . 2 d 9 2 5 , 944 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) , a f f ' d , 814 S o . 2 d 970 ( A l a . 2001). '"[A]utopsy photographs depicting the c h a r a c t e r a n d l o c a t i o n o f wounds on a v i c t i m ' s b o d y are admissible even i f they are gruesome, c u m u l a t i v e , o r r e l a t e t o an u n d i s p u t e d matter."' J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 791 So. 2 d 979, 1016 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g P e r k i n s v . S t a t e , 808 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 1 , 1 1 0 8 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 808 S o . 2 d 1143 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , j u d g m e n t v a c a t e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s , 536 U.S. 9 5 3 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , o n r e m a n d t o , 8 5 1 S o . 2 d 4 5 3 (Ala. 2002). 'The same r u l e a p p l i e s f o r v i d e o t a p e s as f o r p h o t o g r a p h s : "The f a c t t h a t a p h o t o g r a p h i s g r u e s o m e a n d g h a s t l y i s no r e a s o n f o r e x c l u d i n g i t , if r e l e v a n t , even i f t h e photograph may t e n d t o inflame the jury."' S i e b e r t v . S t a t e , 562 S o . 2 d 5 8 6 , 5 9 9 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) , a f f ' d , 562 S o . 2 d 600 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , q u o t i n g W a l k e r v . S t a t e , 4 1 6 S o . 2 d 149 CR-06-0360 1083, 1090 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 2 ) . See a l s o Ward v. State, 814 S o . 2 d 8 9 9 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000) . Generally, ' [a] p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e d v i d e o t a p e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e scene o f t h e crime constitutes competent evidence' and ' i s a d m i s s i b l e over t h e defendant's objections that the tape was inflammatory, p r e j u d i c i a l , and cumulative.' Kuenzel v. S t a t e , 577 S o . 2 d 4 7 4 , 5 1 2 - 1 3 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f ' d , 577 S o . 2 d 531 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . 'Provided that a proper foundation i s l a i d , the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of videotape evidence i n a criminal trial i s a matter w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l judge.' Donahoo v . S t a t e , 505 So. 2 d 1 0 6 7 , 1071 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)." Brooks v. S t a t e , This Court photographs watched and and 973 So. 2 d 3 8 0 , 393 ( A l a . C r i m . has thoroughly reviewed the crime-scene the videotape the videotape were relevant a l l the photographs, of the crime scene. App. and 2007). autopsy i t has The p h o t o g r a p h s 2 6 a n d a d m i s s i b l e t o show t h e s c e n e o f t h e c r i m e a n d t h e e x t e n t o f t h e wounds t o B a c h e l d e r ' s body. Although gruesome, effect certainly and t h i s Court d i d not outweigh unpleasant, concludes their they that are not unduly their prejudicial probative value. Therefore, T h e v i d e o t a p e i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 15 m i n u t e s l o n g c o n t a i n s no a u d i o . I t begins outside Bachelder's mobile and p r o c e e d s i n t h e f r o n t d o o r , t h r o u g h t h e l i v i n g room k i t c h e n a n d down t h e h a l l w a y t o w h e r e B a c h e l d e r ' s b o d y found. I t a l s o shows t h e t h r e e bedrooms i n t h e m o b i l e and t h e bathroom. 2 6 150 and home and was home CR-06-0360 this Court admission finds no error, much of the photographs less plain error, i n the and v i d e o t a p e . B. Second, McCray argues that the trial admitting into evidence inked footprints municipal j a i l after h i s arrest. he d i d a t t r i a l , court taken from him a t t h e Specifically, he a r g u e s , t h a t t h e p e r s o n who t o o k h i s f o o t p r i n t s , T h o m a s , who w o r k e d a t t h e D o t h a n m u n i c i p a l j a i l McCray's skill, arrest, " d i dnot possess experience, footprints. Thomas training, A l a . R. E v i d . testified Dothan municipal before McCray's jail had that he h a d t a k e n his training, training, how 702." to take [his] brief, a t 80.) (McCray's that Although he had worked a McCray year was, to including take f o r the and a half according to f r o m whom h e h a d t a k e n f o o t p r i n t s , thousands fingerprints Thomas at the time of education' of fingerprints received t r a i n i n g while working at the j a i l both a person's John 'knowledge, f o r approximately arrest. and f o o t p r i n t s . testified taking fingerprints that classes and 151 as the requisite or at t r i a l Thomas, t h e f i r s t p e r s o n said erred i n he and t h a t he he o n how t o t a k e With respect to received on-the-job and r e a d i n g l i t e r a t u r e footprints. Thomas on also CR-06-0360 explained the procedure According he u s e d i n t a k i n g M c C r a y ' s t o Thomas, he l a i d out pieces of white footprints. paper along the floor. He t h e n h a d M c C r a y r e m o v e h i s s h o e s a n d s o c k s , a n d he rolled the bottom McCray's across feet the sheets biographical sheets each were of inked, McCray's he stand he from said McCray containing the footprints. M c C r a y s i g n e d some o f t h e s h e e t s remaining on After and obtained and wrote walk basic i t on t h e Thomas a l s o signed Thomas a l s o s a i d but then that refused to sign the sheets. First, McCray's misplaced. of expert ink. had McCray o f paper w i t h McCray's f o o t p r i n t s . sheet with Thomas of paper. information feet Rule reliance on R u l e 7 0 2 , A l a . R. E v i d . , i s 7 0 2 , A l a . R. E v i d . , g o v e r n s t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y testimony, and p r o v i d e s : "If s c i e n t i f i c , technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the t r i e r of fact to understand the evidence or t o determine a fact i n issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or e d u c a t i o n , may t e s t i f y t h e r e t o i n t h e form o f an opinion or otherwise." McCray c i t e s that stands accused's no a u t h o r i t y , a n d t h i s Court has not found any, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t o n l y e x p e r t s may t a k e a n footprints or fingerprints. 152 Thomas was not CR-06-0360 proffered by footprint analysis; scientific, offered about the State h i s duties opinion. at fingerprints or footprints and had State's specifically were and testified that as McCray's c o n t a i n e d "enough r i d g e (R. error 837.) Under McCray's who training these he h a d r e c e i v e d i n doing and f o o t p r i n t s footprints. the footprints footprints and that a year and a addition, Fitzgerald, she r e c e i v e d were good he that impressions d e t a i l t o make a n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . " circumstances, i n a d m i t t i n g McCray's literature In Shannon Evid. on-the-job and reading expert, takes t h e p e r s o n as an f o r approximately he t o o k M c C r a y ' s fingerprint identified testified of person some classes fingerprints at the j a i l at the time the a or o f any t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 7 0 2 , A l a . R. both been w o r k i n g half h i s taking must have i n t h e form o f t a k i n g to take consist Thomas m e r e l y certainly F u r t h e r , Thomas t e s t i f i e d t h a t training fingerprint k n o w l e d g e ; a n d he t r a i n i n g does n o t have t o e s t a b l i s h expert or s a t i s f y o n how in d i d not Rather, the j a i l Although that expert or other specialized footprints. so, an h i s testimony technical, no e x p e r t as footprints. C. 153 this Court finds no CR-06-0360 Finally, McCray argues a l l o w i n g Cpl. Mike Etress were consistent with a wounds were d e f e n s i v e " qualified provide brief, The as his at an knife that found at because, he under Rule about trial scene Cpl. 702, Bachelder's erred "Bachelder's the says, court in wounds and ... her Etress was not Ala. R. Evid., wounds. to (McCray's 80.) record reflects Etress initially wounds on that during described Bachelder's nature of d e f e n s i v e the the to t e s t i f y expert opinion that the body, wounds. following occurred, d i r e c t examination, crime and scene explained Later during in pertinent and to some the of the jury the d i r e c t examination, part: " [ C p l . E t r e s s ] : She h a d s e v e r a l i n j u r i e s on h e r n e c k on b o t h s i d e s t h a t a p p e a r e d t o b e k n i f e w o u n d s . "[Prosecutor]: t a l k i n g a b o u t one o r "[Cpl. Etress]: When y o u say s e v e r a l , two o r m o r e t h a n t h a t ? Three or four on each are Etress]: "[Prosecutor]: No, Go sir. ahead. 154 we side. "[Prosecutor]: C o u l d you t e l l t h e l a d i e s gentlemen of the j u r y , i n your o p i n i o n , could k n i f e have c a u s e d t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l wounds a t time i n your opinion? "[Cpl. Cpl. and one one CR-06-0360 "[Cpl. Etress]: She h a d t h r e e t o f o u r i n j u r i e s on b o t h s i d e s o f h e r n e c k t h a t w e r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e k n i f e t h a t I h a d l o c a t e d on t h e s o f a . They were a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e - q u a r t e r s t o an i n c h w i d e . They v a r i e d i n the d i f f e r e n c e i n the depth. " did " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : C p l . E t r e s s , what o t h e r you see, p l e a s e , sir? "[Cpl. elbow. Etress]: "[Prosecutor]: injuries She h a d an i n j u r y t o h e r left Was t h a t s m a l l o r l a r g e t h a t y o u saw? with "[Cpl. Etress]: I t was t h e k n i f e , as w e l l . large and consistent " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Now, w h e n y o u s a y e l b o w , k i n d o f h e l p me. I n o t h e r words, i f you c o u l d u s e y o u r arm. I know y o u h a v e g o t a c o a t o n . B u t i f y o u h o l d y o u r p a l m o p e n - f a c e d , i s i t on t h e i n s i d e h e r e o r on t h e outside? "[Cpl. Etress]: "[Prosecutor]: "[Cpl. Etress]: I t was c o m p l e t e l y Both sides. through. Correct? Yes, s i r . "[Prosecutor]: Now, c o u l d y o u t e l l -- o n c e a g a i n , y o u s a i d i t w e n t a l l t h e way t h r o u g h . Could you s e e t h e o t h e r side? "[Cpl. Etress]: A t t h a t t i m e , we d i d n o t know t h a t i t h a d w e n t a l l t h e way t h r o u g h u n t i l t h e autopsy. 155 CR-06-0360 "[Prosecutor]: watching the autopsy, way through? "[Cpl. But could Etress]: after the autopsy or you t e l l i t went a l l t h e That's correct. "[Prosecutor]: And c o u l d you t e l l , in other w o r d s , w a t c h i n g t h e a u t o p s y , t h e e n t r a n c e and e x i t , y o u know, i f i t was l i k e t h e s i z e o f a l i t t l e p i n o r a l i t t l e l e t t e r opener, the w i d t h or s i z e , t h a t you saw, o r was i t b i g g e r t h a n t h a t ? knife "[Cpl. Etress]: t h a t we f o u n d on "[Prosecutor] : injuries? "[Cpl. Etress]: "[Prosecutor]: I t was consistent the sofa. Now, did Yes, her any other hands? " [ C p l . EEttrre s s ] : ess On h e r h a n d s , had s e v e r a l oorr m u l t i p l e d e f e n s i v e several hands, f i n g e r s . "[Prosecutor]: w o r d s , j u s t one or remember? have the sir. On she with yes, s i r . w o u n d s on She her T e l l me a b o u t t h o s e . In other t w o ? W h e r e w e r e t h e y ? Do you "[Cpl. Etress]: She h a d one i n t h e -- b e t w e e n t h e thumb and f i n g e r . T h a t i n j u r y was t o t h e b o n e , a p p r o x i m a t e l y a n i n c h a n d a h a l f , two i n c h e s d e e p . She h a d a c o u p l e a c r o s s t h e f i n g e r s t h a t w e r e t o t h e bone. One o f t h e f i n g e r s was n e a r l y s e v e r e d . Just s e v e r a l d e f e n s i v e wounds w h e r e she had g r a b b e d t h e k n i f e w h i l e s h e was b e i n g stabbed. "[Prosecutor]: C o u l d you t e l l t h e l a d i e s and gentlemen of the j u r y , i n your o p i n i o n , could they h a v e b e e n c a u s e d w i t h one a t t e m p t t o s t a b h e r -- i n 156 CR-06-0360 t h e l o c a t i o n and p o s i t i o n f i n g e r s , i n s i d e or o u t s i d e "[Cpl. Etress]: No, of of w h i c h y o u saw t h e thumb? on her sir. "[Prosecutor]: A f t e r h e r s h i r t was t a k e n o f f , i n other words, the b l a c k Family D o l l a r s h i r t at the autopsy, y , d i d you see any w o u n d s on h e r chest or h e r abdomen? "[Cpl. Etress]: "[Prosecutor]: Yes, sir. What d i d she have there? " [ C p l . E t r e s s ] : She h a d s e v e r a l p u n c t u r e s w h e r e the k n i f e had been p l a c e d a g a i n s t her c h e s t . And she had a p u n c t u r e wound t o t h e l e f t b r e a s t that went c o m p l e t e l y through. A n d t h a t i n j u r y was also c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e k n i f e t h a t we f o u n d . "[Defense counsel]: Y o u r H o n o r , I am going to object to t h i s o f f i c e r repeatedly t e s t i f y i n g that a p a r t i c u l a r injury was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r cause. That, again, i s a matter of the pathologist. That's outside -¬ "THE COURT: I ' l l overrule the objection. B u t l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n -- I assume t h e w i t n e s s i s t a l k i n g a b o u t the w i d t h o f t h e wound and t h e w i d t h o f the knife. "[Prosecutor]: I'll ask him. "[Prosecutor]: Was i t the w i d t h of the k n i f e t h a t y o u o b s e r v e d on t h e b r e a s t o r a n y o t h e r parts o f t h e b o d y -- l e t me j u s t show y o u , f o r t h e r e c o r d , i n o t h e r w o r d s , w h a t I'm a s k i n g specifically. "State's reference to E x h i b i t No. 1 6 the injuries 157 [the b u t c h e r k n i f e ] , i n o r any c u t t i n g or any CR-06-0360 d e p t h on t h e body o f [ B a c h e l d e r ] , i s t h a t what y o u are referring to specifically, consistent -- i n other words, because o f t h e s i z e and t h e angle o f t h e k n i f e i n y o u r o p i n i o n , w h a t y o u saw? "[Cpl. Etress]: knife blade. the I'm r e f e r r i n g t o t h e w i d t h o f " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : And t h i s i s16. In other words, I ' l l h o l d i t up. You're r e f e r r i n g t o t h e width you're t a l k i n g about? "[Cpl. Etress]: The w i d e part. "[Prosecutor]: The w i d e "[Prosecutor]: So l i m i t e d t o t h a t . in (R. "THE COURT: T h e o b j e c t i o n i s o v e r r u l e d light of that c l a r i f i c a t i o n . 591-96.) McCray d i d n o t o b j e c t wounds on B a c h e l d e r ' s objection to Cpl. Etress's hands to Cpl. Etress's B a c h e l d e r ' s body were 2 4 4 , 246 question, will after not preserve State, 624 So. App. an answer 230, wounds, the butcher knife 1996) ("'An i s given, f o r review.'" 234 158 and h i s t h a t many o f t h e w o u n d s o n See, e.g., Roper v. S t a t e , the issue 2d testimony that the defensive consistent with ( A l a . Crim. made were opinion a t t h e s c e n e was u n t i m e l y . 2d part. found 695 S o . objection to a i s not timely (quoting ( A l a . Crim. App. Scott and v. 1993))). CR-06-0360 Therefore, t h i s Court w i l l only. See R u l e As noted McCray Cpl. 4 5 A , A l a . R. A p p . above, relies, clearly from was that Bachelder's found defensive witness wounds to 702, expert error P. A l a . R. Evid., testimony. upon which However, as as an e x p e r t when he stated wounds were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e b u t c h e r or that wounds. t h e wounds Rather, h i s personal and t h e w i d t h can the above-quoted p o r t i o n of the record, not t e s t i f y i n g at the scene were Rule governs be s e e n Etress review these claims f o r p l a i n he on B a c h e l d e r ' s was observations of the k n i f e . testifying of Rule knife hands as a l a y the width of the 7 0 1 , A l a . R. E v i d . , provides: " I f t h e w i t n e s s i s n o t t e s t i f y i n g as an e x p e r t , the w i t n e s s ' s t e s t i m o n y i n the form of o p i n i o n s or inferences i s limited to those opinions or i n f e r e n c e s which a r e (a) r a t i o n a l l y b a s e d on t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e w i t n e s s a n d (b) h e l p f u l t o a c l e a r understanding of the witness's testimony or the determination of a fact i n issue." Cpl. Etress's testimony that several were consistent i n width with the butcher scene were and and h i s t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e wounds d e f e n s i v e w o u n d s was was helpful of Bachelder's rationally to a clear found to Bachelder's based understanding 159 knife wounds at the hands on h i s p e r c e p t i o n of h i s testimony. CR-06-0360 See, e.g., So. Ex p a r t e S h a r p , 3d error, [Ms. ( A l a . 2009). much less plain 1080959, December Therefore, this error, in the 4, Court 2009] finds admission of no Cpl. Etress's testimony. VIII. McCray denying there next contends h i s motion was f o r a change extensive Specifically, that he and argues the o f venue prejudicial that news involvement i n B a c h e l d e r ' s murder, about crime, the and his presumptively prejudicial Before t r i a l , in which "[a]t he prior that court on erred the ground pretrial reports about h i s statements criminal a motion the p u b l i c i t y to (C. 3 4 0 . ) He further his police history were venue. surrounding the argued case so e x t e n s i v e t h a t i t w o u l d be i m p o s s i b l e f o r h i m t o r e c e i v e a f a i r County. that f o r a change o f venue e a c h s t a g e o f t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s " was Houston in publicity. and w a r r a n t e d a change of McCray f i l e d argued trial trial in i n the motion t h a t " i n a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e and e v i d e n c e o t h e r w i s e o u t s i d e t h e province publicized of proper jury consideration" was extensively i n s u c h a p r e j u d i c i a l manner t h a t p r e j u d i c e be presumed and a change o f venue g r a n t e d . 160 (C. 3 4 3 . ) should At the CR-06-0360 August 2 3 , 2006, pretrial motion hearing, of r e c o r d s a t The D o t h a n E a g l e articles h a d been Bachelder's was murder approximately were published 34,000 introduced into WTVY-TV over reach of 2 7 Recordings Bachelder's murder were and that WDHN-TV 18 i n D o t h a n , testified r e p o r t s about Bachelder's days into Ken C u r t i s , that WTVY-TV people evidence i n 41 Hearing, about by t h e news d i r e c t o r o f WDHN-TV murder, immediately murder of thebroadcasts introduced Finally, i n the three year (August 23, 2006, M o t i o n and t r a n s c r i p t s testified Bachelder's a quarter of a million at thehearing. were about Eagle at thehearing. f o r WTVY-TV i n D o t h a n , the previous regarding The s i x a r t i c l e s by t h edefense defense three Eagle that s i x f o r The D o t h a n a n d 2006. 18 r e p o r t s "almost testified i n The D o t h a n evidence counties and three states." R. 1 6 . ) newspaper, i n 2005 broadcast t h e course broadcasts custodian and that c i r c u l a t i o n Wayne M a y , a s s i g n m e n t e d i t o r that presented Marja Louradour, evidence i n support o f h i s motion. McCray 18 broadcast a l lthree o f which following t h e murder. The p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g s a r e s e p a r a t e l y p a g i n a t e d . When c i t i n g t o t e s t i m o n y o r argument from these h e a r i n g s , t h i s Court states t h e date of the hearing, followed by the a p p r o p r i a t e page number. 2 7 161 CR-06-0360 R e c o r d i n g s and t r a n s c r i p t s o f t h o s e b r o a d c a s t s were into evidence hearing, that both they County by the defense May and C u r t i s had been testified covering f o r many y e a r s , that, i n t h e i r opinion, media coverage trial court criminal including the motion on During the cross-examination proceedings i n Houston numerous c a p i t a l t r i a l s McCray's t r i a l i n comparison denied at the hearing. introduced had not received to other capital following the and much cases. The hearing. "The r i g h t o f an a c c u s e d t o be t r i e d b y a f a i r and impartial jury i s guaranteed by t h e S i x t h Amendment o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n which states that 'In a l l c r i m i n a l prosecutions, the accused s h a l l enjoy t h e r i g h t t o a speedy and p u b l i c t r i a l , by an i m p a r t i a l j u r y . . . . ' A r t i c l e I, § 6 of the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901 s t a t e s , i n p a r t : 'That i n a l l c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s , t h e accused has a right t o ... a s p e e d y , p u b l i c trial, by an impartial jury ' "The S u p r e m e C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s h a s h e l d t h a t i f an a c c u s e d c a n n o t o b t a i n an i m p a r t i a l j u r y i n t h e d i s t r i c t where he i s b e i n g t r i e d t h e n t h e court should t r a n s f e r t h e case t o another d i s t r i c t where t h e j u r o r s are free of bias. Rideau v. L o u i s i a n a , 3 7 3 U.S. 7 2 3 , 83 S. C t . 1 4 1 7 , 10 L. E d . 2d 663 (1963). This guarantee has a l s o been c o d i f i e d i n t h i s s t a t e i n A l a . Code 1975, § 15-2-20. R u l e 1 0 . 1 , A. R. C r . P. i s t o t h e same e f f e c t . " Hunt v. S t a t e , aff'd, 642 S o . 2 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 4 2 642 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 0 (Ala. 1994). 162 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993), CR-06-0360 "When proof is requesting a on the change defendant of to venue, "show satisfaction of the court that a f a i r an verdict unbiased cannot be county i n which the defendant State, 791 2d H a r d y v. aff'd, So. State, 804 979, 995 i s t o be So. 2d 298 ( A l a . 2000) Crim. 247, 293 burden the impartial trial expected App. (quoting and in the Jackson 2000) (Ala. Crim. of reasonable tried."'" (Ala. Crim. 2d 1 0 . 1 ( b ) , A l a . R. to reasonably 804 So. and '[t]he (quoting App. in v. 1999), turn Rule P.)). "[T]he d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether or not to grant a motion f o r change of venue i s g e n e r a l l y l e f t t o the s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e b e c a u s e he has the best opportunity to assess any prejudicial p u b l i c i t y a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t and any p r e j u d i c i a l f e e l i n g a g a i n s t the defendant i n the community which w o u l d make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t t o r e c e i v e a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l . " N e l s o n v. S t a t e , 440 See v. App. also Joiner trial appellate court to publicity might have the pretrial best 2d 1130, State, ("A has 1994) So. court on So. 2d what 1155, 1156 to community as i n d i v i d u a l members o f t h e j u r y v e n i r e . " ) . 163 than pretrial The the a (Ala. Crim. i f any, case. evaluate 1983) . position effect, in a particular the ( A l a . C r i m . App. i s in a better determine opportunity publicity 651 1132 trial effects whole Thus, an court of any on the and "[t]he trial CR-06-0360 court's ruling on a motion r e v e r s e d a b s e n t an abuse So. 2d 605, Grayson, abuse 479 f o r a change of venue w i l l of d i s c r e t i o n . " 610 (Ala. Crim. So. 2d 76, of d i s c r e t i o n , change of venue w i l l App. B u s k e y v. S t a t e , 1994). 80 ( A l a . 1985) a trial court's not See also Ex on a motion n o t be o v e r t u r n e d . " ) . "In connection with p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y , there a r e two s i t u a t i o n s w h i c h m a n d a t e a c h a n g e o f v e n u e : 1) when the accused has demonstrated 'actual p r e j u d i c e ' a g a i n s t h i m o n t h e p a r t o f t h e j u r o r s ; 2) when t h e r e i s ' p r e s u m e d p r e j u d i c e ' r e s u l t i n g from community s a t u r a t i o n w i t h such p r e j u d i c i a l p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y t h a t no i m p a r t i a l j u r y c a n b e selected. S h e p p a r d v . M a x w e l l , 384 U.S. 3 3 3 , 86 S. C t . 1 5 0 7 , 16 L. E d . 2 d 600 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ; R i d e a u [ v . L o u i s i a n a , 373 U.S. 723 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ] ; E s t e s v . T e x a s , 381 U.S. 5 3 2 , 85 S. C t . 1 6 2 8 , 14 L. E d . 2 d 543 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; Ex p a r t e G r a y s o n , 479 S o . 2 d 7 6 , 80 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 474 U.S. 8 6 5 , 106 S. C t . 1 8 9 , 88 L. E d . 2 d 157 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; C o l e m a n v . Z a n t , 708 F . 2 d 541 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) . "The follows: 'actual prejudice' standard i s defined "'To find the existence of actual p r e j u d i c e , two b a s i c p r e r e q u i s i t e s must be satisfied. F i r s t , i t must be shown t h a t o n e o r m o r e j u r o r s who decided the case e n t e r t a i n e d an o p i n i o n , b e f o r e h e a r i n g t h e evidence adduced at trial, that the d e f e n d a n t was g u i l t y . I r v i n v . Dowd, 366 U.S. [ 7 1 7 , ] 7 2 7 , 81 S. C t . [ 1 6 3 9 , ] 1 6 4 5 , [6 L. E d . 2 d 7 5 1 , 7 5 8 - 5 9 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ] . Second, t h e s e j u r o r s , i t must be d e t e r m i n e d , c o u l d not have laid aside these preformed o p i n i o n s a n d " r e n d e r [ e d ] a v e r d i c t b a s e d on 164 650 parte ("Absent a s h o w i n g ruling be as of for CR-06-0360 the evidence p r e s e n t e d i n c o u r t . " I r v i n v. Dowd, 3 6 6 U.S. a t 7 2 3 , 81 S. C t . a t 1 6 4 3 [6 L. E d . 2 d a t 7 5 6 ] . ' "Coleman v. Zant, 708 F . 2 d a t 5 4 4 . "... T h [ e ' p r e s u m e d p r e j u d i c e ' ] s t a n d a r d w a s d e f i n e d by t h e E l e v e n t h F e d e r a l C i r c u i t Court o f Appeals i n C o l e m a n v . Kemp, 778 F . 2 d 1 4 8 7 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 4 7 6 U.S. 1 1 6 4 , 1 0 6 S. C t . 2 2 8 9 , 90 L. E d . 2 d 730 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The c o u r t s t a t e d : ' P r e j u d i c e i s p r e s u m e d f r o m p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y when p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y i s s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l and inflammatory and t h e p r e j u d i c i a l p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y s a t u r a t e d t h e community where t h e t r i a l s were h e l d . ' 778 F . 2 d a t 1 4 9 0 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d [ i n H u n t ] ) . See a l s o H o l l a d a y v . S t a t e , 549 So. 2 d 1 2 2 , 125 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f i r m e d , 549 So. 2 d 135 (Ala.), c e r t . d e n i e d , 4 9 3 U.S. 1 0 1 2 , 110 S. C t . 5 7 5 , 107 L . Ed. 2 d 569 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . "In d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e 'presumed p r e j u d i c e ' standard e x i s t s the t r i a l court should look a t 'the totality of the surrounding facts.' P a t t o n v. Y o u n t , 467 U.S. 1 0 2 5 , 104 S. C t . 2 8 8 5 , 81 L. E d . 2 d 847 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; M u r p h y v . F l o r i d a , 4 2 1 U.S. 7 9 4 , 95 S. C t . 2 0 3 1 , 44 L. E d . 2 d 5 8 9 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ; I r v i n v . Dowd, 366 U.S. 7 1 7 , 81 S. C t . 1 6 3 9 , 6 L. E d . 2 d 7 5 1 (1961). The p r e s u m p t i v e prejudice standard i s 'rarely' a p p l i c a b l e , and i s reserved f o r only 'extreme s i t u a t i o n s . ' C o l e m a n v . Kemp, 778 F . 2 d a t 1537. 'In f a c t , our r e s e a r c h has uncovered o n l y a v e r y f e w ... c a s e s i n w h i c h r e l i e f w a s g r a n t e d o n t h e b a s i s o f p r e s u m e d p r e j u d i c e . ' C o l e m a n v . Kemp, 778 F . 2 d a t 1 4 9 0 . " Hunt, 642 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 4 2 - 4 3 . " I n o r d e r t o show c o m m u n i t y s a t u r a t i o n [ u n d e r t h e 'presumed p r e j u d i c e ' s t a n d a r d ] , t h e a p p e l l a n t must show m o r e t h a n t h e f a c t ' t h a t a c a s e g e n e r a t e s e v e n widespread p u b l i c i t y . ' Thompson v . S t a t e , 581 So. 165 CR-06-0360 2d 1216, 1233 ( A l a . C r . App. 1991), c e r t . denied, [502] U.S. [ 1 0 3 0 ] , 112 S. C t . 8 6 8 , 116 L. E d . 2 d 774 (1992). '"Newspaper articles alone would not n e c e s s i t a t e a c h a n g e o f v e n u e u n l e s s i t was shown t h a t t h e a r t i c l e s so a f f e c t e d t h e g e n e r a l citizenry through the insertion of such sensational, a c c u s a t i o n a l or denunciatory statements, t h a t a f a i r and impartial trial was impossible. Patton v. State, 246 Ala. 639, 21 So.2d 844 [1945]."' Thompson v. S t a t e , s u p r a a t 1233, q u o t i n g M c L a r e n v. S t a t e , 353 So. 2 d 24, 31 (Ala. Cr. App.), cert. d e n i e d , 353 So. 2 d 35 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) . " O r y a n g v. Thus, State, "'[t]o publicity 642 So. justify m u s t be 2d a both 979, 983 ( A l a . C r i m . App. presumption extensive of and prejudice sensational 1993). ... , in the nature. I f t h e m e d i a c o v e r a g e i s f a c t u a l as o p p o s e d t o i n f l a m m a t o r y or sensational, of this prejudice.'" 2009] 1181 3d , (quoting pretrial So. Travis, In instead, that can 2d 866, 776 So. 876 2d [Ms. Crim. States v. App. 'the to been this case, McCray he argues only (Ala. does 166 897 a 2005) case 13, (emphasis F.2d in Carruth (quoting 1169, time which v. Ex is a the State, parte 2000)). not presumed 2009) passage of extensive.'" ( A l a . C r i m . App. 878 a presumption Angiulo, objectivity 874, for CR-05-1767, November "Moreover, bring has claim (Ala. United publicity any State, (1st C i r . 1990)). factor 927 B i l l u p s v. So. omitted) undermines argue actual prejudice. He, prejudice; however, CR-06-0360 failed to establish that B a c h e l d e r ' s m u r d e r was that a fair and the p r e t r i a l so e x t e n s i v e impartial trial County. This Court presented by McCray has stories were on the majority impossible reviewed i n Houston the evidence different of these television reports occurred before McCray's and b r o a d c a s t s were l a r g e l y factual and o b j e c t i v e , as opposed t o a c c u s a t o r y , sensational, mention that McCray newspaper a r t i c l e history -- guilty plea misconduct, offender, mere 2 8 had a specifically a the 2003 a n d h i s 2003 fact that the broadcast law" l i s t e d McCray's p r i o r offense of for failure conviction media television and did one criminal a r r e s t f o r r a p e a n d sodomy a n d a lesser arrest year "history with i n c l u d i n g a 1993 to one a local news In a d d i t i o n , the a r t i c l e s Although over 21 t o t a l 6 trial. inflammatory. murder, media Only a the the 2 and o n l y nature within or of was Dothan E a g l e broadcast week and s e n s a t i o n a l i n thoroughly a p p e a r e d i n The and surrounding at the p r e t r i a l - m o t i o n hearing. articles stations, publicity coverage misdemeanor t o r e g i s t e r as sexual a sex f o r domestic violence references defendant's a -¬ The a r t i c l e s t a t e d t h a t t h i s charge had been d i s m i s s e d ; h o w e v e r , M c C r a y t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t he h a d , i n f a c t , b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f f a i l u r e t o r e g i s t e r as a sex o f f e n d e r . 2 8 167 CR-06-0360 c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y , by itself, i s not presumed-prejudice standard. See, So. Crim. 2007). 3d 1258 (Ala. a b o v e , M c C r a y was violence App. sufficient e.g., In cross-examined regarding c o n v i c t i o n , and the record to Jones satisfy v. the State, addition, as 43 noted his p r i o r domestic- further reflects that the prosecutor a l s o cross-examined McCray about h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r failure r e g i s t e r as to This that the that the Court cannot a say, offender. based media coverage i n t h i s community as t o c r e a t e i t was constitute presumption properly sex so one of the c a s e so the record inflamed before or i t , saturated an e m o t i o n a l t i d e a g a i n s t M c C r a y i n h e r e n t l y or of on presumptively "extreme prejudice. situations" that Therefore, 2 9 denied McCray's motion prejudicial the f o r a change of as warrant trial or to a court venue. A l t h o u g h n o t a r g u e d b y M c C r a y , t h i s C o u r t a l s o f i n d s no evidence of a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e . The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t o n l y 12 o f t h e i n i t i a l 70 v e n i r e m e m b e r s h a d r e a d o r s e e n a n y m e d i a r e p o r t s a b o u t t h e c a s e and t h a t o n l y 3 o f t h o s e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y had formed o p i n i o n s about the case t h a t t h e y c o u l d not set aside. However, t h o s e t h r e e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s were removed f o r cause by the t r i a l court. 2 9 168 CR-06-0360 IX. McCray "fail[ing] next to contends find (McCray's b r i e f , court's at sentencing this Court w i l l Rule 45A, Ala. In Reeves, and R. weigh 84.) App. this the trial certain or this i t s findings claim court erred mitigating McCray d i d not order review that object factors." to therein; for plain error the only. explained: " ' I n L o c k e t t v . O h i o , 438 U.S. 586, 98 S. C t . 2 9 5 4 , 57 L. E d . 2 d 973 (1978), the Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t a d e a t h penalty s t a t u t e cannot c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y preclude consideration of relevant mitigating f a c t o r s . However, L o c k e t t does not r e q u i r e t h a t a l l e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d as mitigating evidence be found to be mitigating. Lockett provides that a state may not exclude evidence that the defendant claims i s m i t i g a t i n g . T h i s d o e s n o t mean t h a t a l l evidence offered by the defendant as m i t i g a t i n g m u s t be f o u n d t o be m i t i g a t i n g and c o n s i d e r e d as s u c h i n t h e sentencing process.' "Ex p a r t e H a r t , 612 So. 2d 536, 542 (Ala. 1992), c e r t . d e n i e d , 508 U.S. 9 5 3 , 113 S. C t . 2 4 5 0 , 124 L. E d . 2 d 666 (1993). ' " W h i l e L o c k e t t and i t s p r o g e n y r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d as m i t i g a t i o n , whether the evidence i s a c t u a l l y found to be mitigating is in the d i s c r e t i o n of the s e n t e n c i n g a u t h o r i t y . " ' E x p a r t e S l a t o n , 680 So. 2d 909, 924 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 519 U.S. 1079, 117 S. C t . 7 4 2 , 136 L. E d . 2 d 680 (1997), quoting B a n k h e a d v . S t a t e , 585 So. 2 d 97, 108 (Ala. Crim. 169 trial therefore, P. Court in See CR-06-0360 A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) , r e m a n d e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s , 585 S o . 2 d 112 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f ' d o n r e t u r n t o r e m a n d , 625 S o . 2d 1141 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) , r e v ' d , 625 S o . 2 d 1146 ( A l a . 1993). 'Merely because an accused p r o f f e r s e v i d e n c e of a m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e does not r e q u i r e the judge or the j u r y to f i n d the existence of that f a c t . ' H a r r e l l v . S t a t e , 470 S o . 2 d 1 3 0 3 , 1308 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) , a f f ' d , 470 S o . 2d 1309 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 474 U.S. 9 3 5 , 106 S. C t . 2 6 9 , 88 L. E d . 2 d 276 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . "'"A sentencer i n a c a p i t a l case may n o t r e f u s e t o c o n s i d e r o r be ' p r e c l u d e d from considering' mitigating factors. E d d i n g s v . O k l a h o m a , 455 U.S. 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 , 102 S. C t . 8 6 9 , 8 7 4 , 71 L. E d . 2 d 1 (1982) ( q u o t i n g L o c k e t t v . O h i o , 438 U.S. 586, 6 0 4 , 98 S. C t . 2 9 5 4 , 2 9 6 4 - 6 5 , 57 L. E d . 2 d 973 (1978)). The d e f e n d a n t i n a c a p i t a l c a s e g e n e r a l l y must be a l l o w e d t o i n t r o d u c e any r e l e v a n t m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c h a r a c t e r o r r e c o r d and any of the circumstances of the offense, and consideration of that evidence is a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n d i s p e n s a b l e part of the process of i n f l i c t i n g the p e n a l t y of death. C a l i f o r n i a v . B r o w n , 479 U.S. 5 3 8 , 107 S. C t . 8 3 7 , 93 L. E d . 2 d 934 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ; E x p a r t e Henderson, 616 So. 2 d 348 ( A l a . 1992); H a n e y v . S t a t e , 603 S o . 2 d 368 (Ala. Cr. App. 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f ' d , 603 S o . 2 d 412 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 507 U.S. 9 2 5 , 113 S. Ct. 1297, 122 L. Ed. 2d 687 (1993). Although the t r i a l court i s required to consider a l l m i t i g a t i n g circumstances, the d e c i s i o n of whether a p a r t i c u l a r m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e i s p r o v e n and t h e w e i g h t t o be given i t rests with the sentencer. Carroll v . S t a t e , 599 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 3 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , a f f ' d , 627 S o . 2 d 874 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 510 U.S. 1 1 7 1 , 114 S. C t . 1 2 0 7 , 127 L. E d . 2 d 554 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . See a l s o 170 CR-06-0360 E x p a r t e H a r r e l l , 470 S o . 2 d 1309 (Ala.), c e r t . d e n i e d , 474 U.S. 9 3 5 , 106 S. C t . 2 6 9 , 88 L. E d . 2 d 276 ( 1 9 8 5 ) "' " W i l s o n v . S t a t e , 777 S o . 2 d 8 5 6 , 892 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 9 ) , q u o t i n g W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 710 S o . 2d 1 2 7 6 , 1347 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) , a f f ' d , 710 S o . 2 d 1350 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 524 U.S. 9 2 9 , 118 S. C t . 2 3 2 5 , 141 L. E d . 2 d 699 (1998)." 807 So. In 2d at 47-48. i t s sentencing following order, regarding mitigating the trial court stated circumstances: "The C o u r t h a s c o n s i d e r e d a l l o f t h e s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s as w e l l as o t h e r s r a i s e d by the defendant. " ( 1 ) The C o u r t d o e s n o t f i n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t has no significant history of prior criminal a c t i v i t y due t o h i s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s f o r S e x u a l Misconduct, Menacing, Domestic V i o l e n c e I I , and F a i l u r e t o R e g i s t e r as a Sex O f f e n d e r . " ( 2 ) The C o u r t d o e s n o t f i n d t h a t t h e c a p i t a l f e l o n y was c o m m i t t e d w h i l e t h e d e f e n d a n t was u n d e r the influence of extreme mental or emotional d i s t u r b a n c e although i t appears t h a t the motive may h a v e b e e n t h e b r e a k up o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e parties. " ( 3 ) The C o u r t d o e s n o t f i n d t h a t t h e v i c t i m a participant in the defendant's conduct c o n s e n t e d t o t h e a c t as i s o b v i o u s . was or " ( 4 ) The C o u r t d o e s n o t f i n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was a n a c c o m p l i c e i n a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e c o m m i t t e d b y a n o t h e r a s he was t h e s o l e p a r t i c i p a n t . 171 the CR-06-0360 " ( 5 ) The C o u r t d o e s n o t f i n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t acted under extreme duress or under the s u b s t a n t i a l domination of another person. " ( 6 ) The C o u r t d o e s n o t f i n d t h a t t h e c a p a c i t y of the defendant t o appreciate the c r i m i n a l i t y of his conduct or t o conform h i s conduct to the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f l a w was s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p a i r e d . "(7) The C o u r t d o e s n o t f i n d t h a t t h e age o f t h e d e f e n d a n t was a m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e i n t h a t he w a s 36 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e . " ( 8 ) T h e C o u r t d o e s f i n d some e v i d e n c e o f e a c h o f t h e 18 p a r t i c u l a r m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s r a i s e d by the defendant and set out i n defendant's r e q u e s t e d j u r y c h a r g e #16, a c o p y o f s a i d l i s t w h i c h i s a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s ' E x h i b i t A' a n d a d o p t e d b y reference." 3 0 (C. 433-34.) McCray first argues that the t r i a l court "improperly d i s c o u n t e d some o f t h e m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e " i n s t e a d o f f i n d i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a l l 18 n o n s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g circumstances he assertion offered. (McCray's r e f u t e d by t h e r e c o r d . trial This i s C o n t r a r y t o McCray's c o n t e n t i o n , t h e support " e a c h o f " t h e 18 n o n s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s offered McCray. stated a t 86.) to by court brief, Thus, t h a t i t found the t r i a l "some e v i d e n c e " court properly considered and S e e P a r t X V I o f t h i s o p i n i o n , w h e r e i n we s e t f o r t h t h e 18 n o n s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s f o u n d b y t h e t r i a l court. 3 0 172 CR-06-0360 found to exist circumstances McCray finding each that also that influence acted "[m]erely extreme 18 nonstatutory at the a court committed while emotional r e s u l t of mitigating trial. trial erred he trial heat in not under was disturbance g u i l t phase of the s o l e l y as the because does not require of that fact." existence 1303, 1308 (Ala. 1985). established that of passion. (Ala. discretion Crim. "The of the judge or H a r r e l l v. App. 1984), the jury State, aff'd, factual determination the C r i m . App. (Ala. 1990). the McCray the trial is in conflict." (Ala. at time version of of judge to 470 on other m u r d e r was So. So. 2d the existence that he acted and 575 So. 2d g r o u n d s , 575 sound that 108, 121 2d 127 state Although passion, of evidence r e b u t t i n g McCray's 173 heat or of establishing that of 2d 1309 in So. conflicting. s o l e l y out presented a plethora evidence McCray's emotional sharply find 470 of the State, evidence regarding the events where W e s l e y v. 1989), rev'd The claimed State he However, nonexistence of a m i t i g a t i n g circumstance i s w i t h i n the regard his b e c a u s e an a c c u s e d p r o f f e r s e v i d e n c e o f a m i t i g a t i n g circumstance the that m u r d e r was testimony at the had the McCray o f f e r e d argues the of of McCray i n t e n t i o n a l l y CR-06-0360 murdered Bachelder. examination that from i d e n t i f y i n g record, In he wanted court's mitigating finding the jury rejected C o u r t f i n d s no e r r o r i n of t h i s that read and statutory erred McCray and he that was had presented no or the penalty low i n t e l l e c t u a l completed high school; gainfully that i n special-education e v i d e n c e was presented classes throughout of low functioning to his intellectual error on he t e s t i f i e d a t the p e n a l t y phase of the i n s p e c i a l - e d u c a t i o n c l a s s e s , i . e . , w h e t h e r i t was no The employed. was finds phase functioning. youth, intellectual i n not t h a t he his Court no phase McCray A l t h o u g h McCray's s i s t e r t h a t M c C r a y was However, the g u i l t he h a d write; court m i t i g a t i n g circumstance functioning. indicates that unrelated her the e n t i r e expressly argues that the t r i a l either during the t r i a l , trial cross- to die to prevent r e j e c t i o n of the existence McCray intellectual could on Considering defense, t h i s as a n o n s t a t u t o r y evidence, admitted circumstance. Finally, record Bachelder i n c l u d i n g the f a c t that the t r i a l of McCray him as h e r a t t a c k e r . McCray's h e a t - o f - p a s s i o n low fact, or as t o t h e r e a s o n for some functioning. the part 174 McCray because other Therefore, of the t r i a l court reason this i n not CR-06-0360 finding low as a nonstatutory intellectual It trial presented that C o u r t f i n d s no findings a understood and McCray had functioning. i s c l e a r from court m i t i g a t i n g circumstance review of i t s duty i t did so the to entire record consider in this regarding mitigating a l l the case. e r r o r , p l a i n or otherwise, that the evidence Therefore, i n the t r i a l this court's circumstances. X. McCray its next penalty-phase sentencing the as to jury that i t s the July v. 30, State, i n the 2010] [Ms. erred during c h a r a c t e r i z i n g the jury's or court as sentencing responsibility held sentencing see jury's responsibility. trial advisory repeatedly recommendation, diminish as sense of C o u r t has the a recommendation. argues t h a t such c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n m i s l e d i t s role jurors' this he that i n s t r u c t i o n s by verdict Specifically, jury contends § So. verdict 13A-5-47, role See, that in e.g., 3d process is advisory Code 1975, or lessen State, [Ms. ( A l a . C r i m . App. C R - 0 6 - 1 5 3 9 , D e c e m b e r 18, 175 However, accurately informing Ala. v. diminished i n sentencing. sentencing Doster and 2009] the or is does the the a not jury's CR-06-0323, 2010); So. Vanpelt 3d CR-06-0360 (Ala. C r i m . App. Crim. App. 2007); C r i m . App. v. 825 2 d 233 (Ala. aff'd, aff'd, So. 2d 730 1996) So. therein. v. 2d 6 So. 134 ( A l a . 2001); C r i m . App. Harris D e a r d o r f f v. 2004), State, So. 2009); State, State, 3d 1235 1246 on Court 880 (Ala. 1205 3d 2000), State, third ( A l a . 1999); Therefore, this So. App. S t e w a r t v. (opinion 6 3d (Ala. ( A l a . 2008); (Ala. Crim. and 2 So. aff'd, 730 return and the no So. to error finds Broadnax 825 2d 1203 remand), cases as cited to this claim. XI. McCray a l s o refused to narrow offenders." that: (1) prohibit referred erred the the "the t r i a l adequately trial use court of the erred of c o u r t e r r e d when i t class a t 89.) burglary f o r purposes in of death Specifically, denying as both his an eligible he argues motion to aggravating determining sentence and as an t o e l e v a t e the murder t o a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e , a p r a c t i c e to as "double i n denying aggravating heinous, that (McCray's b r i e f , circumstance element contends c o u n t i n g " ; and h i s motion circumstance atrocious, or to prohibit that cruel the as 176 (2) the trial application murder compared was to court of the especially other capital CR-06-0360 o f f e n s e s on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e e s p e c i a l l y h e i n o u s , a t r o c i o u s , or c r u e l aggravating circumstance and overbroad Both adversely challenge on i s unconstitutionally vague i t s face. of these to McCray. to double claims In counting have previously Vanpelt, as this been Court decided rejected follows: " C o n t r a r y t o V a n p e l t ' s a s s e r t i o n s , t h e r e i s no constitutional or statutory prohibition against double counting certain circumstances as b o t h an element of the offense and an aggravating circumstance. See § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( e ) , A l a . C o d e 1975 ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t 'any a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e w h i c h t h e v e r d i c t c o n v i c t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t e s t a b l i s h e s was p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t a t t r i a l s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d as p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t f o r purposes of the sentence hearing'). The United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , and t h i s c o u r t have a l l u p h e l d the p r a c t i c e of double counting. See L o w e n f i e l d v . P h e l p s , 484 U.S. 231, 241-46 (1988) ('The fact that the aggravating c i r c u m s t a n c e d u p l i c a t e d one o f t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e c r i m e d o e s n o t make t h i s s e n t e n c e constitutionally i n f i r m . ' ) ; T u i l a e p a v . C a l i f o r n i a , 512 U.S. 9 6 7 , 972 (1994) ('The aggravating circumstance may be c o n t a i n e d i n the d e f i n i t i o n of the crime or i n a s e p a r a t e s e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r ( o r i n b o t h ) . ' ) ; Ex p a r t e Kennedy, 472 So. 2d 1106, 1108 (Ala. 1985) (rejecting a constitutional challenge to double c o u n t i n g ) ; B r o w n v . S t a t e , 11 So. 3 d 866 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ; H a r r i s v . S t a t e , 2 So. 3 d 8 80 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ; J o n e s v . S t a t e , 946 So. 2 d 903, 928 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ; P e r a i t a v. S t a t e , 897 So. 2 d 1 1 6 1 , 1 2 2 0 - 2 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2003); C o r a l v . S t a t e , 628 So. 2 d 954 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992); H a n e y v . S t a t e , 603 So. 2 d 368 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). Because double counting i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y 177 a CR-06-0360 permitted entitled and s t a t u t o r i l y r e q u i r e d , V a n p e l t i s not to any relief on this issue. § 13A-5-45(e), So. 372 A l a . Code 1975." 3d a t . (Ala. Crim. In addition, App. 2004), this i n Minor v. S t a t e , Court rejected 914 S o . 2 d an c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenge to the e s p e c i a l l y heinous, or cruel aggravating circumstance, identical atrocious, noting: "With respect to Minor's constitutional challenge to the heinous, atrocious, or cruel a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e i n § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 8 ) , A l a . Code 1975, this Court has repeatedly upheld that circumstance against similar challenges. See Duke v. S t a t e , 889 So. 2 d 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2002); I n g r a m v . S t a t e , 779 So. 2 d 1225 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 779 So. 2 d 1283 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; F r e e m a n v . S t a t e , 776 S o . 2 d 160 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1999), a f f ' d , 776 S o . 2 d 2 0 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; B u i v . S t a t e , 5 5 1 S o . 2 d 1094 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f ' d , 5 5 1 S o . 2d 1125 ( A l a . 1989), j u d g m e n t v a c a t e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 4 9 9 U.S. 9 7 1 , 1 1 1 S . C t . 1 6 1 3 , 113 L . E d . 2 d 712 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; a n d H a l l f o r d v . S t a t e , 548 S o . 2 d 5 2 6 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f ' d , 548 S o . 2 d 547 ( A l a . 1989)." 914 S o . 2 d a t 4 3 7 . (Ala. Crim. 1513-1514 of the 2005); especially heinous, t o those Blackmon v. S t a t e , Lindsey ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1989) circumstance that App. See a l s o v. Thigpen, 875 requirement F.2d 1509, (holding t h a t Alabama c o n s t r i c t i o n atrocious or cruel aggravating conscienceless or p i t i l e s s are unnecessarily torturous to the victim narrowing 7 S o . 3 d 397 o f t h e E i g h t h Amendment). 178 homicides satisfies the CR-06-0360 Because precedent, McCray's arguments a n d he h a s are offered this to question the validity not entitle him t o any of contrary to established C o u r t no p r i n c i p l e d r e a s o n that precedent, these the issues court do relief. XII. McCray next contends several errors during an that trial committed j u r y s e l e c t i o n t h a t , he s a y s , denied him court is impartial jury. Initially, vested with this Court discretion appellate courts w i l l discretion unless (Ala. C r i m . App. 2009). each v. "[a] conduct appears Carden 1992). remains State the i t clearly of d i s c r e t i o n . " court." in that not i n t e r f e r e with abuse examination notes v. Moreover, w i t h i n the Watts, 35 a trial, and the exercise of that there 621 So. has 2d 342, 3d d i s c r e t i o n of the 1, 4 an 346 dire trial (Ala. Crim. With these p r i n c i p l e s i n mind, t h i s Court w i l l of McCray's claims been "the process of v o i r sound So. of that State, trial App. address i n turn. A. First, McCray denying h i s motion argues that the trial f o r d i s c l o s u r e o f any 179 and court erred in a l l information CR-06-0360 in the may State's possession have been f a v o r a b l e trial court's assess denial prospective Brady v. impartial It is of his 373 This well during 83 due settled that 961, other grounds, 2d 908 So. h e l d t h a t a r r e s t and not q u a l i f y as within held the the in error such documents." Crim. App. information 1992). that K e l l e y v. "Also, a fair this has that an him his and an duty State, the to So. 602 "This court motion So. s t a t e has 180 3d McGriff 2000), rev'd evidence a trial the no on court has of p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s appellant's i s a v a i l a b l e to 2010] to jurors." (Ala. 2004). Court recently explained 0 6 - 0 3 2 3 , J u l y 30, ability trial, 2d no duty appellant i n D o s t e r v. that will to 473, s o u r c e [ , ] " s u c h as t h r o u g h v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n . As the denied State discoverable B r a d y and for denying and ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1024 of that selection, violated prospective conviction records type scope of 981 2d jury "[t]he v. So. his (1963), concerning 908 maintains that disagrees. disclose information State, He process, Court jurors hampered motion U.S. r i g h t s to jury. prospective to the defense. jurors Maryland, constitutional regarding do falls not be discover 477 to (Ala. disclose from another Id. at State, ( A l a . C r i m . App. [Ms. 478. CR- 2010): CR-06-0360 "'The traditional common-law rule that, absent a s t a t u t e or r u l e of p r a c t i c e providing otherwise, or (in some jurisdictions) other exceptional circumstance, defense counsel i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e h a s no r i g h t o f a c c e s s t o i n f o r m a t i o n in the possession of the prosecution i s consistent with most of the decisions involving prosecution information regarding prospective jurors. Thus, i n most o f t h e jurisdictions i n which the issue has a r i s e n , t h e c o u r t s have h e l d t h a t a t l e a s t in the p a r t i c u l a r circumstances presented, disclosure to defense counsel of prosecution information regarding prospective jurors was not required, whether the i n f o r m a t i o n i n question r e l a t e d to a prospective juror's experience or voting record on prior juries, to a prospective juror's criminal record or other p r i v a t e i n f o r m a t i o n obtained from the record or i n v e s t i g a t i v e reports of a law enforcement agency, o r t o m i s c e l l a n e o u s o r unspecified information.'" So. 3d a t (quoting Annot. Right o f Defense i n C r i m i n a l Prosecution to Disclosure of Prosecution Information Prospective Here, prevented jurors Jurors, nothing from during 86 A . L . R . 3 d 5 7 1 i n the record discovering voir dire Regarding (1978)). indicates information examination. that about Rather, McCray was prospective the record i n d i c a t e s t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s were g i v e n wide l a t i t u d e i n their voir that the trial dire questioning. court granted Indeed, the record McCray's request 181 reflects for individually CR-06-0360 sequestered voir dire, questioning regarding 7, 2006, M o t i o n did not and specifically Hearing, information prospective R. 34.) Therefore, in the State's that jurors individual " c r i t i c a l and m a t e r i a l " i s s u e s . e r r i n denying McCray's motion a l l allowing may have the (August trial court f o r d i s c l o s u r e of possession been any regarding favorable to the erred in defense. B. Second, McCray argues that the allowing prospective j u r o r s t o be also trial argues that three prospective indicated vote to because could render the during those set jurors voir impose the death their O.T., penalty i n removing S.C., that under j u r o r s were not the law and and the any f e e l i n g s about based on law and the death evidence, 182 McCray for C.H. they cause -- could who never circumstances asked whether death evidence. asking the j u r o r s whether they their the erred f e e l i n g s about a v e r d i c t b a s e d on McCray, w i t h o u t -- court "death-qualified." d i r e examination prospective aside court trial they penalty and According to could set penalty and render a i t was not established aside verdict that CR-06-0360 those prospective warrant jurors a challenge With regard propriety h a d an absolute general argument a pretrial motion the prospective Court reviews this issue f o rplain Ala. P. Although App. qualification murder cases, nonetheless convict to regarding of d e a t h - q u a l i f i c a t i o n , the record death-qualifying to necessary f o r cause. t o McCray's McCray d i d not f i l e R. bias McCray i s constitutionally see Lockhart reflects or otherwise jurors. the that object to Therefore, error only. See R u l e acknowledges that permissible in v . M c C r e e , 476 U.S. this 162 45A, deathcapital- (1986), he a s s e r t s t h a t d e a t h - q u a l i f i e d j u r o r s a r e more p r o n e and that "disproportionately death-qualifying excludes minorities d e p r i v i n g h i m o f an i m p a r t i a l j u r y . However, i n D a v i s , prospective and jurors women," (McCray's b r i e f , thus a t 94.) t h i s C o u r t r e j e c t e d t h i s i d e n t i c a l c l a i m as follows: "A j u r y c o m p o s e d e x c l u s i v e l y o f j u r o r s who h a v e b e e n death-qualified in accordance with the test e s t a b l i s h e d i n W a i n w r i g h t v . W i t t , 469 U.S. 4 1 2 , 105 S. C t . 8 4 4 , 83 L. E d . 2 d 8 4 1 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , i s c o n s i d e r e d to be i m p a r t i a l even though i t may be more c o n v i c t i o n prone than a n o n - d e a t h - q u a l i f i e d j u r y . W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 710 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 6 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1996). S e e L o c k h a r t v . M c C r e e , 476 U.S. 1 6 2 , 106 S. C t . 1 7 5 8 , 90 L. E d . 2 d 137 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Neither the federal nor the state c o n s t i t u t i o n p r o h i b i t s the 183 CR-06-0360 s t a t e f r o m ... d e a t h - q u a l i f y i n g j u r o r s i n c a p i t a l cases. I d . ; W i l l i a m s ; H a n e y v . S t a t e , 603 So. 2 d 368, 391-92 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f ' d , 603 So. 2 d 412 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 0 7 U.S. 9 2 5 , 1 1 3 S. C t . 1 2 9 7 , 122 L . E d . 2 d 687 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . " 718 So. 2 d a t 1157 ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . So. 3d a t . Because death-qualification of jurors i s constitutionally error, much the less plain prospective See a l s o V a n p e l t , permissible, error, this f i n d s no court's i n the t r i a l Court allowing j u r o r s t o be " d e a t h - q u a l i f i e d . " R e g a r d i n g McCray's argument t h a t t h e t r i a l removing all f o r cause o f whom penalty that, after challenging counsel under voir objected they that i tv i o l a t e d at trial that cannot they j u r o r s O.T., could dire examination, various vote when reflects the parties jurors, began defense o f a n y j u r o r on t h e g r o u n d f o r the death McCray's t o impose t h e the record prospective "to the excusal court erred i n S.C., a n d C.H., not vote any circumstances, f o r cause that The prospective stated death prospective penalty" constitutional on t h e g r o u n d rights. (R. 2 0 2 . ) c o u r t o v e r r u l e d t h e o b j e c t i o n and removed f o r cause the State's request O.T., S.C., a n d C.H. 31 The record The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o removed f o r cause p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r J.C. o n t h e same g r o u n d , b u t M c C r a y d o e s n o t c h a l l e n g e o n appeal t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s removal o f J.C. 3 1 184 CR-06-0360 reflects that request of during the the voir trial State dire appeal C.H. that the f o r c a u s e was not properly whether they p e n a l t y and the one render removed she for j u r o r who could never trial court's removal e r r o r because those set during aside voir their a v e r d i c t b a s e d on of cause had at the indicated vote the p o s s i b i l i t y of p a r o l e . questioned could also prospective that imprisonment without on court for life McCray argues O.T., S.C., and p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s were dire examination f e e l i n g s about the law as the to death as i n s t r u c t e d by court. As trial noted court challenges (Ala. above, in "[b]road determining f o r cause." 1983). discretion Section Ex whether parte i s vested or N e t t l e s , 435 not to So. 2d 12-16-152, A l a . Code 1975, with the sustain 151, 154 provides: "On t h e t r i a l f o r a n y o f f e n s e w h i c h may b e p u n i s h e d c a p i t a l l y or by i m p r i s o n m e n t i n the p e n i t e n t i a r y , i t i s a good c a u s e o f c h a l l e n g e by t h e s t a t e t h a t t h e p e r s o n would r e f u s e to impose the death penalty r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r o d u c e d o r has a f i x e d o p i n i o n against p e n i t e n t i a r y punishment or t h i n k s that a conviction should not be had on c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence, which cause of challenge may b e p r o v e d b y t h e o a t h o f t h e p e r s o n o r b y o t h e r evidence." M o r e o v e r , as t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n S a u n d e r s v. 3d 53 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007), regarding 185 S t a t e , 10 challenges for So. cause CR-06-0360 based on a prospective juror's opposition to the death penalty: "'The "original constitutional y a r d s t i c k " on t h i s i s s u e was d e s c r i b e d i n W i t h e r s p o o n v . I l l i n o i s , 3 9 1 U.S. 5 1 0 , 88 S. C t . 1 7 7 0 , 20 L. E d . 2 d 7 7 6 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . Under W i t h e r s p o o n , b e f o r e a j u r o r c o u l d be r e m o v e d f o r c a u s e b a s e d on t h e j u r o r ' s v i e w s on t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , t h e j u r o r h a d t o make i t u n m i s t a k a b l y c l e a r t h a t h e o r she w o u l d a u t o m a t i c a l l y v o t e a g a i n s t t h e death p e n a l t y and t h a t h i s or h e r f e e l i n g s on t h a t i s s u e w o u l d t h e r e f o r e p r e v e n t t h e j u r o r f r o m making an i m p a r t i a l d e c i s i o n on guilt. H o w e v e r , t h i s i s no l o n g e r t h e test. I n W a i n w r i g h t v . W i t t , 4 6 9 U.S. 4 1 2 , 105 S. C t . 8 4 4 , 83 L . E d . 2 d 8 4 1 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , the U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t the p r o p e r s t a n d a r d f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether a veniremember s h o u l d be e x c l u d e d f o r cause because of o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e death p e n a l t y i s whether t h e veniremember's views would "'prevent or substantially impair the performance o f h i s d u t i e s as a j u r o r i n accordance w i t h h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s and h i s oath.'" [ Q u o t i n g Adams v . T e x a s , 448 U.S. 3 8 , 45 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . ] The Supreme C o u r t h a s e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d t h a t j u r o r b i a s does n o t have t o be proven with "unmistakable clarity." D a r d e n v . W a i n w r i g h t , 477 U.S. 1 6 8 , 1 0 6 S. C t . 2 4 6 4 , 91 L . E d . 2 d 144 (1986).' " P r e s s l e y v . S t a t e , 770 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 , 127 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 770 S o . 2 d 1 4 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . See a l s o U t t e c h t v . B r o w n , 5 5 1 U.S. 1, 9 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ('[A] j u r o r who i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p a i r e d i n h i s o r h e r ability t o impose the death penalty under t h e s t a t e - l a w framework can be excused f o r cause; b u t i f 186 CR-06-0360 the j u r o r i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p a i r e d , removal f o r cause i s i m p e r m i s s i b l e . ' ) . " 10 S o . 3 d a t 7 5 - 7 6 . opposition "[A] b l a n k e t d e c l a r a t i o n o f s u p p o r t o f o r t o the death penalty judge t o d i s q u a l i f y a j u r o r . " 235, 241 trial for ( A l a . 1989). judge's cause] exercise App. 1999). of discretion was p r o p e r , t h i s Holliday [regarding Court w i l l look trial 555 So. 2 d the a challenge to the questions g i v e n b y t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r on v o i r v. S t a t e , However, Ex p a r t e Whisenhant, " [ I ] n o r d e r t o determine whether d i r e c t e d t o and answers dire." i s not necessary f o r a this 751 So. 2 d 5 3 3 , 535 Court bears i n mind (Ala. Crim. that: " d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f j u r o r b i a s cannot be r e d u c e d t o question-and-answer sessions which obtain r e s u l t s i n t h e m a n n e r o f a c a t e c h i s m . W h a t common s e n s e s h o u l d h a v e r e a l i z e d e x p e r i e n c e h a s p r o v e d : many v e n i r e m e n s i m p l y cannot be a s k e d enough q u e s t i o n s t o r e a c h t h e p o i n t w h e r e t h e i r b i a s h a s b e e n made ' u n m i s t a k a b l y c l e a r ' ; t h e s e v e n i r e m e n may n o t know how t h e y w i l l r e a c t when f a c e d w i t h i m p o s i n g t h e d e a t h s e n t e n c e , o r may b e u n a b l e t o a r t i c u l a t e , o r may w i s h t o h i d e their true feelings. Despite this lack of c l a r i t y in the printed record, however, there w i l l be s i t u a t i o n s where t h e t r i a l judge i s l e f t w i t h t h e d e f i n i t e i m p r e s s i o n that a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r would be u n a b l e t o f a i t h f u l l y a n d i m p a r t i a l l y a p p l y t h e law. ... [ T ] h i s i s why d e f e r e n c e m u s t b e p a i d t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e who s e e s a n d h e a r s t h e j u r o r . " Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. omitted). 187 412, 424-25 (1985) (footnote CR-06-0360 The record reflects questioning of the t h a t during the t r i a l venire, the court court's asked the initial following: "Are t h e r e any o f you f o r any r e a s o n w h a t s o e v e r who could not recommend t h e death penalty even t h o u g h you were c o n v i n c e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e doubt u n d e r t h e f a c t s and t h e law as g i v e n t o you by t h e C o u r t t h a t s u c h was w a r r a n t e d ? In other words, are t h e r e a n y o f y o u who h a v e a f i x e d j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y where you c o u l d n o t recommend t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y no m a t t e r w h a t t h e f a c t s a r e i n t h e case?" (R. 26.) Six prospective response to this question. excused the by trial jurors raised Three of court for those medical their jurors and u n r e l a t e d t o t h e i r v i e w s on t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , and C.H. trial were removed f o r cause. court question -- also "are asked there any The who were other and jurors f o r any the in later reasons O.T., record reflects prospective o f you hands S.C., that the converse reason could not recommend l i f e w i t h o u t p a r o l e , even though, under the evidence and by convinced law beyond the given a to you reasonable death penalty?" jurors responded to doubt (R. this the Court, that 28.) the At question. 188 you are defendant this point, not should no receive prospective CR-06-0360 After a capital first e x p l a i n i n g i n more d e t a i l trial, the t r i a l court the different asked phases of the questions again, asking: " A r e t h e r e a n y o f y o u who w o u l d n o t b e a b l e t o f o l l o w the judge's i n s t r u c t i o n s regarding weighing aggravating circumstances versus mitigating circumstances i n c o n s i d e r i n g punishment i n t h i s case so that you w o u l d be u n a b l e t o recommend life without parole instead of the death penalty even though you were n o t c o n v i n c e d beyond a reasonable doubt by t h e evidence t h a t t h e defendant should receive the death penalty? In other words, a r e there a n y o f y o u who could n o t recommend life without parole instead of the death penalty even though the evidence d i d not warrant the death penalty? " T h a t p o s e s t h e same q u e s t i o n , b u t u s i n g t h e phraseology about aggravating and mitigating circumstances. And i t asks whether any o f you c o u l d n o t recommend l i f e w i t h o u t p a r o l e even t h o u g h t h e evidence and t h e law i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances d i d not outweigh the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. Does t h a t a p p l y t o a n y o n e ? The same q u e s t i o n i n a l i t t l e more s p e c i f i c manner." (R. 2 9 - 3 0 . ) A g a i n , court then no p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s r e s p o n d e d . The trial asked: " [ A ] r e t h e r e a n y o f y o u who c o u l d n o t r e c o m m e n d t h e death penalty instead of l i f e without parole i fthe S t a t e d i d prove t o you beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt aggravating circumstances which outweighed the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances? The v e r y r e v e r s e . " (R. 30-31.) further At this explanation point, a regarding 189 prospective juror asked f o r aggravating and mitigating CR-06-0360 circumstances. mitigating juror life imprisonment case. the prosecutor prospective following i n more d e t a i l , she would without No o t h e r never a n d one p r o s p e c t i v e consider, the possibility prospective questioned juror, "concerns" During court then e x p l a i n e d aggravating and circumstances indicated that capital had The t r i a l of parole t h ev e n i r e s i m i l a r l y , about t h e death p e n a l t y . voir dire i n any j u r o r s responded. J.C., see note 31, supra, individual or vote f o r , one a d d i t i o n a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t he (R. 7 5 . ) examination o f O.T., occurred: "THE COURT: [ O . T . ] , I b e l i e v e y o u w e r e o n e o f t h o s e t h a t r e s p o n d e d t h a t y o u c o u l d n o t recommend the death p e n a l t y under any circumstances; i s that correct? "[O.T.]: That's correct. "THE COURT: So i f t h e S t a t e p r o v e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t b a s i c a l l y u n d e r t h e e v i d e n c e -- t h e law and t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e defendant s h o u l d r e c e i v e t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , y o u c o u l d n o t do that; i s that correct? "[O.T.]: "THE penalty? I could COURT: n o t do what? You c o u l d n o t recommend t h e d e a t h "[O.T.]: I w o u l d n o t recommend i t , no. f o l l o w t h e l a w , b u t I w o u l d n ' t -- 190 When I would the CR-06-0360 "THE COURT: You j u s t personally could n o t do that? "[O.T.]: Right. "THE COURT: I s t h a t b a s e d moral c o n v i c t i o n s and so f o r t h ? "[O.T.]: "THE your Right. COURT: Any q u e s t i o n s , "[Prosecutor]: "THE on, I guess, COURT: No, Y o u r Or, [defense [prosecutor]? Honor. counsel]? "[Defense counsel]: Y e s . [O.T.], would t h a t be t r u e i n a n y d e a t h p e n a l t y c a s e , n o m a t t e r how many p e o p l e g o t k i l l e d o r how b a d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w e r e ? to "[O.T.]: I t ' s t r u e what I b e l i e v e , n o t what h a s do w i t h t h e l a w . "[Defense questions." (R. counsel]: Okay. No further 179-80.) During following individual voir dire examination o f S.C., t h e occurred: "THE COURT: And a l s o , [ ] I b e l i e v e you i n d i c a t e d t h a t y o u w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o recommend the death p e n a l t y i n a case such as t h i s o r I guess in any death p e n a l t y case? 3 2 The t r i a l publicity. 3 2 c o u r t i n i t i a l l y q u e s t i o n e d S.C. a b o u t 191 pretrial CR-06-0360 "[S.C.]: I would C h r i s t i a n , I don't t h i n k when someone d i e s . have a problem. As a I have a r i g h t t o choose "THE COURT: And so you could death penalty case? "[S.C.]: "THE I don't b e l i e v e COURT: Any q u e s t i o n s , "[Prosecutor]: "THE COURT: I No. n o t do t h a t i na could. [prosecutor]? Thank you f o r y o u r h o n e s t y . [Defense counsel]? "[Defense c o u n s e l ] : [S.C.], would t h a t be t r u e i n any death p e n a l t y case? No m a t t e r w h a t t h e circumstances, y o u j u s t c o u l d n o t -"[S.C.]: I would think so. I haven't seen w h e r e i t c o u l d h a p p e n i n a c a s e , b u t t h a t ' s t h e way I feel. "THE (R. COURT: Thank y o u , [S.C.]." 181-82.) During following individual voir dire examination o f C.H., t h e occurred: "THE COURT: [ C . H . ] , I b e l i e v e y o u h a d i n d i c a t e d t h a t you could n o t render t h e death p e n a l t y in a case? "[C.H.]: Y e s . The r e a s o n why, I t a k e i t t o o p e r s o n a l l y , a n d I t a k e i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n my k i d s a n d I take into consideration t h e two m o t h e r s , t h e deceased's mother and t h e defendant's mother. And t o b e p u t i n t h a t s i t u a t i o n , I w o u l d n ' t know w h a t t o do, b u t I w o u l d n ' t w a n t t o b e t h e one t h a t say[s] 192 CR-06-0360 d e a t h a n d i t b e o n my c o n s c i e n c e . saying? Y o u know w h a t I'm "THE COURT: I n other words, f e e l i n g l i k e a m o t h e r on e a c h s i d e o f t h e i s s u e , y o u f e e l l i k e y o u could not render a death penalty v e r d i c t ? "[C.H.]: "THE Right. COURT: Could y o u do i t i n a n y k i n d o f c a s e or "[C.H.]: As l o n g as i t ' s n o t death, yeah. I c o u l d -- y e a h , I c o u l d d o i t y o u know, a n y t h i n g b u t death. "THE COURT: p e n a l t y case? "[C.H.]: "THE In other Not i n a death COURT: COURT: "[Defense (R. No. not i n a [prosecutor]? Thank y o u , Y o u r [Defense counsel]: death penalty. Any q u e s t i o n s , "[Prosecutor]: "THE words, Honor. counsel]? None. Thank y o u . " 197-98.) Although none of specifically asked instructions and obey views on those exact answers capital given these "whether they [their] punishment," words, t h e import by these prospective oath follow brief, of the questions jurors during were the court's notwithstanding (McCray's prospective 193 'could jurors [their] a t 9 5 ) ,i n posed both and group CR-06-0360 voir dire and the death individual penalty performance of Killingsworth So. 3d 104 1258 would dire have their v. 3d voir [Ms. as ( A l a . Crim. correctly App. 2007); 2009); and 2007). Sneed v. v. Therefore, removed t h e s e j u r o r s e.g., 13, 2009] State, State, the on the See, November Jones views impaired jurors. CR-06-0854, ( A l a . C r i m . App. ( A l a . C r i m . App. their substantially duties State, show t h a t 43 1 So. So. trial 3d court f o r cause. C. Third, McCray argues that the trial court denying h i s motion r e q u e s t i n g the use of j u r o r He maintains that allowed him backgrounds to failure would in selecting heightened trial." learn have allowed that brief, questionnaires. questionnaires about the would prospective at and was 96.) him t o make m o r e have jurors' rights. 194 informed "would have s a f e g u a r d e d the required for According [his] c a p i t a l t o McCray, t o a l l o w the use of j u r o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s constitutional in From t h e r e , McCray argues t h a t the the jury reliability (McCray's of juror more and a t t i t u d e s . questionnaires choices the use erred the violated his CR-06-0360 The record requesting that reflects the McCray filed a pretrial of juror questionnaires and attached juror questionnaire. The trial summarily denied the motion without comment a t the 2006 m o t i o n h e a r i n g . I t is well s e t t l e d t h a t "[a] is discretion i n determining vested with examination how great will extensive overturned be a voir Land, 678 dire examination App. So. that 2d 1999). courts 1, See 51 State, the 856 So. are not (Ala. Crim. a l s o Ex 2010); Vanpelt 3d (Ala. 1996). court's 2d discretion voir So. 936 required v. parte 27, App.), Land, 2010] State, ___ 2d 875, (Ala. to [Ms. aff'd, supra; So. not Ex 195 parte the M a p l e s v. So. Miller 3 d ___ voir trial Crim. 2003). 758 be (Ala. 913 allow on the Both use of jury State, 2d v. this recognized 81 758 (Ala. State, [Ms. (Ala. Crim. App. C R - 0 6 - 1 5 3 9 , D e c e m b e r 18, ( A l a . C r i m . App. dire decision of 7, court "[T]he method of even i n c a p i t a l cases." CR-06-0741, A u g u s t So. how abuse of t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . " within 856 that court trial examination i s required w i l l 242 is and to August t h e Alabama Supreme C o u r t have r e p e a t e d l y "trial 2d 224, aff'd, questionnaires, So. dire Hodges v. 2001), C o u r t and conducted, e x c e p t f o r an court[.]" motion a proposed motion use that 2 0 0 9 ) ; Brown v. State, 2009] 11 So. CR-06-0360 3d 866 (Ala. 2008); and Lee v. 2007), So. 898 aff'd, 790 2d conduct prospective initially as So. trial (Ala. Crim. (Ala. App. 2001); court conducted v o i r voir examination of dire The i n any record way in their e i t h e r d u r i n g group or McCray has failed to questionnaires. that the trial denying McCray's motion f o r the use reflects abused of that questioning individual unable to Therefore, court certain i n d i c a t e what, i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s he was juror dire the p a r t i e s limited jurors, Finally, established 933 then allowed j u r o r s when n e c e s s a r y . of p r o s p e c t i v e without 3d a group but individual p a r t i e s were not dire. 11 supra. noted p r e v i o u s l y , the examination the App. State, Hodges, As to Crim. McCray voir i f any, discover has not i t s discretion juror in questionnaires. XIII. McCray next -- lethal punishment. did not court injection t h a t Alabama's method of -- constitutes McCray r a i s e d t h i s present denied contends the any evidence 196 and unusual issue i n a p r e t r i a l motion i n support motion. cruel execution of i t , and the but trial CR-06-0360 On that appeal, i n a one-paragraph the United injection Rees, States Supreme as a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 553 Alabama's U.S. 35 argument, McCray r e c o g n i z e s Court has upheld method o f e x e c u t i o n , see Baze v. (2008), but nonetheless injection protocols challenge because [they are] not ' s u b s t a n t i a l l y brief, a t 97.) injection uphold protocols See today standard" Alabama a unusual to similar'" to 28, to risk the that protocol meets punishment.). as addition, both 3d 323, Phillips, McCray's c l a i m However, protocols So. this supra, th[e] s p e c i f i c a l l y h e l d t h a t Alabama's ___ 339 we Kentucky, See 3d Court P h i l l i p s v. S t a t e , ___ and (Ala. Crim. the Alabama u p h e l d Alabama's method of e x e c u t i o n . 11 S o . lethal does protocols. 2010] (McCray's State with a c o n t r a r y t o McCray's c o n t e n t i o n , s u b s t a n t i a l l y Kentucky's May and ("A that subject i n Baze. similar create still same t h r e e - d r u g p r o t o c o l and t h i s C o u r t has are, not cruel the s u p r a a t 61 substantially would for uses s p e c i f i c a l l y upheld Baze, protocol are argues "lethal Kentucky's lethal ( A l a . 2008); and in this the Doster, cases cited App. to CR-06-1577, 2010). In Supreme C o u r t have See Ex parte Belisle, So. therein. regard i s meritless. 197 [Ms. similar 3d a t ; and Therefore, CR-06-0360 XIV. McCray a l s o contends t h a t h i s death sentence v i o l a t e s United U.S. States 584 Supreme C o u r t ' s (2002). Specifically, circumstances found indictment t h a t the and unanimously opinion by found the he jury i n Ring were r e c o r d does not that the not i s required r a i s e d these denied by Both by Ring to be the trial this So. the jury. he McCray properly court. Court 2 d 1181 CR-06-0827, A u g u s t jury circumstances m o t i o n t h a t was and the Alabama repeatedly rejected identical challenges. W a l d r o p , 859 his a f i n d i n g of f a c t made b y arguments i n a p r e t r i a l in that the aggravating 536 aggravating charged reflect outweighed the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances, claims v. A r i z o n a , argues that the 3 3 the 27, (Ala. 2010] Supreme See, e.g., 2 0 0 2 ) ; M i t c h e l l v. So. 3d Court Ex have parte State, [Ms. (Ala. Crim. App. T h e j u r y was g i v e n a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t f o r m a t t h e p e n a l t y phase of the t r i a l r e g a r d i n g aggravating circumstances, in which the j u r y i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t had found beyond a reasonable doubt the e x i s t e n c e of three a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances: (1) that McCray had p r e v i o u s l y been convicted of a felony i n v o l v i n g the use or t h r e a t of v i o l e n c e t o the p e r s o n ; (2) t h a t M c C r a y h a d c o m m i t t e d t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e w h i l e he was e n g a g e d i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f o r an a t t e m p t t o c o m m i t o r f l i g h t a f t e r c o m m i t t i n g o r a t t e m p t t o c o m m i t b u r g l a r y ; a n d (3) t h a t t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was e s p e c i a l l y heinous, a t r o c i o u s , or c r u e l as c o m p a r e d t o o t h e r c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s . 3 3 198 CR-06-0360 2010); Vanpelt v. So. 3d So. 2d 907 104 (Ala. Crim. (Ala. do not (Ala. Crim. 868 t o be So. 2d 2009); 2008); and Sharifi Sneed v. L e w i s v. aff'd, 24 So. v. State, State, S t a t e , 24 3d 540 2009] 1 So. So. (Ala. "aggravating circumstances a l l e g e d i n the indictment," S t a l l w o r t h v. 1128, 1186 the (Ala. Crim. aggravating circumstances McCray's on does not this record. aggravating was committed -- was Ring, Therefore, and an 1190, death McCray i s e n t i t l e d assertion were charged the 1975, violate McCray's Contrary commission of jury. or to no claim. Moreover, circumstances a finding outweigh that by a "the 2d a t found i s not 2001), and So. relief circumstances App. e l e m e n t o f t h e o f f e n s e , " E x p a r t e W a l d r o p , 859 sentence 480 2009). fact be 3d 3d of must 993 contentions, whether mitigating App. 2006), C R - 0 6 - 1 5 3 9 , D e c e m b e r 18, App. 2007); to McCray's determination the App. App. have State, [Ms. (Ala. Crim. Crim. Contrary State, no to McCray's a s s e r t i o n to t h i s while the -- "that defendant [a] b u r g l a r y , " s e e charged aggravating i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t i s r e f u t e d by circumstances ... that i n the was capital engaged ... one of offense in the § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 4 ) , A l a . Code indictment. 199 [the] Court, the See Bryant v. State, CR-06-0360 951 So. 2d identical Bryant the 732, 749 argument (Ala. Crim. 2003) because the "indictment advised him of the crime capital App. (rejecting returned A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 -- a n d [ t h u s ] in was indictment kidnapping argument the i n the f i r s t i s without aggravating degree..."). merit and does -¬ i n violation of § 13A-5-40(a)(1), the against w i t h w h i c h h e was c h a r g e d o f f e n s e o f murder d u r i n g k i d n a p p i n g , an [i]ncluded circumstance Therefore, not e n t i t l e of McCray's him t o any relief. XV. Finally, all McCray the errors reversal under was the cumulative him a of a particular e r r o r s may r e v e r s a l under Rule e r r o r s have be fair then reversal." Although this McCray's trial, case, sufficiently trial effect and of death. no s i n g l e prejudicial of warrants "[W]hile, error among to require 4 5 , [ A l a . R. A p p . P.,] i f t h e a c c u m u l a t e d 'probably of the p a r t i e s , ' require t o deny that h i s c o n v i c t i o n and sentence the facts multiple contends injuriously affected substantial the cumulative effect rights o f t h e e r r o r s may E x p a r t e Woods, 789 So. 2 d a t 942-43 n . 1 . Court has found as e x p l a i n e d and/or fully 200 above, assumed i t has errors i n thoroughly CR-06-0360 reviewed of the record the e r r o r s , and concludes i f any, McCray any the cumulative d i d not probably McCray's s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s . entitle that Therefore, effect injuriously this affect i s s u e does not relief. XVI. Pursuant required to § 13A-5-53, to address sentence of death. A l a . Code the p r o p r i e t y of McCray's M c C r a y was a burglary. The See record d e a t h was not or any other 1 3 A - 5 - 5 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code The trial circumstances sentencing convicted court that sentence of the i n f l u e n c e of correctly found circumstances: capital court factor. that the (1) stated that McCray offense (2) M c C r a y had of passion, See § aggravating i t found three been i n v o l v i n g the § 13A-5-49(2), A l a . committed the c a p i t a l 201 In i t s previously or felony or threat of v i o l e n c e to the person, Code 1975; 1975. McCray's arbitrary course 1975. the t r i a l of another is c o n v i c t i o n and outweighed the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. order, aggravating use reflect imposed as t h e r e s u l t prejudice, Court committed during the 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code does this i n d i c t e d f o r , and c o n v i c t e d o f , m u r d e r made c a p i t a l b e c a u s e i t was of 1975, offense while he CR-06-0360 was e n g a g e d i n o r was an a c c o m p l i c e i n the commission of, or an a t t e m p t t o commit, o r f l i g h t a f t e r c o m m i t t i n g o r a t t e m p t i n g to a b u r g l a r y , § 13A-5-49(4), the commit, capital offense was especially c r u e l when c o m p a r e d t o o t h e r c a p i t a l Ala. Code 1975. The A l a . Code 1975; and trial heinous, atrocious, offenses, § court then (3) or 13A-5-49(8), c o n s i d e r e d each of the s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s and f o u n d t h a t none a p p l i e d in this case. following However, the nonstatutory trial court mitigating did find that circumstances applicable: (1) M c C r a y h a d c u s t o d y o f h i s two y o u n g e s t (2) M c C r a y ' s o l d e s t s o n l i v e d with sons; him; (3) McCray was entrusted with the B a c h e l d e r ' s c h i l d r e n a t t i m e s w h e n s h e was h e r m o b i l e home; care of away f r o m (4) M c C r a y i s a good b r o t h e r t o h i s s i b l i n g s ; (5) M c C r a y i s a good son; (6) M c C r a y h a s b e e n a g o o d f a t h e r (7) M c C r a y to his children; i s a good u n c l e ; (8) M c C r a y h e l p e d t a k e c a r e o f a f r i e n d o f h i s a f t e r s h e was d i a g n o s e d w i t h c a n c e r ; (9) M c C r a y h a s a n e x t e n s i v e n e t w o r k o f f r i e n d s a n d f a m i l y t h a t w i l l c o n t i n u e w h i l e he i s i n c a r c e r a t e d ; 202 the were CR-06-0360 (10) A t t h e t i m e o f h i s a r r e s t , M c C r a y w a s employed; (11) M c C r a y Department; served (12) McCray has B a p t i s t Church; i n the been a Pansey member (13) M c C r a y g a v e u p h i s r i g h t q u e s t i o n e d by law-enforcement Volunteer of (16) Fire Pilgrim Rest t o remain s i l e n t officers; (14) M c C r a y g a v e u p h i s r i g h t t o r e m a i n he c h o s e t o t e s t i f y i n c o u r t ; (15) In h i s t r i a l k i l l i n g Bachelder; gainfully testimony, McCray McCray behaved a p p r o p r i a t e l y when silent when admitted to during h i s t r i a l ; (17) S o c i e t y w i l l b e a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d b y M c C r a y serving a sentence of l i f e i n p r i s o n without p a r o l e ; and (18) McCray Section Court to weighing Court As Court the death A l a . Code aggravating circumstances t h a t McCray's order i s proper. r e q u i r e d b y § 13A-5-53 must also to determine whether 203 this the whether independently circumstances, of death (b)(3), and determine After and m i t i g a t i n g sentence 1975, r e q u i r e s circumstances in sentence the aggravating finds being. 13A-5-53(b)(2), reweigh mitigating McCray's i s a human this i s appropriate. A l a . Code McCray's 1975, sentence this i s CR-06-0360 excessive or disproportionate imposed i n s i m i l a r of murder course for made of Crim. App. capital In t h i s i t was Sentences of 2007); 2007); S a u n d e r s v. Brown v. Beckworth Harris v. State, State, v. 982 946 So. 932 972 the death 737 C r i m . App. cases McCray's cited 1999), 2 d 140 death So. 3d 3d 53 490 880 State, 820 So. 2 d 152 Therefore, this Morris v. (Ala. (Ala. Crim. (Ala. Crim. App. 2006); App. 2005); 2004), aff'd, 820 2d 113 ( A l a . 2001); and Court neither the imposed 3d (Ala. Crim. v. is during ( A l a . C r i m . App. Hall sentence convicted e.g., ( A l a . C r i m . App. aff'd, therein. So. penalty have been See, 2 So. 2 d 565 2d ( A l a . 2007); 2d 10 So. W a l k e r v. S t a t e , So. So. State, State, the committed crimes throughout the State. 2010); to c a s e , M c C r a y was [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 1 9 9 7 , F e b r u a r y 5, 2 0 1 0 ] App. (Ala. compared because a burglary. similar State, cases. when So. finds excessive that nor disproportionate. Finally, that and may has t h i s C o u r t has have a d v e r s e l y found none. 3 4 searched the record a f f e c t e d McCray's See Rule 45A, f o r any substantial A l a . R. App. error rights P. In t h i s regard, t h i s Court notes that the indictment charged, i n r e l e v a n t p a r t , t h a t McCray i n t e n t i o n a l l y murdered B a c h e l d e r " d u r i n g t h e t i m e t h a t [he] k n o w i n g l y a n d u n l a w f u l l y 3 4 204 CR-06-0360 Based conviction on the foregoing, and h i s sentence McCray's of death capital-murder are affirmed. AFFIRMED. Wise, P . J . , and Welch, Kellum, and Main, J J . , concur. e n t e r e d or remained" i n Bachelder's d w e l l i n g and t h a t McCray was " a r m e d w i t h a n e x p l o s i v e o r d e a d l y w e a p o n . " (C. 11.) In other words, the b u r g l a r y p o r t i o n of the i n d i c t m e n t charged McCray pursuant to the a l t e r n a t i v e contained i n § 13A-75 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t charge the jury on t h i s alternative i n i t s guilt-phase instructions. Rather, the t r i a l court i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y t h a t i t c o u l d f i n d McCray g u i l t y i f i t found t h a t McCray had c a u s e d p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o any p e r s o n n o t a p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e c r i m e o r i f he h a d u s e d o r t h r e a t e n e d t h e i m m e d i a t e u s e o f a dangerous i n s t r u m e n t , thus e f f e c t i v e l y amending t h e i n d i c t m e n t to charge t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s c o n t a i n e d i n § 13A-7-5(a)(2) and ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975. A l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d h a v e c h a r g e d t h e j u r y on t h e b u r g l a r y a l t e r n a t i v e a l l e g e d i n t h e indictment, t h i s Court does not f i n d t h i s o m i s s i o n t o be fatal. "'[A] m a t e r i a l v a r i a n c e w i l l e x i s t i f t h e i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g e s an o f f e n s e c o m m i t t e d b y one means a n d t h e trial court's j u r y charge addresses a s e p a r a t e and c o n t r a d i c t o r y means.'" G i b s o n v . S t a t e , 488 S o . 2 d 3 8 , 40 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1986) (emphasis added). However, "[t]he one apparent e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s r u l e o f v a r i a n c e where t h e s t a t u t e c o n t a i n s a l t e r n a t i v e methods o f c o m m i t t i n g t h e o f f e n s e i s where t h e a l t e r n a t i v e m e t h o d s a r e n o t c o n t r a d i c t o r y a n d do n o t c o n t a i n s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t elements of p r o o f . " Id. Subsections ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( a ) ( 2 ) , and ( a ) ( 3 ) i n § 13A-7-5, A l a . Code 1975, a r e a l t e r n a t i v e methods o f p r o v i n g t h e o f f e n s e o f b u r g l a r y i n t h e f i r s t degree, b u t they a r e not c o n t r a d i c t o r y methods. Indeed, in t h i s case, the State's evidence a c t u a l l y proved a l l three alternatives. Thus, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r a l charge h e r e d i d n o t a m e n d t h e i n d i c t m e n t t o c h a r g e a new o r ddiiffffeerreenntt o f f e n s e a m e n d t h e i n d i c t m e n t t o c h a r g e a new o r t h a t was n o t e n c o m p a s s e d w i t h i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t , n o r d i d i t p r e j u d i c e t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f M c C r a y . See R u l e 1 3 . 5 ( a ) , Ala. R. C r i m . P., a n d R u l e 45A, A l a . R. A p p . P. 205

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.