Brandon Deon Mitchell v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/27/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-06-0827 Brandon Deon Mitchell v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WINDOM, from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CC-06-1059) Court Judge. Brandon convictions convicted Deon M i t c h e l l appeals and h i s sentences of three counts h i s four of of c a p i t a l death. murder capital-murder Mitchell was f o r taking the l i v e s o f Kim O l n e y , John A y l e s w o r t h , and Dorothy Smith during CR-06-0827 the course of a robbery. He was § 13A-5-40(a)(2), A l a . Code 1975. a l s o c o n v i c t e d o f an a d d i t i o n a l c o u n t o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r because two pursuant or to more one 40(a)(10), Ala. Mitchell's people scheme Code trial, or were course 1975. the j u r y murdered of After by one act conduct. the § penalty recommended, by 13A-5- phase a vote or of of 10-2, t h a t he be s e n t e n c e d t o l i f e i n p r i s o n w i t h o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of parole. presentence The circuit report. court then ordered and received a A f t e r h o l d i n g a s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , the c i r c u i t c o u r t o v e r r o d e t h e j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n and sentenced M i t c h e l l t o d e a t h on a l l f o u r c o u n t s . A t t r i a l , t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t on November 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , T h a n k s g i v i n g D a y , M i t c h e l l went t o J o n a t h a n F l o y d ' s a p a r t m e n t where R o d e r i c k B y r d and h i s s i s t e r , H e l l e n a , were s t a y i n g . plan M i t c h e l l e n t e r e d the apartment t o d i s c u s s h i s t o rob the A i r p o r t I n n i n Birmingham Inn") w i t h Byrd. Mitchell (hereinafter A f t e r Byrd agreed to h e l p w i t h the a s k e d F l o y d t o t a k e them t o t h e I n n . M i t c h e l l and B y r d t o t h e I n n a r o u n d 2:50 them o u t o f t h e c a r , M i t c h e l l was and j e a n s and B y r d was p.m. robbery, Floyd drove When F l o y d l e t wearing a white sweatshirt dressed i n a l l black. 2 "the After letting CR-06-0827 Mitchell and B y r d out of the c a r , F l o y d l e f t to v i s i t h i s "god-sister." M i t c h e l l a n d B y r d e n t e r e d t h e I n n where t h e y encountered Kim O l n e y , t h e desk c l e r k , and John A y l e s w o r t h , a t r u c k d r i v e r who was w a i t i n g i n t h e l o b b y lived. Both Mitchell M i t c h e l l immediately behind the front Aylesworth, a after and B y r d were t o T e x a s where he armed with pistols. f o c u s e d h i s a t t e n t i o n on O l n e y , who was desk, former r o b b e r y , Dorothy f o r a ride while Byrd Marine. used At h i s gun t o subdue some point S m i t h , who was t r a v e l i n g during the b a c k t o New York v i s i t i n g h e r son i n Alabama f o r T h a n k s g i v i n g , e n t e r e d the h o t e l lobby robbery, Mitchell unsuccessfully front desk. a n d was a l s o took attempted Mitchell h e l d a t gunpoint. money from a t o open a s a f e cash located During the drawer and behind the and B y r d a l s o t o o k v a r i o u s i t e m s from t h e t h r e e v i c t i m s , i n c l u d i n g d u f f e l b a g s , c l o t h i n g , a n d money, before with s h o o t i n g each .38-caliber A video from shooting Olney o f them b e h i n d the ear at close range pistols. the lobby security camera shows Mitchell t w i c e , once i n t h e arm a n d once i n t h e h e a d . Forensic t e s t i n g of the p r o j e c t i l e s 3 r e c o v e r e d from t h e scene CR-06-0827 and f r o m t h e v i c t i m s ' b o d i e s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t O l n e y and Smith were s h o t w i t h t h e same . 3 8 - c a l i b e r p i s t o l and t h a t A y l e s w o r t h was shot w i t h a d i f f e r e n t County M e d i c a l Examiner foot. the robbery, Mitchell behind neighborhood. the Inn, Clifford Jefferson died wound t o t h e h e a d . They t r a v e l e d a r o u n d located The t e s t i f i e d that a l l three victims as a r e s u l t o f a g u n s h o t After .38-caliber p i s t o l . and Byrd fled the scene t h e I n n and j u m p e d o v e r a which James separated and James the Inn Jackson, on fence from who a were s i t t i n g on t h e b a c k p o r c h o f one o f t h e h o u s e s b e h i n d t h e I n n , saw M i t c h e l l and B y r d , who the fence and walk were c a r r y i n g s e v e r a l b a g s , c l i m b off in different J a c k s o n were n o t a b l e t o p o s i t i v e l y t h e y saw t h e men directions. i d e n t i f y the w e a r i n g a l l b l a c k and was t h e o t h e r man had l i g h t e r t h a t one c a r r y i n g a b o o k bag s k i n and was wearing and individuals c l i m b i n g the f e n c e , but they t e s t i f i e d was James of and light-colored clothing. After Mitchell and Byrd separated, Mitchell telephoned F l o y d and a s k e d F l o y d t o p i c k h i m up on F i r s t A v e n u e . met Floyd M i t c h e l l on F i r s t Avenue and t o o k M i t c h e l l t o M i t c h e l l ' s "god-sister's" house, which was 4 three blocks from Floyd's CR-06-0827 apartment. D u r i n g t h e r i d e , M i t c h e l l , who was c a r r y i n g a b l u e t o t e b a g , t o l d F l o y d t h a t he h a d " j u s t h i t a l i c k . " (R. 891.) A f t e r d r o p p i n g M i t c h e l l o f f , F l o y d went b a c k t o l o o k f o r B y r d . F l o y d l a t e r r e t u r n e d t o h i s apartment Mitchell. At Byrd appeared some p o i n t , M i t c h e l l clothing nervous where he f o u n d B y r d and a n d was s h a k i n g a n d c r y i n g . removed h i s c l o t h i n g and p l a c e d t h e i n t h e dumpster b e h i n d F l o y d ' s apartment. Mitchell l a t e r t o l d F l o y d t h a t he h a d k i l l e d t h r e e p e o p l e b y s h o o t i n g them b e h i n d t h e e a r . Later that evening, M i t c h e l l contacted h i s f r i e n d Gunn and asked Huntsville. her for a ride to the Gunn, who h a d s e e n M i t c h e l l ' s bus Warika station photograph in on t h e news i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e s h o o t i n g s a t t h e I n n , t e l e p h o n e d "Crimestoppers," an anonymous t i p h o t l i n e . a d m i t t e d t h a t he was w a n t e d b y t h e p o l i c e a robbery. subsequently arranged At later i n connection with W h i l e i n c o n t a c t w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t i e s , Gunn a g r e e d t o meet M i t c h e l l i n F a i r f i e l d a t 10:00 p.m. was Mitchell arrested before However, M i t c h e l l he c o u l d meet Gunn a t t h e location. trial, Robert Baxton, James F l o y d I I I , J o n a t h a n a friend of M i t c h e l l ' s , and F l o y d ' s nephew, t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y 5 CR-06-0827 h a d r e c o g n i z e d M i t c h e l l ' s p h o t o g r a p h on a news r e p o r t and t h a t M i t c h e l l h a d t o l d them t h a t he h a d b e e n i n v o l v e d i n t h e h o t e l shootings. Standard of Review B e c a u s e M i t c h e l l has b e e n s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h , a c c o r d i n g to Rule 45A, A l a . R. App. record for "plain error." P., this R u l e 45A Court must search the states: " I n a l l c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y has been imposed, the C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s 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 o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e 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 , w h e n e v e r s u c h e r r o r has o r p r o b a b l y has a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of the a p p e l l a n t . " (Emphasis In added.) Ex parte Brown, 11 So. 3d 933 ( A l a . 2008), A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d : "'"To r i s e t o the l e v e l of p l a i n e r r o r , the c l a i m e d e r r o r must n o t o n l y s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t 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."' Ex p a r t e B r y a n t , 951 So. 2d 724, 727 ( A l a . 2002) ( q u o t i n g Hyde v. S t a t e , 778 So. 2d 199, 209 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ) . In U n i t e d States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S. C t . 1038, 84 L. Ed. 2d 1 ( 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 , c o n s t r u i n g the f e d e r a l p l a i n - e r r o r r u l e , s t a t e d : "'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 " p a r t i c u l a r l y egregious 6 the CR-06-0827 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 " s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t the f a i r n e s s , i n t e g r i t y 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 c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s - o b j e c t i o n r u l e 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 163, n. 14.' "See a l s o Ex p a r t e Hodges, 856 So. 2d 936, 947-48 (Ala. 2003) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t p l a i n e r r o r e x i s t s only i f failure to recognize the e r r o r would ' s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t the f a i r n e s s or i n t e g r i t y of the j u d i c i a l proceedings,' and t h a t t h e 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 m i s c a r r i a g e of j u s t i c e w o u l d o t h e r w i s e r e s u l t ' ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n marks omitted))." 11 So. 3d a t 938. claim under standard in to used i n reviewing of review c o u r t o r on a p p e a l . " object at t r i a l w i l l i n reviewing is stricter than a the an i s s u e t h a t was p r o p e r l y r a i s e d 121 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . issue, i t w i l l v. standard the p l a i n - e r r o r d o c t r i n e the t r i a l 113, "The H a l l v. S t a t e , 820 So. 2d Although Mitchell's failure n o t b a r t h i s C o u r t f r o m r e v i e w i n g any w e i g h a g a i n s t any c l a i m o f p r e j u d i c e . S t a t e , 600 So. 2d 343 ( A l a . C r i m . App. I. 7 1991). See Dill CR-06-0827 Mitchell first prosecutorial argues that misconduct occurred numerous d u r i n g the p h a s e c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s and t h a t he was fair trial. Specifically, he instances State's of guilt- thereby d e p r i v e d of a contends t h a t the prosecutor, d u r i n g t h e 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 s , i m p r o p e r l y commented on Mitchell's evidence, and failure invoked to testify, religion. injected (Mitchell's victim-impact brief, at 7.) M i t c h e l l , however, f a i l e d t o f i r s t p r e s e n t t h e s e arguments t o the c i r c u i t c o u r t . plain error. "In is See Therefore, t h i s Court w i l l Rule 45A, A l a . R. App. r e v i e w them f o r P. 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 whether the argument '"'so infected the standard trial u n f a i r n e s s as 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 process.'"'" App. 2007)(quoting (1986), 637, Sneed v. quoting 643, S t a t e , 1 So. D a r d e n v. t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t 104, Wainwright, i n turn Donnelly 94 S. C t . 1868, 3d 1871 v. 477 138 U.S. 168, 181 U.S. I n Ex p a r t e W i n d s o r , held: " ' " W h i l e t h [ e ] f a i l u r e t o o b j e c t does not p r e c l u d e review i n a c a p i t a l case, i t does w e i g h a g a i n s t any c l a i m o f p r e j u d i c e . " Ex p a r t e Kennedy, 472 So. 2d [1106,] a t 1111 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ] ( e m p h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l ) . " T h i s c o u r t has c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e f a i l u r e 8 due ( A l a . Crim. D e C h r i s t o f o r o , 416 (1974)). with CR-06-0827 to object to improper prosecutorial a r g u m e n t s ... s h o u l d be w e i g h e d as p a r t o f o u r e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e c l a i m on t h e m e r i t s because of i t s s u g g e s t i o n t h a t the defense d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e comments i n q u e s t i o n t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y h a r m f u l . " J o h n s o n v. W a i n w r i g h t , 778 F.2d 623, 629 n. 6 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 484 U.S. 872, 108 S. C t . 201, 98 L. Ed. 2d 152 (1987). " P l a i n e r r o r i s e r r o r w h i c h , when e x a m i n e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e e n t i r e c a s e , i s so obvious t h a t f a i l u r e t o n o t i c e i t would s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t the f a i r n e s s , i n t e g r i t y , and public r e p u t a t i o n of the judicial p r o c e e d i n g s . " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. B u t l e r , 792 F.2d 1528, 1535 ( 1 1 t h C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 479 U.S. 933, 107 S. C t . 407, 93 L. E d . 2d 359 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . See a l s o B i d d i e v. S t a t e , 516 So. 2d 837, 843 ( A l a . C r . App. 1986), r e v e r s e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 516 So. 2d 846 (Ala. 1987).'" 683 So. 2d. 1042, 1061 577 So. 2d 474, 489 (Ala. 1996)(quoting Kuenzel ( A l a . C r i m . App. v. S t a t e , 1990)). A. M i t c h e l l i n i t i a l l y argues commented During on h i s f a i l u r e the State's that the prosecutor repeatedly to t e s t i f y rebuttal to during the g u i l t the defense's phase. closing a r g u m e n t s , t h e p r o s e c u t o r made t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t : gun. We d o n ' t have a gun. He knows. Where i s t h e gun? He knows were t h e gun i s . " to M i t c h e l l , I don't "No know. 9 According comment r e f e r e n c e d the prosecutor's (R. 1014.) Mitchell's CR-06-0827 failure to t e s t i f y . M i t c h e l l also asserts that the prosecutor commented on h i s f a i l u r e recording of a to testify conversation Mitchell telephone system, the p r o s e c u t o r you who was t h e d r i v e r . " testify when had had on that a jail stated that "[h]e just told ( M i t c h e l l ' s b r i e f , a t 11.) he s t a t e d [the defense counsel] after playing the M i t c h e l l argues t h a t the prosecutor to when, Finally, commented on h i s f a i l u r e "[t]here's some t h i n g s that c a n ' t e v e n t r y t o e x p l a i n t o you a n d t r y t o come up w i t h a r e a s o n f o r i t . " ( M i t c h e l l ' s b r i e f , a t 10.) M i t c h e l l d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e s e comments; t h e r e f o r e , t h e y a r e reviewed f o r p l a i n e r r o r only. R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. I n Ex p a r t e B r o o k s , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t explained: "Comments b y a p r o s e c u t o r on a d e f e n d a n t ' s failure to t e s t i f y are highly p r e j u d i c i a l and h a r m f u l , a n d c o u r t s must c a r e f u l l y g u a r d a g a i n s t a v i o l a t i o n of a defendant's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t not to t e s t i f y . W h i t t [ v . S t a t e , 370 So. 2d 736, 739 ( A l a . 1979) ] ; Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m s , 461 So. 2d 852, 853 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ; s e e Ex p a r t e P u r s e r , 607 So. 2d 301 ( A l a . 1992) Under f e d e r a l l a w , a comment i s i m p r o p e r i f i t was ' " ' m a n i f e s t l y i n t e n d e d o r was o f s u c h a c h a r a c t e r t h a t a j u r y w o u l d n a t u r a l l y and n e c e s s a r i l y t a k e i t t o be a comment on t h e f a i l u r e of the accused t o t e s t i f y . ' " ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Herring, 955 F.2d 703, 709 (11th C i r . ) , cert. d e n i e d , 506 U.S. 927, 113 S. C t . 353, 121 L. E d . 2d 267 (1992) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ; M a r s d e n v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1547 ( 1 1 t h C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 488 U.S. 983, 109 S. C t . 534, 102 L. E d . 2d 566 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. B e t a n c o u r t , 734 F.2d 750, 758 ( 1 1 t h 10 CR-06-0827 C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 469 U.S. 1021, 105 S. C t . 440, 83 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1984). The federal courts c h a r a c t e r i z e comments as e i t h e r d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t , and, i n e i t h e r c a s e , h o l d t h a t an i m p r o p e r comment may n o t a l w a y s mandate r e v e r s a l . " G a v i n v. S t a t e , (quoting 891 So. 2d 907, 981 Ex p a r t e To the ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) B r o o k s , 695 So. 2d 184, 1 8 8 ) . extent Mitchell asserts that the prosecutor commented on h i s f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y when t h e p r o s e c u t o r stated t h a t M i t c h e l l knew where t h e m u r d e r weapon was l o c a t e d , argument i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . the p r o s e c u t o r ' s attention fact that was counsel's burden of weapons. the argument proof Mitchell simply that the State because i t had C f . B a l l a r d v. S t a t e , C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ( " A p r o s e c u t o r the argument to Mitchell's assertion, comments were n o t made i n an a t t e m p t t o draw the prosecutor Instead, to Contrary this of defense had not responding had not failed testified. to defense t o meet i t s produced the murder 767 So. 2d 1123, 1135 ( A l a . has a r i g h t t o r e p l y i n k i n d t o counsel. This 'reply-in-kind' d o c t r i n e i s b a s e d on f u n d a m e n t a l f a i r n e s s . " ) ; H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 2 So. State, 3d 880, 920 ( A l a . Crim. 11 So. 3d 866, 903 App. 2007)(same); ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007) Brown v. ("Where a m a t t e r has b e e n gone i n t o b y one p a r t y t o a c a u s e , t h e o t h e r 11 CR-06-0827 p a r t y h a s t h e r i g h t t o e x p l a i n away a n y t h i n g , i f he c a n , t h a t may have b e e n b r o u g h t o u t t o h i s d e t r i m e n t . " ) ( c i t a t i o n s and quotations "not omitted). manifestly R e v i e w e d i n c o n t e x t , t h i s s t a t e m e n t was intended o r was o f s u c h j u r y would n a t u r a l l y and n e c e s s a r i l y take a character i t t o be a comment on t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e a c c u s e d t o t e s t i f y . " at 981. message On t h e c o n t r a r y , that this law enforcement comment that a Gavin, simply 891 So. 2d relayed the had not recovered t h e murder weapons b e c a u s e M i t c h e l l h a d d i s p o s e d o f them. Consequently, the comment on M i t c h e l l ' s prosecutor failure improperly to testify. Similarly, some d i d not things the prosecutor's that [the defense statement counsel] that can't "[t]here's even t r y to e x p l a i n t o you a n d t r y t o come up w i t h a r e a s o n f o r i t , " not a comment on M i t c h e l l ' s f a i l u r e brief, comment a t 10.) (Mitchell's I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d that " i t i s not e r r o r 'to on t h e f a i l u r e defendant, to testify. was t o counter of the defense, or explain as o p p o s e d the evidence.'" to the United S t a t e s v . G r i g g s , 735 F.2d 1318, 1321 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1984) ( q u o t i n g United States (emphasis v . B r i g h t , 630 F.2d 804, 825 i n original). Here, 12 ( 5 t h C i r . 1980)) the prosecutor was merely CR-06-0827 commenting, i n rebuttal, that defense counsel had f a i l e d t o e x p l a i n away e v i d e n c e t h a t c l e a r l y i m p l i c a t e d M i t c h e l l i n t h e crime. App. See B e l i s l e v . S t a t e , 11 So. 3d 256, 305 ( A l a . C r i m . 2007) (holding that a prosecutor State's evidence i s uncontroverted). d i r e c t e d a t defense counsel's to address several may argue that B e c a u s e t h e comment was f a i l u r e d u r i n g c l o s i n g arguments key p i e c e s of evidence that tended t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e i r c l i e n t was g u i l t y , i t was n o t a to M i t c h e l l ' s Finally, the reference failure to testify. the prosecutor's comment t h a t "[Mitchell] just t o l d you who was t h e d r i v e r , " was n o t a comment on h i s f a i l u r e to t e s t i f y . ( M i t c h e l l ' s b r i e f , a t 11.) argument, t h e p r o s e c u t o r was recorded "[Mitchell] while just b r i e f , a t 11.) commenting failure played Mitchell During h i s c l o s i n g a recording was in jail, of M i t c h e l l and then t o l d you who was t h e d r i v e r . " stated, (Mitchell's The r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r on M i t c h e l l ' s to testify. recorded Therefore, merit. B. 13 conversation, this argument that was n o t on h i s is without CR-06-0827 Mitchell next argues t h a t d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l , the p r o s e c u t o r i m p r o p e r l y argued v i c t i m - i m p a c t e v i d e n c e and improperly rights. at the M i t c h e l l d i d not trial; only. compared therefore, R u l e 45A, During following his Ala. o b j e c t to the this R. closing victims' issue App. rights to Mitchell's p r o s e c u t o r ' s comments i s reviewed for p l a i n error P. arguments, the prosecutor made arguments: "We t a l k about r i g h t s . Defense t a l k s about rights. W e l l , i m a g i n e Kim O l n e y had a r i g h t . She had a r i g h t t o go t o work and provide for her family. She had a r i g h t t o l i v e f o r h e r k i d s . Her f a m i l y had a r i g h t t o be a b l e t o e n j o y T h a n k s g i v i n g t h i s year w i t h t h e i r daughter. He t o o k t h a t r i g h t away. He t o o k i t away. Yes, he t o o k t h a t r i g h t away. "Talk about r i g h t s ? D o r o t h y S m i t h had a r i g h t t o come t o A l a b a m a where s h e ' s f r o m b e f o r e she moved t o New Y o r k t o v i s i t h e r son. She had a r i g h t t o do that. I t ' s her b u s i n e s s . She had a r i g h t b e c a u s e she had t o have t o l e a v e e a r l y t h a t m o r n i n g t o c h e c k into that hotel. She had a r i g h t t o c h o o s e w h a t e v e r h o t e l she w a n t e d t o . She w o r k e d h a r d f o r h e r money. She had a r i g h t t o do t h a t . P i c k e d t h e wrong h o t e l . And he t o o k h e r away. She won't be celebrating T h a n k s g i v i n g t h i s y e a r w i t h h e r son. She won't be v i s i t i n g A l a b a m a anymore. She made t h e m i s t a k e o f v i s i t i n g A l a b a m a where B r a n d o n M i t c h e l l resides, coming i n t o h i s t e r r i t o r y . Cost her her l i f e and she was e x e c u t e d . "Talk about r i g h t s ? J o h n A y l e s w o r t h had t o be w i t h h i s w i f e who i s o u t h e r e . He was 14 a right minding the CR-06-0827 h i s own b u s i n e s s . He h a d a r i g h t t o p r o v i d e f o r h i s family. He d r o v e h i s t r u c k t h r o u g h t h e S t a t e o f Alabama, t h r o u g h Birmingham, and had t r u c k problems. Unfortunately f o r h i m , he h a d t r u c k p r o b l e m s i n B i r m i n g h a m when h i s t r u c k s t o p p e d . A n d he h a d a r i g h t t o check i n t h a t h o t e l and w a i t f o r h i s t r u c k t o be r e p a i r e d s o he c a n g e t home t o h i s f a m i l y . He had a r i g h t a l s o . B u t y o u know what? T h i s man h e r e ( i n d i c a t i n g ) t o o k t h a t r i g h t away f r o m h i m a l s o . Took t h a t r i g h t away." "Now, I a g r e e t h i s was n o t p l e a s a n t . T h i s was not a p l e a s a n t t r i a l . I t was n o t . A n d I'm g o i n g t o end i t . B u t y o u know, I a g r e e w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s was a h o r r i b l e , h o r r i b l e c r i m e . Absolutely. And i t c h a n g e d t h e l i v e s o f t h o s e f a m i l y members forever. Forever. Thanksgiving, l a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n , i s s e v e n d a y s , i f my math i s c o r r e c t , away. Seven d a y s away. I t c h a n g e d t h e i r lives forever. "And y o u know, r i g h t now t h e v e r y n e x t t i m e t h a t t h e f a m i l y members t h i n k o f K i m O l n e y , t h e y a r e g o i n g t o t h i n k o f what t h e y saw h e r e . T h i s i s what t h e y a r e g o i n g t o t h i n k o f . T h i s i s e x a c t l y what they are going t o t h i n k o f r i g h t here ( i n d i c a t i n g ) , l a d i e s and gentlemen. I can't get i t r i g h t , but t h a t ' s what t h e y a r e g o i n g t o t h i n k o f . T h a t ' s what t h e y a r e g o i n g t o t h i n k o f . T h a t ' s h i s work. T h a t ' s h i s work p r o d u c t . When t h e y t h i n k o f D o r o t h y S m i t h , t h i s i s what t h e y a r e g o i n g t o t h i n k o f r i g h t h e r e ( i n d i c a t i n g ) . T h a t ' s h i s work. T h a t ' s h i s work. When t h e y t h i n k o f J o h n A y l e s w o r t h , t h a t ' s what t h e y a r e g o i n g t o remember ( i n d i c a t i n g ) . T h a t ' s h i s work, his. "He s i t s t h e r e t o d a y . He s i t s t h e r e a n d he l e f t a t r a i l o f d e s t r u c t i o n behind. Brandon M i t c h e l l , seated at that table over there, a n d he was i d e n t i f i e d by s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s . That's t h e Brandon 15 CR-06-0827 M i t c h e l l t h a t y ' a l l have been f o c u s i n g on a l l week. I want you t o remember s o m e t h i n g . I want you t o remember t h a t h i s f a m i l y i s o u t h e r e . I want you t o remember t h a t t h e y a r e a l s o h e r e . I want you t o remember t h a t t h e y a r e h e r e and t h e y have b e e n h e r e a l l week j u s t l i k e he has a l l week. B u t t h a t ' s n o t t h e B r a n d o n M i t c h e l l t h a t you r e a l l y know. T h a t ' s not the Brandon M i t c h e l l . This i s ( i n d i c a t i n g ) . That's Brandon Mitchell's work, ladies and g e n t l e m e n , r i g h t t h e r e , r i g h t t h e r e ( i n d i c a t i n g ) . He t r i e d t o w a l k away f r o m t h a t s c e n e . He's c h a r g e d , l a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n , w i t h f o u r c o u n t s o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r . F o u r . He i s g u i l t y o f a l l f o u r c o u n t s o f c a p i t a l murder." (R. 1011-12, 1018-19.) I n Ex p a r t e a similar Rieber, situation t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court addressed holding: "[T]he aforementioned p o r t i o n s of [the prosecutor's argument], although they should n o t have been p e r m i t t e d , d i d n o t o p e r a t e t o deny R i e b e r a f a i r 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 l e a v e 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 w o u l d 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 us t o h o l d , b a s e d on the r e c o r d b e f o r e 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 b e c a u s e t h e j u r o r s were t o l d what they probably had a l r e a d y suspected--that [the v i c t i m ] was n o t a 'human i s l a n d , ' b u t a u n i q u e individual whose m u r d e r 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." 663 So. Justice v. 2d 999, 1006 ( A l a . 1995) ( p a r a p h r a s i n g Souter's opinion T e n n e s s e e , 501 U.S. concurring 808, 838 16 a portion of i n t h e j u d g m e n t i n Payne (1991)). CR-06-0827 I n F r a z i e r v. App. S t a t e , 758 So. 1999), t h i s Court addressed 2d 577, 602-04 ( A l a . Crim. an a r g u m e n t n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l t o M i t c h e l l ' s and h e l d t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s comments d i d n o t constitute plain error. In F r a z i e r , following argument: statements in t h e p r o s e c u t o r made t h e 1) the murders occurred d u r i n g t h e week o f T h a n k s g i v i n g ; 2) t h e 40 y e a r - o l d v i c t i m in the raised prime 2 of her daughters; life; 4) the 3) the victim victim was had about was successfully to become a g r a n d m o t h e r f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e ; and 5) t h e v i c t i m w o u l d n e v e r g e t t o see h e r g r a n d b a b y b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t " g o t t i r e d l i s t e n i n g t o [her] beg." Id. This Court determined of t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r ' s comments d i d 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 b e c a u s e t h e r e was overwhelming evidence o f g u i l t and because t h e j u r o r s were i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l were n o t t o be c o n s i d e r e d as e v i d e n c e , strictly on the evidence, and t h e i r v e r d i c t must be they could not based find the a p p e l l a n t g u i l t y u n l e s s the p r o s e c u t i o n p r o v e d i t s case beyond a reasonable doubt. Similarly, the Id. at 604. State presented overwhelming evidence M i t c h e l l ' s g u i l t , i n c l u d i n g a v i d e o showing M i t c h e l l Olney. The circuit court instructed 17 the jurors of murdering that in CR-06-0827 "deciding the guilt or innocence c o n f i n e d to the evidence" of the defendant, 758 several times considered So. 2d at t h a t the as 604 ("The jurors arguments of evidence. (R. 1029.) were counsel In a d d i t i o n , they t h a t they c o u l d not prosecution proved See instructed were n o t were to evidence, f i n d the a p p e l l a n t g u i l t y u n l e s s the doubt. 'The j u r y i s p r e s u m e d t o f o l l o w t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n by t h e trial court.'" (Ala. So. So. (quoting Hutcherson Crim. App. So. this So. 2d (Ala. at Crim. i n t u r n T a y l o r v. 846, 854 666 to the 2d 727 666 71 1997), c i t i n g State, State, circumstances, rise v. ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , o p i n i o n e x t e n d e d on remand, 2d 36 2d i t s case beyond a r e a s o n a b l e be instructed t h a t t h e y s h o u l d b a s e t h e i r v e r d i c t s t r i c t l y on t h e and are and s h o u l d n o t c o n s i d e r " p r e j u d i c e , s y m p a t h y , c o m p a s s i o n , o r any o t h e r e m o t i o n . " Frazier, you App. 1994))). Based on these any e r r o r i n t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s a r g u m e n t d i d n o t level 1006; of p l a i n Frazier, error. 758 So. See 2d at Ex p a r t e R i e b e r , 602-04. i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e M i t c h e l l t o any 663 Therefore, relief. C. Finally, "improperly Mitchell wove a contends religious 18 theme that the prosecutor into its Thanksgiving CR-06-0827 argument." portion of prosecutor we (Mitchell's should the State's s t a t e d : "On be brief, at 16.) guilt-phase t h e v e r y day During the final c l o s i n g arguments, the t h a t s h o u l d be a day that g i v i n g t h a n k s f o r God's b o u n t i f u l b l e s s i n g s to a l l o f u s , t h a t f a m i l i e s o u g h t t o be t o g e t h e r , he w a n t s t o do a lick." (R. 998-99.) improperly invoked According Constitution. Mitchell therefore, Court w i l l R u l e 45A, Not A l a . R. So. Crim. 495, prosecutor's v. State, 511 did not object review 292 in a A l a . 590, 591, 298 improper). as t o p r e v e n t See 1996) So. States comment; error only. I v e r y v. God, State, (holding that not 2d to improper); 89, 90 the Poole (Ala. 1974) comment -- " I want you t o t h i n k a b o u t t h i s and use y o u r common s e n s e . immediately this criminal prosecution t o God's l a w was ( h o l d i n g t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r ' s reputation to i t for plain ( A l a . C r i m . App. reference Fifth, P. a l l references 2d comment Amendments t o t h e U n i t e d r e l i g i o n , or the B i b l e are i m p e r m i s s i b l e . 686 this r e l i g i o n i n v i o l a t i o n of the F i r s t , S i x t h , E i g h t h , and F o u r t e e n t h this to M i t c h e l l , before J u d a s was betraying "Argument o f c o u n s e l r e f e r e n c e , by way should a man Christ" n o t be so -- of good was not restricted of i l l u s t r a t i o n , to h i s t o r i c a l 19 CR-06-0827 f a c t s and p u b l i c c h a r a c t e r s , o r t o p r i n c i p l e s o f d i v i n e l a w b i b l i c a l teachings." 188 So. 2d Generally, W r i g h t v. S t a t e , 279 272, 279 (Ala. a prosecutor's 1966) reference duty to follow improper b a s i s . 1301 (Ala. religion or God, the Compare W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 710 App. law omitted). 1996) or the u r g e s t h e j u r y t o abandon decide Crim. the 550-551, (citation to r e l i g i o n , B i b l e i s improper i f that reference its A l a . 543, to (holding that case So. on 2d references to t h a t i l l u s t r a t e a p o i n t as o p p o s e d t o u r g i n g t h e j u r y Romine v. Head, 253 t h a t the "prosecutor j u r y as a b a s i s m e r c y and F.3d 292 prosecutor's your 1358 [improperly] for urging reference d e s c r i p t i v e or Poole, 1349, ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2001) argued B i b l i c a l i t t o eschew any s e n t e n c e Romine t o d e a t h " ) . prosecutor's use an 1276, t o abandon i t s d u t y t o f o l l o w t h e l a w a r e n o t i m p r o p e r ) , merely or A l a . a t 591, comment -- common s e n s e . immediately before to God or So. 2d " I want you J u d a s was betraying is the law other figures to the of hand, that a is improper. See (holding that the to t h i n k about t h i s and at not 90 a man C h r i s t , " -- 20 (holding consideration Biblical illustrative 298 On with of was good reputation not improper); CR-06-0827 Wright v. State, 279 W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , Ala. 710 at So. 550-551, 2d a t 188 So. 2d at 1301. H e r e , t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s r e f e r e n c e t o "a day t h a t we be giving described thanks the for day God's the 279; bountiful murders blessings" occurred, should merely Thanksgiving. C o n t r a r y t o M i t c h e l l ' s a s s e r t i o n , t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s comment was i s o l a t e d , and i t d i d n o t u r g e t h e j u r y t o "abandon i t s d u t y t o f o l l o w the law." Williams, 710 So. State's reference to Thanksgiving g i v i n g thanks reference merely 2d a t as "a day t h a t we ... d i d the should command[s] t h a t [ M i t c h e l l ] be p u t ( M i t c h e l l ' s b r i e f , a t 16.) t h u s was Nor f o r God's b o u n t i f u l b l e s s i n g s " i n t i m a t e t o j u r y t h a t "the B i b l e death." 2d a t 1301. Wright, 279 the to Instead, the p r o s e c u t o r ' s i l l u s t r a t e d t h e day t h e m u r d e r s o c c u r r e d not improper. be A l a . a t 5 5 0 - 5 5 1 , 188 and So. 279. M o r e o v e r , e v e n i f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s comment was i t would not r i s e t o the l e v e l of p l a i n e r r o r . improper, "Isolated, or ambiguous o r u n i n t e n t i o n a l r e m a r k s must be v i e w e d w i t h l e n i t y , and a brief Romine, 253 See remark F.3d is a t 1369 less likely ( c i t a t i o n s and to cause quotations a l s o J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-99-1349, O c t . 21 prejudice." omitted). 2, 2009] CR-06-0827 So. 3d the , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005) ( o p i n i o n on remand f r o m Alabama Supreme Court) an isolated, i m p r o p e r comment i s l e s s l i k e l y t o be p r e j u d i c i a l ) . Here, t h e prosecutor's likely comment was result i n prejudice. presented (recognizing isolated Further, overwhelming that and thus less to as d e s c r i b e d a b o v e , t h e S t a t e evidence of M i t c h e l l ' s g u i l t , and t h e c i r c u i t court properly i n s t r u c t e d the j u r o r s that i n "deciding t h e g u i l t o r i n n o c e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , you a r e c o n f i n e d t o the evidence" and s h o u l d compassion, or overwhelming evidence of g u i l t the court, context the 1183 other "prejudice, emotion." the prosecutor's (R. sympathy, 1029.) With and p r o p e r i n s t r u c t i o n s from comment, "when viewed i n the o f t h e e n t i r e c l o s i n g argument and i n t h e c o n t e x t o f entire fairness any not consider trial, [ d i d not] undermine[] of the t r i a l , " Ex p a r t e Parker, the fundamental 610 So. 2d 1 1 8 1 , ( A l a . 1992), and t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f plain error. R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. II. Mitchell failed to next argues t h a t instruct Specifically, he the j u r y contends the c i r c u i t on that 22 court erroneously lesser-included because the jury offenses. was not CR-06-0827 afforded the option offense, the i m p o s i t i o n of the both a r b i t r a r y and argument review to the of c o n v i c t i n g him court; i t for p l a i n error only. Mitchell See that the failure to R u l e 45A, U.S. instruct lesser-included in this d i d not therefore, R e l y i n g on B e c k v. A l a b a m a , 447 argues a death penalty capricious. circuit on 625 the this case i s raise this Court will A l a . R. App. (1980), jury on P. Mitchell lesser- i n c l u d e d offenses rendered h i s death sentence u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because i t denied the jury a third him o f a n o n - c a p i t a l o f f e n s e . M a p l e s v. A l l e n , United 586 F.3d option, i.e., convicting R e j e c t i n g a s i m i l a r argument i n 879, 893-94 (11th C i r . 2009), S t a t e s Court of Appeals f o r the E l e v e n t h Circuit held: " M a p l e s r e l i e s p r i m a r i l y on B e c k v. A l a b a m a , 447 U.S. 625, 100 S. C t . 2382, 65 L. Ed. 2d 392 (1980), but Beck i s c o m p l e t e l y i n a p p o s i t e because i t i n v o l v e d an a l l - o r - n o t h i n g s t a t u t e no l o n g e r e x t a n t . In the 1 9 7 0 s , B e c k was c o n v i c t e d of c a p i t a l murder. In Beck, the Supreme C o u r t i n v a l i d a t e d an Alabama s t a t u t e t h a t a b s o l u t e l y p r o h i b i t e d i n c a p i t a l cases the charging of a l l n o n - c a p i t a l l e s s e r i n c l u d e d offenses. A l t h o u g h t h e e v i d e n c e w a r r a n t e d s u c h an i n s t r u c t i o n i n Beck's case, the Alabama j u r y was g i v e n t h e c h o i c e o n l y o f (1) c o n v i c t i n g B e c k o f t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e , f o r w h i c h t h e j u r y must impose t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , o r (2) s e t t i n g him f r e e . B e c k , 447 U.S. a t 628-30, 100 S. C t . a t 2385-86. The Supreme C o u r t h e l d Alabama's a l l - o r - n o t h i n g s t a t u t e was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because the a b s o l u t e p r e c l u s i o n i n a c a p i t a l c a s e o f a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e , when t h e evidence supported i t , v i o l a t e d procedural due 23 the CR-06-0827 process. See B e c k , 447 U.S. a t 627, 100 S. C t . a t 2384 ( o v e r t u r n i n g d e a t h p e n a l t y where j u r y "was n o t permitted t o consider a v e r d i c t of g u i l t of a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d n o n - c a p i t a l o f f e n s e , a n d when t h e e v i d e n c e w o u l d have s u p p o r t e d s u c h a v e r d i c t " ) ; c f . Hopper v. E v a n s , 456 U.S. 605, 610-14, 102 S. C t . 2049, 2052-54, 72 L. E d . 2d 367 (1982) ( u p h o l d i n g d e a t h s e n t e n c e e v e n t h o u g h j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d on o n l y c a p i t a l o f f e n s e under Alabama's p r e c l u s i o n s t a t u t e , because the evidence d i d not support a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e c h a r g e a n d d e f e n d a n t was t h u s n o t p r e j u d i c e d b y p r e c l u s i o n s t a t u t e ) . ... [A] l e s s e r included non-capital offense instruction i s w a r r a n t e d [ , h o w e v e r , ] o n l y when t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s s u c h an i n s t r u c t i o n . " (emphasis added). court shall offense not charge unless convicting S i m i l a r l y , t h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t there 2d 840, 842 So. 699 lesser, non-capital 2d respect t o an included basis for a verdict of the included (emphasis added)." App. 1 9 8 7 ) ; 1285, 1291 offense i n the evidence supportive rational (Ala. Crim. Myers, basis is a the defendant Code 1975, § 13A-1-9(b) So. the jury with "'[t]he offense.' Alabama B e l l v . S t a t e , 518 see a l s o ( A l a . 1997) ("A Ex charge i s r e q u i r e d o n l y when t h e r e which provides a reasonable o f t h e c h a r g e . " ) ( c i t a t i o n s and i n t e r n a l parte on a is a theory quotations omitted). B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d failure t o o f f e r any t h e o r i e s 24 a t t r i a l a n d on M i t c h e l l ' s i n support of a charge on a CR-06-0827 lesser-included support 145, ( A l a . C r i m . App. that the appellant charged, or innocent, is So. not necessary 2d 1249, established course there s u c h an i n s t r u c t i o n . 146 shows offense, that otherwise. 1993)("'When i s either three Therefore, rational basis 630 So. 2d the evidence guilty of to clearly the offense t h e c h a r g e on a l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e ( q u o t i n g H o l l i n s v. S t a t e , ( A l a . Crim. of a robbery, no See W e l c h v. S t a t e , or proper.'" 1253 was murders and t h e r e App. 1982))). were was the c i r c u i t The committed evidence during no e v i d e n c e 415 the to indicate court properly refused to i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e s . III. Mitchell next argues t h a t the c i r c u i t court f o u n d t h a t t h e m u r d e r s were e s p e c i a l l y h e i n o u s , c r u e l when compared t o o t h e r 4 9 ( 8 ) , A l a . Code 1975. State presented triple murder Mitchell murders. a t r o c i o u s , or See § 13A-5- S p e c i f i c a l l y , M i t c h e l l argues t h a t the insufficient was capital erroneously evidence e s p e c i a l l y heinous, f u r t h e r argues that f a c t s of h i s crime w i t h those to e s t a b l i s h that the atrocious, a comparative i n other 25 or cruel. a n a l y s i s of the cases e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t CR-06-0827 the especially heinous, atrocious, circumstance i s i n a p p l i c a b l e . "In d e c i d i n g whether or cruel aggravating This Court disagrees. 1 there is sufficient evidence s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t o f t h e j u r y and t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e court, the evidence must be reviewed in the trial light most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . " B r e c k e n r i d g e v. S t a t e , 628 2d 1012, 1018 368 2d So. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 871 ( A l a . Crim. or 1993) App. cruel (citing aggravating The especially heinous, atrocious, "appl[ies] to o n l y those c o n s c i e n c e l e s s or p i t i l e s s K y z e r , 399 So. 2d 330, 283 So. 2d 1 334 ( A l a . 1981) So. Cumbo v. S t a t e , 1978)). which are u n n e c e s s a r i l y t o r t u r o u s to the to circumstance victim." homicides Ex ( c i t i n g S t a t e v. parte Dixon, ( F l a . 1973)). " ' T h e r e a r e t h r e e f a c t o r s g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d as indicating that a c a p i t a l offense i s especially h e i n o u s , a t r o c i o u s , o r c r u e l : (1) t h e i n f l i c t i o n on the victim of physical v i o l e n c e beyond that necessary or sufficient to cause death; (2) appreciable suffering by the v i c t i m after the a s s a u l t t h a t u l t i m a t e l y r e s u l t e d i n d e a t h ; and (3) the i n f l i c t i o n o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l t o r t u r e on the victim.'" M i t c h e l l a l s o argues t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t v i o l a t e d Ring v. A r i z o n a , 536 U.S. 584 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , when i t f o u n d t h e 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 a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance to exist. T h i s argument i s a d d r e s s e d i n S e c t i o n I V o f t h i s opinion. 1 26 CR-06-0827 Saunders v. S t a t e , (quoting App. Brooks v. S t a t e , 2007), (Ala. 10 So. 3d 53, 108 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007) citing i n turn 793 So. 2d 847 enough must be an a p p r e c i a b l e t o cause p r o l o n g e d v i c t i m must be c o n s c i o u s additional deliberately fashion, This victim that action atrocious, may ... , s u c h be or c r u e l . " time, N o r r i s , 793 "[w]hen a d e f e n d a n t i n t h e head a f t e r t h e v i c t i m has a l r e a d y [ p r i o r ] gunshots evil' a of s u f f e r i n g , a n d (2) t h e i s inflicted." C o u r t has h e l d shoots lapse o r aware when a t l e a s t some o f t h e or repeated violence So. 2d a t 854. (Ala. v. S t a t e , f a c t o r , " t h e t i m e b e t w e e n a t l e a s t some the i n j u r i o u s acts sufficient by Norris ( A l a . Crim. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ) . Under t h e f i r s t of 973 So. 2d 380, 417-18 in a calculated been r e n d e r e d helpless 'extremely wicked or shockingly characterized as H a r d y v. S t a t e , especially heinous, 804 So. 2d 247, 288 C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ( c i t a t i o n s a n d q u o t a t i o n s omitted). F u r t h e r , " [ p ] s y c h o l o g i c a l t o r t u r e [under t h e t h i r d f a c t o r ] can be i n f l i c t e d by l e a v i n g the v i c t i m i n h i s l a s t aware o f , b u t h e l p l e s s t o p r e v e n t , i m p e n d i n g d e a t h . " 793 So. 2d a t 859-60 (citations and q u o t a t i o n s moments Norris, omitted). " [ T ] h e f a c t o r o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l t o r t u r e must have b e e n p r e s e n t 27 CR-06-0827 for an a p p r e c i a b l e l a p s e of time, sufficient enough t o have caused prolonged or a p p r e c i a b l e s u f f e r i n g , i . e . , the p e r i o d of s u f f e r i n g must be p r o l o n g e d enough t o s e p a r a t e t h e c r i m e 'ordinary' murders appropriate." individuals for I d . a t 8 61 was not which the death penalty is ( h o l d i n g t h a t the murder o f psychologically torturous were event[, and] sudden, without [ t ] h e r e was any warning nothing preceding or the t h a t w o u l d have e v o k e d i n t h e victims intense f e a r , or a n t i c i p a t i o n of t h e i r not three because t h r e e v i c t i m s were s h o t i n r a p i d s u c c e s s i o n ; t h e " f i r s t shots from the three precipitating first murder deaths"). In cruel circuit finding that aggravating the especially circumstance was heinous, apprehension, a t r o c i o u s , or applicable here, court stated: " T h r e e p e o p l e were k i l l e d and p o r t i o n s o f t h e k i l l i n g s were c a u g h t on v i d e o t a p e . As t h e first v i c t i m was b e i n g m u r d e r e d , t h e o t h e r two v i c t i m s p r o b a b l y knew t h e i r f a t e and had t o s u f f e r t h r o u g h a p e r i o d o f t i m e k n o w i n g t h e y p r o b a b l y w o u l d a l s o be killed. E v e n i f t h e f i r s t two v i c t i m s were s h o t a t t h e same t i m e , one of the v i c t i m s d i d not d i e i m m e d i a t e l y and t h a t t h i r d v i c t i m w o u l d h a v e b e e n aware [ o f ] what was h a p p e n i n g u n t i l t h e t i m e t h a t he o r she was a l s o k i l l e d . The v i d e o a l s o c l e a r l y shows t h a t t h e f i r s t o f two g u n s h o t wounds t o Kim O l n e y was not immediately f a t a l . O l n e y s u f f e r e d , as t h e t i m e l a p s e t a p e showed by h e r c o n t i n u e d movement a f t e r first being shot, f o r a p e r i o d of time. This 28 the CR-06-0827 s u f f e r i n g was n o t o v e r u n t i l B r a n d o n M i t c h e l l f i r e d a s e c o n d s h o t i n h e r h e a d and k i l l e d O l n e y . The Court finds that words used in the general i n s t r u c t i o n s u c h as ' e x t r e m e l y w i c k e d , ' ' s h o c k i n g l y evil,' 'unnecessarily torturous,' 'conscienceless' and ' p i t i l e s s ' a l l a p p l y t o t h i s o f f e n s e . " (C.R. 24.) record and atrocious, The c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t e d by support i t s finding or c r u e l that the e s p e c i a l l y the heinous, aggravating circumstance applied to this crime. The r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t a t l e a s t one v i c t i m psychological torture. suffered O l n e y and S m i t h were b o t h s h o t b e h i n d t h e e a r a t c l o s e r a n g e w i t h t h e same weapon. O l n e y and Smith were lobby when t h e y were floor i n the in different shot. areas Specifically, of Olney a r e a b e h i n d t h e c o u n t e r and Thus, the manner in which the was Inn's on the S m i t h was Olney clerk's i n the v i s i t o r ' s and Smith were area. murdered i n d i c a t e s t h a t M i t c h e l l h a d t o p l a c e t h e p i s t o l b e h i n d one t h e v i c t i m ' s e a r s and p u l l t h e t r i g g e r . victim, Mitchell had to travel to a A f t e r murdering different area that of the I n n ' s l o b b y , h o l d t h e gun t o t h e n e x t v i c t i m ' s h e a d , and the trigger. "These murders r a p i d - f i r e manner; t h e r e was were not sufficient accomplished 29 pull in time between the m u r d e r s f o r t h e n e x t v i c t i m t o be p l a c e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t of a ... fear CR-06-0827 for h i s or her l i f e . . . . " 1169 not Taylor ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n v. S t a t e , Therefore, 808 So. 2 d 1148, the c i r c u i t court d i d i n f i n d i n g t h a t a t l e a s t one o f t h e victims suffered psychological torture. M o r e o v e r , t h e r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t w h i l e O l n e y l a y on the floor, helpless. Mitchell first A f t e r being shot shot h e r i n t h e arm, r e n d e r i n g h e r i n t h e arm, O l n e y , p a i n and f e a r i n g f o r h e r l i f e , continued t o move. t h e r e a f t e r , M i t c h e l l placed the p i s t o l behind shot h e r i n t h e head. "When [Mitchell] obviously i n Olney's e a r and d e l i b e r a t e l y sho[t] [Olney] i n t h e head i n a c a l c u l a t e d f a s h i o n , a f t e r a l r e a d y been rendered 'extremely wicked characterized Hardy, h e l p l e s s by [ p r i o r ] or shockingly 804 So. 2 d a t 288 ( c i t a t i o n s [she] h a [ d ] gunshots evil' as e s p e c i a l l y h e i n o u s , Some t i m e ... , s u c h action atrocious, and i n t e r n a l may or be cruel." quotations omitted). Because appreciable least the State time lapsed two o f t h e t h r e e between M i t c h e l l ' s f i r s t presented between victims evidence the f a t a l indicating shootings and a p p r e c i a b l e time that of at lapsed shot wounding Olney and t h e second, f a t a l s h o t , t h e S t a t e met i t s b u r d e n o f p r o o f , a n d t h e c i r c u i t 30 CR-06-0827 court correctly found that the heinous, a t r o c i o u s , or c r u e l . at ("As the especially See Ex p a r t e R i e b e r , 663 So. e v i d e n c e as t o t h e f e a r e x p e r i e n c e d by t h e v i c t i m b e f o r e death aggravating heinous, factor Mitchell or Criminal Appeals i n determining the e x i s t e n c e of circumstance atrocious, Therefore, of 2d out, a significant Court were pointed is 1003 offenses that the cruel."); i s not murder Hardy, entitled to was the especially 804 So. 2d at 288. any relief on this issue. IV. M i t c h e l l next argues t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s o v e r r i d e of the jury's possibility recommendation of p a r o l e was Amendment p u r s u a n t and raises several Because Mitchell circuit court, this sentence v. R i n g v. A r i z o n a , 536 sub-arguments failed first violates in prison to Court New U.S. in support present will these review under Jersey, 584 without the 530 4 66 Mitchell this issue. arguments to the for plain error death A l a . R. App. Ring. In Ring, 31 them Sixth U.S. (2002). of the makes a g e n e r a l a r g u m e n t t h a t h i s See R u l e 45A, Mitchell life unconstitutional to Apprendi (2000), only. of P. the United States Supreme CR-06-0827 Court 530 a p p l i e d i t s e a r l i e r holding i n Apprendi U.S. 466 (2000), to death-penalty cases u n d e r t h e S i x t h Amendment, c a p i t a l d e f e n d a n t s a jury determination of any fact [other v. New and Jersey, held that are " e n t i t l e d to than a prior c o n v i c t i o n ] on w h i c h t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c o n d i t i o n s an i n c r e a s e i n their maximum p u n i s h m e n t . " Ring, parte Waldrop, 1181 Supreme C o u r t 859 So. 2d 536 (Ala. a p p l i e d Ring to a s i m i l a r U.S. at 600. 2002), the s i t u a t i o n and In Alabama held: "[W]hen a d e f e n d a n t i s f o u n d g u i l t y o f a c a p i t a l offense, 'any aggravating circumstance which the 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 p u r p o s e s o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g . ' A l a . Code 1975, § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( e ) ; see a l s o A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-50 ('The f a c t t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r c a p i t a l o f f e n s e as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 13A-5-40(a) n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e s one o r more a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s as s p e c i f i e d i n S e c t i o n 13A-5-49 s h a l l n o t be c o n s t r u e d t o p r e c l u d e the finding and c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h a t r e l e v a n t circumstance or circumstances in determining sentence.'). T h i s i s known as ' d o u b l e - c o u n t i n g ' o r ' o v e r l a p , ' and A l a b a m a c o u r t s 'have r e p e a t e d l y u p h e l d death sentences where the only aggravating circumstance s u p p o r t i n g the death sentence o v e r l a p s w i t h an e l e m e n t o f t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e . ' Ex p a r t e T r a w i c k , 698 So. 2d 162, 178 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; see a l s o C o r a l v. S t a t e , 628 So. 2d 954, 965 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992). "Because the j u r y c o n v i c t e d Waldrop of two counts of murder d u r i n g a r o b b e r y i n the first degree, a violation of Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(2), the statutory aggravating 32 Ex CR-06-0827 circumstance of committing a c a p i t a l offense while e n g a g e d i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a r o b b e r y , A l a . Code 1975, § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 4 ) , 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 l a . Code 1975, § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( e ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-50. O n l y one a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e must e x i s t i n o r d e r t o i m p o s e a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h . A l a . Code 1975, § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( f ) . Thus, i n W a l d r o p ' s case, t h e j u r y , and n o t t h e t r i a l judge, d e t e r m i n e d the existence of the 'aggravating circumstance necessary f o r i m p o s i t i o n of the death p e n a l t y . ' Ring [ v. A r i z o n a ] , 536 U.S. [584,] 609, 122 S. C t . [2428,] 2443 [ ( 2 0 0 2 ) ] . Therefore, the findings r e f l e c t e d i n t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t alone exposed Waldrop t o a r a n g e o f p u n i s h m e n t t h a t h a d as i t s maximum t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . T h i s i s a l l R i n g a n d A p p r e n d i [ v . New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. C t . 2348 (2000)] require." 859 So. 2d a t 1188. L i k e t h e a p p e l l a n t i n W a l d r o p , M i t c h e l l was c o n v i c t e d o f capital offenses circumstances, robbery, that have corresponding i . e . , murder committed s e e §§ 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) , t o one scheme o r c o u r s e 13A-5-49(9), finding Mitchell guilty A l a . Code 1975, s e e §§ 13A-5-40(a)(10), Accordingly, the jury's o f murder during pursuant scheme that course of conduct 33 established verdict the course r o b b e r y a n d o f m u r d e r o f two o r more p e r s o n s or of a ... b y one a c t o r p u r s u a n t of conduct," A l a . Code 1975. d u r i n g the course 13A-5-49(4), and m u r d e r o f "two o r more p e r s o n s aggravating of a t o one the jury CR-06-0827 unanimously Because jury f o u n d t h a t two a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s the jury's guilt-phase verdict established found a f a c t n e c e s s a r y t o expose M i t c h e l l of death, M i t c h e l l ' s to a existed. 2 that the sentence S i x t h Amendment r i g h t t o a j u r y was n o t violated. Mitchell next argues that the United States Supreme C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n R i n g was v i o l a t e d b e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t made the ultimate circumstances argument determination outweighed i s also the m i t i g a t i n g without Supreme C o u r t a d d r e s s e d that merit. an i d e n t i c a l the aggravating circumstances. In Waldrop, This t h e Alabama i s s u e and h e l d : "The d e t e r m i n a t i o n whether the aggravating circumstances outweigh the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances i s n o t a f i n d i n g o f f a c t o r an e l e m e n t o f t h e offense. C o n s e q u e n t l y , R i n g a n d A p p r e n d i do n o t require that a jury weigh the aggravating c i r c u m s t a n c e s 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 . " Because the j u r y ' s g u i l t - p h a s e v e r d i c t s e s t a b l i s h t h a t i t unanimously f o u n d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t two a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s e x i s t , t h e j u r y was n o t r e q u i r e d t o s p e c i f y i n t h e p e n a l t y phase which a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s i t found t o apply t o M i t c h e l l crimes. See Brown v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-07-1332, June 25, 2010] So. 3d , (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; Sneed v . S t a t e , 1 So. 3d 104, 143 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 20 0 7 ) . 2 34 CR-06-0827 W a l d r o p , 859 So. 2d a t 1190. aggravating i.e., was circumstances Because the balance and t h e m i t i g a t i n g the sentencing determination i t s e l f , n e c e s s a r y t o expose M i t c h e l l death sentence i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f Mitchell next argues circumstances, i s not a fact that t o a sentence does n o t v i o l a t e R i n g . on t h i s that of the of death, h i s Consequently, Mitchell issue. the United States Supreme C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n R i n g was v i o l a t e d b e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t made f i n d i n g s circumstances aggravating heinous, offenses. also of fact and regarding the existence of aggravating because circumstance atrocious, the that or cruel circuit t h e murders as compared § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 8 ) , A l a . Code 1975. without merit. court I n Waldrop, were found the especially to other capital These a r g u m e n t s a r e t h e Alabama Supreme Court r e j e c t e d a s i m i l a r argument as f o l l o w s : "Waldrop claims that the trial court's determination t h a t t h e murders were especially h e i n o u s , a t r o c i o u s , o r c r u e l as compared t o o t h e r c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s -- an a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e u n d e r Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-5-49(8) -- i s a f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t u n d e r R i n g [ v . A r i z o n a , 536 U.S. 584, 122 S. C t . 2428 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , ] must be made b y t h e j u r y . However, R i n g a n d A p p r e n d i [v. New J e r s e y , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. C t . 2348 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , ] do n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e j u r y make e v e r y f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n ; i n s t e a d , those cases r e q u i r e t h e j u r y t o f i n d beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt o n l y those f a c t s t h a t r e s u l t i n 'an i n c r e a s e i n a d e f e n d a n t ' s a u t h o r i z e d p u n i s h m e n t 35 CR-06-0827 or ' " e x p o s e [ ] [a d e f e n d a n t ] t o a g r e a t e r p u n i s h m e n t . . . . " ' R i n g , 536 U.S. a t 602, 604, 122 S. C t . a t 2439, 2440 ( q u o t i n g A p p r e n d i , 530 U.S. a t 494, 120 S. C t . 2 3 4 8 ) . A l a b a m a l a w r e q u i r e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f o n l y one 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 o r d e r f o r a d e f e n d a n t t o be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h . A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(f). The j u r y i n t h i s c a s e f o u n d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h a t one a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e : t h a t t h e m u r d e r s were c o m m i t t e d w h i l e W a l d r o p was e n g a g e d i n the commission of a robbery. At t h a t p o i n t , W a l d r o p became ' e x p o s e d ' t o , o r e l i g i b l e f o r , t h e death penalty. The trial court's subsequent determination that the m u r d e r s were 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 , o r c r u e l i s a f a c t o r t h a t has application only in weighing the mitigating circumstances and t h 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 , a p r o c e s s t h a t we h e l d e a r l i e r i s n o t an ' e l e m e n t ' o f the o f f e n s e . " Ex parte State, (Ala. Waldrop, [Ms. trial for 2010) court circumstance Like So. 2d at CR-06-2233, Mar. C r i m . App. the 859 the the not appellant existence first that have also So. of submitted 3d an to the , when jury"). became aggravating v. aggravating j u r y c o n v i c t e d him corresponding Scott error occurred i n Waldrop, M i t c h e l l t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y when t h e offenses See 2010] ( h o l d i n g t h a t "no found t h a t was 26, 1190. of eligible capital circumstances. Consequently, the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a d d i t i o n a l facts "implicated aggravating Ring. and only in mitigating Ex p a r t e Hodges, 856 the process of circumstances" So. 36 2d 936, 944 weighing did not the violate ( A l a . 2003). CR-06-0827 V. M i t c h e l l next argues t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o override the jury's sentencing recommendation Double Jeopardy Clause of the F i f t h States Constitution. Mitchell, present this Court w i l l review the Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d however, argument t o t h e c i r c u i t violates failed court. i t for p l a i n error only. to first Therefore, this See R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. In United North States C a r o l i n a v. P e a r c e , held that t h e Supreme t h e Double Jeopardy Court Clause of the of the F i f t h Amendment c o n t a i n s t h r e e b a s i c p r o t e c t i o n s : " I t p r o t e c t s against a second acquittal. same offense prosecution f o r t h e same I t protects against after a second p r o s e c u t i o n conviction. And 794 against 395 U.S. 7 1 1 , 717 o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , A l a b a m a v . S m i t h , 490 U.S. (1989). (1994) after f o r the i t protects m u l t i p l e p u n i s h m e n t s f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . " (1969), offense See a l s o (reaffirming Jeopardy Clause). Schiro the v. F a r l e y , three 510 U.S. protections of 222, 229 the Double "These p r o t e c t i o n s stem f r o m t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r e m i s e t h a t a d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d n o t be t w i c e t r i e d o r p u n i s h e d for t h e same o f f e n s e . " 420 U.S. 332, 339 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Id. (citing United S t a t e s v. W i l s o n , The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s h e l d 37 CR-06-0827 that t h e Double Jeopardy Clause of A r t . I., § 9, Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901 a p p l i e s o n l y t o t h e s p e c i f i c p r o t e c t i o n s set f o r t h i n Pearce. (Ala. App. (Ala. See Ex p a r t e W r i g h t , 477 So. 2d 492, 493 1 9 8 5 ) ; Adams v. S t a t e , 955 So. 2d 1037, 2003) 1098 ( A l a . C r i m . ( r e v ' d i n p a r t b y Ex p a r t e Adams, 955 So. 2d 1106 2005)). Under t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s , t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a ' s b i f u r c a t e d sentencing authority scheme, which vests i n t h e judge a f t e r the ultimate sentencing t h e j u r y h a s made a sentencing r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , does n o t s u b j e c t c a p i t a l d e f e n d a n t s t o double jeopardy. The j u r y ' s s e n t e n c i n g r e c o m m e n d a t i o n i s n o t b i n d i n g on t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a n d t h u s does n o t c o n s t i t u t e a j u d g m e n t . As t h e Supreme C o u r t Florida, o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s h e l d i n S p a z i a n o v. 468 U.S. 447, 465 (1984): " [ B e c a u s e ] t h e r e i s no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i m p e r a t i v e t h a t a j u r y have t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y s h o u l d be i m p o s e d [ , ] p e t i t i o n e r ' s double jeopardy challenge to the jury-override procedure [ i s without merit.] I f a j u d g e may be vested w i t h s o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r imposing the p e n a l t y , t h e n t h e r e i s n o t h i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y wrong w i t h t h e judge's e x e r c i s i n g t h a t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a f t e r r e c e i v i n g the advice of the jury. The a d v i c e does n o t become a j u d g m e n t s i m p l y b e c a u s e i t comes f r o m the j u r y . " Accordingly, nonbinding judicial sentencing recommendation does 38 after not the jury constitute h a s made a a "second CR-06-0827 prosecution f o r t h e same o f f e n s e a f t e r a c q u i t t a l [ , ] prosecution f o r the same offense after a second c o n v i c t i o n [ , or] m u l t i p l e p u n i s h m e n t s f o r t h e same o f f e n s e , " Pearce, 395 U.S. a t 717, a n d does n o t v i o l a t e t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e F i f t h Amendment. judicial violate See S p a z i a n o , sentencing after a 468 U.S. a t 465 ( h o l d i n g t h a t jury recommendation t h e Double Jeopardy C l a u s e ) . n o t e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f of the on t h i s Therefore, does not Mitchell i s issue. VI. Mitchell override next that the c i r c u i t of the jury's sentencing prison without the p o s s i b i l i t y Supreme C o u r t ' s 1219 argues court's judicial recommendation o f l i f e i n o f p a r o l e v i o l a t e d t h e Alabama h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e Taylor, 808 So. 2d 1215, ( A l a . 2001), because t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s s e n t e n c i n g failed to state Mitchell failed i t s specific t o f i r s t present reasons f o r the order override. t h i s argument t o t h e c i r c u i t court; therefore, this only. See R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. I n Ex p a r t e Court w i l l review i t forplain error T a y l o r , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d : "Under A l a b a m a ' s c a p i t a l - s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e d u r e , t h e trial j u d g e must make s p e c i f i c w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s regarding the existence or nonexistence o f each aggravating circumstance and each mitigating circumstance o f f e r e d by t h e p a r t i e s . § 13A-5-47(d), 39 CR-06-0827 A l a . Code 1975. In making these f i n d i n g s , the t r i a l j u d g e must c o n s i d e r a j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t w i t h o u t p a r o l e . See § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 7 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975 ('in [weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances] the trial court shall c o n s i d e r the recommendation of the j u r y c o n t a i n e d i n i t s advisory verdict'). Construing subsection (e) t o g e t h e r w i t h s u b s e c t i o n ( d ) , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e must s t a t e s p e c i f i c r e a s o n s f o r g i v i n g t h e j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n he gave it." 808 & So. 2d a t 1219 Storage, 499 Supreme Court Carroll, 852 ( c i t i n g M c C a u s l a n d v. T i d e - M a y f l o w e r M o v i n g So. 2d 1378, subsequently So. 2d 833 1382 (Ala. 1986)). revisited the ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , and The issue Alabama i n Ex parte a d d e d an a d d i t i o n a l requirement i n cases i n v o l v i n g the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s o v e r r i d e a j u r y recommendation. In C a r r o l l , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n to p r o v i d i n g the giving it," the jury's Taylor, 808 required to recommendation So. t r e a t the m i t i g a t i n g circumstance. 2d at jury's 1219, the "specific reasons f o r consideration the sentencing trial judge he gave is also r e c o m m e n d a t i o n as Ex p a r t e C a r r o l l , 852 So. 2d a t S p e c i f i c a l l y , the Court s t a t e d : "The w e i g h t t o be g i v e n t h a t m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s h o u l d d e p e n d upon t h e number o f j u r o r s recommending a s e n t e n c e o f l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t w i t h o u t p a r o l e , and a l s o upon t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r s u c h a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n i n t h e f o r m o f i n f o r m a t i o n known t o t h e j u r y , s u c h as c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e i d e n t i t y of the 'triggerman' or a recommendation of 40 of a 836. CR-06-0827 leniency by the victim's family; the jury's recommendation may be overridden based upon i n f o r m a t i o n known o n l y t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t and n o t t o t h e j u r y , when s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n can p r o p e r l y be u s e d t o undermine a m i t i g a t i n g circumstance." 852 So. In that 2d a t this case, Mitchell be possibility death, the 836. the of j u r y recommended, by sentenced parole. circuit opinion" the that court the to life However, in in had and the aggravating circumstances In reaching i t s conclusion, the prison sentencing concluded that jury a vote i t was incorrectly mitigating circuit court of without the Mitchell to "strongly of weighed the circumstances. stated: "In p r e p a r a t i o n f o r the s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , the Court reviewed v i r t u a l l y e v e r y Alabama a p p e l l a t e case a d d r e s s i n g the i s s u e of a p o t e n t i a l j u r y o v e r r i d e . In d e t e r m i n i n g Brandon M i t c h e l l ' s sentence the Court weighed very heavily the jury's 10 to 2 recommendation f o r the sentence of L i f e Without the P o s s i b i l i t y o f P a r o l e , The C o u r t e v e n r e v i e w e d t h e o c c u p a t i o n o f a l l o f t h e j u r o r s , and d e t e r m i n e d t h a t b a s e d upon t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n s t h e j u r y was fairly r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the c i t i z e n r y of J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama. A l t h o u g h the j u r y ' s recommendation weighs h e a v i l y i n f a v o r of the Defendant, the Court i s s t r o n g l y o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t 10 j u r o r s i n c o r r e c t l y determined t h a t the m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s outweighed the aggravating factors. Even with the jury's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n i n c l u d e d as an a d d i t i o n a l m i t i g a t i n g circumstance, the Court i s of the o p i n i o n t h a t the aggravating circumstances still outweigh the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. The Court i s of the o p i n i o n t h a t the S t a t e r e s t i n g d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase without presenting any aggravating 41 10-2, CR-06-0827 circumstances, but being a l l o w e d to re-open t h e i r c a s e , may have made t h e j u r o r s d e e m p h a s i z e t h e w e i g h t that should have been a t t r i b u t e d to evidence presented in support of the aggravating circumstances. Even i f t h i s d i d not [ a ] f f e c t the j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s , the Court f e e l s s t r o n g l y t h a t the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances outweigh the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances." (C.R. 26.) F u r t h e r , the c i r c u i t c o u r t noted t h a t i n a r r i v i n g a t i t s d e c i s i o n , i t had, " c o n s i d e r e d the evidence presented at t r i a l , the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase i n the j u r y ' s p r e s e n c e , t h e j u r y ' s 10 t o 2 a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t for Life Without Parole, the Pre-Sentence I n v e s t i g a t i o n R e p o r t ( a l t h o u g h some p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e p o r t were e x p r e s s l y e x c l u d e d from the Court's consideration such as Youthful Offender c o n v i c t i o n s ) , a d d i t i o n a l testimony at the s e n t e n c i n g p h a s e , and a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d a t t h e sentencing hearing." (C.R. 26.) reasons Because the for consideration circuit "giving he the gave i t , " court jury's expressly clearly set forth i t s recommendation stated that recommendation "weigh[ed] h e a v i l y i n f a v o r of the the the jury's defendant," and gave i t s r e a s o n s f o r o v e r r i d i n g t h e j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , this Court finds that the circuit court r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n T a y l o r and C a r r o l l . 2d at 836; (C.R. e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f 26-27.) on t h i s Consequently, issue. VII. 42 satisfied the T a y l o r , 852 So. Mitchell is not CR-06-0827 Mitchell next argues that Alabama's scheme i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b e c a u s e 1975 (hereinafter provides no "Alabama's standards parole. judge i n prison Specifically, § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 7 ( d ) , A l a . Code judicial-override for a recommendation o f l i f e capital-sentencing i n overriding without Mitchell provision"), a jury's the p o s s i b i l i t y of asserts that Alabama's j u d i c i a l - o v e r r i d e p r o v i s i o n v i o l a t e s t h e E i g h t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments b e c a u s e i t v e s t s t h e f i n a l s e n t e n c i n g the circuit court. judicial-override violates Ring circuit Initially, United States v. contends U.S. Gore, f a i l e d to present this that at 531 these Court will 619, U.S. 98 review thus and is (2000). arguments to the them f o r t h i s Court notes that the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the does n o t p r o h i b i t v e s t i n g court. the f i n a l sentencing See S p a z i a n o v. F l o r i d a , U.S. a t 465. Further, of the U n i t e d S t a t e s h e l d t h a t Alabama's s e n t e n c i n g jury's and See R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. a u t h o r i t y i n the c i r c u i t which Alabama's "standardless" 536 Bush therefore, p l a i n error only. is Arizona, under however, court; also provision v. unconstitutional Mitchell, Mitchell authority i n 468 i n H a r r i s v. A l a b a m a , t h e Supreme C o u r t standard, (at t h a t time) r e q u i r e d o n l y t h a t t h e judge c o n s i d e r the advisory opinion, was 43 "consistent with established CR-06-0827 constitutional law." 513 U.S. 504, 511 (1995). The went on t o e x p l a i n t h a t " t h e E i g h t h Amendment does n o t the State accord an to define advisory the weight the jury verdict." sentencing Id. at Court require judge 512. must Therefore, M i t c h e l l ' s argument t h a t A l a b a m a ' s j u d i c i a l - o v e r r i d e p r o v i s i o n is u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s without merit. Moreover, Alabama's j u d i c i a l - o v e r r i d e p r o v i s i o n i s as M i t c h e l l a s s e r t s , s t a n d a r d l e s s . that Alabama's In r e j e c t i n g the judicial-override provision t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has is not, argument standardless, held: " T h i s C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e A p i c e l l a , 809 So. 2d 865 (Ala. 2001), u p h e l d the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of having a judge, not the j u r y , determine the punishment i n a c a p i t a l case. I n Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , 808 So. 2d 1215 (Ala. 2001), this Court held that the c a p i t a l - s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e d u r e s e t f o r t h i n §§ 13A-5-47 and 13A-5-53, A l a . Code 1975, provided sufficient g u i d a n c e t o p r e v e n t t h e a r b i t r a r y and capricious i m p o s i t i o n of a death sentence. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the Court noted t h a t the c a p i t a l - s e n t e n c i n g procedure 'ensures t h a t the t r i a l judge i s g i v e n adequate information and sufficient guidance i n deciding w h e t h e r t o a c c e p t o r t o r e j e c t a j u r y ' s recommended s e n t e n c e ' and t h a t § 13A-5-53, A l a . Code 1975, provided sufficient guidelines f o r an appellate d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f 'whether a t r i a l j u d g e ' s o v e r r i d e o f the jury's recommendation i s appropriate in a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . ' 808 So. 2d a t 1219." Ex p a r t e Jackson, 836 So. 2d 979, 44 989 ( A l a . 2002). See also CR-06-0827 Ex parte Carroll, (establishing weigh standard a jury's possibility 852 of So. under 2d which 833, the recommendation of l i f e parole). 836 circuit i n prison Accordingly, To the extent that without argues must the argument i s "standardless" i s without merit. Mitchell 2002) court Mitchell's t h a t Alabama's j u d i c i a l - o v e r r i d e p r o v i s i o n and t h u s " u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l " (Ala. 3 that Alabama's s e n t e n c i n g scheme 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 b e c a u s e it " f a i l s t o s e t f o r t h u n i f o r m s t a n d a r d s as t o how a jury's trial sentencing judge" recommendation should be much w e i g h t given by the ( M i t c h e l l ' s b r i e f , a t 3 4 ) , t h i s C o u r t r e j e c t e d an i d e n t i c a l argument i n L e w i s v. S t a t e , 24 So. 3d 480, 536 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006). In Lewis, t h i s Court e x p l a i n e d : "Lewis a l s o contends t h a t our d e a t h - p e n a l t y scheme 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 b e c a u s e , he s a y s , i t i s a r b i t r a r y and d i s p a r a t e i n t h a t i t f a i l s t o s e t f o r t h u n i f o r m s t a n d a r d s as t o t h e w e i g h t a trial c o u r t must give a jury's sentencing recommendation. As a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n , L e w i s c i t e s t h e d e c i s i o n i n B u s h v. Gore [, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S. C t . 525 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ] . We f a i l t o see how t h i s d e c i s i o n lends support f o r Lewis's claim, given that t h e Supreme C o u r t t o o k c a r e t o s t a t e t h a t i t s To t h e e x t e n t M i t c h e l l a r g u e s t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d a d o p t t h e r u l e e s t a b l i s h e d i n T e d d e r v. S t a t e , 322 So. 2d 908, 910 ( F l a . 1 9 7 5 ) , t h i s r e q u e s t was r e j e c t e d by t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , 836 So. 2d a t 989 n.5 ( A l a . 2002). 3 45 CR-06-0827 d e c i s i o n was ' l i m i t e d t o t h e p r e s e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s , ' n o t i n g t h a t 'the problem o f e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n i n election processes generally present many c o m p l e x i t i e s . ' 531 U.S. a t 109, 121 S. C t . [ a t 5 3 2 ] . M o r e o v e r , i n H a r r i s v. A l a b a m a , 513 U.S. 504, 511-15, 115 S. C t . 1 0 3 1 , 130 L. E d . 2d 1004 ( 1 9 9 5 ) , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t r e j e c t e d a c l a i m t h a t A l a b a m a ' s d e a t h p e n a l t y s t a t u t e was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t s p e c i f y what w e i g h t t h e t r i a l c o u r t must a f f o r d a j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . Alabama c o u r t s have r e j e c t e d s i m i l a r c l a i m s t h a t t r i a l j u d g e s d e p r i v e defendants o f e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n under t h e law by e m p l o y i n g d i f f e r e n t p r o c e s s e s i n d e t e r m i n i n g what weight to give a jury's recommendation as t o sentencing. See, e . g . , S m i t h v . S t a t e , 756 So. 2d 892, 920 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 756 So. 2d 957 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 531 U.S. 830, 121 S. C t . 82, 148 L. E d . 2d 44 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . Thus, no b a s i s f o r r e v e r s a l e x i s t s as t o t h e s e c l a i m s . " 24 So. 3d 480, 536 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2 0 0 6 ) . Based on this C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n L e w i s , M i t c h e l l ' s e q u a l - p r o t e c t i o n argument is without merit. Therefore, this issue does not e n t i t l e Mitchell to relief. VIII. Mitchell next argues that evolving standards of decency have r e n d e r e d A l a b a m a ' s s e n t e n c i n g scheme c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l i n violation present o f t h e E i g h t h Amendment. this Court w i l l Mitchell argument t o t h e c i r c u i t court; review i t f o r p l a i n error only. R. App. P. 46 failed to first therefore, this See R u l e 45A, A l a . CR-06-0827 T h i s argument has b e e n r e p e a t e d l y c o n s i d e r e d and r e j e c t e d by b o t h Court this noted Court and t h e A l a b a m a i n Flowers Supreme Court. As this v. S t a t e , " ' " [ B ] o t h t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y i n g e n e r a l and Alabama's capital-murder statute in particular have b e e n u p h e l d against a variety of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l attacks. See H a r r i s v. A l a b a m a , 513 U.S. 504, 115 S. C t . 1031, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1004 (1995)(holding t h a t A l a b a m a ' s c a p i t a l s t a t u t e does n o t v i o l a t e t h e E i g h t h Amendment); G r e g g v. G e o r g i a , 428 U.S. 153, 169, 96 S. C t . 2909, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 (1976) ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t ' t h e p u n i s h m e n t o f d e a t h does not i n v a r i a b l y v i o l a t e the C o n s t i t u t i o n ' ) ; P r o f f i t t v. F l o r i d a , 428 U.S. 242, 96 S. C t . 2960, 49 L. Ed. 2d 913 (1976) ( h o l d i n g that the death penalty i s n o t p e r se v i o l a t i v e o f t h e E i g h t h Amendment); and Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , 808 So. 2d 1215 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 534 U.S. 1086, 122 S. C t . 824, 151 L. Ed. 2d 705 (2002) ( h o l d i n g t h a t A l a b a m a ' s c a p i t a l - m u r d e r s t a t u t e does n o t violate the Fourteenth Amendment). Contrary t o [the defendant's] contention, the death penalty is not per se unconstitutional and, therefore, [the d e f e n d a n t ' s ] argument i s m e r i t l e s s . " ' " 922 So. 2d 938, State, also 958 ( A l a . Crim. 896 So. 2d 584, 642-43 S p a z i a n o v. F l o r i d a , App. 2005)(quoting ( A l a . Crim. 468 U.S. App. a t 463-64 C l a r k v. 2003)). See (holding that j u d i c i a l o v e r r i d e of a j u r y ' s recommendation of l i f e i n p r i s o n without the p o s s i b i l i t y despite the f a c t that of parole i s not c r u e l the m a j o r i t y 47 of States and do unusual, not allow CR-06-0827 judicial been override). rejected compelling not B e c a u s e M i t c h e l l ' s argument h a s and because he has failed reason f o r t h i s Court t o r e v i s i t entitled to r e l i e f as t o t h i s to already offer any t h e i s s u e , he i s claim. IX. Mitchell provision next argues that i s unconstitutional Alabama's j u d i c i a l - o v e r r i d e under A r t . I, § 15, A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901. S p e c i f i c a l l y , M i t c h e l l argues t h a t A r t . I , § 15, p r o v i d e s greater protections against c r u e l or unusual p u n i s h m e n t t h a n does t h e E i g h t h Amendment o f t h e U n i t e d Constitution. States To s u p p o r t h i s a r g u m e n t , M i t c h e l l e x p l a i n s that Art. I , § 15, p r o s c r i b e s " c r u e l o r u n u s u a l " punishments and the Eighth proscribes Amendment punishments. (Mitchell's brief, original.) According conjunction i n Art. to Mitchell, protection argues that at than Alabama's and 43-44.) unusual" (Emphasis i n the use o f the d i s j u n c t i v e I , § 15, e s t a b l i s h e s unusual-punishment clause more "cruel that the c r u e l - o r - o f t h e Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n a f f o r d s does the Eighth Amendment. judicial-override provision He then violates Alabama's c r u e l - o r - u n u s u a l - p u n i s h m e n t c l a u s e . Mitchell failed to circuit first present this argument 48 to the court; CR-06-0827 therefore, See this Court will review i t for plain error only. R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. This C o u r t need n o t d e c i d e w h e t h e r A r t . I , § 15, a f f o r d s b r o a d e r p r o t e c t i o n s t h a n t h e E i g h t h Amendment b e c a u s e M i t c h e l l has not met h i s burden judicial-override settled of a of provision t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l statute challenged bears establishing violates that either. Alabama's I t i s well challenging the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y the burden of establishing statute i s unconstitutional. See that C o l e v. S t a t e , 721 So. 2d 255, 260 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1998) ( r e c o g n i z i n g the appellant statute 625 a bears the burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ) ; Holmes v . C o n c o r d a Fire that State Dist., So. 2d 8 1 1 , 812 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) ("The p a r t y m o u n t i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenge overcoming Mitchell broader a presumption than the Eighth the burden of of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y . " ) . terms Although t h a t A r t . I , § 15, i s Amendment, he h a s n o t p r o v i d e d any how t h e a l l e g e d d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n A r t . I , 15, a n d t h e E i g h t h override t o a s t a t u t e bears a r g u e s -- i n g e n e r a l argument r e g a r d i n g § the provision. Amendment a f f e c t s Alabama's Because M i t c h e l l has n o t p r e s e n t e d argument o r e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t 49 judicialany Alabama's CR-06-0827 j u d i c i a l - o v e r r i d e p r o v i s i o n v i o l a t e s A r t . I , § 15, he h a s n o t met h i s b u r d e n Moreover, that a n d i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f . the g i s t Alabama's o f M i t c h e l l ' s argument appears judicial-override provision p r o s c r i p t i o n of c r u e l o r unusual punishment t o be violates contained the in Art. I , § 15, b e c a u s e i t r e s u l t s i n the a r b i t r a r y imposition of the death penalty. M i t c h e l l appears jury i s not required determination exercise of and provision results penalty. This t o unanimously because judicial there override, i n judges ... arbitrary by statutory and c a p r i c i o u s a trial a r e no on t h e the sentencing standards f o r the Alabama's j u d i c i a l - o v e r r i d e imposing the death argument has been r e j e c t e d by b o t h t h i s (holding that Alabama's agree arbitrarily and t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t . 2d a t 1191 t o reason t h a t because See Ex p a r t e W a l d r o p , Court 859 So. "[a]lthough n o t r e q u i r e d by H a r r i s , procedures d[o] guard against an [ i m p o s i t i o n of a sentence o f death] c o u r t . . . . " ) ; Ex p a r t e Taylor, 808 So. 2 d a t 1219 ( h o l d i n g " t h a t A l a b a m a ' s c a p i t a l - s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e d u r e does n o t r e s u l t i n t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f t h e d e a t h s e n t e n c e i n an a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s m a n n e r . . . . " ) ; H a r r i s v. S t a t e , (same). Because Alabama's 2 So. 3d a t 902 judicial-override provision 50 does CR-06-0827 not result Mitchell's i n the a r b i t r a r y i m p o s i t i o n of the argument i s w i t h o u t death penalty, merit. X. Mitchell failing to next argues consider circumstances. two that the circuit relevant Specifically, court nonstatutory Mitchell mother "Mitchell's be taken." " a l l testified life still (Mitchell's appears to court's sentencing mitigating court has be based solely order in i t w i l l be R. App. It may at on does as asserts loved value, 48.) the not fact the s i s t e r , and him" and and that should not argument that the circuit these two alleged that list Mitchell that Mitchell's the circuit circumstances sentencing M i t c h e l l f a i l e d to present they p u r p o s e and brief, circumstances weighed that in mitigating c i r c u i t court f a i l e d to consider that h i s brother, foster erred to death. Because t h i s argument t o t h e c i r c u i t reviewed f o r p l a i n e r r o r only. See court, R u l e 45A, Ala. P. is well not s e t t l e d t h a t "'[a] refuse to consider mitigating factors.'" o r be Lewis sentencer "precluded v. State, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006)(quoting at i n t u r n E d d i n g s v. 1347, quoting Williams 51 24 v. i n a c a p i t a l case from considering" So. 3d State, Oklahoma, 455 480, 710 U.S. So. 530 2d 104, CR-06-0827 110 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n L o c k e t t v. O h i o , 438 U.S. (1978)). the " ' I t i s not r e q u i r e d t h a t the evidence accused as a nonstatutory mitigating 586, 604 submitted circumstance by be w e i g h e d as a m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e by t h e s e n t e n c e r , i n t h i s case, the trial court; m i t i g a t i n g circumstances although So. 2d 368, 891 i s p r o v e n and t h e be g i v e n i t r e s t s w i t h t h e s e n t e n c e r . ' " 2d 224, 389 So. 2d 241 ( A l a . 1996) ( A l a . C r i m . App. at 990 of a l l i s r e q u i r e d , 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 circumstance to consideration Ex p a r t e L a n d , ( q u o t i n g Haney v. 1991)). ("Although the weight S t a t e , 603 678 So. See a l s o G a v i n v. S t a t e , trial court i s required to c o n s i d e r 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 circumstance to and i s p r o v e n and t h e be g i v e n i t r e s t s w i t h t h e s e n t e n c e r . " quotations 'the t r i a l omitted)) . Further, (internal citations i t is "settled law o f f e r e d t h a t i t c o n s i d e r e d and found Ex 970, Ferguson, 814 So. W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 710 So. State, 309 the 781 trial that c o u r t i s not r e q u i r e d t o s p e c i f y i n i t s s e n t e n c i n g order each item of proposed n o n s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g parte weight So. 2d 257, court is 2d not 979 t o be ( A l a . Crim. required 52 to mitigating.'" ( A l a . 2001) 2d a t 1 3 4 7 ) . See App. consider evidence (quoting a l s o M c W h o r t e r v. 1999)("'Although a l l mitigating CR-06-0827 c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the d e c i s i o n of whether a p a r t i c u l a r circumstance i s proven and the weight to w i t h the s e n t e n c e r . sentencing specify in nonstatutory its mitigating and found not to t o be whether a particular proven accorded i t citations by the rests the supports failed to consider that nor Mitchell's the presentation circuit each offered evidence the item that Further, of i t '"the i t rests required proposed considered decision circumstance and trial two the the weight as is to be court."'"(internal circuit argument court's that the circuit court did not mitigating court circumstances and i t Mitchell's detailing found to statutory the non- exist, the stated: "The C o u r t r e c e i v e d , r e v i e w e d , and c o n s i d e r e d a w r i t t e n Pre-Sentence I n v e s t i g a t i o n Report, p e r m i t t e d t h e S t a t e and t h e D e f e n d a n t an o p p o r t u n i t y t o a r g u e r e g a r d i n g m i t i g a t i n g and a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and gave b o t h p a r t i e s an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t any 53 i t c o n s i d e r e d a l l the A f t e r f i n d i n g t h a t no existed court Instead, restrict o f e v i d e n c e i n m i t i g a t i o n and circumstances sentencing circuit mitigating circumstances. evidence M i t c h e l l presented. statutory i s not mitigating with record order mitigating given omitted)). Neither appears evidence mitigating.' sufficiently to order be court Moreover, the t r i a l to mitigating CR-06-0827 testimony or evidence. The S t a t e p r e s e n t e d v i c t i m impact testimony, but no additional aggravating circumstances pursuant to the s t a t u t o r y scheme o u t l i n e d i n §13A-5-49, Code o f A l a b a m a ( 1 9 7 5 ) . The d e f e n s e r e a s s e r t e d m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t had b e e n p r e s e n t e d i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e j u r y . The D e f e n d a n t was a l s o g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o s a y s o m e t h i n g b e f o r e h i s s e n t e n c e was i m p o s e d , and he t o l d t h e v i c t i m ' s f a m i l y members t h a t he was s o r r y f o r what had happened. The C o u r t has c o n s i d e r e d t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d at t r i a l , the evidence p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g the p e n a l t y p h a s e i n t h e j u r y ' s p r e s e n c e , t h e j u r y ' s 10 to 2 a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t f o r L i f e Without P a r o l e , the Pre-Sentence I n v e s t i g a t i o n Report ( a l t h o u g h some p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e p o r t were e x p r e s s l y e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e C o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s u c h as Y o u t h f u l O f f e n d e r c o n v i c t i o n s ) , a d d i t i o n a l testimony at the s e n t e n c i n g p h a s e , and a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d a t t h e sentencing hearing. "The C o u r t w i l l n o t e t h a t t h i s d e c i s i o n w e i g h e d h e a v i l y on t h e C o u r t and t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n i s b a s e d upon existing law, not based upon 'passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor.' §13A-5-53(a)(1), Code o f A l a b a m a ( 1 9 7 5 ) . The c o u r t has weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. B a s e d upon a l l f a c t o r s p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d , i t i s t h e j u d g m e n t and s e n t e n c e o f t h i s C o u r t t h a t B r a n d o n M i t c h e l l be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h on C o u n t s One, Two, T h r e e and F o u r o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t . " (C.R. the 26). I t i s c l e a r t h a t the c i r c u i t mitigating circumstances presented court considered a l l to i t . "[T]he c o u r t i s not r e q u i r e d t o s p e c i f y i n i t s s e n t e n c i n g order trial each item of proposed n o n s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g evidence o f f e r e d t h a t 54 CR-06-0827 i t considered State, a n d f o u n d n o t t o be m i t i g a t i n g . " 710 So. 2d a t 1347. Because mitigating the circuit circumstances court presented clearly considered a l l to i t , this t h a t no e r r o r , much l e s s p l a i n e r r o r , o c c u r r e d . State, that W i l l i a m s v. 807 So. 2d 18, 48-49 the c i r c u i t court (Ala. Crim. "fully complied Court finds See R e e v e s v . App. 2000) ( h o l d i n g with Lockett and i t s p r o g e n y " where " [ t ] h e s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r i n t h i s c a s e shows t h a t the trial offered court by considered a l l of the m i t i g a t i n g the a p p e l l a n t " ) . entitled to relief as t o t h i s Therefore, Mitchell evidence i s not claim. XI. Mitchell next argues that the prosecutor's sentencing- phase c l o s i n g arguments v i o l a t e d h i s F i f t h , S i x t h , E i g h t h , and Fourteenth Amendment r i g h t s b y : "commenting on M i t c h e l l ' s f a i l u r e to testify, i m p e r m i s s i b l y i n f l a m i n g t h e p a s s i o n s and p r e j u d i c e s of t h e j u r y by t a l k i n g about t h e d e a t h o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s b r o t h e r d u r i n g a r o b b e r y a n d how t h e brother's death impacted the prosecutor j u s t l i k e i t impacted the v i c t i m s ' f a m i l i e s , urging the j u r o r s t o show t h e d e f e n d a n t t h e same m e r c y shown t h e d e a d v i c t i m s , impermissibly vouching f o r the a u t h o r i t y of t h e s t a t e , m i s s t a t i n g t h e l a w as i t a p p l i e s t o m i t i g a t i o n b y s t a t i n g t h a t i t i s an e x c u s e , a n d improperly d e n i g r a t i n g the defendant's m i t i g a t i o n e v i d e n c e b y c h a r a c t e r i z i n g i t as e x c u s e s . " 55 CR-06-0827 (Mitchell's brief, 2d 283, 287 a t 53-54) 909 Mitchell (Ala. 2003)). ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e T o m l i n , that i f then surmises So. t h e s e a l l e g e d e r r o r s had n o t o c c u r r e d , he m i g h t have r e c e i v e d a recommendation unanimous without sentencing the p o s s i b i l i t y for life in prison o f p a r o l e , w h i c h w o u l d have r e q u i r e d the c i r c u i t c o u r t t o a f f o r d the j u r y ' s recommendation g r e a t e r weight. (Mitchell's brief, "In is at 54.) 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 whether the argument '"'so infected the standard trial with u n f a i r n e s s as 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 process.'"'" v. Sneed v. S t a t e , 1 So. Wainwright, 477 D e C h r i s t o f o r o , 416 t h i s Court now U.S. U.S. a t 181, 3d a t 138 quoting at 643). With turns to M i t c h e l l ' s due ( q u o t i n g Darden i n turn Donnelly v. t h i s s t a n d a r d i n mind, arguments. A. M i t c h e l l c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r i m p r o p e r l y commented on his failure curative caused to testify instruction by the was comment. and that the insufficient to According to v i o l a t e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s and During the State's penalty-phase prosecutor stated that "[Mitchell] 56 circuit remove Mitchell, court's the this harm error requires reversal. closing arguments, d i d n ' t ask f o r mercy the CR-06-0827 He l e t h i s f a m i l y members come up h e r e a n d c r y f o r h i m . never heard o u t o f h i s mouth, Defense counsel circuit court objected sustained I'm sorry." (R. to the prosecutor's the objection You 1156-57.) comment. The and gave t h e f o l l o w i n g curative instruction: "All right. L a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , I'm g o i n g t o s u s t a i n t h e d e f e n s e ' s o b j e c t i o n on t h a t . As I i n s t r u c t e d you a t t h e b e g i n n i n g p h a s e o f t h e t r i a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t does n o t have t o t e s t i f y . He's g o t an a b s o l u t e and u n q u a l i f i e d p r i v i l e g e not t o t e s t i f y i n t h i s c a s e . The S t a t e h a s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f i n t h i s p h a s e j u s t as t h e y do i n t h e o r i g i n a l p h a s e . A n d i f a person charged w i t h a crime chooses not t o t e s t i f y on h i s own b e h a l f t h e n you c a n n o t draw any i n f e r e n c e o r a d v e r s e i n f e r e n c e w h a t s o e v e r b y t h a t d e c i s i o n . So I'm g o i n g t o i n s t r u c t a l l o f y o u t o d i s r e g a r d t h a t comment. A n d c a n e v e r y b o d y d i s r e g a r d t h a t ? Everyone understands that p r i n c i p l e of law; i s that c o r r e c t ? " (R. 1157.) Later, defense counsel the prosecutor's court's The comment court Specifically, the denied improper and t h a t appeal, ruled reasserts curative Mitchell court arguing the circuit (R. 1197-98.) for a that that the mistrial. limiting sufficient. Mitchell court's Specifically, M i t c h e l l ' s motion circuit i n s t r u c t i o n i t gave was circuit was c u r a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n was i n s u f f i c i e n t . circuit On moved f o r a m i s t r i a l , h i s argument instruction argues 57 that was the that the insufficient. circuit court's CR-06-0827 curative instruction was insufficient because the court did n o t i n f o r m t h e j u r y t h a t : 1) " t h e r e m a r k s were ' i m p r o p e r ' " ; the "statements ' c a n n o t be of counsel 3) "Mitchell 4) to It to t e s t i f y evidence"; and testify." (Mitchell's brief, 'against himself'"; a t 51.) This Court i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t " [ a ] d e f e n d a n t has to take if he by the p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y . " 132 not p r e s u m p t i o n o f g u i l t ' s h o u l d be drawn f r o m h i s f a i l u r e "'no compelled' are 2) the w i t n e s s s t a n d and exercises that right, ( A l a . Crim. App. 1995) testify not t o be B u s h v. (citations the r i g h t i n h i s own the disagrees. behalf not and, s u b j e c t o f comment S t a t e , 695 So. 2d 70, omitted). "A r e v e r s a l [ b a s e d on a p r o s e c u t o r ' s i m p r o p e r comment on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y ] may be p r e v e n t e d i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t s u s t a i n s an o b j e c t i o n t o t h e i m p r o p e r r e m a r k and p r o m p t l y and a p p r o p r i a t e l y i n s t r u c t s t h e j u r y as t o t h e i m p r o p r i e t y o f t h e remark. Ex p a r t e W i l s o n , 571 So. 2d 1251 (Ala. 1990). In determining whether the curative i n s t r u c t i o n s e r a d i c a t e d t h e p r e j u d i c e c a u s e d by t h e i m p r o p e r r e m a r k , we must c o n s i d e r e a c h c a s e on i t s own f a c t s . W h i t t v. S t a t e [ , 370 So. 2d 736 ( A l a . 1979)]. The ' t y p e o f r e m a r k ... w h e t h e r p r o m p t l y o b j e c t e d t o , and t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s ' s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d . I d . , 370 So. 2d a t 133." Bush, 695 So. Supreme C o u r t 2d at 133. In Whitt v. State, e x p l a i n e d t h a t when a p r o s e c u t o r defendant's f a i l u r e to testify: 58 the Alabama comments on a CR-06-0827 "[A]t a minimum, t h e t r i a l j u d g e must s u s t a i n t h e o b j e c t i o n , and s h o u l d t h e n p r o m p t l y and v i g o r o u s l y give appropriate i n s t r u c t i o n s to the j u r y . Such i n s t r u c t i o n s s h o u l d i n c l u d e t h a t such remarks a r e i m p r o p e r a n d t o d i s r e g a r d them; t h a t s t a t e m e n t s o f counsel are not evidence; t h a t under the law the d e f e n d a n t h a s t h e p r i v i l e g e t o t e s t i f y i n h i s own b e h a l f o r n o t ; t h a t he c a n n o t be c o m p e l l e d t o t e s t i f y a g a i n s t h i m s e l f ; a n d , t h a t no p r e s u m p t i o n o f g u i l t o r i n f e r e n c e o f any k i n d s h o u l d be drawn f r o m his failure to testify. With appropriate instructions, we hold that the e r r o r of the p r o s e c u t o r ' s r e m a r k s w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t l y v i t i a t e d so t h a t s u c h e r r o r i s h a r m l e s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. U. S. v. Brown, 546 F.2d 166 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) ; Chapman v. C a l i f o r n i a , 386 U.S. 18, 87 S. C t . 824, 17 L. E d . 2d 705 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . " 370 So. 2d 736, 739 571 So. court's 2d 1251, ( A l a . 1979). 1265 See a l s o Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 1990). Although i n s t r u c t i o n must a d e q u a t e l y i n f o r m the i n f e r e n c e may be drawn t h e r e f r o m , p a r t i c u l a r verbiage See Whitt, i n order t o take particular circumstances remark, there (recognizing that t r i a l i s no the witness "verbiage," court's t o remove any p o s s i b l e p r e j u d i c e i m p r o p e r comments b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r defendant and t h a t t h a t must be u s e d t o c o n v e y t h i s message. 370 So. 2d a t 739 instructions, circuit the j u r y that the d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y must n o t be c o n s i d e r e d no u n f a v o r a b l e Wilson, and as t o t h e f a i l u r e stand, courts from of the need not c o n t a i n any will "consider the o f e a c h c a s e on i t s own, c o n s i d e r i n g t h e t y p e o f whether reply in kind 59 or not, whether promptly CR-06-0827 objected t o , and t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s instructions); Pettibone v. S t a t e , of the t r i a l judge's 891 So. 2d 280, 283 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . This Court has thoroughly reviewed the prosecutor's comment a n d t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t f o l l o w e d a n d h o l d s " t h a t t h e trial court's curative c u r e d any p r e j u d i c e . " (Ala. circuit objection The c i r c u i t immediately court after sustained the r i g h t not t o t e s t i f y draw an a d v e r s e i n f e r e n c e testify. disregard The circuit t h e comment comply w i t h comment. that and t h a t t h e j u r y The comment. court then and asked instruction. (Ala. Crim. trial court's Cf^ Peraita instructed the jurors The r e c o r d v. S t a t e , App. 2 0 0 4 ) ( " ' J u r o r s the jury i f they to could indicates that the disregard 897 So. 2d 1 1 6 1 , 1204 a r e presumed i n s t r u c t i o n s . ' " ) (quoting So. 2d 870, 874-75 could from M i t c h e l l ' s d e c i s i o n not t o j u r o r s nodded t h e i r heads t o s i g n a l t h a t t h e y c o u l d the defense court then promptly i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y that M i t c h e l l h a s an a b s o l u t e not adequately Simmons v. S t a t e , 797 So. 2d 1134, 1164 C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . counsel's i n s t r u c t i o n to the jury to follow the B r y a n t v. S t a t e , 727 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; B u r g e s s v. S t a t e , 827 So. 2d 134, 162 ( A l a C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ( " J u r o r s to follow the court's i n s t r u c t i o n s . " ) . 60 a r e presumed CR-06-0827 Based court's on the circumstances jury instruction resulted from cured of t h i s case, the circuit any p r e j u d i c e t h a t m i g h t the prosecutor's improper comment; t h i s i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e M i t c h e l l any r e l i e f . have therefore, See T r o u p v . S t a t e , 32 A l a . App. 309, 319-20, 26 So. 2d 611, 620 ( A l a . App. 1946) (holding objection that [to the when "the t r i a l prosecutor's court improper sustains comment on the the d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y ] and p r o m p t l y and a p p r o p r i a t e l y instructs such the j u r y of the impropriety remarks (citations should not cause a of such reversal remarks, of the then case") omitted). B. Mitchell next argues that the prosecutor's c l o s i n g argument i n t h e p e n a l t y phase i m p r o p e r l y passions not inflamed the and p r e j u d i c e s o f t h e j u r y , i m p r o p e r l y urged t h e j u r y t o show M i t c h e l l Mitchell's portion rebuttal any mercy, m i t i g a t i o n evidence of the prosecutor's and i m p r o p e r l y offered only argued that an e x c u s e . The c l o s i n g argument that Mitchell a s s e r t s was i m p r o p e r i s as f o l l o w s : "You know, s i t t i n g a t t h a t t a b l e I ' v e h a d a unique p r o s p e c t i v e . You know, a b o u t f o u r y e a r s ago I s a t where t h a t f a m i l y i s s i t t i n g . My b r o t h e r was k i l l e d o v e r some c a r r i m s t h a t I h a d b o u g h t f o r h i m 61 CR-06-0827 f o r no r e a s o n . And I wonder when t h e y what was h i s c h o i c e ? L i f e o r d e a t h ? killed him, "You s e e , he's s i t t i n g h e r e t o d a y and he's a s k i n g you t o make a c h o i c e t h a t he d i d n ' t make. He's a s k i n g you t o t a k e a l l o f t h i s s t u f f , a l l o f t h e s e e x c u s e s , and b o t t l e them up and w a l k b a c k t h e r e and c h o o s e l i f e . I know how t h e y f e e l . I've s a t there. I've s a t t h e r e . " L i f e or death. You s e e , i n l i f e you g e t t o c a r r y on. The money, you g e t i t b a c k . The c a r r i m s o r w h a t e v e r , you buy some more. B u t when you make a c a l c u l a t e d d e c i s i o n t o t a k e someone's l i f e , you c a n ' t get t h a t back. I t ' s one s h o t . You g e t one s h o t a t life. And e a c h one o f t h o s e v i c t i m s g o t one s h o t , but i t wasn't a t l i f e . I t w a s n ' t one s h o t a t l i f e . I t was t h a t one s h o t t h a t he p u t b e h i n d t h e i r e a r . He c h o s e d e a t h f o r t h o s e p e o p l e . He c h o s e d e a t h l a s t y e a r T h a n k s g i v i n g Day f o r Ms. S m i t h . He c h o s e d e a t h for Ms. Olney. And he chose death for Mr. Aylesworth. " T h i s i s no t i m e f o r sympathy, l a d i e s and gentlemen. I t ' s no time for sympathy, none w h a t s o e v e r , none. Get i t o u t o f y o u r m i n d . Those are excuses. And there's a saying that my g r a n d m o t h e r u s e d t o t e l l me a l l t h e t i m e and I remember i t . I remember i t v e r b a t i m . Excuses are monuments t h a t b u i l d b r i d g e s t h a t l e a d s t o nowhere, and t h o s e who use them a r e i n c o m p e t e n t and m a s t e r s o f nothing. Those a r e e x c u s e s . He k i l l e d t h o s e p e o p l e and now he w a n t s you t o do s o m e t h i n g t h a t he c o u l d n ' t e v e n do, t h a t he w o u l d n o t do, and t h a t he d i d n o t do. Throw y o u r s y m p a t h y away. T h e r e ' s no room f o r sympathy h e r e . No, ma'am; no, s i r . " D u r i n g j u r y s e l e c t i o n you e a c h , e a c h one o f y o u , e a c h one o f you t h a t q u e s t i o n was a s k e d by [the S t a t e ] , c o u l d you c o n s i d e r t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y as an o p t i o n . And e v e r y b o d y i n t h i s box s a i d y e s , t h e y c o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y as an o p t i o n . W e l l , l a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n , r i g h t now, r i g h t h e r e , r i g h t 62 CR-06-0827 now, i n t h i s c o u r t r o o m , I s t a n d h e r e on b e h a l f o f t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a a l o n g w i t h Ms. F o s t e r and I ' s a s k i n g you t o do t h e r i g h t t h i n g h e r e , t o do what t h e l a w p r o v i d e s , t o f o l l o w the law. I'm a s k i n g you to s e n t e n c e t h a t man t o d e a t h . " (R. 1171-73.) Mitchell the p r o s e c u t o r ' s it See After reviewing Court holds comments were to object R u l e 45A, t h e r e c o r d and that actually the pleas A l a . R. majority for 2009] So. 3d , portion Court w i l l App. of the justice. In [Ms. (Ala. Crim. review counsel, prosecutor's addressing CR-05-1517, App. 2009), Court stated: " F i n a l l y , Newton c o m p l a i n s about t h a t occurred d u r i n g the p r o s e c u t o r ' s r e b u t t a l c l o s i n g argument: the f o l l o w i n g p e n a l t y phase " ' I want you t o t h i n k a b o u t t h i s . He sat as the judge, the jury, and the executioner on [Charles] Whatley. He a d m i n i s t e r e d the death p e n a l t y to [ C h a r l e s ] W h a t l e y w i t h o u t h i s mamma -- "'-- h i s s o n o r h i s b r o t h e r h a v i n g the o p p o r t u n i t y to s t a n d i n f r o n t of a j u r y of 12 g o o d M a c o n C o u n t y c i t i z e n s a n d b e g t h e m for his l i f e . He w a n t s j u s t i c e . I submit t o y o u t h a t he d o e s n o t w a n t j u s t i c e . He has d e m o n s t r a t e d i n h i s a c t i o n s t h a t t h a t ' s not what he wants. He didn't give 63 of P. the arguments of a n a l o g o u s s i t u a t i o n i n Newton v. S t a t e , 2, to t h i s argument; t h e r e f o r e , t h i s for plain error. this failed an Oct. this CR-06-0827 [Charles] Whatley the o p p o r t u n i t y to y o u 12 o r a n y o t h e r 12 t o s t a n d h e r e s a y why I s h o u l d -- ' "(R. ask and 1106-07.) "We a d d r e s s e d a s i m i l a r argument i n G e n t r y v. S t a t e , 68 9 So. 2 d 8 9 4 , 90 6 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 689 So. 2 d 916 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , as f o l l o w s : "'The appellant contends that the following comments by t h e p r o s e c u t o r i n c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t c o n s t i t u t e d an improper a p p e a l t o the j u r y to have sympathy f o r the v i c t i m : " [ n ] o b o d y went out and e m p a n e l e d a j u r y f o r Kim H i l l " ; " [ y ] o u can l o o k a t Ward G e n t r y , b u t you c a n n o t l o o k a t Kim Hill"; "nobody went out and g o t a j u d g e f o r Kim"; " n o b o d y w e n t o u t a n d g o t two l a w y e r s f o r Kim"; and " [ h ] e was h e r j u d g e , and her j u r y , and h e r e x e c u t i o n e r . " He a r g u e s t h a t these comments "impermissibly influenced the j u r y to d i s r e g a r d [its] legal duties and render a g u i l t y verdict because of [its] sympathy f o r the deceased." We do not agree. We v i e w t h e c o m m e n t s a s a c a l l for justice, not sympathy, and, thus conclude that they are w i t h i n the l a t i t u d e allowed p r o s e c u t o r s i n t h e i r e x h o r t a t i o n to the j u r y to discharge i t s d u t i e s . Ex p a r t e W a l d r o p , 459 So. 2 d 959 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 471 U.S. 1 0 3 0 , 105 S. C t . 2 0 5 0 , 85 L. E d . 2 d 323 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; R u t l e d g e v. State. The comment t h a t G e n t r y was " h e r j u d g e , a n d her jury, and her executioner" was the p r o s e c u t o r ' s i m p r e s s i o n and o p i n i o n d e r i v e d from the evidence i n the case, which he could legitimately argue. Henderson v. S t a t e , 584 So. 2 d 841 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) ; G a l l o w a y v . S t a t e , 484 So. 2 d 1199 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1986).' 64 CR-06-0827 " S i m i l a r l y , we f i n d t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s r e m a r k s t o be an appropriate c a l l for justice. T h e r e f o r e , we do n o t f i n d t h a t t h e r e was a n y e r r o r i n t h i s r e g a r d . " C f . I n g r a m v. S t a t e , 779 So. 1999)(upholding 2d 1225, 1268-69 ( A l a . C r i m . r e f e r e n c e s t o " d r i v e - b y s h o o t i n g s " and App. "drug wars"). L i k e w i s e , t h i s Court cannot conclude t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r ' s c l o s i n g argument to make t h e '"'so resulting Sneed v. S t a t e , 1 So. 477 416 U.S. at U.S. 181, at i n f e c t e d the t r i a l with unfairness c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f due 3d a t 138 quoting 643). ( q u o t i n g D a r d e n v. i n turn Donnelly The prosecutor's v. process.'"' Wainwright, DeChristoforo, references to his b r o t h e r ' s d e a t h a p p e a r t o have b e e n i n t e n d e d t o i l l u s t r a t e impact and gravity r e p l a c e d but people a prosecutor of murder, cannot. CR-05-0225, Feb. B o y d v. 1997). So. F u r t h e r , i t i s not determination. 5, 2010] State, Likewise, i n f o r m the j u r y from i t . 715 So. So. i t i s not t h a t the , 2d 3d 825, improper State See Brown v. S t a t e , 3d i . e . , stolen property the can improper be for to urge the j u r y t o s e t a s i d e i t s sympathies i n making i t s penalty-phase 2010); as [Ms. , (Ala. Crim App. ( A l a . Crim. App. 846 f o r the seeks a death [Ms. ( A l a . Crim. 65 G o b b l e v. S t a t e , prosecutor recommendation CR-07-1332, June 25, App. 2010) to (upholding 2010] the CR-06-0827 prosecutor's the result Jemison s t a t e m e n t : " I a s k you t o g i v e h i s sympathy and o f t h e i r b e g g i n g t h e same way he gave i t t o D o t t y and Cherea Jemison and sentence him t o death or recommend t h e s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h as t h e l a w a l l o w s b a s e d on t h e proof t o you"). argue to S i m i l a r l y , the prosecutor, the j u r y that i t should give m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e l i t t l e o r no w e i g h t . 40 S.W.3d 898, 910-11 (Mo. 2001) as an a d v o c a t e , may the defendant's See S t a t e v . S t o r e y , (holding that no error r e s u l t e d from t h e 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 of m i t i g a t i o n as i s not r e q u i r e d t o agree excuses because the "State the defendant that the evidence offered during phase i s s u f f i c i e n t l y m i t i g a t i n g t o p r e c l u d e death sentence[, evidence and] t h e S t a t e i s not m i t i g a t i n g at a l l " ) . improper f o r the prosecutor the v i c t i m s no m e r c y . (Ala. i s free Crim. App. the penalty imposition of the t o argue Finally, that the i t i s not t o a r g u e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t showed Melson v. S t a t e , 1999) (holding 775 So. 2d 857, 893 that the prosecutor's s t a t e m e n t -- " I want y o u t o g i v e some m e r c y t o [ M e l s o n ] as he gave t o t h e m u r d e r that cooler" remarks -- with and robbery not improper). [were] an a p p r o p r i a t e call 66 v i c t i m s over Because the for justice," just there i n "prosecutor's I n g r a m , 779 CR-06-0827 So. 2d at setting, 1269, this plain within the bounds of an adversarial i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e M i t c h e l l t o any Moreover, improper, and relief. e v e n i f p a r t o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s argument were such error. impropriety Rule 45A, would rise Crim. A l a . R. not to P. the level of "[S]tatements 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 must be v i e w e d as d e l i v e r e d i n t h e h e a t o f d e b a t e ; s u c h s t a t e m e n t s a r e u s u a l l y v a l u e d by jury at their true worth and are not expected So. State, 2d 97, So. 462 106-07 2d S a n d e r s v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r . App. 1013, 426 1016 a l s o Brown v. S t a t e , So. 3d a t become State, 1989) ( A l a . Crim. So. 2d 497, See to B a n k h e a d v. f a c t o r s i n the f o r m a t i o n of the v e r d i c t . " 585 509 (citing App. Orr 1984)); ( A l a . C r i m . App. [Ms. CR-07-1332, June 25, not throughout the t r i a l , base presumed decision See P e r a i t a v. presumed are instructions.'" and their to factor. ("'Jurors 75)); and 1982). 2010] t h e j u r o r s were i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l a r e n o t e v i d e n c e and t h a t arbitrary v. . Further, should the (quoting Burgess to v. follow passion State, follow 897 the B r y a n t v. S t a t e , State, the on 827 court's 67 So. 2d So. any So. 162 other 2d a t trial 727 at or they court's 2d a t 874¬ ("Jurors instructions."). 1204 are Further, CR-06-0827 after the prosecutor's i n s t r u c t i o n s , the to life in any Killingsworth So. 3d the penalty a , App. harmless of life was State, (holding the that sentence because the prosecutor's prosecutor's of parole; 13, See 2009] So. 2d j u r y recommended the possibility 742, i f any argument, 756 error i t recommended (Ala. had would that of Crim. occurred have been Burgess be " [ t ] h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the imprisonment without p a r o l e " ) . comment[s] so i n f e c t e d t h e t r i a l [ M i t c h e l l ] was 3d a t 909. without "[e]ven jury sentenced 2009) ( h o l d i n g t h a t e r r o r s i n 723 phase court's harmless. CR-06-0854, Nov. prison B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , So. circuit possibility comment [Ms. in v. sentenced to l i f e that the p h a s e were h a r m l e s s b e c a u s e t h e Burgess 1997) during State, the ( A l a . C r i m . App. sentence parole); without erroneous v. and j u r y recommended t h a t M i t c h e l l be prison therefore, argument denied a f a i r t r i a l . " Accordingly, with Brown v. t h i s C o u r t does n o t comments r o s e t o t h e unfairness State, f i n d that 11 the l e v e l of p l a i n e r r o r . XII. Mitchell next argues that the circuit p h a s e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s were a m b i g u o u s . any specific deficiency i n the 68 circuit court's penalty- Without p o i n t i n g to court's i n s t r u c t i o n , CR-06-0827 M i t c h e l l argues, i n general terms, that the c i r c u i t court's i n s t r u c t i o n f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y i n f o r m t h e j u r y o f i t s r o l e and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n determining h i s sentence. Because Mitchell f a i l e d to object to the c i r c u i t court's i n s t r u c t i o n s at t r i a l , this issue w i l l be r e v i e w e d f o r p l a i n 4 5A, A l a . R. App. P. "When r e v i e w i n g a trial court's error only. See R u l e jury instructions, [this C o u r t ] must v i e w them as a w h o l e , n o t i n b i t s a n d p i e c e s , a n d as a reasonable v. State, j u r o r w o u l d have i n t e r p r e t e d them." Johnson 820 So. 2 d 842, 874 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . "A trial court has broad d i s c r e t i o n when f o r m u l a t i n g i t s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s . See W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 611 So. 2 d 1119, 1123 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . When r e v i e w i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s , ' " t h e c o u r t ' s c h a r g e must be t a k e n as a w h o l e , a n d t h e p o r t i o n s c h a l l e n g e d a r e n o t t o be i s o l a t e d t h e r e f r o m or taken out o f context, but rather considered together."' S e l f v. S t a t e , 620 So. 2d 110, 113 ( A l a . C r . App. 1992) ( q u o t i n g P o r t e r v. S t a t e , 520 So. 2d 235, 237 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 7 ) ) ; s e e a l s o B e a r d v. State, 612 So. 2 d 1335 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ; A l e x a n d e r v. S t a t e , 601 So. 2d 1130 ( A l a . C r . App. 1992). " W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 795 So. 2d 753, Further, "[w]hen purportedly determine jury 780 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . a l l e g e d l y ambiguous jury prejudiced a defendant's case, '"whether t h e r e i s a reasonable has a p p l i e d t h e c h a l l e n g e d 69 i n s t r u c t i o n s have [ t h i s Court] must l i k e l i h o o d that the i n s t r u c t i o n s i n a way" t h a t CR-06-0827 v i o l a t e s the c o n s t i t u t i o n . ' " L e w i s v . S t a t e , 24 So. 3d a t 520 ( c i t i n g E s t e l l e v. M c G u i r e , 502 U.S. 62, 72 ( 1 9 9 1 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Boyde v. C a l i f o r n i a , Initially, the language e i t h e r taken t h i s Court found 494 U.S. 370, 380 notes t h a t i t a p p e a r s t h a t most o f i n the c i r c u i t of court's instructions was f r o m A l a b a m a ' s p a t t e r n j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s o r were requested by M i t c h e l l h i m s e l f . 819, (1990)). See Ex p a r t e Wood, 715 So. 2d 824 ( A l a . 1998) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t i n most i n s t a n c e s u s e the pattern jury instructions will not r e s u l t i n plain e r r o r ; h o w e v e r , " t h e r e may be some i n s t a n c e s when u s i n g those p a t t e r n c h a r g e s w o u l d be m i s l e a d i n g o r e r r o n e o u s " ) . Further, this penalty-phase Court jury has reviewed instructions the c i r c u i t and finds court's that the i n s t r u c t i o n s were n o t ambiguous a n d t h a t t h e y d i d n o t m i s l e a d the j u r y r e g a r d i n g i t s penalty-phase correctly i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y p e n a l t y phase. aggravating circuit I t thoroughly circumstances role. regarding The c i r c u i t i t s role i n s t r u c t e d the jury court i n the regarding and m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The court then p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y r e g a r d i n g the burdens o f proof circumstances. aggravating f o r aggravating The circuit circumstances. circumstances court correctly The c i r c u i t 70 and m i t i g a t i n g defined the court then i n s t r u c t e d CR-06-0827 the j u r y r e g a r d i n g s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i o n and i n f o r m e d t h a t i t c o u l d c o n s i d e r any a s p e c t record or any of the of M i t c h e l l ' s circumstances of the j u r y character or the offense M i t c h e l l h a d o f f e r e d as a b a s i s f o r a s e n t e n c e o f l i f e parole. jury Further, the c i r c u i t court thoroughly regarding aggravating reaching the process circumstances i t sdecision. by w h i c h and phase thoroughly instructions, reviewing this ambiguous o r m i s l e a d i n g . the instructions l i f e without at 520 finds part confused court's they penaltywere by any o f t h e recommended not Killingworth confusing o f any c o n f u s i o n on v. S t a t e , [Ms. ( h o l d i n g t h a t e r r o r s i n t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e were h a r m l e s s a 71 sentence ( A l a . Crim. CR-06- 2009) recommended , jury Nov. the j u r y 3d 24 So. 3d 0854, because So. and circuit a sentence of See L e w i s , a l l e g e d l y redundant 13, 2009] properly F u r t h e r , t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n i n and t h e j u r y of the j u r y " ) ; court process. that i n s t r u c t i o n s where t h e r e was "no e v i d e n c e the in the c i r c u i t the p o s s i b i l i t y of parole. (upholding the the c i r c u i t Court r e c o r d t h a t t h e j u r y was court's consider circumstances i n s t r u c t e d the jury regarding the weighing After without i n s t r u c t e d the i t should mitigating Finally, that of l i f e App. i n prison CR-06-0827 w i t h o u t the p o s s i b i l i t y of p a r o l e ) . does n o t e n t i t l e M i t c h e l l t o any Consequently, this issue relief. XIII. Mitchell failing to next grant argues him a that the circuit continuance court based on erred i n the State's alleged discovery violations. "The g u i d e l i n e s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether a t r i a l c o u r t has abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying a continuance are s e t out i n Ex parte Saranthus, Fortenberry 1988). v. 501 State, 545 So. 2d 2d So. 1256, 129, 1257 138 (Ala. 1986)." ( A l a . Crim. App. I n S a r a n t h u s , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d : "A m o t i o n f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e i s a d d r e s s e d t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e c o u r t and t h e c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on i t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s t h e r e i s an a b u s e o f discretion. F l e t c h e r v. S t a t e , 291 A l a . 67, 277 So. 2d 882 (1973) . I f t h e f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s are s a t i s f i e d , a t r i a l court should grant a motion f o r c o n t i n u a n c e on t h e g r o u n d t h a t a w i t n e s s o r e v i d e n c e i s a b s e n t : (1) t h e e x p e c t e d e v i d e n c e must be m a t e r i a l and c o m p e t e n t ; (2) t h e r e must be a p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w i l l be f o r t h c o m i n g i f t h e c a s e i s continued; and (3) t h e m o v i n g p a r t y must have e x e r c i s e d due d i l i g e n c e t o s e c u r e t h e e v i d e n c e . K n o w l e s v. B l u e , 209 A l a . 27, 32, 95 So. 481, 485-86 (1923) ." Ex parte Saranthus, State, 725 So. 501 2d 1003, So. 2d 1060-61 72 at 1257. See also ( A l a . C r i m . App. Price 1997). v. CR-06-0827 In this necessary of case, Mitchell argues that b e c a u s e he d i d n o t have a c c e s s evidence until the week of a continuance t o s e v e r a l key trial. At trial, c o u n s e l argued t h a t the defense needed a c o n t i n u a n c e and/or review Forensic stains the f o l l o w i n g : 1) Sciences' on regarding Mitchell's clothes insufficient; 2) supplemental Mitchell report report from televison; a the 3) copy of of tapes the the f o r DNA the of a crime interviews Spradley's photographic in statements. Sciences' defense file. and file. that The and test identified was aired relating 5) on to a 4) a c o p y o f copies and was of the James J a c k s o n Mitchell. the hearing, The had State defense State the circuit court heard conflicting S t a t e argued t h a t the Department of r e p o r t had counsel The report; l i n e u p s u s e d by C l i f f o r d D a v i s identifying During arrest of Russell's witness that to sample Phillip subsequent, u n r e l a t e d murder i n v o l v i n g M i t c h e l l ; Kevin to obtain Department because the that pieces defense inability Detective indicating video the a copy of was not been p r o v i d e d been g i v e n access to the S t a t e and to State's the argued t h a t i t s e n t i r e f i l e counsel waited weeks had to been that entire copied retrieve the further asserted that Detective Russell had 73 two Forensic CR-06-0827 only r e c e n t l y prepared immediately they d i s c l o s e d to counsel. waited they t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l r e p o r t and t h a t i t was had two been weeks t o given Defense c o u n s e l denied r e t r i e v e the access to file the and State's that denied that entire file. M i t c h e l l ' s c o u n s e l , h o w e v e r , c o n c e d e d t h a t t h e y were i n no implying that anything" o r t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n was evidence. some o f (R. the lost while To the 98-99.) items may in their remedy counsel prosecution did have b e e n would have the each d i s c l o s e d and court of stated that i t would take counsel to interview the R u s s e l l ' s supplemental counsel's cannot say that subsequently ensured the to the subsequent murder i n v o l v i n g M i t c h e l l . the also admitted that defense items listed above. court o f f e r e d defense counsel a d d i t i o n a l f u n d s t o h i r e someone t o l i s t e n on done " t r [ y i n g ] to h o l d back" Defense counsel problem, F u r t h e r , the c i r c u i t Based "intentionally possession. any or had way a long witness tapes r e l a t i n g The circuit recess to court allow identified to in the also defense Detective report. conflicting statements regarding defense d i l i g e n c e and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s remedy, t h i s C o u r t that the circuit court abused denying M i t c h e l l ' s motion f o r a continuance. 74 i t s discretion See by W i m b e r l y v. CR-06-0827 State, 934 So. 2 d 4 1 1 , 424 ( A l a . C r i m . judges necessarily scheduling trials. assembling place require great a t t h e same time, except lawyers, of l a t i t u d e i n and j u r o r s and t h i s burdens f o r compelling b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n must be g r a n t e d continuances." deal ("Trial Not the l e a s t o f t h e i r problems i s t h a t o f the witnesses, continuances a App. 2005) (citations counsels reasons. trial a t t h e same against Consequently, courts on m a t t e r s o f and i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n s omitted)). Moreover, t h i s Court has searched the e n t i r e r e c o r d and f a i l e d t o f i n d a n y i n d i c a t i o n t h a t M i t c h e l l s u f f e r e d a n y p r e j u d i c e as a result of the c i r c u i t continuance. the court's See W i m b e r l y , appellant So. 3 d (affirming the c i r c u i t because that the denial was p r e j u d i c i a l ) ; T.D.M. v . S t a t e , 08-0355, June 2 5 , 2010) continue o f h i s motion there fora 934 So. 2d a t 425 ( h o l d i n g had not e s t a b l i s h e d motion t o continue 2010) denial was , court's no of his [Ms. CR- ( A l a . C r i m . App. denial of a motion t o "indication s u f f e r e d b y T.D.M. on t h i s g r o u n d . " ) . that of prejudice This Court " f i n d [ s ] i t extremely improbable t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l time f o r p r e p a r a t i o n r e q u e s t e d b y [ M i t c h e l l ] w o u l d have c h a n g e d t h e r e s u l t o f t h e trial." Fortenberry Price v. State, 725 So. 2d v . S t a t e , 545 So. 2d a t 1 3 9 ) . 75 at 1061 (citing See a l s o B e a u r e g a r d CR-06-0827 v. State, Clayton 372 v. So. 2d State, 37, 43 (Ala. Crim. 45 A l a . App. 127, 129, App. 226 1979) So. 2d (citing 671, 672 (1969)("The r e v e r s a l of a c o n v i c t i o n because of the r e f u s a l of the trial judge to demonstration Therefore, grant of a continuance abuse of requires judicial t h i s i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e 'a p o s i t i v e discretion.'")). M i t c h e l l t o any relief. XIV. Mitchell admitting allowing angle erred in gruesome p h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e v i c t i m s ' wounds and by the and next argues prosecutor direction that to of the use the circuit court mannequin heads bullets as to they show entered the and t r a v e l e d through each of the v i c t i m s . To the extent erroneously Mitchell argues allowed the p r o s e c u t o r that the crime have long scene and admissible. (Ala. 207 C r i m . App. (Ala. Crim. repeatedly crime See held scene and recognized the that wounds o f S t a l l w o r t h v. 2001)(quoting App. the victims State, L a n d v. that photographs nature of 76 merit. photographs the 1995))("The court to i n t r o d u c e photographs of t h e v i c t i m s ' wounds, t h i s a r g u m e n t i s w i t h o u t courts circuit 868 State, courts that the depicting the relevant and are So. of Alabama 2d 678 this accurately victim's 1128, So. 1151 2d 201, state have depict the wounds are CR-06-0827 admissible despite the fact that c u m u l a t i v e . " ) ; Ward v. S t a t e , 814 App. Crim. they So. may 2d 899, be 906 gruesome ( A l a . Crim. 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t i n g S i e b e r t v. S t a t e , 562 So. 2d 586, App. applies to] 1989)("The same r u l e photographs....")). applies In 599 ( A l a . to videotapes Brooks v. State, Court e x p l a i n e d : " ' G e n e r a l l y , photographs are a d m i s s i b l e i n t o evidence i n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n " i f they 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 o r e v i d e n c e , 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 evidence offered or t o be offered, and their a d m i s s i o n i s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l j u d g e . " ' B a n k h e a d v. S t a t e , 585 So. 2d 97, 109 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , remanded on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 585 So. 2d 112 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f ' d on r e t u r n t o remand, 625 So. 2d 1141 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , r e v ' d , 625 So. 2d 1146 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , q u o t i n g Magwood v. S t a t e , 494 So. 2d 124, 141 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 5 ) , a f f ' d , 494 So. 2d 154 (Ala. 1986). 'Photographic exhibits are admissible e v e n t h o u g h t h e y may be cumulative, 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. 2d 368, 371 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986) (citations omitted). In addition, 'photographic evidence, i f relevant, i s a d m i s s i b l e e v e n i f i t has a t e n d e n c y t o i n f l a m e t h e m i n d s 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. 2d 780, 784 ( A l a . 1989). 'This court has held that autopsy photographs, a l t h o u g h gruesome, a r e a d m i s s i b l e t o show t h e e x t e n t o f a v i c t i m ' s i n j u r i e s . ' F e r g u s o n v. S t a t e , 814 So. 2d 925, 944 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000), a f f ' d , 814 So. 2d 970 ( A l a . 2001). '"[A]utopsy p h o t o g r a p h s d e p i c t i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r and l o c a t i o n o f wounds on a v i c t i m ' s b o d y a r e a d m i s s i b l e e v e n i f t h e y a r e 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. 2d 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 77 or [that this CR-06-0827 So. 2d 1041, 1108 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 808 So. 2d 1143 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , 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 , 536 U.S. 953 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , on remand t o , 851 So. 2d 453 ( A l a . 2002)." 973 So. 2d a t 393. This holds Court that they of has r e v i e w e d the extent unpleasant, Therefore, were the relevant victims' the the photographs i n question admissible injuries. photographs circuit and were court the extent Mitchell not d i d not argues show Further, a l l o w i n g t h e p h o t o g r a p h s t o be a d m i t t e d To to unduly commit at that and the although gruesome. any error i n trial. the circuit court e r r o n e o u s l y a l l o w e d t h e S t a t e t o u s e m a n n e q u i n h e a d s t o show the trajectory grounds unduly that of this prejudicial, the b u l l e t s through evidence irrelevant, was the victims on the cumulative, and h i s argument i s l i k e w i s e w i t h o u t merit. 4 Whether t o a l l o w t h e p r o s e c u t o r t o u s e m a n n e q u i n s t o a i d the jury i n understanding the t r a j e c t o r y of a b u l l e t through a v i c t i m i s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the c i r c u i t court and [that a conviction "will 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 T h i s C o u r t n o t e s t h a t M i t c h e l l does n o t a r g u e and t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m a n n e q u i n h e a d s were d i s s i m i l a r t o t h e heads o f t h e v i c t i m s . See I v e y v. S t a t e , 369 So. 2d 1276, 1278 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1979) 4 78 CR-06-0827 discretion] has been clearly S t a t e , 369 So. 2d 1276, omitted). Further, 1278 this mannequin t o demonstrate admissible. (Ala. 796 C r i m . App. 5, grossly abused." ( A l a . C r i m . App. Court has held State, 1979) that a victim's injuries I d . ; see M i n o r v. 780 Ivey See 2010] a l s o G o b b l e v. S t a t e , So. 3d at v. (citations the use of a i s relevant and So. 765 2d 707, 1 9 9 9 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 780 So. ( A l a . 2000); Feb. and [Ms. 2d CR-05-0225, ("Demonstrations experiments are p e r m i t t e d or p r o h i b i t e d i n the t r i a l and court's d i s c r e t i o n . Thus, A l a b a m a a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have a f f i r m e d trial c o u r t d e c i s i o n s p e r m i t t i n g an e x p e r i m e n t on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n to t e s t the defendant's a b i l i t y said he had; defendant a demonstration herself to t o c a l c u l a t e i n t e r e s t as using discredit a her mannequin he the that assertion and the p r o s e c u t e d h o m i c i d e 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 t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n o f how playing the deceased and a f i g h t o c c u r r e d , the the defendant playing solicitor himself; 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 t h e 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 the d e f e n d a n t of the e x t e n t t o w h i c h h i s i n j u r i e s had i m p a i r e d his ability to walk; and a d e m o n s t r a t i o n between a brain 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 79 CR-06-0827 show the child's physical W i l l i a m A. S c h r o e d e r § 12:25 and t h e use abilities."(quoting and Jerome A. H o f f m a n , A l a b a m a (3d e d . 2 0 0 6 ) ( f o o t n o t e s Here, mental Evidence omitted)). o f t h e mannequin h e a d s was relevant and admissible to i l l u s t r a t e the coroner's testimony regarding the trajectory jury of the b u l l e t s i n understanding through the extent t h e v i c t i m s and t o a i d t h e of the v i c t i m s ' injuries. F u r t h e r , n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t " t h e use o f t h e mannequin was [Mitchell]." Court ... Ivey, calculated unfairly 369 So. 2d a t 1279. cannot say t h a t the c i r c u i t abused" to i t s discretion by Consequently, court " c l e a r l y allowing prejudice and g r o s s l y the prosecutor m a n n e q u i n h e a d s t o show t h e t r a j e c t o r y o f t h e b u l l e t s the v i c t i m s . this to use through I v e y , 369 So. 2d a t 1278. XV. M i t c h e l l next argues t h a t "the [ c i r c u i t ] reversible to what 'lick.'" court e r r o r when i t a l l o w e d two w i t n e s s e s they thought the (Mitchell's brief, defendant a t 67.) meant committed to t e s t i f y [by] Specifically, the as word Mitchell c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e w i t n e s s e s were i m p r o p e r l y a l l o w e d t o t e s t i f y as t o M i t c h e l l ' s m e n t a l o p e r a t i o n s . 80 CR-06-0827 Although not testify of another," Mitchell c o r r e c t l y states that "[a] witness t o t h e uncommunicated i n t e n t o r mental Perry may operation v . B r a k e f i e l d , 534 So. 2d 602, 608 ( A l a . 1988), this particular error case. On t h e c o n t r a r y , d i d not occur LaSundra Mosley i n the instant and Jonathan Floyd b o t h t e s t i f i e d as t o t h e i r own p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n s a n d k n o w l e d g e regarding you have After t h e word "lick." At t r i a l , a n y i d e a what a l i c k w o u l d mean an o b j e c t i o n b y t h e d e f e n s e , (R. 632.) Mosley responded t h a t a means a " r o b b e r y . " (R. 632.) S i m i l a r l y , F l o y d was a s k e d , " I n lick mean?" I ' l lallow told to that." did hit a means, court testify what that the c i r c u i t (R. 632.) " I f you mind, what ... ?" "Do Mosley, your know M o s l e y was a s k e d , you t o (R. 891.) "lick" Floyd r e s p o n d e d t h a t he a n d h i s b u d d i e s a t w o r k u s e t h e p h r a s e " h i t a lick" 892). when t h e y Because personal "lick," are "going both Mosley understanding the c i r c u i t t o make a l o t o f money." and Floyd of the d e f i n i t i o n court a l l o w i n g them t o d e f i n e d i d n o t abuse testified to of the slang (R. their word i t sdiscretion by "lick." XVI. M i t c h e l l next contends t h a t the c i r c u i t court allowed the recording of a telephone 81 erroneously c o n v e r s a t i o n he h a d w h i l e CR-06-0827 i n c a r c e r a t e d a t t h e J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y J a i l t o be a d m i t t e d evidence. was contends t h a t the r e c o r d i n g n o t p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e d and c o n t a i n e d e v i d e n c e crimes. to Specifically, Mitchell the Mitchell f a i l e d to present error only. "The proper See Rule foundation sound r e c o r d i n g i n t o e v i d e n c e the case 727 So. 2d 147, 167 Fuller, Alabama laying 620 Supreme the 45A, 2d 675 Court will A l a . R. App. of other arguments review them P. admission of depends on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s sought." ( A l a . C r i m . App. So. specific r e q u i r e d f o r the i n which the admission g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e B o r d e n , 769 parte these c i r c u i t court; therefore, this for plain into Smith forth foundation for the the In F u l l e r , following admissibility method of an recording: " I f t h e r e i s no q u a l i f i e d and c o m p e t e n t w i t n e s s who can 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 what he o r she s e n s e d a t t h e t i m e i n q u e s t i o n , t h e n t h e ' s i l e n t w i t n e s s ' f o u n d a t i o n must be l a i d . Under t h e ' 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 must e x p l a i n how the 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 and how t h e p r o c e s s o r mechanism e n s u r e s reliability. When t h e ' s i l e n t w i t n e s s ' t h e o r y i s u s e d , t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g 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. 2d 248 ( A l a . Crim. App. 82 other ( A l a . 2000) ( c i t i n g Ex (Ala. 1993)). set of State, 1 9 9 8 ) , o v e r r u l e d on So. 2d 950 Court v. a the for audio CR-06-0827 1980)] test. Rewritten t o have more a p p l i c a t i o n , the Voudrie standard requires: general "(1) a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e d e v i c e o r 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 s e e n o r heard had a w i t n e s s been p r e s e n t a t t h e scene o r event r e c o r d e d , "(2) a s h o w i n g t h a t device or process competent, the operator of the or mechanism was "(3) e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y a n d correctness of the r e s u l t i n g recording, photograph, videotape, e t c . , "(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 have b e e n made, additions, "(5) a s h o w i n g o f t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e r e c o r d i n g , p h o t o g r a p h , v i d e o t a p e , e t c . , was preserved, "(6) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e s p e a k e r s , persons p i c t u r e d , and or "(7) f o r c r i m i n a l c a s e s o n l y , a s h o w i n g t h a t a n y s t a t e m e n t made i n t h e r e c o r d i n g , t a p e , e t c . , was v o l u n t a r i l y made w i t h o u t any kind of coercion or improper inducement." 620 So. 2d a t 678. In t h i s case, the p r o s e c u t o r l a i d the proper p r e d i c a t e f o r the admissibility conversation Carpenter of of Mitchell's from the November t h e J e f f e r s o n County Jefferson 83 County 8, 2006, jail. Sheriff's telephone Deputy Carl Department CR-06-0827 t e s t i f i e d about the machine used t o d i g i t a l l y r e c o r d telephone calls s t o r e d on an that he was how competent t h a t t h e CD t h a t was were no presented at t r i a l question was Mitchell conversation, to Mitchell. to Carpenter himself as spoke Carpenter Mitchell the of was recorded The telephone pin "Brandon" details from testified testimony call known (R. 815-23, 838-41.) So. 2d 248 M i t c h e l l i s not e n t i t l e d t o number, only the by placing warned t h a t his As law- a result, the s a t i s f i e d a l l of the ( A l a . 1980), requirements and relief. 84 in that M i t c h e l l ' s statements r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t the p r o s e c u t i o n v. S t a t e , 387 the stated during that before adequately and further assigned testified system not p a r t of a c u s t o d i a l statement to enforcement o f f i c e r s . Voudrie recording conversation recording. Mitchell's Mitchell c o n v e r s a t i o n m i g h t be were v o l u n t a r y and server. to call, the how are testimony ("CD"), and f u r t h e r e s t a b l i s h e d the Finally, telephone operate the telephone changes t o the traced and Carpenter's t o a compact d i s c the referred conversations described accurately represented s t o r e d on there the he d o w n l o a d e d t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n inmate-telephone server the and A d d i t i o n a l l y , Carpenter w o r k e d , d e s c r i b e d how that jail inmate-telephone server. established system. from the inmates' CR-06-0827 With regard to recording should Mitchell's have been argument excluded that because the audio i t contained e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r c r i m e s , t h i s argument i s a l s o w i t h o u t m e r i t . I n Gamble v. App. 2000), State, t h i s Court 791 So. 2d 409, 439-40 ( A l a . Crim. held: "'On the trial for the alleged commission of a p a r t i c u l a r crime, evidence of the accused's h a v i n g committed another a c t or crime i s not a d m i s s i b l e i f the o n l y p r o b a t i v e f u n c t i o n of such evidence i s t o prove bad c h a r a c t e r and the accused's conformity therewith. This i s a general exclusionary rule which prevents the i n t r o d u c t i o n of p r i o r a c t s or crimes f o r the s o l e purpose of s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the a c c u s e d i s more l i k e l y t o be g u i l t y o f t h e crime i n q u e s t i o n II I "'The f o r e g o i n g e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e does n o t work t o e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e o f a l l c r i m e s o r a c t s , o n l y s u c h as a r e o f f e r e d t o show the defendant's bad character and c o n f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h on t h e o c c a s i o n o f t h e now-charged c r i m e . I f the defendant's commission of another crime or misdeed i s r e l e v a n t f o r some o t h e r m a t e r i a l p u r p o s e i n t h e c a s e t h e n i t may be a d m i t t e d . ' "C. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e , § 69.01(1) a t 300-01 ( 5 t h ed. 1996) (footnotes omitted). 'This r u l e i s g e n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e whether the o t h e r crime o r a c t was c o m m i t t e d b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e one f o r which the defendant i s p r e s e n t l y b e i n g t r i e d . ' Id. a t 300. 85 CR-06-0827 "'[E]vidence of collateral o f f e n s e s may be admissible under certain exceptions to the e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e or f o r "other purposes" than to p r o v e t h e a c c u s e d ' s g u i l t . ' W i l l i a m s o n v. S t a t e , 629 So. 2d 777, 780 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . I n N i c k s v. S t a t e , 521 So. 2d 1018 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 7 ) , a f f ' d , 521 So. 2d 1035 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S. C t . 2916, 101 L. Ed. 2d 948 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , t h i s c o u r t d i s c u s s e d the e x c e p t i o n s t o the g e n e r a l e x c l u s i o n a r y rule: "'Numerous Alabama cases list the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule, or tests for relevancy, whereby e v i d e n c e o f c o l l a t e r a l c r i m e s o r a c t s may be a d m i t t e d . These e x c e p t i o n s i n c l u d e t h e following: "'"(1) R e l e v a n c y t o prove p h y s i c a l capacity, skill, or means to commit t h e n o w - c h a r g e d c r i m e ; (2) p a r t of the res gestae or p a r t of a continuous transaction; (3) relevancy to prove s c i e n t e r or g u i l t y k n o w l e d g e ; (4) r e l e v a n c y t o prove criminal intent; (5) relevancy to prove p l a n , design, scheme, o r s y s t e m ; (6) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e m o t i v e ; (7) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e i d e n t i t y ; (8) r e l e v a n c y t o r e b u t s p e c i a l d e f e n s e s ; and (9) relevancy i n various p a r t i c u l a r crimes."' " ' N e l s o n v. S t a t e , 511 So. 2d 225, 233 (Ala. C r . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . See a l s o T w i l l e y v. S t a t e , 472 So. 2d 1130 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1 9 8 5 ) ; B r e w e r v. S t a t e , [440 So. 2d 1155 (Ala. C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 440 So. 2d 1155 (1983) ] ; M i l l e r v. S t a t e , 405 So. 2d 41 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 1 ) ; Thompson v. S t a t e , 374 So. 2d 377 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , a f f ' d , 374 So. 2d 388 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ; M c M u r t r e y v. 86 CR-06-0827 S t a t e , 37 A l a . App. 656, 74 So. 2d 528 ( 1 9 5 4 ) ; W i l k i n s v . S t a t e , 29 A l a . App. 349, 197 So. 75, c e r t . d e n i e d , 240 A l a . 52, 197 So. 81 ( 1 9 4 0 ) ; M c E l r o y ' s §§ 6 9 . 0 1 ( 1 ) - ( 1 1 ) ; Schroeder, Evidentiary Use i n C r i m i n a l Cases o f C o l l a t e r a l Crimes and A c t s : A Comparison o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s and Alabama Law, 35 A l a . L. Rev. 241 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A l l o f t h e exceptions r e l a t e t o the relevancy of the e v i d e n c e , w h i c h means t h a t e v i d e n c e o f s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t crimes i s a d m i s s i b l e o n l y when t h e e v i d e n c e i s r e l e v a n t t o t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d . Mason v . S t a t e , 259 A l a . 438, 66 So. 2d 557 ( 1 9 5 3 ) ; N o b l e v . S t a t e , 253 A l a . 519, 45 So. 2d 857 ( 1 9 5 0 ) . " ' " A l l evidence i s relevant which throws, o r tends t o throw, any l i g h t upon t h e g u i l t o r t h e innocence of the p r i s o n e r . And relevant evidence which is i n t r o d u c e d t o p r o v e any m a t e r i a l f a c t o u g h t n o t t o be r e j e c t e d merely because i t proves, o r tends t o p r o v e , t h a t a t some o t h e r t i m e o r a t t h e same t i m e t h e a c c u s e d has b e e n g u i l t y o f some o t h e r separate, independent and d i s s i m i l a r crime. The g e n e r a l rule i s well settled that a l l e v i d e n c e must be r e l e v a n t . If evidence i s relevant upon t h e general issue of guilt, or i n n o c e n c e , no v a l i d r e a s o n e x i s t s f o r i t s r e j e c t i o n merely because i t may p r o v e , o r may t e n d t o prove, t h a t t h e accused committed some o t h e r c r i m e , o r may e s t a b l i s h some collateral and u n r e l a t e d fact. Evidence of other acts t o be available must have some logical connection and reveal evidence o f knowledge, design, 87 CR-06-0827 p l a n , scheme, o r c o n s p i r a c y o f t h e crime charged; or c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence of i d e n t i t y of the person charged w i t h the crime; or tends to corroborate d i r e c t evidence admitted." "'Underhill, ed. 1 9 2 3 ) . ' Criminal Evidence § 154 (3d "521 So. 2d a t 1025-26. '"The d e c i s i o n whether to a l l o w or not to a l l o w evidence of c o l l a t e r a l crimes o r a c t s as p a r t o f t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f r e s t s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l judge."' A k i n v. S t a t e , 698 So. 2d 228, 234 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1996), c e r t . denied, 698 So. 2d 238 ( A l a . 1997), q u o t i n g B l a n c o v. S t a t e , 515 So. 2d 115, 120 ( A l a . C r . App. 1987)." 791 So. 2d a t During stated that needed the had 439-40. the he telephone was conversation caught w i t h a at knife in j a i l weapon t o p r o t e c t h i m s e l f regarding knife because i t was relevant c o d e f e n d a n t were f e u d i n g participation over the i n the murders. p r e j u d i c e does n o t of the evidence. to In t h i s case, Further, H o c k e r v. 88 State, that he of t h e i r the 840 the recording and a his individual danger of u n f a i r s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweigh the p r o b a t i v e See he been caught w i t h show extent that codefendant the p o r t i o n s of the M i t c h e l l ' s a d m i s s i o n t h a t he had Mitchell and because h i s some gang members t r y i n g t o "jump" him. c i r c u i t court properly admitted issue, So. 2d 197, value 214-15 CR-06-0827 (Ala. Crim. collateral App. bad 2002) a c t was ("Evidence very about the appellant's p r o b a t i v e b e c a u s e i t was one of s e v e r a l f a c t o r s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s t a t e d c a u s e d him t o commit the murder. not Furthermore, substantially evidence. outweigh danger of u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e did the the probative value of T h e r e were v e r y few r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e c o l l a t e r a l act during any references trial. the the guilt to A l s o , the phase of the the act trial, during c o l l a t e r a l bad the and t h e r e were penalty act i n t h i s phase case of bad not the apparently i n v o l v e d a pending charge f o r t h e f t of p r o p e r t y r a t h e r than prior conviction circuit for c o u r t d i d not possession of the Moreover, references that offense."). e r r i n a l l o w i n g evidence knife while i n j a i l even Accordingly, i f the t o a k n i f e was of erroneous, t o be admitted. admission any e r r o r was of overwhelming More evidence importantly, of Mitchell's showing M i t c h e l l committing 725 1072 So. 2d 1063, admission because of evidence the State the ( A l a . 1998) the State guilt crime. Ex parte ( h o l d i n g t h a t the not presented including a See the harmless. H e r e , M i t c h e l l ' s p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e k n i f e w h i l e i n j a i l was emphasized. the Mitchell's court's circuit a video Price, erroneous d i d not r i s e t o the l e v e l of p l a i n e r r o r produced overwhelming 89 evidence of guilt). CR-06-0827 Therefore, even i f the circuit court that error did deliberations not and have d i d not Ex p a r t e Brown, 11 So. an in allowing o f t h e k n i f e t o be evidence of M i t c h e l l ' s p o s s e s s i o n admitted, adverse rise to the 3d a t 938; erred impact R u l e 45A, the jury's of p l a i n level on error. A l a . R. App. P. XVII. Mitchell next argues t h a t the of h i s telephone under the conversations First, Fourth, circuit court's admission v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t to privacy Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, F o u r t e e n t h Amendments t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d and Title Act of I I I of the Omnibus C r i m e C o n t r o l and 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 interception of wire, without Crim. a warrant." App. because County the jail seq, and which Specifically, telephone monitoring installed as Streets " p r o h i b i t s the So. Mitchell system (Ala. contends that the Jefferson system" r a t h e r t h a n a s e c u r i t y m e a s u r e , and b e c a u s e he d i d n o t consent to the enjoyed a reasonable "phone at 2d 1, 32 management r e c o r d i n g of h i s p e r s o n a l a States e l e c t r o n i c communications J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 823 2001). was oral, et Safe and telephone calls, he e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y as t o a l l o f h i s c a l l s made f r o m t h e jail. This Court 90 disagrees. telephone CR-06-0827 I n T e a t v. 1993), this necessarily Court give incarceration, in the up 636 291 So. held 2d that 697, although " t h e r e i s no r e a s o n a b l e conversation See 699 a l l constitutional telephone institutions." 285, State, also United ( 9 t h C i r . 1996) (Ala. Crim. inmates rights jail telephones). of inmates (holding that calls at i n d i v i d u a l s who are expectation t h a t a r e made on Id. the reasonable conversation, c o n v e r s a t i o n d i d n o t v i o l a t e any his constitutional rights. not e n t i t l e M i t c h e l l t o penal F.3d B e c a u s e M i t c h e l l d i d n o t have a of h i s telephone their P o y c k , 77 e x p e c t a t i o n of p r i v a c y d u r i n g h i s telephone admission not e x p e c t a t i o n of p r i v a c y S t a t e s v. Van telephone do during i n c a r c e r a t e d w h i l e a w a i t i n g t r i a l do n o t have any of p r i v a c y i n outgoing App. the of C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h i s i s s u e does relief. XVIII. M i t c h e l l f i n a l l y argues t h a t the cumulative e f f e c t of a l l t h e e r r o r s r e q u i r e s r e v e r s a l o f h i s c o n v i c t i o n s and of death. errors Specifically, have p r o b a b l y contends injuriously r i g h t s " and d e p r i v e d h i m at he that affected of a f a i r t r i a l . 62.) 91 "the sentences accumulated [his] s u b s t a n t i a l (Mitchell's brief, CR-06-0827 "As t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s s o s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e d , t h e c u m u l a t i v e - e r r o r r u l e i s as f o l l o w s : ' [ W ] h i l e , u n d e r t h e f a c t s o f a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , no single error among multiple errors may be s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l under R u l e 45, [ A l a . R. App. P.,] i f t h e a c c u m u l a t e d errors have "probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the p a r t i e s , " then the cumulative effect of the errors may require reversal.' Ex p a r t e Woods, 789 So. 2d 941, 942 n. 1 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P . ) . " B r o w n f i e l d v. S t a t e , 3d , the standard s e t f o r t h 2 d 941 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , errors Mitchell searched the record Court on a p p e a l f o r errors After i s convinced cumulatively, i n Ex p a r t e Woods, 789 t h i s C o u r t has r e v i e w e d t h e a l l e g e d has r a i s e d 45A, A l a . R. App. P. this So. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . Applying So. [Ms. CR-04-0743, A p r i l 27, 2007] not r a i s e d a thorough that and has no scrupulously on a p p e a l . Rule review of the record, error, individually or entitles Mitchell to r e l i e f . XIX. Pursuant required and t o § 13A-5-53, A l a . Code t o address sentences the propriety of death. 5 1975, t h i s of M i t c h e l l ' s Mitchell was indicted Court i s convictions f o r , and I n Section XIII of h i s b r i e f to t h i s Court, M i t c h e l l r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h i s C o u r t do a p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y r e v i e w p u r s u a n t t o § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s C o u r t h a s chosen t o address t h i s i s s u e i n t h i s s e c t i o n of our o p i n i o n . 5 92 CR-06-0827 c o n v i c t e d o f , f o u r c o u n t s o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r -- t h r e e c o u n t s o f m u r d e r d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f a r o b b e r y , see § Ala. Code 1975, and one c o u n t o f m u r d e r o f two o r more p e o p l e pursuant t o one conduct, see § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , The 13A-5-40(a)(2), act or pursuant t o one scheme o r c o u r s e A l a . Code of 1975. r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t t h a t M i t c h e l l ' s s e n t e n c e s of d e a t h were i m p o s e d as t h e r e s u l t o f t h e i n f l u e n c e o f p a s s i o n , prejudice, or any other 5 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code The circuit February court correctly stated that 7, of 2007, i t found M i t c h e l l committed imprisonment, factor. See § 13A-5- 1975. circumstances outweighed its arbitrary found that the aggravating the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. I n sentencing order, the five circumstances: aggravating circuit court 1) the c a p i t a l o f f e n s e w h i l e under a sentence § 13A-5-49(1), A l a . Code 1975; 2) Mitchell was p r e v i o u s l y c o n v i c t e d o f a n o t h e r c a p i t a l o f f e n s e o r f e l o n y i n v o l v i n g t h e use o r t h r e a t o f v i o l e n c e , Code 1975; was 3) M i t c h e l l c o m m i t t e d e n g a g e d i n o r was § 13A-5-49(2), Ala. t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e w h i l e he an a c c o m p l i c e i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n 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 commit, a r o b b e r y , § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975; 4) the c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s c o m m i t t e d were 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 , 93 CR-06-0827 or cruel when compared t o o t h e r 4 9 ( 8 ) , A l a . Code 1975; and capital 13A-5- intentionally 5) M i t c h e l l offenses, § caused t h e d e a t h o f two o r more p e r s o n s by one a c t o r p u r s u a n t t o scheme o r c o u r s e The circuit mitigating case. of conduct, court then considered c i r c u m s t a n c e s and However, nonstatutory the § 13A-5-49(9), of the 1975. statutory f o u n d t h a t none a p p l i e d i n t h i s circuit mitigating each A l a . Code one court did find circumstances that were several applicable, i n c l u d i n g t h a t : 1) M i t c h e l l had b e e n t a k e n f r o m h i s m o t h e r and placed i n foster abused care throughout a t a v e r y young age; his childhood; 3) 2) Mitchell Mitchell experienced numerous d i f f i c u l t i e s i n s c h o o l , w h i c h e v e n t u a l l y c a u s e d t o be removed f r o m h i s f o s t e r m o t h e r ' s c a r e ; and recommended that without the possibility circuit court's weighed the correctly Mitchell aggravating Section sentenced o f p a r o l e by sentencing sentenced the c i r c u i t be order and Mitchell to shows mitigating 4) t h e life in of 10-2. a vote that The A l a . Code 1975, him jury prison The i t properly circumstances to death. was record and supports court's findings. 13A-5-53(b)(2), C o u r t t o r e w e i g h t h e a g g r a v a t i n g and m i t i g a t i n g i n order to determine requires circumstances whether M i t c h e l l ' s death sentences 94 this are CR-06-0827 proper. After mitigating independently weighing circumstances, t h i s Court the aggravating finds that and Mitchell's sentences of death are a p p r o p r i a t e . As Court required must excessive imposed now or in by § 13A-5-53(b)(3), determine whether disproportionate similar A l a . Code Mitchell's when compared cases. In this 1975, this sentences to case, are the p e n a l t y Mitchell was c o n v i c t e d o f t h r e e c o u n t s o f m u r d e r d u r i n g a r o b b e r y and c o u n t o f m u r d e r o f two pursuant death t o one have State. scheme o r imposed course , v. conduct. State, crimes 922 throughout 2009); Melson, So. 2d 145 2005). Finally, any error this that C o u r t has may have the 775 So. 2d a t ( A l a . Crim. App. ( A l a . Crim. Therefore, t h i s Court f i n d s that M i t c h e l l ' s sentences are n e i t h e r e x c e s s i v e nor of 1, 2009] 2 0 0 5 ) ; and R o b i t a i l l e v. S t a t e , 971 So. 2d 43, 76 App. act or Sentences [Ms. CR-07-0113, May ( A l a . C r i m . App. Washington of for similar See B y r d v. S t a t e , So. 3d 863; been o r more p e o p l e p u r s u a n t t o one one death disproportionate. searched the e n t i r e record for adversely Mitchell's 95 affected CR-06-0827 s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s and h a s f o u n d n o n e . App. 6 See R u l e 45A, A l a . R. P. Accordingly, Mitchell's convictions and sentences of death are affirmed. AFFIRMED. W i s e , P . J . , and W e l c h , K e l l u m , and M a i n , J J . , concur. I n S e c t i o n XIV of h i s b r i e f , M i t c h e l l asks t h i s Court t o search the record f o r p l a i n e r r o r . Specifically, "Mitchell p r a y s t h a t , i f t h e r e a r e any i s s u e s he a c c i d e n t a l l y o m i t t e d that s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d h i s r i g h t s , t h i s Court will a d d r e s s t h o s e i s s u e s as w e l l . " ( M i t c h e l l ' s b r i e f , a t 59.) T h i s C o u r t has s e a r c h e d t h e r e c o r d f o r p l a i n e r r o r and f o u n d none. A c c o r d i n g l y , M i t c h e l l ' s r e q u e s t i s moot and w i l l n o t be a d d r e s s e d i n t h e body o f t h i s o p i n i o n . 6 96

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.