Bobby O'Lee Phillips v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/28/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may 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-06-1577 Bobby O'Lee Phillips v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal KELLUM, On bringing Covington C i r c u i t (CC-03-155) Court Judge. November codefendant, Texas, from on 18, 2002, Oscar Bobby Roy D o s t e r , outstanding Alabama an e n d t o a c r i m e spree O'Lee were arrested fugitive that Phillips near arrest began and when his Ozona, warrants, Phillips, CR-06-1577 Doster, a n d two o t h e r i n m a t e s Covington Over County jail t h e two-week large, they from two weeks e a r l i e r period murdered escaped that Paul of the o n N o v e m b e r 4, Phillips LeMaster, the custody and Doster as well 2002. were as at committed numerous p r o p e r t y c r i m e s a t s i x l o c a t i o n s i n C o v i n g t o n County: (1) VFW (3) t h e Post 3454; (2) J a s o n Pettie's mobile home; F l o r a l a C i t y Yard; ( 4 ) F l o r a l a High S c h o o l ; ( 5 ) Conecuh R i v e r Baptist In a Church; a n d (6) P l e a s a n t Home S c h o o l . February 2003, a C o v i n g t o n County 23-count escape indictment i n the f i r s t against degree, grand j u r y Phillips, s i x counts charging of c a p i t a l returned him with murder, and numerous p r o p e r t y c r i m e s . Following a trial by jury, Phillips was convicted of t h r e e counts of c a p i t a l murder i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e death o f Paul LeMaster. murder was burglary, the The murder committed during robbery, was by Phillips firing a 2 a (1) t h e first-degree 1975 ( c o u n t V I I o f committed during the see § 13A-5-40(a)(2), A l a . Code 1975 ( c o u n t X o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t ) ; committed because: of A l a . Code (2) t h e m u r d e r of a f i r s t - d e g r e e capital the course see § 13A-5-40(a)(4), indictment); course was made a n d (3) t h e m u r d e r deadly weapon from was outside CR-06-1577 LeMaster's residence see § w h i l e L e M a s t e r was 13A-5-40(a)(16), indictment). The circuit recommended, by to death court sentenced The for accepted Phillips convictions. Code 1975 the (count residence, XI of the 1 jury sentenced Ala. inside to the a vote o f 12-0, capital-murder the jury's death on that P h i l l i p s convictions. recommendation, the three be The and i t capital-murder 2 jury also Escape in convicted Phillips of the following 16 crimes: 1. Code 1975 (count the I of second the degree, see indictment ). 3 § 13A-10-32, Ala. The circuit court B e f o r e s u b m i t t i n g the case t o the j u r y , the c i r c u i t c o u r t granted the S t a t e ' s motion to d i s m i s s the capital-murder charges contained i n counts VI, VIII, and IX of the i n d i c t m e n t . A t t h e same t i m e , t h e S t a t e a l s o d i s m i s s e d C o u n t X I I of the i n d i c t m e n t , which charged P h i l l i p s w i t h the f i r s t degree t h e f t of p r o p e r t y of v a r i o u s items b e l o n g i n g t o P a u l LeMaster, because t h i s c h a r g e was a l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of the c a p i t a l murder charge of murder d u r i n g the course of a f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery, c o n t a i n e d i n Count X of the i n d i c t m e n t . 1 O s c a r Roy D o s t e r was a l s o c o n v i c t e d o f t h r e e c o u n t s c a p i t a l m u r d e r and was s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h . His appeal c u r r e n t l y pending before t h i s Court. O s c a r Roy D o s t e r S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , CR-06-0323. 2 A f t e r the s e l e c t i o n of the j u r y , the c i r c u i t g r a n t e d the S t a t e ' s motion t o reduce the charge of 3 3 of is v. court first- CR-06-1577 sentenced Phillips imprisonment. served as The 4 a circuit consecutively remaining habitual to the sentences the burglary indictment). The felony of degree, VFW circuit Post court o f f e n d e r to l i f e Code o f A l a b a m a , (count sentenced life sentence imposed to for be the see § 13A-7-7, A l a . Code 3454 f o r the t h e f t III of Phillips the as a (count sentenced II of Phillips the as a imprisonment. 3. T h e f t o f p r o p e r t y i n t h e s e c o n d 3454 to convictions. for habitual offender court ordered this 2. B u r g l a r y i n t h e t h i r d 1975, felony degree, see § 13A-8-4, of v a r i o u s items indictment). habitual The felony f r o m VFW circuit offender Post court to life imprisonment. The crimes sentences committed concurrently to imposed pursuant at one VFW Post another but to counts 3454, were I I and to consecutively be to III, the served a l l the degree escape to charge the l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of seconddegree escape. T h i s a v o i d e d the p o s s i b l e p r e j u d i c e to P h i l l i p s of the S t a t e ' s h a v i n g t o prove t h a t P h i l l i p s escaped from c u s t o d y a f t e r h a v i n g been c o n v i c t e d of a f e l o n y , a n e c e s s a r y e l e m e n t t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e e s c a p e . See § 1 3 A - 1 0 - 3 1 , A l a . Code 1975. The State convictions. 4 introduced evidence 4 of 16 prior felony CR-06-1577 remaining 57-8 and sentences. See Ex p a r t e M c K e l v e y , ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ( d e f e n d a n t may b e c o n v i c t e d o f b o t h b u r g l a r y theft single arising o u t o f same i n c i d e n t 1975, a degree, only a s e e § 13A-7-5, A l a . Code f o r t h e b u r g l a r y o f J a s o n P e t t i e ' s m o b i l e home the indictment). habitual possibility 5. Ala. b u t may r e c e i v e sentence). 4. B u r g l a r y i n t h e f i r s t of 630 S o . 2 d 5 6 , felony court sentenced offender to l i f e imprisonment Phillips as without the of parole. Theft Code The c i r c u i t (count IV of property i n the f i r s t 1975, f o r t h e t h e f t P e t t i e ' s m o b i l e home degree of various see § 13A-8-3, items (count V of t h e i n d i c t m e n t ) . court sentenced P h i l l i p s from Jason The c i r c u i t as a h a b i t u a l f e l o n y o f f e n d e r t o l i f e imprisonment. The s e n t e n c e s imposed f o r c o n v i c t i o n s under counts V, the crimes to be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y t o one a n o t h e r b u t c o n s e c u t i v e l y t o the remaining committed sentences. at Jason mobile See Ex p a r t e M c K e l v e y , 6. B u r g l a r y i n t h e t h i r d 1975, Pettie's IV and degree, were supra. s e e § 13A-7-7, A l a . Code f o r the burglary of the F l o r a l a C i t y Yard 5 home, (count X I I I o f CR-06-1577 the indictment). habitual felony The circuit court offender to l i f e sentenced A l a . Code Florala court life City Yard sentenced to f o r the theft degree, see of v a r i o u s items (count XIV of the i n d i c t m e n t ) . Phillips as a habitual § 13A-8from The felony the circuit offender to imprisonment. The and 1975, as a imprisonment. 7. T h e f t o f p r o p e r t y i n t h e s e c o n d 4, Phillips sentences imposed XIV, the crimes for convictions committed under at the F l o r a l a counts City XIII Yard, were be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y t o one a n o t h e r b u t c o n s e c u t i v e l y t o the remaining sentences. See E x p a r t e M c K e l v e y , 8. B u r g l a r y i n t h e t h i r d 1975, the degree, s e e § 13A-7-7, A l a . Code f o r the b u r g l a r y of the F l o r a l a High indictment). habitual felony The circuit court offender to l i f e Code High School sentenced 1975, f o r t h e t h e f t as a degree, of v a r i o u s items habitual imprisonment. 6 ( c o u n t XV o f Phillips as a imprisonment. (count XVI o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t ) . Phillips School sentenced 9. T h e f t o f p r o p e r t y i n t h e s e c o n d Ala. supra. felony see § 13A-8-4, from Florala The c i r c u i t offender to court life CR-06-1577 10. Ala. Criminal m i s c h i e f i n the t h i r d Code 1975, f o r damage Florala High circuit court sentenced P h i l l i p s in School done the Covington The XV, were McKelvey, Crim. supra; App. offense 1975, XVIII of Phillips 12. served the Rowell to s i x months' i n c a r c e r a t i o n remaining v. under felony one High another See Ex but parte 447 So. 2d 193, mischief not a lesser-included degree, The see § 13A-7-7, A l a . circuit School court offender to l i f e degree, for various B e f o r e t h e c a s e was s u b m i t t e d t o reduced the charge from c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f s e e § 13A-7-21, A l a . Code, t o c h a r g e offense of c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f i n the t h i r d 3319-20.) 5 7 196 ( A l a . of l a w ) . Theft of property i n the t h i r d 1975, counts at the F l o r a l a sentences. State, indictment). A l a . Code The 5 f o r t h e b u r g l a r y o f P l e a s a n t Home as a h a b i t u a l inside indictment ). c o n c u r r e n t l y to 1983) ( c r i m i n a l the 13A-8-5, the committed Burglary i n the t h i r d Code of machines jail. o f b u r g l a r y as a m a t t e r 11. to vending XVII the crimes t o be to see § 13A-7-23, imposed f o r the c o n v i c t i o n s X V I , and X V I I , consecutively § County sentences School, (count degree, (count sentenced imprisonment. a violation items stolen of from the j u r y , the State i n the f i r s t degree, the l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d d e g r e e . ( V o l . 17, R. CR-06-1577 Pleasant circuit in Home the Covington 23, Criminal Ala. XIX o f the indictment). circuit County jail. mischief i n the third to vending School of the indictment ). (count XX court sentenced P h i l l i p s County sentences to be consecutively McKelvey, 14. jail. the remaining i n the third (count sentenced to one sentences. as a degree, See Ex but parte see § 13A-7-7, A l a . o f t h e Conecuh habitual another supra. XXI of the indictment). Phillips XVIII, a t t h e P l e a s a n t Home S c h o o l , concurrently 1975, f o r t h e b u r g l a r y Church The to s i x months' i n c a r c e r a t i o n supra; Rowell v. State, Burglary inside imposed f o r c o n v i c t i o n s under counts served to machines 6 a n d XX, t h e c r i m e s c o m m i t t e d Code s e e § 13A-7- 1 9 7 5 , f o r damage the Covington were degree, Home The The t o one y e a r o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n Code Pleasant XIX, (count court sentenced P h i l l i p s 13. in School felony The River Baptist circuit offender to court life imprisonment. B e f o r e t h e c a s e was s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y , t h e S t a t e reduced the charge from c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f i n t h e f i r s t degree, see § 13A-7-21, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , t o t h e l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f i n the t h i r d degree. 6 8 CR-06-1577 15. Code Burglary 1975, for Conecuh R i v e r The circuit offender 16. § to court life Theft Baptist Code 13A-7-7, hall the a Ala. of the indictment). habitual felony the for crimes to the of v a r i o u s (count County served in of the t o one year Count XXI, jail. convictions committed at under the Conecuh c o n c u r r e n t l y t o one remaining of items XXIII sentenced P h i l l i p s Covington imposed degree, a v i o l a t i o n theft sentences. See River another Ex parte supra. circuit of court order P h i l l i p s $14,473.54, The to circuit a total to costs and filed a m o t i o n f o r new denied. This the of various Phillips fees. appeal 9 amount court also ordered court summarily attorney to pay allocated be Phillips court of as Church court the v i c t i m s of the crimes. pay XXII third f o r the C h u r c h , w e r e t o be restitution to § fellowship Phillips Baptist circuit consecutively The (count i n the 1975, River XXIII, McKelvey, the see imprisonment. sentences and degree, of sentenced i n c a r c e r a t i o n at XXII, but burglary of P r o p e r t y Conecuh The third B a p t i s t Church i n d i c t m e n t ) . The of the the 13A-8-5, A l a . the in trial, which followed. the circuit CR-06-1577 Facts After Phillips to Covington involvement was County corroborating a complete Doster at aforementioned details i n the investigators, evidence the picture were Sheriff's into Crimes a r r e s t e d , he g a v e a d e t a i l e d i n a l l the admitted involvement was of the at of large. The that following In crimes crimes, P h i l l i p s ' s of the events confessing his crimes. This trial. the statement statement addition and statement to Phillips's helped paint t r a n s p i r e d w h i l e he facts the S t a t e ' s evidence p r e s e n t e d at t r i a l , were compiled including and from Phillips's statement. In the e a r l y morning hours B o b b y O'Lee P h i l l i p s , O s c a r C h a r l e s Meeks e s c a p e d inmates kicked jail, pried out and In fence, another the then order the men the o f N o v e m b e r 4, Roy from the C o v i n g t o n County door off a ventilation c l i m b e d down t h e get went over to set of l o u v e r s . the the to the Jail. area inside They used of the i n the four jail, of the ground. perimeter jail and The outside wall l o u v e r s to the back and a m a t t r e s s pad razor-wire climbed to cover up the U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e noted, a l l subsequent dates r e f e r e n c e d t h e s e f a c t s a r e f r o m t h e month o f November 2 0 0 2 . 7 in inmates 7 Doster, Michael Barbaree, louvers connected to 2002, 10 CR-06-1577 razor-wire outside had on fence, the fence, then perimeter communications and fence, then fence, to the escaped, the climbed Once coveralls To the fence. get -- he over scaled the wire, group the over down a g u y outside. t h e men over coveralls. razor-wire tower, went removed h i s j a i l the After Phillips, Doster, woods, back came on to stayed an group and roads, abandoned i n the After Barbaree Meeks and to on from the clear became s e p a r a t e d Phillips and afternoon of Post Doster 3454 "on club 4, so the the they three t h e m o r n i n g of November a.m. that morning, the railroad men 4. the tracks. e v e n t u a l l y Doster and Meeks. the the r i v e r . " c l o s e d , and through track until record, continued November group. railroad foot along from foot the raining, I t was travel Phillips the on l e a v i n g t h e s h e d a r o u n d 9:00 not until a abandoned shed u n t i l continued t h e VFW s p l i t o f f from traveled along shed. Although the they Phillips c l o t h e s underneath outside the and then 8 to t r a v e l pair on foot. Phillips Phillips and in arrived ultimately Late at Doster pushed a waited small fan A l t h o u g h not s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d by name i n the r e c o r d , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e " r i v e r " r e f e r e n c e d was t h e C o n e c u h R i v e r a n d / o r t h e two a d j a c e n t r e s e r v o i r s n o r t h o f A n d a l u s i a i n Covington County. 8 11 CR-06-1577 out of a back window of the b u i l d i n g , inside, Phillips opened the door and and climbed inside. l e t Doster Once inside the They ate building. Phillips food and gaming and drank Doster and Phillips and whiskey, cigarettes, reported to After the they trolling the of items, was value motor. boat. the of a located on the the Gantt The two including discovered of the Phillips found With money. items a the boat, stolen men then stolen than and to and $1,000. Doster left which they items in tow, traveled by boat river. knew Post, they of into relievers. break-in The amount g r e a t e r t h a n $250, b u t l e s s Doster was near Phillips Pines pain the Outside, into area and r a n s a c k i n g t h e VFW a that a number They b r o k e undetermined food, P o s t was attached along an enforcement. building. got found premises. stole also morning, law f r o m t h e VFW inside. took Doster next the they beverages machines The ransacked and trailer Doster park, r e s i d e n c e where river. Dam, then They where traveled a remote h i s b r o t h e r had rode they i n the boat abandoned the by foot to trailer park located 12 lived the to an boat. Whispering on a dirt CR-06-1577 road i n Covington County and w i t h i n walking distance of the river. The t r a i l e r there were Pettie, p a r k was o w n e d b y D i a n e only Diane two Pettie's LeMaster resided Evidence elicited time, his trailers Pettie. located son, r e s i d e d in Doster's younger time, park. Jason the i n one t r a i l e r , in his "fifth-wheel" at t r i a l At that trailer established that b r o t h e r had l i v e d w i t h and P a u l i n the a t one point around Jason P e t t i e i n 1:00 a n d D o s t e r a r r i v e d a t J a s o n P e t t i e ' s m o b i l e home a.m. on the morning of November 5. d i s c o v e r i n g t h a t P e t t i e was n o t home, t h e y b r o k e i n t o trailer Doster through the back door. p u t on d r y c l o t h e s , Once inside, ate, slept, took Phillips's Phillips showers, shotgun, cabinet other rummaged t h r o u g h J a s o n a Remington a 12-gauge also hunting and played Doster hair. The t w o men found After Pettie's c a r d s , a n d c o n s u m e d a l c o h o l i c b e v e r a g e s . A t some p o i n t , and in trailer. Phillips cut park. 30-06 r i f l e shotgun, with a n d two c o n t a i n e d ammunition supplies. 13 Pettie's a scope, .22-caliber f o r t h e guns, gun cabinet, a 16-gauge rifles. The and v a r i o u s CR-06-1577 While Phillips they were noticed hiding out i n the t r a i l e r , that Paul ways LeMaster that discussed various Phillips's confession, he s a i d LeMaster i n order he d r a n k heavily had to k i l l claimed kill that LeMaster Late LeMaster's rifle the metal was shut. door Through door, Doster Phillips and s t r e t c h e d on h i s t r a i l e r t h e scope LeMaster moving about to after truck. They get the truck. Doster t o l d to take and handed LeMaster. trailer had Phillips that a and him that h i s truck. they In they Phillips decided they would f o r h i s truck. 30-06 shoot screen could i n t h e a f t e r n o o n o f November Remington could they had Doster Doster i t to Phillips went to the loaded the so t h a t he corner of o u t on t h e g r o u n d . open, LeMaster but the screen on t h e r i f l e , Phillips door watched i n h i s m o b i l e home. L e M a s t e r came t o t h e and as L e M a s t e r and 5, Phillips turned, P h i l l i p s entered shot him. LeMaster's c u t t h e p o c k e t s on L e M a s t e r ' s pants residence. t o g e t t h e keys h i s t r u c k . L e M a s t e r h a d b e e n c o o k i n g b e f o r e he was s h o t , s o Doster that turned o f f the stove. Doster took a drawer Phillips full residence. 14 of told change the investigators from LeMaster's CR-06-1577 Phillips took with them camouflage referred three and D o s t e r a 30-06 with a rifle, from duffle -- f u l l some o f P e t t i e ' s stolen other from Pettie's bag inadvertently left shotguns, cover -- a commonly of ammunition f o r the clothing, as w e l l These bag They hunting i n t e n d e d t o t a k e some o f t h e belonged the truck. clothing. t h e VFW, trailer. that t h e two camouflage and D o s t e r had a l s o items i n LeMaster's swivel-seat a n d some o f P e t t i e ' s various left t o as a "dove b u c k e t " Phillips stolen Pettie's bucket firearms, boots, then other i t e m s were p l a c e d to some as Pettie. 20 items inside However, feet they from LeMaster's cheese crackers, trailer. Inside packs the duffle of cigarettes, brand cigarettes, packages of "Goodys" brand brand all a pair pair packages "Slim "Stanback" antacid, of which Jim" brand filled headache powder, and a b o t t l e had been Tom's b r a n d of peanuts, brand headache of binoculars, of socks bag were stolen from a flashlight, with "silver" 15 of meat-product powder, packages o f Evan a carton of Williams t h e VFW Camelsnacks, packages of "Alka-Seltzer" brand Post. Two whiskey, knives, a s h a r p e n i n g s t o n e , and a change were also found i n CR-06-1577 the duffle Pettie. bag, a l l of which were confirmed to belong The v a l u e o f a l l t h e i t e m s s t o l e n f r o m P e t t i e to exceeded $1,000. Jason town. Pettie When afternoon he testified returned o f November that to he h a d b e e n h i s mobile working home 6, he d i s c o v e r e d t h a t out of i n the t h e door late of h i s m o b i l e home was u n l o c k e d . When P e t t i e e n t e r e d t h e m o b i l e home, he the saw t h a t i t had been mobile home was o p e n . Pennies lying were scattered on t h e f l o o r . ransacked and t h a t the back H i s gun c a b i n e t h a d been on t h e f l o o r , Pettie door t o emptied. a n d two l o n g guns discovered hair were on h i s b a t h r o o m floor. Pettie telephoned the authorities incident. When l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t residence, he t o l d because truck them t h a t t h e l i g h t s were reported personnel arrived he was c o n c e r n e d on a t L e M a s t e r ' s the at Pettie's about LeMaster residence, but h i s was n o t t h e r e . Law-enforcement where and they LeMaster p e r s o n n e l went d i s c o v e r e d h i s body. died as a r e s u l t to LeMaster's An of a single 16 autopsy gunshot residence, indicated wound. that CR-06-1577 Pettie all the coins, that on s t a t e d t h a t he k e p t c o i n s except a deck o f p l a y i n g h i s kitchen brand table. whiskey, fingerprints, Pettie's which was mobile clothes that These were name He said had been left of Canadian bottle determined on Phillips's and Doster were found the clothes "Bobby Mist t o bear Phillips's an e n t e r t a i n m e n t DNA was l a t e r center recovered in from on t h e k i t c h e n c o u n t e r o f P e t t i e ' s stopping From left that Phillips i n Pettie's o f wet residence. and D o s t e r were wearing that had i n the c o l l a r . store they two s a c k s o n e o f t h e b a g s was a s h i r t after shooting there, behind on t h e f l o o r Inside to a convenience truck. also P." w r i t t e n Immediately case half-full discovered stolen. and a s c o r e sheet discovered when t h e y e s c a p e d . a A had been jug, but that home. Phillips went cards was l a t e r residence. a cigarette butt the the pennies, i n a large LeMaster, Phillips and p u t g a s o l i n e traveled to Laurel and Doster i n LeMaster's Hill, Florida, o n c e i n C r e s t v i e w , F l o r i d a , t o g e t more g a s o l i n e of beer. camper-shell from While still LeMaster's i n Florida, truck. 17 they removed and the CR-06-1577 Phillips traveled rented a told west on motel They s t a y e d u n t i l the morning Mississippi, the i n v e s t i g a t o r s Interstate room 10 that to he and D o s t e r Mississippi, u n d e r t h e name of then where "Michael they Phillips." t h e f o l l o w i n g morning, w h i c h would have been o f November 6. Phillips and A t some p o i n t Doster while painted t h e y were i n LeMaster's truck black. In h i s statement to the i n v e s t i g a t o r s , Phillips t h e y then p r o c e e d e d t o Baton Rouge, L o u i s i a n a . said that He s t a t e d that w h i l e t h e y were i n B a t o n Rouge, t h e y p a i d a " c r a c k - h e a d " "Waylon" $150 t o pawn P e t t i e ' s Phillips said that traveled through Memphis, Tennessee, told investigators the after Louisiana and 30-06 rifle. leaving Baton Rouge, back to M i s s i s s i p p i , from there that while named to Arkansas. they were they and then 9 to Phillips i n Memphis he telephoned h i s stepmother to ask f o r help, but s h e h u n g up on him killed when he told her that he thought he had a man. A r e c e i p t f r o m a m o t e l i n Houston and a c a r d - k e y e n v e l o p e w i t h t h e name o f M i c h a e l P h i l l i p s w r i t t e n on i t , w h i c h were later found i n papers discarded from LeMaster's truck, i n d i c a t e d t h a t P h i l l i p s and D o s t e r s t a y e d i n Houston, T e x a s , f r o m November 6 t h r o u g h some t i m e on November 8. 9 18 CR-06-1577 Phillips night told the investigators in Brinkley, Doster the l a t e and Arkansas, Phillips n i g h t hours t h e November 11. morning down dirt County. daylight a LeMaster's November into hidden While around t h e p r o p e r t y . A r o u n d 8:00 Yard, told where Doster Phillips shed. numerous They then items, broke Phillips that were and Doster also siphoned all the s t o l e n g a s o l i n e out was of items into LeMaster's in the LeMaster's Covington of i n the the truck. drove out to the F l o r a l a of City Doster the t r u c k i n building a m o t o r o i l , and and stole toolbox, a crow¬ gasoline. They work t r u c k s . truck. $250, b u t 19 hours y a r d were not l o c k e d . locked of the c i t y g r e a t e r than in work r e l e a s e . various tools, flashlights, County that in yard, they parked a Alabama. drove area the there, they d i s c a r d e d they drove into spent area f o r the r e s t w o r k e d w h i l e on including a tire-tool, stolen wooded i n that the gated c i t y bar, items they that the gates to the c i t y Once i n s i d e a had 11, a p.m., to investigators belongings dusk, Doster i n Covington t h e y were p a r k e d and and or e a r l y morning the road, paperwork Sometime back of They r e m a i n e d hours. told he returning o f N o v e m b e r 10 hours truck before arrived Phillips early that less The They put v a l u e of the than $1,000. CR-06-1577 Around 11:00 Florala City entered the building. offices the Yard Phillips to the s c h o o l by Once and stolen p.m., stole the money i t e m s had They ripped and t h e money t h a t Phillips principal's intention truck. the of the t h e y saw slowly and they fled then On the discovered contacted the the vandalism at the the various shoes. A l l less than vending machines a from the door, w i t h the changers. to take safe and loading r e t u r n e d to i t into school the the with v e h i c l e parked i n the p a r k i n g l o t said that November burglary High They of into $250 b u t the the when and they left saw the police the p a r k i n g l o t , area. of the p o l i c e . Florala later made a U - t u r n the morning over back tennis i t to the back truck they Phillips they broke of from i n the a police vehicle, pairs from School. i n the they attempted the when school. was They pushed driving However, two walked High a window changers Doster office. of truck, the and Florala school, and Doster a v a l u e o f more t h a t $1,000. took nearby removing inside and On and that 12, theft a at Florala the same m o r n i n g , City city and he the p r i n c i p a l of School d i s c o v e r e d the b u r g l a r y , school, and he 20 employee c o n t a c t e d the yard, thefts, police. and The CR-06-1577 safe that sitting by On land the and he When paperwork Doster turn had he leased for hunting entered that over On had to the Paul of was Lockhart, process in of documents t h a t Douglas put On the name contacted a Sholt the some McGhee discarded i t . Sholt papers took of p o l i c e subject for of Douglas driving f o u n d on him the a him 15, Chief was in the under the him property. and town then the Chief Chief Douglas a newspaper area. Sholt County the handed number, Jeremy pocket. saw Gantt and hunting telephone November papers Covington chief with Chief in his i n the contact County. Sholt's of in approached s t o r e , when he on o f f Pete discovered name on came time the Covington down LeMaster murder he LeMaster's at that night convenience still o p e n g a t e on purposes gate, Sholt S h o l t had the the was police. 14, when wrote remove a f r a t e r n a l organization card with arresting influence, Douglas the November D o u g l a s , who to A u s t i n S h o l t n o t i c e d an s p o r t s m a n ' s l i c e n s e and to tried doorway. November 13, that road. Phillips had When he given Sheriff's 21 was article about the that was realized him, at a Chief Douglas investigator Walter CR-06-1577 Inabinett. Chief Douglas also directions to the hunting contacted property S h o l t , who where he had gave him found the papers. That and same n i g h t , C h i e f several other hunting property paperwork truck casing, law-enforcement o f f Pete bearing mirror, Douglas, Paul gun and v a r i o u s personnel McGhee R o a d . LeMaster's racks, other Investigator Inabinett, name, o i lbottles, They t r a v e l e d to the found discarded a briefcase, a 30-06 empty shell Several items. a days later, Chief D o u g l a s r e t u r n e d t o t h e a r e a a n d c o l l e c t e d two a d d i t i o n a l of items, w h i c h he t u r n e d In t h e meantime, a f t e r the early drove he hours to Crestview, Phillips they morning told drove Orleans, t o seek told i n New Orleans, tried they rented that after and Phillips a motel room. leaving Crestview, L o u i s i a n a , where the investigators they they had s t o l e n from P e t t i e t h a t he t h e n where 12, D o s t e r School i n Phillips claimed employment. Phillips were o f November Florida, bags to Investigator Inabinett. l e a v i n g the F l o r a l a High the investigators t o New intended over Ford traded t h a t w h i l e he a n d t h e two r e m a i n i n g f o r some h e r o i n . 22 guns Phillips t o commit s u i c i d e by i n j e c t i n g Doster that claimed heroin into CR-06-1577 himself. suicide Phillips attempt Phillips traveled said that he because Doster stated to Baton that Rouge, he November When 16 o r e a r l y they Doster t r a v e l e d Church. broke Once pulpit. the church inside also Doster left behind was later Phillips New hours o f November County, role stolen of men rummaged duct leather was from broke glove. into the church The Phillips mate and of that the f e l l o w s h i p hall truck. collected. d i d not exceed 23 the of the church, tape. the f e l l o w s h i p had They through i n a separate building. i n the church Baptist t h e change from t h e discovered i n LeMaster's then and window. box, and t o o k a single which Phillips truck behind the church. the a and 17. road t o the Conecuh R i v e r church, stole Orleans hours Covington j a r of c o i n s from children items to stayed a back and D o s t e r the church, a plastic the left They t o r e open a s m a l l , wooden r e p l i c a They of him. They morning s e r v e d as an o f f e r i n g in his i n a motel. through the successful Alabama, i n the l a t e n i g h t down a d i r t box. glove they They p a r k e d L e M a s t e r ' s into which revived where returned not and D o s t e r r e t u r n e d to Covington County, of was They stole hall that some o f The value of the $250. CR-06-1577 After leaving the church, way t o P l e a s a n t Home V a l l e y Phillips School. a n d D o s t e r made They b r o k e their o u t a window i n t h e b a c k o f t h e s c h o o l a n d went i n . Once i n s i d e , they some w i n d o w s the truck. They used duct tape that some of the glass shattered machines. In a d d i t i o n , vending had presumably t h e windows. P h i l l i p s vending $250. The u s i n g a crowbar t o keep church the to the offices machines i n order removed t o g e t t h e money Once a g a i n , P h i l l i p s and Doster stopped Phillips On 10 outstanding Alabama Phillips rights i n LeMaster's and Doster card d i d not fled a i n the $250. state were traveling truck. They were apprised of the a r r e s t . a warrants. County i n trooper west on arrested on 1 0 of Phillips recently exceed machines. Covington Texas they from the as t h e y were bearing when some k e y s t o d i d not exceed 18, felony-arrest a t t h e scene identification November and D o s t e r Interstate stole from the t h e money c h a n g e r s machines truck. taken fragmenting of t h e keys damage t o t h e v e n d i n g LeMaster's been and Doster The v a l u e they from from broke their Miranda 1 1 h a d a hand-made made photograph of F o r a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f P h i l l i p s ' s a r r e s t , see P a r t V I I I of t h i s opinion. 1 0 1 1 Miranda v . A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. 436 24 (1966). CR-06-1577 himself with Phillips was from t h e name " M i c h a e l wearing a p a i r of t e n n i s Florala High traveled above, Before Crockett On discovered card. t h a t he h a d Phillips. stolen As confession men with Phillips, which Scott noted to the the investigators been towed had S h e r i f f ' s Department had been and taken from had recovered indicated ticket Leach that told f r o m A l a b a m a . The the other discarded that crime Rouge, the the Pawn s h o p Windham the They scene. recovered Pettie's Windham o f t h e B a t o n Windham to and s t o r e d . each Inabinett to a Cash A m e r i c a 13. f o r two detailed truck, Conner John pawn November rifle 21, Department. p a w n e d f o r $150 on interview with Texas, from A to a LeMaster's items that 30-06 r i f l e the 1 2 November pawnshop. Texas gave County, discovered shoes on i n v e s t i g a t o r s W a l t e r I n a b i n e t t and speaking inventoried Police to Phillips investigators. listed School. Covington County Conner Phillips" by he Louisiana, rifle rifle been a Waylon Leach had pawned from that 25 the was LeMaster's For a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of the f a c t s l e a d i n g P h i l l i p s ' s c o n f e s s i o n , see p a r t V I I o f t h i s o p i n i o n . 1 2 a had cartridge casing material from to CR-06-1577 t r u c k was s u b s e q u e n t l y d e t e r m i n e d rifle. 1 In any from t h e 3 Standard Court t o have been f i r e d every case must review i n which o f Review t h e death p e n a l t y i s imposed, t h e r e c o r d f o r any p l a i n d e f e c t i n the proceedings, whether brought to the attention of error, this i.e., for o r n o t t h e d e f e c t was the t r i a l court. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P., p r o v i d e s : "In a l l cases i n which t h e death p e n a l t y has been imposed, the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals shall n o t i c e any p l a i n e r r o r o r d e f e c t i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s 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 take 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 reason t h e r e o f , whenever such 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 substantial right of the appellant." As 121-22 this Court ( A l a . Crim. stated i n Hall App. 1999), v. State, aff'd, 820 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 , 820 S o . 2 d 152 ( A l a . 2001): "The standard of review i n reviewing a claim under t h e p l a i n - e r r o r d o c t r i n e i s s t r i c t e r than t h e standard used i n r e v i e w i n g an i s s u e that was p r o p e r l y r a i s e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r on a p p e a l . A s P h i l l i p s t o l d t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s t h a t he e j e c t e d t h e c a r t r i d g e from t h e r i f l e immediately a f t e r s h o o t i n g LeMaster; h o w e v e r , no c a r t r i d g e was f o u n d a t t h e s c e n e o f t h e s h o o t i n g . P h i l l i p s s a i d that the c a r t r i d g e found i n the d i s c a r d e d items f r o m L e M a s t e r ' s t r u c k came f r o m a t i m e when D o s t e r f i r e d t h e r i f l e a t a road s i g n . 1 3 26 CR-06-1577 t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Y o u n g , 470 U.S. 1, 105 S . C t . 1038 , 84 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1985), t h e p l a i n - e r r o r d o c t r i n e a p p l i e s o n l y i f t h e e r r o r i s ' p a r t i c u l a r l y e g r e g i o u s ' and i f i t ' s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t [ s ] the f a i r n e s s , i n t e g r i t y or p u b l i c reputation of j u d i c i a l proceedings.' See Ex parte Price, 725 S o . 2 d 10 63 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , cert. d e n i e d , 526 U.S. 1 1 3 3 , 119 S . C t . 1 8 0 9 , 143 L . E d . 2 d 1012 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ; B u r g e s s v . S t a t e , 723 S o . 2 d 742 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 723 S o . 2 d 770 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1 0 5 2 , 119 S . C t . 1 3 6 0 , 143 L.Ed. 2 d 521 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ; J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 620 S o . 2 d 67 9, 701 ( A l a . C r . App. 1992 ) , rev'd on other g r o u n d s , 620 S o . 2 d 709 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , on r e m a n d , 620 S o . 2 d 714 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 510 U.S. 9 0 5 , 114 S . C t . 2 8 5 , 126 L . E d . 2 d 235 (1993)." Although preclude this nevertheless, appeal. See 1991), aff'd, U.S. Phillips's 924 Court failure from to object reviewing an at t r i a l will issue, i t not will, w e i g h a g a i n s t a n y c l a i m o f p r e j u d i c e he m a k e s on Dill 600 v. State, 60 0 S o . 2 d 372 So. 2d 343 ( A l a . 1992), (Ala.Crim.App. cert. denied, 507 split the (1993). Guilt-Phase Phillips contends that the Issues State improperly s i n g l e crime of escape i n t o m u l t i p l e counts i n the indictment, which, same he claims, conduct resulted in violation i n multiple convictions of the p r o h i b i t i o n against 27 f o r the double CR-06-1577 jeopardy. circuit the Phillips's 1 4 court's denial counts of transpired the double-jeopardy of P h i l l i p s ' s pretrial i n d i c t m e n t . Thus, with regard to claim an stems motion to understanding Phillips's motion to from sever of what sever is necessary. As discussed County grand Phillips, and jury the Phillips "on each of will fair crimes with 23-count the County and jail Texas, a on to following trial On February address various counts p r e j u d i c e him against during other November Roy 18, 2002. sever 1 through and three Oscar the grounds t h a t a j o i n t Covington occurred on November motion the indictment that h i s codefendant, filed inevitably a him and i n Ozona, indictment opinion, a Covington e n d e d when he 2005, this t h a t b e g a n when P h i l l i p s from arrested in returned charging crime-spree escaped earlier the inmates 4, 2002, Doster, On were June counts in consolidated t r i a l 23 prevent of him the from a 8, the on indictment receiving " 20, 2007, a p r e t r i a l pending motions. h e a r i n g was During the conducted hearing, to the T h i s a r g u m e n t was p r e s e n t e d i n P h i l l i p ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l a t pp. 128-132; t h i s i s s u e i s i d e n t i f i e d as I s s u e X i n t h e t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s , b u t as I s s u e X I I I on page 128. 1 4 28 CR-06-1577 court addressed introduction Phillips's of p r i o r bad to d i s c l o s e to the it intended introduce the to following motion acts, and any prior defense at trial. in limine h i s motion bad acts During to bar f o r the or that crimes the State that discussion, occurred: " [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : The one t h i n g I w o u l d s a y as f a r as b a d a c t s go, you know, w e ' r e t a l k i n g a b o u t a m u l t i p l e w e e k c r i m e -- s e r i e s o f c r i m e s t h a t w e ' r e g o i n g t o be p r o v i n g i n t h i s c a s e , a n d i n w h a t we have p r o d u c e d [ f o r ] the c o u n s e l a l r e a d y , t h e r e are bad a c t s t h a t are n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e d . And I d o n ' t t h i n k the s t a t e has the b u r d e n of f i l t e r i n g through all t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n and saying, you know, hey, h e r e ' s s o m e t h i n g bad t h a t t h e y d i d . " "THE COURT: I t a k e this motion [Phillips's m o t i o n f o r the s t a t e t o d i s c l o s e the p r i o r bad a c t s i t i n t e n d e d t o i n t r o d u c e a t t r i a l ] t o mean s o m e t h i n g t h a t d i d n ' t h a v e t o do w i t h t h i s t i m e f r a m e , p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s from other u n r e l a t e d events i n the past a n d s u c h as t h a t . I s t h a t n o t w h a t i t ' s d i r e c t e d at?" (R. 834.) The the d i s c u s s i o n then counts i n the segued to P h i l l i p s ' s motion to indictment: "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, we earlier f i l e d , I b e l i e v e , a motion to sever f o r t h i s very r e a s o n , t o s e v e r -- we h a v e 27 -- 27 o r 26 the "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: F e l o n y c o u n t s , not i n c l u d i n g capital-murder count and we d i d an earlier 29 sever CR-06-1577 motion ... t h e M o t i o n t o S e v e r C o u n t s f i l e d o n 6/08/05. A n d t h e d i f f i c u l t y , w h a t we h a v e i s t h a t it kind of r e l a t e s t o t h i s motion f o r p r i o r bad conduct i n that the state i s a l l e g i n g that t h i s i s a l l p a r t of t h e escape a n d a l l p a r t o f a common s c h e m e , a n d i f we b e l i e v e t h e m t o b e i n d i v i d u a l s e p a r a t e a c t s t h a t s h o u l d be t r i e d s e p a r a t e l y . "And s o I g u e s s w h a t we w o u l d s a y i s , ' n o , ' Y o u r H o n o r , we w o u l d a s k t h a t he be t r i e d individually on each one o f t h e s e counts as a s e p a r a t e a c t b e c a u s e t h e y h a p p e n e d on s e p a r a t e d a y s ; they're s e p a r a t e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , s e p a r a t e scenes, and t h i s s h o u l d be t o g i v e h i m an o p p o r t u n i t y t o s t a n d on t h e f a c t s a l o n e o n e a c h c a s e t o s e v e r -¬ "THE COURT: So y o u ' r e s a y i n g [ t h e r e ] o u g h t t o b e 23 d i f f e r e n t t r i a l s ? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Y e s , s i r . "[CO-DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I f I m i g h t one f u r t h e r i t e m , J u d g e , t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t w e ' r e m o v i n g i n on t h i s i s we're t r y i n g t o p r e v e n t from a c u m u l a t i v e effect o f 26 o r w h a t e v e r t h e y a r e f e l o n i e s a l l coming to culmination of conviction of c a p i t a l m u r d e r , much o f w h i c h r e a l l y h a v e v e r y l i t t l e , i f anything, t o do w i t h that a c c u s a t i o n . So t h e p r i n c i p l e we a r e r e l y i n g o n h e r e o n t h e s e motions a n d a l s o t h e M o t i o n t o S e v e r ... i s w e ' r e t r y i n g t o p r o t e c t o u r c l i e n t so t h a t he g e t s a f a i r trial b a s e d o n t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a s t o w h a t he i s accused o f and n o t a c c u m u l a t i o n o f e f f e c t over a t i m e f r a m e , w h e t h e r i t be t e n y e a r s o r two w e e k s . " "THE COURT: What t i m e f r a m e a r e we t a l k i n g about here? " [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : Two a n d a h a l f w e e k s . J u d g e i n response, we w o u l d state that this whole thing 30 CR-06-1577 s t a r t e d w i t h an e s c a p e a n d t h a t once Mr. P h i l l i p s and h i s c o d e f e n d a n t s e s c a p e d , e v e r y a c t t h a t t h e y d i d t h e r e a f t e r i n c l u d i n g t h e murder i s a c o n t i n u i n g a c t t o be a b l e t o c o n t i n u e t h e i r f l i g h t f r o m -- f r o m i m p r i s o n m e n t . E a c h t h e f t i s c o m m i t t e d , one t o o b t a i n food, drinks; another to obtain firearms; that the c a p i t a l murder i t s e l f t o o b t a i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and money; and then the return trips to Covington C o u n t y , a g a i n t o o b t a i n money a n d i t e m s t h a t will keep them f r e e and a l l o w them t o r e m a i n a t l i b e r t y . "When t h e y ' r e u l t i m a t e l y arrested i n Texas, search of the v e h i c l e reveals a piece of evidence f r o m e v e r y s i n g l e one o f t h e s e o t h e r t h e f t s . I t ' s a c o n t i n u o u s t r a n s a c t i o n even though i t took place o v e r m u l t i p l e [two] w e e k s . E a c h one o f t h e s e c r i m e s -- a l s o , i f y o u t a k e - - o b v i o u s l y , o u r f o c u s h e r e i s t h e c a p i t a l m u r d e r . E a c h one o f t h e s e c r i m e s g o e s t o show m o t i v e f o r why M r . L e m a s t e r was m u r d e r e d . " (R. 834-38.) As the the discussion defense's should be separately. separate continued, defense position severed Defense and that the that counsel i n c i d e n c e s and t h a t counts each argued count that the jurors counsel i n the indictment should the would overwhelmed, and p r e j u d i c e d by h e a r i n g e v i d e n c e the crimes The charged. reiterated be crimes be were confused, regardinga l l (R. 8 3 8 - 4 0 . ) prosecutor disagreed, arguing: "[PROSECUTOR]: I n b r i e f r e s p o n s e , Judge, I t h i n k the exact o p p o s i t e . F r a n k l y , I t h i n k the j u r y i s g o i n g t o be v e r y i n t r i g u e d a n d v e r y on p o i n t w i t h e a c h o n e o f t h e s e c r i m e s t o s e e how i t f i t s i n t o t h e 31 tried CR-06-1577 w h o l e p i c t u r e . E v e r y s i n g l e one o f t h e s e b r e a k e s p e c i a l l y , t h e o n e s -- t h e t h e f t s , we w i l l be t o c o n n e c t t o t h e u l t i m a t e e s c a p e a n d how t h e y o b t a i n i n g items to c o n t i n u e w i t h t h e i r escape how t h e m u r d e r o f Mr. L e m a s t e r was j u s t y e t one stop i n t h i s ongoing escape. ins, able were and more "Now a g a i n , a l l o f t h e s e c r i m e s h a v e t h e same u n d e r l y i n g m o t i v e a n d t h a t ' s how c a n B o b b y P h i l l i p s stay free, how can I remain undetected by the p o l i c e , how c a n I s u r v i v e . " T h e r e w o n ' t be a n y c o n f u s i o n b y t h e j u r y . A n d f r a n k l y , t h e y t a l k about j u r o r s g e t t i n g o u t r a g e d by the break i n of a church or the break i n of a s c h o o l . S o m e t h i n g t e l l s me t h e j u r o r s a r e p r o b a b l y g o i n g t o be p r e t t y o u t r a g e d b y t h e m u r d e r m o r e t h a n by t h e s e t h e f t s i n t o t h e s e o t h e r p l a c e s . But t h e y are i m p o r t a n t c r i m e s and t h e y ' r e p a r t o f t h e o v e r a l l picture. " T h i s i s one o n g o i n g c r i m e t h a t s t a r t e d w i t h t h e escape and ended w i t h t h e i r a p p r e h e n s i o n i n Texas. A n d a j u r y i s g o i n g t o be c o m p l e t e l y a n d totally c o n f u s e d i f you t a k e out t h o s e v e r y i m p o r t a n t s t e p s of what h a p p e n e d i n b e t w e e n . And t h e s t a t e can p r o v e t h o s e . The s t a t e c a n p r o v e t h a t t h e y ' r e a l l l i n k e d by m o t i v e o r t h e s t a t e can p r o v e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t how t h e y ' r e a l l c o n n e c t e d a n d t h a t i t was a continuing ongoing crime. And so these charges s h o u l d n ' t be s e v e r e d . " (R. 840-41.) The circuit court denied the motion to sever. (R. 44.) Rule 1 3 . 3 ( a ) , A l a . R. Crim. P., provides: "Two or more offenses may be joined in i n d i c t m e n t , i n f o r m a t i o n , or c o m p l a i n t , i f they: 32 an 842¬ CR-06-1577 "(1) Are character; or of the same or similar " ( 2 ) A r e b a s e d o n t h e same c o n d u c t o r are otherwise connected in their commission; or "(3) A r e a l l e g e d t o have been p a r t o f common s c h e m e o r p l a n . " a In Robinson v. S t a t e , 428 S o . 2 d 167 ( A l a . Crim. 1 9 8 2 ) , R o b i n s o n was c h a r g e d i n a t w o - c o u n t i n d i c t m e n t crimes of robbery convictions mistrial. and murder. Robinson claimed and sentences under both counts e n t i t l e d We d i s a g r e e d , App. with the that his him to a reasoning: " [ I ] t h a s l o n g b e e n h e l d t h a t m u r d e r a n d r o b b e r y may properly b e j o i n e d i n t h e same i n d i c t m e n t under s e p a r a t e c o u n t s , as b e i n g o f t h e same f a m i l y o r general nature of offenses. S m e l c h e r v . S t a t e , 33 A l a . A p p . 3 2 6 , 33 S o . 2 d 380 (1947 ) ; S a n d e r s v . S t a t e , 278 A l a . 4 5 3 , 179 S o . 2 d 35 ( 1 9 6 5 ) . A s w e l l , evidence of both offenses was p r o p e r l y admitted since t h e murder and robbery constituted one c r i m i n a l t r a n s a c t i o n made up o f t w o c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y close c r i m i n a l a c t s . Sanders, supra. "We a r e m i n d f u l of the fundamental p r i n c i p l e that a s i n g l e c r i m e may n o t b e s u b d i v i d e d into m u l t i p l e o f f e n s e s , n o r a s e r i e s o f c h a r g e s b a s e d on t h e same a c t . B a l d w i n v . S t a t e , 47 A l a . A p p . 1 3 6 , 251 S o . 2 d 633 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ; C r o s s w h i t e v . S t a t e , 31 A l a . A p p . 1 8 1 , 13 S o . 2 d 693 ( 1 9 4 3 ) . A l t h o u g h c o m b i n e d i n one transaction, appellant clearly c o m m i t t e d two s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t criminal acts, bearing two c r i m i n a l i n t e n t s , i . e . , t h e i n t e n t t o r o b and t h e intent to k i l l . C o l s t o n v . S t a t e , 350 S o . 2 d 337 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) ; Y e l t o n v . S t a t e , 56 A l a . A p p . 2 7 2 , 3 2 1 33 CR-06-1577 So.2d 234, c e r t . denied, 294 A l a . 7 4 5 , 321 S o . 2d 237 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . A p p e l l a n t ' s a c t s , t h e s h o o t i n g and the robbery, constituted two criminal offenses or a c t i o n s . I t i s l e g a l l y p o s s i b l e t o t r y and convict a d e f e n d a n t f o r two o r m o r e o f f e n s e s a t one trial where the i n d i c t m e n t p r o p e r l y j o i n s s e v e r a l o f f e n s e s d e p e n d i n g upon s e p a r a t e c r i m i n a l a c t s or a c t i o n s . B r o o m s v . S t a t e , 197 A l a . 4 1 9 , 73 So. 35 (1916). " I t i s w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e of the j u r y to r e t u r n a specific verdict as to each count of an i n d i c t m e n t . M u r r y v . S t a t e , 48 A l a . A p p . 89, 261 So. 2d 922 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . Where t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e o f separate and distinct acts c o n s t i t u t i n g separate criminal o f f e n s e s , s e p a r a t e c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e s may be h a d u n d e r m u l t i p l e c o u n t s o f an i n d i c t m e n t . B o a t n e r v. S t a t e , 8 A l a . App. 361, 63 So. 33 (1913); see W i l d m a n v . S t a t e , 42 A l a . A p p . 357, 165 So. 2d 396 (1963) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 276 A l a . 7 0 8 , 165 S o . 2 d 403 (1964) . "We f i n d a l s o t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n s are i n no way v i o l a t i v e o f W h a l e n v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 445 U.S. 684, 100 S. C t . 1 4 3 2 , 63 L. E d . 2 d 715 (1980). no "Under the p r e s e n t s t a t e of the r e c o r d , reversible error in this regard." we R o b i n s o n , 428 So.2d a t 169-70 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . See v. 599 631, State, 1991)(consolidation where similar the offenses character indictments So. 2d of three indictments charged and 633 in "[t]he allegedly occurred the (Ala. for t r i a l charged within a period 34 also Green Crim. indictments offenses find of was were in 16 App. proper of a the 3 days and CR-06-1577 could a r g u a b l y be meaning Snell of v. 'connected [then] State, 1995)(trial Rule 677 court motion to sever immoral purposes 2d not abuse enticing a count commission' 15.3(a)(ii), So. did an in their 78 9 (Ala. Crim. i t s discretion child to enter in a allowed the jury to house sodomy c o u n t s d e s p i t e hear evidence App. denying for Snell's c o n t e n t i o n that " t r y i n g the enticement charges the w i t h charge the [Ala.]R.Cr.P.Temp."); 78 6, f r o m two within sodomy of collateral bad the c i r c u i t c o u r t denied the motion t o s e v e r on the acts"). Here, grounds that a l l the charged offenses were part of c o n t i n u o u s e f f o r t by P h i l l i p s t o e l u d e c a p t u r e , i . e . , t h a t c r i m e s were c o n n e c t e d i n t h e i r commission and/or part of a 13.3(a)(2) Ala. R. Crim. circuit common scheme or We find P. no Rule abuse of the t h e y were a l l and discretion (3), in the court's ruling. On appeal, Phillips charged i n the d i f f e r e n t part plan. a of the single now argues that i f the counts of the i n d i c t m e n t are crime of escape as, he crimes actually claims, the p r o s e c u t o r a l l e g e d a t t h e h e a r i n g and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o u n d , then only his conviction f o r escape 35 can stand. He contends CR-06-1577 that the State's purported "splitting" of the single crime escape i n t o m u l t i p l e offenses v i o l a t e s the p r o h i b i t i o n double circuit d i d not present court; rather, this time on a p p e a l . death penalty this argument review, but prejudice. In violated Court has been to imposed, weigh against this first i n which the failure does heavily f o r the i s a case Phillips court claim to the to present not preclude against our h i s claim of 600 S o . 2 d 3 4 3 . v. S t a t e , the or claim i s presented the c i r c u i t i t does Dedeaux facts h i s double-jeopardy However, because Dill, 2005), returned the against jeopardy. Phillips App. of 97 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 5 , 1048 appellant h i m were elements claimed invalid ... to "the because create the p r o h i b i t i o n ] against r e j e c t e d Dedeaux's that argument, (Ala. indictments 'the s p l i t t i n g [multiple Double of offenses Jeopardy." stating: "Alabama l a w p r o h i b i t s a s i n g l e crime from b e i n g divided into two o r more offenses and thereby subjecting a defendant to m u l t i p l e c o n v i c t i o n s f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . E x p a r t e D a r b y , 5 1 6 S o . 2 d 7 8 6 , 787 ( A l a . 1987). However, Alabama law clearly permits m u l t i p l e punishments f o r m u l t i p l e s t a t u t o r y o f f e n s e s o c c u r r i n g o u t o f t h e same c o u r s e o f e v e n t s . When d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t w o o f f e n s e s c o n s t i t u t e t h e same o f f e n s e f o r double-jeopardy purposes, this C o u r t l o o k s t o s e e w h e t h e r e a c h o f f e n s e c o n t a i n s an 36 Crim. This CR-06-1577 e l e m e n t not c o n t a i n e d i n t h e o t h e r . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. D i x o n , 509 U.S. 6 8 8 , 697, 113 S. C t . 2 8 4 9 , 125 L.Ed. 2 d 556 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( c i t i n g B l o c k b u r g e r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 284 U.S. 2 9 9 , 52 S. C t . 1 8 0 , 76 L. E d . 306 (1932)). I n Ex p a r t e D a w s o n , 675 So. 2 d 905 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t d o u b l e j e o p a r d y d i d not p r e c l u d e i m p o s i t i o n of f o u r s e p a r a t e c o n s e c u t i v e l i f e imprisonment sentences f o r burglary, robbery, r a p e , and sodomy c o n v i c t i o n s t h a t a r o s e o u t o f a single c o n t i n u i n g t r a n s a c t i o n i n which separate o f f e n s e s were c o m m i t t e d , s t a t i n g : "'[T]he U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme Court held that m u l t i p l e punishments f o r m u l t i p l e statutory offenses do not violate the p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t double j e o p a r d y where e a c h s t a t u t o r y o f f e n s e r e q u i r e s p r o o f o f an a d d i t i o n a l f a c t t h a t the other s t a t u t o r y o f f e n s e s do n o t require. Blockburger v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 284 U.S. 2 9 9 , 52 S. C t . 1 8 0 , 76 L . E d . 30 6 (1932 ) . I n o t h e r w o r d s , as l o n g as e a c h s t a t u t o r y o f f e n s e r e q u i r e s proof of additional facts, the double j e o p a r d y p r o h i b i t i o n i s not i m p l i c a t e d . ' "675 So. 2d a t 907. Here, each s t a t u t o r y o f f e n s e r e q u i r e d p r o o f of a d d i t i o n a l f a c t s not c o n t a i n e d i n the other offenses. Accordingly, Dedeaux's double-jeopardy claim i s without merit." Dedeaux v. In t h i s case, argument motion and to contrary, into State, the 976 2d at 1048 (emphasis P h i l l i p s misconstrues circuit sever. the So. State m u l t i p l e counts court's Despite d i d not in the both rationale Phillips's split the 37 the prosecutor's for denying contention single indictment added). and crime to of thereby the the escape subject CR-06-1577 Phillips to multiple convictions f o r the same conduct. A l t h o u g h t h e p r o s e c u t o r may h a v e i n a d v e r t e n t l y u s e d t h e p h r a s e "one c o n t i n u i n g o n g o i n g in h i s argument implication that from the against escape. were by P h i l l i p s multiple motion part to sever, were circuit one court to elude single c o n t e n t i o n when clear he meant crime spree capture, continuous understood this the court denied phrase, the i s that o f one c o n t i n u o u s i n order offenses The prosecutor's the t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s argument a l lthe crimes perpetrated c r i m e , " o r some o t h e r s i m i l a r not that crime to be of the the motion to sever. Each other count, counts perpetrated although i n the by connected indictment Phillips i n an as law clearly statutory events." is that of a offenses Dedeaux, multiple occurring capture, i s above, "Alabama for multiple of the same course 976 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 4 8 . A c c o r d i n g l y , on h i s d o u b l e - j e o p a r d y II. 38 spree offense requiring proof of [convictions] out to the crime to elude t h e o t h e r d i d n o t . As s t a t e d permits d u e no r e l i e f part effort n o n e t h e l e s s a s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t an e l e m e n t i n i t s commission claim. of Phillips CR-06-1577 Phillips denying murder, to he was 557 to the Before trial, State's credentials 832 his the the and State's he (Ala. was court expert charged erred was and in witnesses. with that necessary 1 5 capital to Ex pretrial in order defense. to depose the In State 1 98 9 ) , witnesses defense expense. that circuit to expanded d i s c o v e r y pursuant 2d prepare the the because State's expert seeking permission requested that So. that depose entitled adequately the to maintains Monk, access argues h i s motion Phillips parte next the furnish filed two written motions State's expert witnesses, motions, the defense documentation qualifications of the at also regarding the State's expert pretrial motion witnesses. When hearing, the the motions following were addressed at a occurred: " [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : J u d g e , we w o u l d o b j e c t t o t h i s o b j e c t i o n [ s i c ] . T h e r e i s no s t a t u t o r y o r c a s e law o f g r o u n d s f o r t h e m t o be a l l o w e d t o d e p o s e any s t a t e e x p e r t s . There are d e p o s i t i o n s t a t u t e s t h a t e x i s t and u n d e r t h o s e s t a t u t e s t h e i r r e q u e s t does not fall. "One this is 1 5 brief t h i n g we w o u l d p o i n t o u t t o Y o u r H o n o r , a capital-murder case. Because of t h a t T h i s a r g u m e n t was on a p p e a l . presented 39 i n Issue I in Phillips's CR-06-1577 fact, we h a v e h a d o p e n - f i l e d i s c o v e r y since the beginning o f t h i s c a s e f o r c o u n s e l . We're u n d e r a duty to produce everything t h a t ' s not only i n our f i l e but that i s i n the f i l e of a l l p o l i c e o f f i c e r s . We h a v e t a k e n s t r i d e s t o make s u r e t h a t t h e y h a v e a complete copy o f a l l l a b notes and e v e r y t h i n g from a l l o f o u r S t a t e e x p e r t s so t h a t t h e y b a s i c a l l y have everything that we have. They w i l l have ample i n f o r m a t i o n from which t o cross-examine our s t a t e people. In fact, t h e y ' l l h a v e t h e same t h i n g we have. "The Court: You g o t any specifics? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I w o u l d make n o t e , J u d g e , i f I m i g h t , t h a t i n t h i s c a s e w e ' r e d i s c u s s i n g some e x t e n s i v e g e o g r a p h i c a l areas t h a t a r e i n v o l v e d . Not o n l y i s t h i s a c a p i t a l case where t h e d e f e n d a n t f a c e s d e a t h a s a p o t e n t i a l p u n i s h m e n t , b u t a l s o we a r e f a c i n g a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e we a s a d e f e n s e a n d o u r client who i s indigent i s being faced with c o n t e s t i n g the f u l l weight of the State of Alabama, the f u l l weight of the county of Covington, t h e f u l l weight of r e a l l y o f t h e S t a t e o f T e x a s a n d two counties t h e r e t h a t -- w h e r e o u r c l i e n t h a s t h e means t o be able to test that evidence, in p a r t i c u l a r i f t h e r e ' s g o i n g t o be a n e x p e r t that w i l l come i n a n d g i v e t e s t i m o n y t h a t ... w i l l b e h a r m f u l t o my c l i e n t . We s h o u l d h a v e t h a t r i g h t . My c l i e n t s h o u l d h a v e h a d t h a t r i g h t t o be a b l e t o defend that. The o n l y way we c a n do t h a t , J u d g e , i s i f we h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o do d e p o s i t i o n s o f those experts. "THE COURT: I u n d e r s t a n d your argument about t h a t , b u t a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r time have they n o t i f i e d you a b o u t an e x p e r t ? 40 CR-06-1577 "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: None o f w h i c h t h a t h a s n o t a l r e a d y b e e n s p e c i f i e d . What my a n t i c i p a t i o n was a n y e x p e r t s a s f a r a s f o r e n s i c s t h a t may d e a l w i t h how o r when a s h o t may h a v e o c c u r r e d , a n y t h i n g a s f a r a s ballistics. Do we h a v e a n y t h i n g on t h o s e y e t ? "[PROSECUTOR]: Everything that we have, you have. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And I don't c o n t e s t t h a t a t all. "THE COURT: What I'm d r i v i n g a t i s a s o p p o s e d t o a b l a n k e t o r d e r j u s t s a y i n g y o u c a n do w h a t e v e r you want t o w h e n e v e r y o u want a n d t h e S t a t e i s g o i n g to pay f o r i t , I t h i n k t h a t , l i k e t h i s t e s t i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l e v i d e n c e , w o u l d have t o be b r o u g h t o u t . " "[PROSECUTOR]: The l a w a s f a r a s w h a t t h e p e n a l t y i s i n t h i s case and t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f i t , the p r o t e c t i o n s a r e i n p l a c e . And t h e p r o t e c t i o n s c h a r g e u s w i t h o p e n - f i l e d i s c o v e r y , a n d we h a v e d o n e t h a t f r o m t h e v e r y o u t s e t o f t h i s game. I mean, f r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g we h a v e p r o v i d e d e v e r y t h i n g t h a t we h a v e . When we g e t i t , we s e n d i t o v e r t h e r e to them. We have taken measures, contacted f o r e n s i c s , s a y h e y , we n e e d a c o p y o f y o u r whole f i l e ; we s e n d i t t o t h e m . "As f a r a s a d e p o s i t i o n g o e s , t h a t i s a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t matter t h a t u s u a l l y i s saved f o r very e x t r a o r d i n a r y circumstances i n a c r i m i n a l case. This i s n o t one o f t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a n d t h e s t a t u t e i s v e r y c l e a r on i t . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, i f I m i g h t , we're n o t a s k i n g t o do t h i s o n e v e r y s i n g l e w i t n e s s o r e v e r y s i n g l e f a c t u a l w i t n e s s t h a t may b e c a l l e d . 41 CR-06-1577 A l l we a r e l o o k i n g f o r i s i f t h e r e ' s g o i n g t o b e a w i t n e s s c a l l e d t h a t i s an e x p e r t i n a p a r t i c u l a r a r e a t h a t we h a v e -- s h o u l d h a v e t h e r i g h t t o f u l l y i n v e s t i g a t e and depose t h a t i n d i v i d u a l as t o what h i s t e s t i m o n y may b e s o t h a t we c a n p r e p a r e a n d defend against i t " (R. 448-52.) As in the discussion continued, the event regarding defense less the defense the expert counsel should f o r m a l means, s u c h counsel the prosecutor were witnesses' first following have reports any or as c o n t a c t i n g t h e p e r s o n d i s c u s s i o n then with that that questions credentials, t r y to resolve the issue r e p o r t and d i s c u s s i n g t h e matter The to argued who through prepared person. ensued: "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I f they [experts] will s p e a k t o us I'm w i l l i n g t o do t h i s o n a c a s e b y c a s e b a s i s , J u d g e , i f n e e d b e . I f we r u n i n t o t h a t d i f f i c u l t y w i t h t h e f o r e n s i c o r b a l l i s t i c o r anyone e l s e , we w o u l d l i k e t o h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o come b e f o r e t h e judge and p r e s e n t t h a t . "THE COURT: Y o u c a n c e r t a i n l y make a m o t i o n f o r a n y t h i n g y o u f e e l l i k e y o u ' r e e n t i t l e d t o , b u t I'm not going t o grant t h a t j u s t c a r t b l a n c h e . I j u s t h a v e t o w a i t a n d s e e w h a t y ' a l l come up w i t h . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: (R. A l l right, s i r . " 454-55.) On F e b r u a r y conducted. When 20, 2007, a n o t h e r the motion to 42 p r e t r i a l m o t i o n h e a r i n g was depose the State's expert CR-06-1577 witnesses defense was r e a d d r e s s e d , had motions. With witnesses, [the In 2007), Belisle U.S. v. 11 So. addressed imposition 3d expert of 11 323 witnesses, i t requested i n the the State's expert would "submit Defense counsel d i d not or s p e c i f i c s So. expert 3d the also death We ( A l a . Crim. cert. penalty, this App. case Court that the court d i d t o depose the State's reasoning: " B e l i s l e f i l e d a d i s c o v e r y m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o Ex p a r t e Monk [, 557 S o . 2 d 832 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ] . T h e circuit c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n and a l l o w e d B e l i s l e access to t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s e n t i r e case f i l e . B e l i s l e a l s o moved t o i n s p e c t a l l o f t h e p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e t h a t had been c o l l e c t e d by t h e S t a t e . A t t h e b o t t o m o f t h i s motion the c i r c u i t court wrote: 'Resolved by agreement, b u t i f a n y t h i n g needs t e s t i n g , d e f e n d a n t to f i l e motion w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h a t p a r t i c u l a r i t e m o f e v i d e n c e . ' B e l i s l e a l s o m o v e d t h a t he b e g i v e n access to a l l of the m a t e r i a l s i n v o l v i n g polygraph t e s t s t h a t had been a d m i n i s t e r e d t o any w i t n e s s e s . T h a t m o t i o n was a l s o g r a n t e d . Also, the c i r c u i t court d i d grant a motion to conduct a videotaped 43 of denied, a capital-murder concluded request i n support witnesses. 256 ( A l a .2008), (2009), Belisle's that the the defense the State's t h e same a r g u m e n t . e r r i n denying that already." State, indicated deposing arguments , 129 S . C t . 2 8 6 5 involving not t o depose aff'd, to as p r e s e n t e d counsel documents indicated any a d d i t i o n a l motions the regard counsel motions] present the received defense CR-06-1577 deposition on M o o r e . of the coroner who performed " I n W i l s o n v . S t a t e , 777 So. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , we a d d r e s s e d a stated: the 2d 856, similar autopsy 926 ( A l a . i s s u e and "'The a p p e l l a n t ' s e i g h t e e n t h argument is t h a t the trial c o u r t e r r e d when i t d e n i e d him d i s c o v e r y t h a t was allegedly c r i t i c a l t o h i s d e f e n s e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , he c o n t e n d s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have g r a n t e d h i s motion to depose the S t a t e ' s e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s b e f o r e t r i a l so he c o u l d adequately prepare h i s defense. Although i t denied the a p p e l l a n t ' s motion to depose the S t a t e ' s expert w i t n e s s e s , the t r i a l court d i d order the State to i d e n t i f y the expert witnesses i t intended to c a l l at t r i a l and to produce the curriculum vitae, certificates, qualifying documents, and o t h e r background documents n e c e s s a r y for the defense to assess the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of t h e e x p e r t s . (C.R. 125.) "'"In Alabama, there is no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to d i s c o v e r y in a criminal case. Rule 16, Alabama Rules of Criminal P r o c e d u r e , a f f o r d s an a c c u s e d , a l i m i t e d r i g h t of d i s c o v e r y i n a pending criminal action. The e x t e n t of d i s c o v e r y i s w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . " ' "'Ex p a r t e L a n d , 775 So. 2d 840 ( A l a . Cr. A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 775 So. 2 d 847 ( A l a . [ 2 0 0 0 ] ) . See a l s o P a c e v . S t a t e , 714 So. 2d 320 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1996), r e v ' d i n p a r t , 714 So. 2d 332 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) , cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1051, 118 S.Ct. 1372, 140 L.Ed.2d 520 (1998); Bass v. 44 CR-06-1577 S t a t e , 417 So. 2d 582 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , w r i t denied, 417 So. 2 d 588 ( A l a . 1982). Rule 16, A l a . R . C r i m . P . , d o e s n o t specifically provide that every c r i m i n a l defendant i s entitled to depose the State's expert w i t n e s s e s . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e a p p e l l a n t has n o t shown t h a t d e p o s i n g t h e S t a t e ' s e x p e r t witnesses was critical to h i s defense. D u r i n g t h e d i s c o v e r y p r o c e s s , he r e c e i v e d d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e f r o m w h i c h he could prepare to impeach the credibility, training, a n d e x p e r t i s e o f , as w e l l as t h e c o n c l u s i o n s r e a c h e d by, the S t a t e ' s e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , the e x p e r t s d i d not t e s t i f y about h i g h l y t e c h n i c a l or "arcane" s u b j e c t m a t t e r as t h e a p p e l l a n t a l l e g e s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e a p p e l l a n t has n o t shown t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g h i s r e q u e s t . See M a p l e s v . S t a t e , 758 So. 2 d 1 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1999).' "For Belisle, In policy 11 foregoing So. this State 3d that an t h a t the discovery material discoverable fact, not we find prosecutor error." to maintained discovery to answer the matters defense's that included S t a t e ' s a n s w e r was no less suggest than that the m a t e r i a l p e r t a i n i n g to Phillips no 273-74. pursuant filed does reasons, the regard p a g e s , and Phillips at case, with indicates the the -- "open-file" the discovery record request, approximately 700 amended w i t h a d d i t i o n a l 12 times prosecutor the i n d i c a t e d to the c i r c u i t 45 an expert before trial. withheld any witnesses. In c o u r t t h a t the defense CR-06-1577 had received expert t h e documents i t had Phillip's means expense. expert court d i dnot unequivocally deny less Whether witnesses witnesses; i t w o u l d be w i l l i n g be unable formal to resolve than the defense wished given t o depose ruling For circuit that to r e v i s i t at the State's contacted the State's from doing so, or of a s p e c i f i c suffered reasons, ruling. III. 46 witness i f he w e r e e v e n when t h e d e f e n s e was the issue. Accordingly, any as a r e s u l t i s not apparent foregoing court's the court the witness, Phillips on h i s m o t i o n s the i t had o r how he w o u l d b e p r e j u d i c e d an o p p o r t u n i t y prejudice issues a n y r e s i s t a n c e i f i t d i d do s o . d i d not inform t o depose allowed the issue i s not apparent from the record, but there i s t h e d e f e n s e met w i t h Phillips any a deposition actually rather, the to r e v i s i t i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n s e was p r e c l u d e d that not that the defense through he the motions t o depose t h e expert indicated should no regarding witnesses. Furthermore, the c i r c u i t court requested we of the to this Court. find error court's no i n the CR-06-1577 Phillips transcript and that until for a his review. Doster's should of record indicates "Motion trial t h a t on to a copy Oscar Roy continued transcript status, for Discovery of the In August of from Doster's argued 23, filed of the Doster, his was a 2006, trial provided Phillips, written Transcript, Co-Defendant, Oscar motion Exhibits Roy and Doster's Grant E x t r a Ordinary Expenses to the motion, b e g a n on A u g u s t 2 1 , Phillips have Doster's indigent Transcript." same w i t n e s s trial. court or i n the A l t e r n a t i v e , Purchase entitled of h i s codefendant, copy Documentation Trial, was 1 6 granted entitled, Other circuit completed was t h a t he of the t r i a l the The who contends trial Phillips 2006, and would be wrote that t h a t many o f at his t h a t i n order to adequately prepare his d e f e n s e , he n e e d e d a c c e s s t o t h e t r a n s c r i p t s testifying the and e x h i b i t s D o s t e r ' s t r i a l . As a d d i t i o n a l s u p p o r t f o r h i s m o t i o n , from Phillips wrote: "The imbalance in this case makes the issue p a r t i c u l a r l y c l e a r : The p r o s e c u t i o n was p r e s e n t when the w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d i n the Co-Defendant's t r i a l , a n d t h e r e f o r e k n o w s ( o r p u r p o r t s t o know) w h a t t h e y s a i d . The p r o s e c u t i o n w i l l be p r o v i d e d a t r a n s c r i p t T h i s argument was b r i e f on a p p e a l . 1 6 presented 47 i n Issue I I i n P h i l l i p s ' s CR-06-1577 of t h e D o s t e r T r i a l , t h e C o - D e f e n d a n t B o b b y O'Lee Phillips also needs access to this possible exculpatory and/or c o n t r a d i c t o r y sworn testimony (C. 1946.) At 2 0 0 7 -- a pretrial motion hearing s i x days b e f o r e P h i l l i p ' s discussion conducted trial on b e g a n -- February the following occurred: "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: ... We a l s o f i l e d a m o t i o n a n d o b t a i n e d an o r d e r f r o m t h i s c o u r t f o r d i s c o v e r y of a l l t h e e x h i b i t s and d o c u m e n t a t i o n of the Oscar D o s t e r -- O s c a r D o s t e r ' s t r i a l t h a t o c c u r r e d b a c k i n October l a s t year. I t i s my understanding that those t r a n s c r i p t s are not complete and t h a t t h e y w i l l [ n o t ] be c o m p l e t e b e f o r e we s t a r t t r i a l . "To be b l u n t , J u d g e , we w e r e c o u n t i n g on t h o s e . S i n c e we d o n ' t h a v e t h o s e , I'm going to v e r b a l l y make a m o t i o n t h a t we continue this t r i a l until w e ' r e a b l e t o o b t a i n t h o s e t r a n s c r i p t s a n d t h e n we c a n move f o r w a r d i n t o t h e t r i a l p h a s e . "[PROSECUTOR]: One t h i n g I ' d s a y i n r e s p o n s e , J u d g e , i s I d o n ' t know how many d a y s c o u n s e l was p r e s e n t b u t I do know f o r a l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f t h e t r i a l one o f o r t h e o t h e r o f d e f e n s e counsel was present in the courtroom taking notes while t e s t i m o n y was on-going. [DEFENSE C O U N S E L ] : I would [PROSECUTOR], you h a v e a l s o f i l e d same, h a v e y o u n o t ? a l s o -a motion and for Mr. the fl "[PROSECUTOR]: No. voluminous transcript and 48 I I knew knew 20, i t was a very i t wouldn't be CR-06-1577 prepared i n time f o r the to t r y t o g e t i t . trial, so I didn't bother fl "THE reporter? COURT: Have you "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, spoken to the court s i r , p e r s o n a l l y I have not. "[CO-DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Y o u r Honor, I have and s h e ' s j u s t swamped. She r e a l l y t r i e d h a r d t o g e t i t r e a d y f o r t h i s t i m e . ... t h e r e ' s j u s t no way She even t r i e d to s t i c k w i t h a l o t of the testimony w h i c h we b e l i e v e w i l l be v e r y s i m i l a r o r be e x a c t l y t h e same f r o m a l o t o f t h e D o s t e r t r i a l . T h a t ' s why we w a n t e d i t was t o make s u r e t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y was t h e same. B u t . . . s h e ' s j u s t n o t a b l e t o do i t w i t h t h e e n t i r e p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t has been a p p e a l e d . " [ D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ] : I'm s u r e t h e c o u r t i s a w a r e t h i s i s a m a t t e r w h e r e y o u h a v e two codefendants b e i n g t r i e d on t h e e x a c t same i t e m s a n d i t w o u l d be remiss o f us as d e f e n s e i f we d i d not have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o l o o k a t i f t h e r e ' s any change i n t e s t i m o n y b e t w e e n t h e same w i t n e s s e s on t h e same matters. fl "[PROSECUTOR]: J u d g e ... I c a n ' t t h i n k o f a witness that testified at that trial that the defense does not a l r e a d y have i n t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n e i t h e r a statement or a r e c o r d t h a t covers at l e a s t a summary o f t h e s u b s t a n c e o f what t h e i r testimony was i n t h e D o s t e r trial. "Now whether t h e r e were don't r e c a l l anything g l a r i n g defense counsel i n that t r i a a b o u t i t on c r o s s . Y o u know, 49 contradictions I because I don't r e c a l l l j u m p i n g up a n d down t h a t ' s a b o u t as f a r as CR-06-1577 I c a n go w i t h i t . T h e y ' v e g o t e v e r y t h i n g w e ' v e g o t . And t h e y ' v e g o t a l l o f t h e r e c o r d s , c h a i n o f c u s t o d y and r e p o r t s and s t a t e m e n t s and e v e r y t h i n g i n our f i l e they've got. fl " J u s t one other thing .... The State i s at equal/unequal [ s i c ] f o o t i n g without the t r a n s c r i p t too. I t w o u l d be g r e a t i f I c o u l d h a v e i t . T h e n I w o u l d know e x a c t l y w h a t my w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t o i n t h e l a s t t r i a l . B u t I d o n ' t a n d -- b u t I do h a v e my f i l e , a n d i t d o e s n ' t s t o p me f r o m g e t t i n g r e a d y f o r t r i a l . A n d we t r i e d D o s t e r ' s c a s e w i t h o u t a n y p r i o r t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t and managed t o p u l l i t o f f f i n e . The d e f e n s e was a b l e t o d e f e n d t h e i r c l i e n t f i n e . I d o n ' t s e e why t h e same s h o u l d n ' t a p p l y h e r e . "THE COURT: A l l right. ...I'll t h i n k about that one." (R. 852-55.) A short time l a t e r , the d i s c u s s i o n r e t u r n e d to the Doster transcript: "[CO-DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The r e a s o n why the t r a n s c r i p t was so i m p o r t a n t i s [ D o s t e r ' s defense c o u n s e l ' s ] d e f e n s e was t h a t B o b b y P h i l l i p s i s t h e s h o o t e r . And I b e l i e v e t h a t t e s t i m o n y , t h e S t a t e ' s t e s t i m o n y , i s e i t h e r g o i n g t o deny t h a t or c o n f i r m t h a t . A n d s o t h e r e a s o n we w a n t e d t h e t r a n s c r i p t was t o make s u r e t h a t t h e -- we d o n ' t h a v e a n y w i t n e s s t h a t s a y s t h e t e s t i m o n y r e v e a l s one t h i n g a n d t h e n t u r n a r o u n d a n d s a y t h a t D o s t e r was a s -- i s a s c u l p a b l e as Mr. P h i l l i p s o r t h a t D o s t e r h a d a l a r g e r o l e i n t h i s and t h a t . Those t y p e s o f s t a t e m e n t s . T h e n i f t h e y a r e c h a n g e d , we w a n t e d t o h a v e t h e a b i l i t y t o be a b l e t o s a y , w e l l , w a i t a s e c o n d ; y o u testified t h i s way i n Mr. D o s t e r ' s c a s e and now 50 CR-06-1577 you're the in saying reason that i t ' s Mr. P h i l l i p s . And that's why -¬ "THE COURT: I thought you j u s t t h a t c a s e i t was M r . P h i l l i p s ? said they said [CO-DEFENSE C O U N S E L ] : T h e y d i d . T h a t was t h e defense o f , I b e l i e v e [Doster's defense counsel]. A n d i t was -- t h e y -- t h e y k e p t h a m m e r i n g a t t h a t . I b e l i e v e t h e S t a t e ... d i d a v e r y g o o d j o b t o show how M r . D o s t e r was i m p l i c a t e d i n t h i s . W h e r e a s i n t h i s c a s e , t h e y ' r e g o i n g t o b e t r y i n g -¬ "THE COURT: The s t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e i n t h a t c a s e was n o t t h a t M r . D o s t e r d i d t h e s h o o t i n g ? "[CO-DEFENSE COUNSEL]: T h e y s a i d t h a t -- I g u e s s y ' a l l w i t n e s s [ s i c ] o r i t was t h a t he was a n a c c e s s o r y a f t e r t h e f a c t o r a n a c c e s s o r y -¬ " [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : No, n o t a t a l l . O u r e v i d e n c e was a n d g o i n g i n t o i t was t h a t M r . P h i l l i p s was t h e s h o o t e r a n d t h a t M r . D o s t e r was -- a n a c c o m p l i c e t o i t , t h a t he knew a b o u t i t a n d t h a t h e h a d t h e i n t e n t t h a t i t o c c u r r e d a n d he a c t e d a s a n a c c o m p l i c e , a knowing accomplice to the intentional murder committed by Mr. P h i l l i p s . it's "THE COURT: So i f t h e r e ' s a c h a n g e f r o m t o your b e n e f i t . "[CO-DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, s i r . "[PROSECUTOR]: We o b v i o u s l y d o n ' t change from i t because i t ' s t h e t r u t h . "THE COURT: that, expect a A l l right. "[PROSECUTOR]: One t h i n g I do w a n t t o a s k j u s t s o we h a v e i t o n t h e r e c o r d : Do y a ' l l want t o c o n t i n u e t h i s c a s e ? I mean d o e s M r . P h i l l i p s w a n t t h i s c a s e -51 CR-06-1577 "DEFENDANT P H I L L I P S : "[PROSECUTOR]: A l l t h e way. You do? "DEFENDANT P H I L L I P S : "THE COURT: advisement " (R. Yes,s i r . A l l right. I ' l l take that under discussion about 857-859.) Later in the hearing, during d i f f e r e n t motion, the prosecutor a noted with regard a to Doster's trial: " [ T ] h e s t a t e and t h e d e f e n s e s t i p u l a t e d t o most o f the forensic reports, the DNA report, the fingerprint reports, t h e ones that are most c u l p a t o r y t o y o u r c l i e n t . So t h o s e e x p e r t s d i d n o t testify though the reports were entered in evidence." (R. 8 6 1 . ) Phillips of preparing argues on a p p e a l f o r impeachment suffice, to obtain purchase said a free transcript." In t h e c a p i t a l - m u r d e r 2d counsel with copies court "the p a r t i c u l a r i z e d of prosecution copy witnesses of a t r a n s c r i p t (Phillips's brief, case 804 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , claim that the t r i a l that of this erred 52 a t 13.) Grayson v. S t a t e , Court addressed transcripts should or funds t o 824 S o . Grayson's i n r e f u s i n g to supply of the t r i a l need defense of h i s three CR-06-1577 codefendants. transcripts, so his transcripts was Like present case, made made before Phillips, his quite prepare the Grayson of the codefendant's to adequately Although Grayson request f o r the none o f h i s t h r e e a c c o m p l i c e s h a d been t r i e d request transcripts. order When trials argued were of that necessary any the in h i s defense. lengthy, because we q u o t e existence yet, extensively of i t s relevance from to the Grayson: "On a p p e a l , the appellant cites the United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n B r i t t v . N o r t h C a r o l i n a , 404 U.S. 2 2 6 , 92 S . C t . 4 3 1 , 30 L . E d . 2 d 400 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , t o s u p p o r t h i s a r g u m e n t t h a t h e was e n t i t l e d to these t r a n s c r i p t s . "'The U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t i n B r i t t v . N o r t h C a r o l i n a , 404 U.S. 2 2 6 , 92 S . C t . 4 3 1 , 30 L . E d . 2 d 400 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , r u l e d t h a t a s t a t e must p r o v i d e an i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t with a t r a n s c r i p t of h i s e a r l i e r t r i a l i f a t r a n s c r i p t i s n e e d e d f o r an e f f e c t i v e d e f e n s e . The B r i t t c o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h a t whether the request f o r a free t r a n s c r i p t s h o u l d b e g r a n t e d d e p e n d s on t w o f a c t o r s : (1) t h e v a l u e o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t to the defendant and (2) t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e means w h i c h w o u l d f u l f i l l t h e same f u n c t i o n a s a t r a n s c r i p t . The C o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t , as t o t h e f i r s t f a c t o r , t h e d e f e n d a n t n e e d n o t show t h a t a t r a n s c r i p t of h i s e a r l i e r t r i a l w o u l d be v a l u a b l e t o him: "'"...Our c a s e s have c o n s i s t e n t l y recognized the value to a 53 CR-06-1577 defendant of a transcript of prior proceedings, without requiring a showing of need tailored to the facts of the p a r t i c u l a r case.... [E]ven i n the absence of s p e c i f i c allegations i t c a n o r d i n a r i l y be a s s u m e d t h a t a t r a n s c r i p t of a p r i o r m i s t r i a l would be valuable to the defendant i n a t l e a s t two w a y s : as a discovery device in preparation for t r i a l , a n d as a t o o l at the t r i a l i t s e l f f o r the impeachment of prosecution witnesses." (Emphasis added, f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d . ) 404 U.S. 228, 92 S . C t . 4 3 4 , 30 L . E d . 2d 404.' " P e o p l e v . B r o w n , 126 M i c h . A p p . 7 63, 7 6 5 - 6 6 , 337 N.W. 2d 9 1 5 , 9 1 6 - 1 7 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . H o w e v e r , t h e M i c h i g a n c o u r t i n P e o p l e v. Brown d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h o l d i n g i n B r i t t v. N o r t h C a r o l i n a , s u p r a , d i d n o t a p p l y t o the case b e f o r e i t because the c i r c u m s t a n c e s were f a c t u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . The B r o w n c o u r t s t a t e d : " ' T h i s case, however, i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from B r i t t i n a c r i t i c a l r e s p e c t . In B r i t t , the defendant requested a t r a n s c r i p t of h i s own earlier trial. In this case, the defendant asked for a copy of the t r a n s c r i p t of her codefendant's trial. A s i t u a t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h e one we c o n f r o n t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , h o w e v e r , was p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t i n P e o p l e v . K e l l e y , 49 M i c h . App. 720, 212 N.W. 2d 750 (1973). In Kelley, three men, Clark, Hall and K u y k e n d a l l , were c o n v i c t e d of the murder of David Lipton. At the trial, several witnesses testified, including Sue V a l e n t i n e who saw t h e a s s a i l a n t s seconds before the murder. Subsequently, the convictions were vacated on the 54 CR-06-1577 prosecutor's motion and the murder i n v e s t i g a t i o n was r e o p e n e d . F i v e p e r s o n s , i n c l u d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t , were t h e n c h a r g e d w i t h t h e m u r d e r . The d e f e n d a n t was t r i e d s e p a r a t e l y from t h e o t h e r f o u r and a f t e r the p e o p l e had s e c u r e d t h e i r c o n v i c t i o n s . P r i o r t o h i s t r i a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t moved f o r the p r o d u c t i o n of the t r a n s c r i p t of the t r i a l of the o r i g i n a l three suspects. Only the testimony of Sue Valentine was p r o d u c e d . The d e f e n d a n t was l a t e r c o n v i c t e d o f t h e m u r d e r . On a p p e a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t argued that the f a i l u r e to produce the entire t r a n s c r i p t was e r r o r . This Court d i s a g r e e d , r e a s o n i n g as f o l l o w s : "'"[W]e perceive the prior testimony sought, but not produced, did not establish crimination of defendant, but only the corpus d e l i c t i of the i n c i d e n t , an i s s u e w h i c h d e f e n s e counsel p r a c t i c a l l y conceded at the outset of t r i a l . Moreover, the t e s t i m o n y d e f e n d a n t sought t o be produced did not even criminate Clark, Hall, or Kuykendall. Of those who testified i n both t r i a l s , only Sue V a l e n t i n e ' s t e s t i m o n y t e n d e d to establish t h e g u i l t o f any particular person. Thorough examination of the record reveals d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was w e l l v e r s e d in the d e t a i l s of the evidence p r o d u c e d i n t h e p r i o r t r i a l , and we are not satisfied that transcription of the testimony t h e r e a d d u c e d was t h e o n l y means for obtaining that information. fl I fl 55 CR-06-1577 "'"[W]e decline to rule that production of p r i o r testimony establishing a rather mundane c o r p u s d e l i c t i o f t h e same c r i m e i n another case a g a i n s t another defendant i s necessary i n order to prove a subsequent defendant with a fair t r i a l . " "'In e f f e c t , the K e l l e y Court, which examined the value that the t r a n s c r i p t would have to the defendant, abandoned Britt's presumption that a requested transcript would be valuable to the defendant. Kelley seems to require a particularized showing o f need where a defendant requests a transcript of a p r o c e e d i n g h e l d i n a c a s e t o w h i c h he was not a p a r t y . "'The p r e s e n t c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from K e l l e y . Here, t h e defendant r e q u e s t e d a transcript of the trial of her c o d e f e n d a n t . C l a r k , H a l l and K u y k e n d a l l , however, were n o t K e l l e y ' s codefendants, e v e n t h o u g h t h e y w e r e c h a r g e d w i t h t h e same crime. Nevertheless, courts in other j u r i s d i c t i o n s have r e q u i r e d a showing o f particularized need where a defendant requests a transcript of a proceeding i n v o l v i n g a c o d e f e n d a n t . The p o s i t i o n t a k e n b y t h e C o u r t i n S t a t e v . R a z i n h a , 123 A r i z . 355, 3 5 8 , 599 P . 2 d 8 08 , 81 1 (App. C t . 1979), i s t y p i c a l : "'"We do n o t b e l i e v e a c o n t e n t i o n that the t r a n s c r i p t of the t r i a l of a third person i s needed b e f o r e an e f f e c t i v e d e f e n s e c a n be r e j e c t e d o u t o f h a n d m e r e l y b y s a y i n g t h a t no c a s e h a s s o h e l d . I n s t e a d , the two-pronged t e s t of 56 CR-06-1577 n e c e s s i t y s e t f o r t h i n B r i t t must be a p p l i e d t o t h e f a c t s . H o w e v e r , the f i r s t prong of the t e s t , the v a l u e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , c a n n o t be a s s u m e d a s i t was i n B r i t t . T h e r e m u s t be a showing of specific n e e d . A mere s h o w i n g that the prior trial was that of a co-defendant i s not s u f f i c i e n t . [Citations o m i t t e d . ] The reason for distinguishing between the Britt situation, a prior mistrial, and a situation analogous to the one here, a t r i a l of a co-defendant, i s that t h e w i t n e s s e s may n o t be common. Even i f they a r e , t h e i r t e s t i m o n y a s t o t h e c o - d e f e n d a n t may differ greatly from their proposed testimony concerning the defendant's part i n the crime, d e p e n d i n g upon the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of each c a s e . " "'We agree and hold that where a defendant requested that the s t a t e p r o v i d e him w i t h a f r e e t r a n s c r i p t of the s e p a r a t e t r i a l of a c o d e f e n d a n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t must show t h a t t h a t t r a n s c r i p t w i l l be v a l u a b l e to him. "'In the present case, defendant d i d n o t show i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d d o e s n o t show on a p p e a l how t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e A u d i s o n t r i a l would have a s s i s t e d i n t r i a l preparation or impeaching witnesses. T h e r e f o r e , we h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d not e r r i n denying defendant's motion f o r the p r o d u c t i o n of p o r t i o n s of the A u d i s o n trial transcript. 57 CR-06-1577 "126 M i c h . App. a t 7 6 6 - 6 9 , 337 N.W. 2d a t 9 1 7 - 1 8 . Thus, where a d e f e n d a n t r e q u e s t e d a t r a n s c r i p t of a proceeding i n v o l v i n g a c o d e f e n d a n t , t o w h i c h he was n o t a p a r t y , a number o f j u r i s d i c t i o n s have r e q u i r e d a showing of p a r t i c u l a r i z e d n e e d . See People v. R u s s e l l , 7 I l l . App. 3d 850, 289 N.E. 2d 106 (1972) (holding that a defendant was entitled to a transcript of the t r i a l o f c o d e f e n d a n t s who were tried together and convicted, w h e r e one of the c o n v i c t i o n s was r e v e r s e d on t h e g r o u n d o f reasonable doubt). " S i m i l a r l y , i n S t a t e v . T i s o n , 129 A r i z . 526, 633 P. 2d 335 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , t h e a p p e l l a n t c l a i m e d t h a t t h e trial court erred by denying his request for transcripts of an accomplice's trial conducted i m m e d i a t e l y p r i o r to the a p p e l l a n t ' s t r i a l , where the accomplice had been charged with the same s u b s t a n t i v e c h a r g e s made a g a i n s t t h e a p p e l l a n t . The Supreme C o u r t o f A r i z o n a distinguished that case f r o m B r i t t v. N o r t h C a r o l i n a , s u p r a , s t a t i n g t h a t , because the indigent d e f e n d a n t was requesting a t r a n s c r i p t o f a c o d e f e n d a n t ' s t r i a l , he s h o u l d h a v e shown a s p e c i f i c n e e d . M o r e o v e r , t h e C o u r t i n S t a t e v. T i s o n n o t e d t h e B r i t t C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m the lower c o u r t ' s judgment although the defendant d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e t r a n s c r i p t s , was b a s e d on the availability of an alternative substantially equivalent to a transcript, and found that the evidence i n i t s case i n d i c a t e d t h a t the transcript was not a v a i l a b l e t o a n y o n e b e c a u s e no transcript had been p r e p a r e d b e f o r e the a p p e l l a n t ' s t r i a l . The S u p r e m e C o u r t o f A r i z o n a h e l d as follows: "'The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n B r i t t v . N o r t h C a r o l i n a , 404 U.S. 226, 92 S.Ct. 4 3 1 , 30 L . E d . 2d 400 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , h e l d t h a t an i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t m u s t be p r o v i d e d with t r a n s c r i p t s of a p r i o r t r i a l t h a t ended i n a m i s t r i a l without showing a s p e c i f i c need. The necessity of the transcripts to an e f f e c t i v e d e f e n s e was t o be p r e s u m e d . B u t 58 CR-06-1577 in an through analogous situation, the Justice Rehnquist said: Court "'"...[T]he fact that a particular s e r v i c e m i g h t be o f b e n e f i t t o an i n d i g e n t defendant d o e s n o t mean t h a t t h e s e r v i c e i s constitutionally required. The duty of the S t a t e under our cases is not to duplicate the legal arsenal that may b e privately r e t a i n e d by a c r i m i n a l defendant in a continuing effort to reverse his conviction, but only to a s s u r e t h e i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t an adequate o p p o r t u n i t y t o present his claims f a i r l y i n the context of the State's appellate p r o c e s s . " Ross v. M o f f i t t , 417 U.S. 6 0 0 , 6 1 6 , 94 S . C t . 2 4 3 7 , 2 4 4 7 , 41 L . E d . 2 d 3 4 1 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . " " ' H e n c e , when t h e i n d i g e n t defendant requests a t r a n s c r i p t of a co-defendant's trial, i t s necessity t o an effective defense i s not presumed. Rather, a d e f e n d a n t m u s t show s p e c i f i c n e e d . S t a t e v . R a z i n h a , 123 A r i z . 3 5 5 , 3 5 9 , 5 9 9 P . 2 d 808 (App. C t . 1 9 7 9 ) . I n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g Britt, the c o u r t i n S t a t e v. R a z i n h a s a i d : "'"The r e a s o n f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between t h e B r i t t situation, a p r i o r m i s t r i a l , and a s i t u a t i o n analogous t o t h e one h e r e , a t r i a l of a co-defendant, i s that t h e w i t n e s s e s may n o t b e common. Even i f they a r e , t h e i r t e s t i m o n y a s t o t h e c o - d e f e n d a n t may d i f f e r greatly from their proposed testimony concerning the defendant's part i n the crime, 59 CR-06-1577 d e p e n d i n g upon of each case." 599 P.2d 808. the 123 circumstances A r i z . at 358, " ' W h i l e t h e w i t n e s s e s w e r e t h e same i n G r e e n a w a l t ' s and a p p e l l a n t ' s t r i a l s , t h e r e m u s t s t i l l be a s h o w i n g o f s p e c i f i c n e e d . No s u c h n e e d was e s t a b l i s h e d . A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t a n d d o e s n o t on a p p e a l e l a b o r a t e on how the t r a n s c r i p t s would have assisted in either trial preparation or impeaching witnesses. "'More i m p o r t a n t , as v . L i t t l e s , 123 A r i z . 4 2 7 , (App. 1979): stated i n State 4 2 9 , 600 P.2d 40 " ' " B r i t t does not s t a n d f o r the proposition that an indigent defendant i s a b s o l u t e l y e n t i t l e d to a transcript of the prior proceedings under a l l circumstances. I t i s o n l y where the transcript i s a v a i l a b l e to others for a price that the p r i n c i p l e s of B r i t t apply. Here, t h e t r a n s c r i p t was n o t a v a i l a b l e t o a n y o n e . We do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t under the circumstances the t r i a l c o u r t was r e q u i r e d to delay the trial some u n k n o w n t i m e i n the future i n order to secure the transcript." "'Randy Greenawalt's trial was c o m p l e t e d on F e b r u a r y 16, 1 9 7 9 . Appellant's t r i a l c o m m e n c e d F e b r u a r y 2 0 , 1 97 9 a n d e n d e d F e b r u a r y 27. I t a p p e a r s t h e t r a n s c r i p t s o f Geenawalt's t r i a l were not p r e p a r e d and available until May 4, 1979. The t r a n s c r i p t s not b e i n g a v a i l a b l e to o t h e r s , 60 CR-06-1577 t h e y were not appellant.' " S t a t e v. 349-50. Tison, r e q u i r e d to 129 Ariz. at be provided 540-41, 633 to P.2d at "In the present case, the a p p e l l a n t ' s t r i a l b e g a n on J a n u a r y 2 9 , 1 9 9 6 ; he h a d made h i s r e q u e s t for the transcripts on October 16, 1995. This Court's records i n d i c a t e t h a t the t r a n s c r i p t s of the a p p e l l a n t ' s a c c o m p l i c e s were c o m p l e t e d and s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s C o u r t on t h e f o l l o w i n g d a t e s : T r a c e D u n c a n on O c t o b e r 2 3 , 1 9 9 6 ; K e n n y L o g g i n s on J a n u a r y 13, 1 9 9 7 ; a n d L o u i s M a n g i o n e on N o v e m b e r 2 0 , 1 9 9 6 . T h u s , the r e c o r d s the a p p e l l a n t sought were not a v a i l a b l e for at l e a s t a year f o l l o w i n g h i s request. "In A l a b a m a , t h i s C o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y d e c l i n e d to a p p l y B r i t t v. N o r t h C a r o l i n a , s u p r a , b e y o n d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h e r e i n an i n d i g e n t r e q u e s t e d a c o p y of t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f h i s p r i o r p r o c e e d i n g s where t h e t r a n s c r i p t was s h o w n t o be v a l u a b l e t o t h e d e f e n s e and a f u n c t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e e x i s t e d . I n M c K i n n e y v. State, 665 So.2d 209 (Ala.Cr.App.1995), the a p p e l l a n t , a j u v e n i l e b e i n g p r o s e c u t e d a s an a d u l t , had r e q u e s t e d funds t o s e c u r e a t r a n s c r i p t of h i s j u v e n i l e t r a n s f e r h e a r i n g . T h i s C o u r t f o u n d no e r r o r in the trial court's denial of the a p p e l l a n t ' s request because the record indicated that the a p p e l l a n t had a c c e s s t o , y e t had f a i l e d to take advantage of, alternatives to the requested t r a n s c r i p t . M o r e o v e r , t h e C o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e r e was no indication that the prior proceedings were t r a n s c r i b e d , because Rule 2 0 ( A ) , A l a . R . J u v . P . , does not r e q u i r e a c o u r t r e p o r t e r at these p r o c e e d i n g s . In a r r i v i n g a t t h i s d e c i s i o n , t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : "'Although B r i t t p r o v i d e s t h a t the value to the defense of a transcript of prior p r o c e e d i n g s may u s u a l l y be p r e s u m e d , t h i s c o u r t has not e x t e n d e d the r a t i o n a l e of B r i t t so f a r as t o r e c o g n i z e t h e v a l u e t h a t 61 CR-06-1577 a t r a n s c r i p t of proceedings i n j u v e n i l e court may have i n every case where a defendant i s t r a n s f e r r e d to the c i r c u i t court f o r t r i a l a s an a d u l t . A j u v e n i l e transfer hearing i s i n the nature of a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g . O.M. v . S t a t e , 595 S o . 2d 5 1 4 , 517 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . q u a s h e d , 595 S o . 2 d 528 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . T h i s c o u r t has h e l d " [ a ] n i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t i s not e n t i t l e d t o a f r e e t r a n s c r i p t of the testimony taken at his preliminary h e a r i n g . " L e o n a r d v . S t a t e , 369 S o . 2 d 8 7 3 , 875 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 369 S o . 2d 877 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . ' "665 So.2d a t 211. " S i m i l a r l y , i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e r e was no e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o a p p l y B r i t t v. N o r t h C a r o l i n a t o a s i t u a t i o n where a d e f e n d a n t i s seeking to obtain the t r a n s c r i p t s of the t r i a l s of his codefendants. I f these t r a n s c r i p t s were to contain exculpatory i n f o r m a t i o n , then the appellant would c e r t a i n l y be e n t i t l e d to that information u n d e r B r a d y v . M a r y l a n d , 373 U.S. 8 3 , 83 S . C t . 1 1 9 4 , 10 L . E d . 2 d 215 ( 1 9 6 3 ) . T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n on appeal, however, t h a t these t r a n s c r i p t s c o n t a i n e d any exculpatory information. Moreover, the trial c o u r t s u g g e s t e d t h a t the a p p e l l a n t c o u l d have used t a p e s o f t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s a s an a l t e r n a t i v e . The a p p e l l a n t h a s made no s h o w i n g o f a n y p a r t i c u l a r i z e d n e e d f o r t h e s e t r a n s c r i p t s , and as t h e y were n o t c o m p l e t e d p r i o r t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s t r i a l , t h e y were not a v a i l a b l e t o e i t h e r p a r t y a t any p r i c e . F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , t h e r e was no e r r o r b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t in denying the appellant's motion." Grayson, 824 Contrary defense So. 2d a t 823-27 to counsel Phillips's i n this case (footnote assertion, were 62 not omitted). the on prosecutor "unequal and footing" CR-06-1577 with regard indicate to access that to the Doster's transcript. record C o u r t on A u g u s t 3, 2 0 0 7 , w e l l in March 2007. trial were trial "at available price." Furthermore, the to was filed party 824 at Phillips was the v a l u e Phillips's defense w i l l p r e s u m e d as if P h i l l i p s were s e e k i n g which he were the a transcript defendant. Thus, trial i s not establishing the Phillips transcripts" is no value has made that information. motion hearing, any of the "no on t h i s a p p e a l . indication exculpatory disclose a p p l i c a b l e here, exculpatory the P h i l l i p s had G r a y s o n , 824 So. prosecutor in presumption of h i s own of defense. need for these 2d a t 828. There contained indicated any in under a c o n t i n u i n g duty i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e d e f e n s e , and 63 to been the burden to h i s transcripts t h e p r o s e c u t i o n was transcript a transcript particularized the trial i t would have because transcript those As of the the from a p r i o r m i s t r i a l a f f o r d e d an i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t s e e k i n g prior Doster's Phillips's seeking of h i s codefendant, be concluded from before this 827. transcript not records with trial transcripts either Grayson, because appeal Court's after Phillips's Accordingly, not any on This the to there CR-06-1577 is no a s s e r t i o n with regard to t h i s failed to comply w i t h Furthermore, itself contained this there any i s s u e t h a t the prosecutor duty. i s no indication exculpatory that the information. transcript According the d i s c u s s i o n s t h a t took p l a c e r e g a r d i n g t h i s motion, the forensic stipulation of reports testimony we apparently note regarding that present indication that those or both portions circuit court Doster's would have trial. Thus, transcript. Contrast Crim. App.), cert. court denied defense Quick's former would not an Quick denied, trial alternative v. 825 State, So. to 825 2 d 263 t h a t ended in mistrial, counsel 64 t o use 2d 246 for transcripts notes and Phillips's ( A l a . 2001). request were prohibited Doster's So. counsel's a l l o w defense for and t h e r e i s c o u n s e l from r e f e r e n c i n g t h e i r notes d u r i n g was use trial defense there transcript counsel r e g a r d i n g the p r o c e e d i n g s , the by trial. defense of much o f testimony, r e p o r t s to in Phillips's one during p u r p o r t e d l y took notes without T h u s , t h e r e w o u l d be no impeachment purposes Last, no admitted of the p a r t i e s . a witness's possible were to trial (Ala. (Trial from but trial court from prior trial CR-06-1577 to impeach witnesses; alternative For to to Phillips's defense did not have adequate transcript). these refusing thus, reasons, the continue circuit the accomplice's trial trial court did pending not err completion in of transcript. IV. Phillips his contends t h a t the pretrial "Motion to Information the Require Concerning Favorable that the to State a prospective circuit Defense," juror unfit denial Attorney to w i t h h o l d withheld information of i n w h i c h he any Any and A l l that May Be essentially Phillips motion of Jurors information to serve. his court erred i n denying Disclosure Prospective f u r n i s h him court's circuit that "enabled them." would render asserts that i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t j u r o r s and in striking requested the the District r e l y on that 1 7 " ' T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t a r r e s t and c o n v i c t i o n r e c o r d s o f p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s do n o t q u a l i f y as t h e t y p e of discoverable e v i d e n c e t h a t f a l l s w i t h i n the scope of B r a d y [ v . M a r y l a n d , 373 U.S. 8 3 , 83 S. C t . 1194, 10 L. E d . 2 d 215 (1963) ] and t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t w i l l n o t be h e l d i n e r r o r f o r d e n y i n g an a p p e l l a n t ' s m o t i o n t o d i s c o v e r s u c h d o c u m e n t s . S l i n k e r v . S t a t e , 344 So. T h i s a r g u m e n t was b r i e f on a p p e a l . 1 7 presented 65 i n Issue III in Phillips's CR-06-1577 2 d 1264 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 7 7 ) . C f . , C l i f t o n v . S t a t e , 545 So. 2 d 173 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1988) ( t h e n o n d i s c l o s e d e v i d e n c e was not e x c u l p a t o r y , t h u s B r a d y was i n a p p l i c a b l e ) . In o t h e r words, the a p p e l l a n t does not have an a b s o l u t e r i g h t t o t h e d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e arrest and conviction records of prospective jurors. See Slinker, supra. C f . , D a v i s v . S t a t e , 554 So. 2 d 1094 (Ala. C r . App. 1984 ) , a f f ' d , 554 So. 2d 1111 (Ala. 1 9 8 9 ) , r e h e a r i n g o v e r r u l e d , 569 So. 2 d 738 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 498 U.S. 1127, 111 S. C t . 1 0 9 1 , 112 L. E d . 2 d 1196 (1991) ( d e f e n d a n t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e g e n e r a l d i s c l o s u r e of the c r i m i n a l r e c o r d s o f t h e s t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s ) ; W r i g h t v. S t a t e , 424 So. 2 d 684 ( A l a . C r . App. 1983) (no a b s o l u t e r i g h t to d i s c l o s u r e of c r i m i n a l records of s t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s ) . ' " ' S e v e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s have s i m i l a r l y h e l d . See, e.g., P e o p l e v. M u r t i s h a w , 29 Cal. 3d 7 3 3 , 175 C a l . R p t r . 7 3 8 , 631 P. 2 d 446 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 455 U.S. 922, 102 S.Ct. 1280, 71 L. E d . 2 d 464 (1982) (trial j u d g e has d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y t o p e r m i t d e f e n s e a c c e s s t o j u r y r e c o r d s ) ; Moon v . S t a t e , 258 Ga. 748 , 375 S. E . 2 d 442 (1 9 8 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 499 U.S. 9 8 2 , 111 S . C t . 1638, 113 L . E d . 2 d 733 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t err in denying defendant's motion for pretrial discovery of state's juror i n f o r m a t i o n r e c o r d s ) ; S t a t e v . W i g g i n s , 556 S o . 2 d 622 ( L a . A p p . 1990) (defendant i s not necessarily entitled to "rap sheets" of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s ) ; S t a t e v . W e i l a n d , 540 S o . 2 d 1288 ( L a . App. 1989) (defendant i s not e n t i t l e d to rap sheets of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s because those records are u s e f u l to s t a t e i n i t s d e s i r e to challenge jurors w i t h i n c l i n a t i o n s or b i a s e s a g a i n s t s t a t e , but are not pertinent to purpose of 66 CR-06-1577 defendant's v o i r d i r e : to challenge j u r o r s who defendant b e l i e v e s w i l l not approach the v e r d i c t i n a d e t a c h e d and o b j e c t i v e m a n n e r ) ; S t a t e v . C h i l d s , 299 S.C. 4 7 1 , 385 S.E. 2 d 839 ( 1 9 8 9 ) (no r i g h t t o d i s c o v e r y of c r i m i n a l records of p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s absent s t a t u t e or c o u r t r u l e s r e q u i r i n g s u c h d i s c l o s u r e ) ; J e f f r e y F. G h e n t , A n n o t . , Right of Defense i n C r i m i n a l P r o s e c u t i o n to Disclosure of Prosecution Information R e g a r d i n g P r o s p e c t i v e J u r o r s , 86 A . L . R . 3 d 571, § 4(a) (1 9 7 8 ) , a n d t h e c a s e s cited therein.' "'Also, the state has no duty to d i s c l o s e information that i s a v a i l a b l e to the a p p e l l a n t from a n o t h e r s o u r c e . H u r s t v. S t a t e , 469 So. 2 d 720 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) . Here, the a p p e l l a n t c o u l d have p r o c u r e d this information from the veniremembers themselves during voir dire. See also Clifton, supra (nondisclosure did not prejudice appellant's defense).' "Kelley v. State, 602 So. 2d 473, 477-78 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). Because the appellant had no absolute right to this information, and this information could have been learned from the v e n i r e m e m b e r s d i r e c t l y , t h e r e was no e r r o r on t h i s ground." Arthur v. State, 1996). See a l s o , V a n p e l t v. 18, 2009] The 711 So. record conducted respective voir So. 3d counsel of also 1031 , State, , indicates dire 2d 1 08 0 [Ms. CR-06-1539, (Ala. Crim. that the the venire conducted 67 (Ala. Crim. App. defense as a extensive App. December 2009). and group the State and that individual voir CR-06-1577 dire of each veniremember. completed a lengthy questions regarding In addition, written the veniremembers questionnaire the prospective that juror's included background and criminal history. Accordingly, because Phillips " h a d no a b s o l u t e right to t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , and t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d have been learned from i nthe the veniremembers circuit court's directly," denial of this we find no e r r o r motion. Arthur, 711 So. 2d a t 1080. V Phillips removing argues that f o r cause c l a i m s , were b i a s e d . the c i r c u i t veniremembers 1 8 court erred T . J a n d J.W.S, by n o t who, he B o t h T . J . a n d J.W.S. u l t i m a t e l y s e r v e d on t h e j u r y t h a t c o n v i c t e d P h i l l i p s . The g i s t o f h i s argument i s t h a t as a r e s u l t o f t h e media coverage o f t h e t r i a l c o d e f e n d a n t , O s c a r Roy D o s t e r , the mistaken impression T h i s argument b r i e f on a p p e a l . 1 8 of h i s j u r o r s T . J a n d J . S . were u n d e r that Phillips was p r e s e n t e d 68 was i n Issue involved with V i n Phillips's CR-06-1577 a n o t h e r m u r d e r t h a t was Doster p u r p o r t e d l y c o m m i t t e d by D o s t e r escaped from j a i l The record a second time i n 2005. court's g e n e r a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n of the v e n i r e , the c o u r t asked whether her that during a f i x e d o p i n i o n of P h i l l i p s verdict. Neither T.J. or the 1 9 circuit anyone had indicates after t h a t would b i a s h i s or J.W.S. r e s p o n d e d to that question. Each veniremember completed a w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n n a i r e . questionnaire the extent included several questions of the veniremembers' designed exposure to to The elicit pretrial I n s u p p o r t of h i s argument, P h i l l i p s r e f e r s t h i s C o u r t t o s e v e r a l n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e s r e g a r d i n g P h i l l i p s and Doster t h a t were f i l e d i n s u p p o r t o f P h i l l i p s ' s m o t i o n f o r change o f v e n u e . ( V o l . 28, C. 1 6 4 0 - 1 7 2 2 . ) He a l s o r e f e r s t h i s C o u r t t o 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 o r d e r i n D o s t e r ' s r e c o r d on appeal to t h i s Court. In the r e f e r e n c e d p o r t i o n of t h a t s e n t e n c i n g order, the c i r c u i t judge w r o t e : 1 9 "Again, at the second s e n t e n c i n g phase, the State put on hearsay testimony that implicated the D e f e n d a n t [ D o s t e r ] i n an a d d i t i o n a l m u r d e r t h a t t o o k p l a c e d u r i n g h i s second escape from custody. The C o u r t g i v e s a b s o l u t e l y no w e i g h t t o t h e h e a r s a y admitted about the events and circumstances connected t o the death of Dennis Courtney because proof i n t h a t regard i s too s p e c u l a t i v e . " Doster v. State, (CR-0323) a t C. 69 3406, n. 28. CR-06-1577 publicity. review the prosecution of the venire conducted. dire were g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o as a and t h e d e f e n s e group, individual completed Part of the s t a t e d purpose of the i n d i v i d u a l voir probe the voir voir was questionnaires During dire. dire was t o e n a b l e r e s p e c t i v e c o u n s e l thoroughly T.J., counsel the completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s p r i o r t o v o i r After dire Respective and t h e c o u r t t o more veniremembers' answers in the regarding p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y . the i n d i v i d u a l the following voir dire of prospective occurred: "THE COURT: Do you r e c a l l h e a r i n g any news a c c o u n t s o r r e a d i n g about t h i s case i n t h e newspaper of anything l i k e t h a t ? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: The i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t -- t h a t I have a b o u t t h i s was -- my m a i n c o n c e r n was a c t u a l l y w i t h the s h e r i f f ' s department. B u t I do know t h e r e was an e s c a p e o f s e v e r a l p e o p l e . I h e a r d about t h e Gantt s i t u a t i o n , Texas, L o u i s i a n a i n depth i n f o r m a t i o n . No. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL] : Do you r e c a l l Mr. P h i l l i p s ' s name i n p a r t i c u l a r ? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, I d i d n ' t . I d i d n ' t know who he was u n t i l I came i n t o c o u r t . The o n l y one t h a t I r e a l l y r e c o g n i z e d was t h e name o f D o s t e r . "THE COURT: R e g a r d l e s s o f what you h e a r d o r do remember r i g h t now o r m i g h t r e c a l l d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h i s t r i a l , we n e e d t o know w h e t h e r o r n o t y o u ' d be a b l e t o d i s r e g a r d news a c c o u n t s a n d t h i n g s you 70 juror CR-06-1577 h e a r d on t h e s t r e e t o r w h a t e v e r ? Can you d i s r e g a r d all this t h a t and decide c a s e -¬ "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: A b s o l u t e l y . Because... "THE COURT: W a i t a m i n u t e -- a n d j u s t decide t h i s c a s e b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t comes t o y o u during this t r i a l ? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: A b s o l u t e l y . "THE COURT: Okay. "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Y e s . "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . Mr. [ d e f e n s e counsel]. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: ... You m e n t i o n e d i n y o u r questionnaire t h a t you h e a r d about t h r e e people e s c a p e d , one man k i l l e d i n G a n t t r o b b e r y a n d i n Texas. "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Y e s . you "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: T h a t ' s what y o u remember. Do remember where y o u g o t t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n ? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: S t a r - N e w s P r e s s R e g i s t e r , one o f t h e t w o . or the Mobile "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do y o u remember when o c c u r r e d o r when y o u g o t t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n ? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, j u s t time i t happened. back that during the "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: A b o u t f o u r , f o u r a n d a h a l f y e a r s ago, a n d y o u r e c a l l t h a t c l e a r l y a t t h i s point; i s that correct? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: C l e a r l y ? j u s t remember t h e s i t u a t i o n t a k i n g 71 Detailed? place. No. I CR-06-1577 "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. Now you make t h a t same -- a l m o s t t h e same s t a t e m e n t i n a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n , 'Three men e s c a p e d , k i l l e d one man i n G a n t t i n robbery.' "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: T h a t T h a t ' s what I p u t down was my recollection. II "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you r e c a l l Mr. name? Phillips's "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, I r e a l l y d o n ' t . D o s t e r i s t h e o n l y one t h a t I c o u l d remember. D i d n ' t e v e n know t h i s c a s e was g o i n g t o be when I came up h e r e . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you r e c a l l any o f t h e s p e c i f i c s i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e s e i s s u e s a t a l l as t h e y were r e p o r t e d ? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: The o n l y t h i n g I r e a l l y remember a b o u t t h e r e was s u p p o s e d l y a m u r d e r t a k e n p l a c e a t a t r a i l e r i n G a n t t a n d t h e n t h e r e was a c o m i c a l s i t u a t i o n t o me o f a c i t y w a t e r t r u c k b e i n g stolen. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I f y o u f i n d e v e r y t h i n g t h a t y o u ' v e h e a r d o r r e c a l l h a v i n g h e a r d , i f you f i n d a l l t h a t t o be t r u e a n d t e s t i m o n y i n t h i s c a s e , w o u l d you a u t o m a t i c a l l y v o t e f o r t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y ? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No. "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . Thank y o u , sir. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Y o u r Honor, I ' v e g o t one o t h e r q u e s t i o n i f I may. You s a i d t h a t y o u r c o n c e r n i s w i t h t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t w i t h t h i s . Can you e x p l a i n t h a t t o me, s i r ? 72 CR-06-1577 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I f e l t t h a t t h e s h e r i f f ' s department has been o p e r a t i n g t o o l a x . There s h o u l d have b e e n b e t t e r t h i n g s i n p l a c e t o n e v e r have a l l o w e d t h e e s c a p e s t o have t a k e n p l a c e . I'm n o t a f a n o f t h e s h e r i f f , okay. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Thank y o u , sir. "[PROSECUTOR]: [ W i t h ] t h a t s t a t e m e n t i n m i n d , f i r s t o f a l l , you're n o t impressed w i t h the s h e r i f f , b u t you don't h o l d t h a t a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e o f Alabama o r -¬ "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: The S t a t e o f A l a b a m a n o r t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t . I have r e s p e c t f o r a l o t o f people t h a t ' s i n the s h e r i f f ' s department. I r e a l l y d o n ' t know them, b u t I s e e t h e i r c o n d u c t , t h e i r a c t i o n s when I meet a n d p a s s , e t c . No, I have no agenda a g a i n s t t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t . I t ' s an individual there. "[PROSECUTOR]: So i n o t h e r w o r d s , y o u w o u l d be a b l e t o be a f a i r a n d i m p a r t i a l j u r o r a n d p u t -¬ "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: S u r e . R e a l l y d o n ' t want on the case. I c a n s a y t h a t up f r o n t . I h a v e two b u s i n e s s e s a n d r e a l l y d o n ' t n e e d t o be h e r e , s o I mean y o u make t h e d e c i s i o n . "THE COURT: Thank y o u , Mr. [ J ] . A p p r e c i a t e i t . " "THE COURT: What s a y s t h e S t a t e ? "[PROSECUTOR]: "THE COURT: Satisfied. Defense? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Satisfied. "THE COURT: He's on [ t h e v e n i r e ] 73 " CR-06-1577 (R. 1346-51.) With regard to veniremember occurred during i n d i v i d u a l voir "THE COURT: Do r e p o r t s about t h i s ? J.W.S., the following dire: you r e c a l l hearing a n y news "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Oh, I ' v e r e a d a l l t h e publications beforehand, you know, through Montgomery-Advertiser, Dothan Eagle, and [television]. "THE COURT: Do y o u remember p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g s you r e a d o r j u s t k i n d o f g e n e r a l l y r e a d i n g a b o u t i t or both? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: W e l l , I remember r e a d i n g o f the escape and those type t h i n g s from t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f n e w s p a p e r s a n d TV. "THE COURT: B e f o r e y o u g o t up h e r e , remember Mr. P h i l l i p s ' s name? did you "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Y e s . "THE COURT: I f y o u were s e l e c t e d t o s e r v e as a j u r o r on t h i s c a s e , w o u l d you be a b l e t o d i s r e g a r d any news r e p o r t s o r g o s s i p o r w h a t e v e r y o u want t o c a l l i t a n d d e c i d e t h i s c a s e o n l y on t h e e v i d e n c e presented i n t h i s t r i a l ? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Y e s , s i r . No p r o b l e m . "THE COURT: Be a b l e to completely remove y o u r s e l f from a n y t h i n g you might have heard? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I've always f e l t the evidence i s what c o n v i c t s a p e r s o n o r does n o t c o n v i c t a p e r s o n a n d no m a t t e r how much t a l k m i g h t 74 CR-06-1577 have b e e n about i t . said because I don't know the d e t a i l s "THE COURT: R i g h t . "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I j u s t publicized publicly. know what h a d b e e n "THE COURT: S u r e . A n d y o u ' r e t e l l i n g me y o u ' d be a b l e t o a c t as though you d i d n ' t h e a r a n y t h i n g o f t h a t a n d h e a r t h i s c a s e j u s t on t h e e v i d e n c e ? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Y e s , s i r , I f e e l I c o u l d . "THE COURT: Okay. Mr. [ D e f e n s e Counsel]. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: ... You s o u n d l i k e a g r e a t d e a l o f a t t e n t i o n t o t h e news. you pay "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I r e a d -- y e s , s i r , I do. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You've g e t M o n t g o m e r y - A d v e r t i s e r f i v e d a y s a week E a g l e f i v e d a y s a week. [sic] the and Dothan "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: R i g h t . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: D i d n ' t questionnaire] Andalusia-Star. list [ i n the juror "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: P e r i o d i c a l l y take the Andalusia-Star. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do y o u l i s t e n o t h e r Dothan s t a t i o n ? I do. I d o n ' t t o WSFA a n d "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: TV w i s e ? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Y e s , sir. "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I saw i t on b o t h o f them i n r e g a r d t o what we're t a l k i n g a b o u t h e r e , y o u know. 75 CR-06-1577 "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Were t h o s e t h a t you h e a r d , were t h e r e c e n t ? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, s i r . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: G o i n g b a c k a l o n g way. "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: G o i n g b a c k a l o n g way. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: B u t when we came h e r e were familiar w i t h Mr. D o s t e r ' s name a n d Phillips's? you Mr. "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: R i g h t . " "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You a l s o w a t c h e d t h e E d d i e K n i g h t show? stated that you "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Once o r t w i c e . E d d i e i s n o t one o f my w a t c h i n g -- w a t c h e r s on a c o n t i n u o u s basis. was, "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I t h i n k what you s a i d ' J u s t enough t o s a y I h a d s e e n i t . ' here "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: T h a t ' s r i g h t . J u s t enough t o say I had seen i t . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: A n d y o u m e n t i o n i n one q u e s t i o n : T e l l us what you know o r h a v e h e a r d o f t h e e s c a p e f r o m C o v i n g t o n C o u n t y j a i l ? A n d you s a y , ' I have r e a d most o f t h e p u b l i s h e d news and h e a r d t h e TV news f r o m D o t h a n a n d Montgomery. "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: T h a t ' s right. "DEFENSE COUNSEL: I t was w e l l publicized. "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I t was w e l l 76 publicized. CR-06-1577 "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Then when we a s k e d a b o u t t h e t r a i l e r - p a r k s h o o t i n g a n d s u c h you m e n t i o n e d , y e s , you h a d h e a r d a b o u t i t a n d m e n t i o n e d Mr. P h i l l i p s ' s name. A n d t h e n s a y what do you know? You s a y , 'Only what h a s b e e n p u b l i c i z e d . ' "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: T h a t ' s right. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: A n d p u b l i c knowledge? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR: T h a t ' s r i g h t . What I ' v e r e a d and h e a r d . " (R. 1572-76.) After the i n d i v i d u a l concluded, the f o l l o w i n g voir d i r of veniremember J.W.S. transpired: "THE COURT: Any o b j e c t i o n s ? "[PROSECUTOR]: No, no o b j e c t i o n . "THE COURT: Any o b j e c t i o n ? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: W e ' l l make t h e m o t i o n f o r c a u s e b e c a u s e o f h i s a n s w e r s on t h e two i t e m s : One i s we b e l i e v e t h a t he i s g o i n g t o s u p p o r t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y f r o m h i s a n s w e r s . Second, i s h i s knowledge l e v e l o f t h i s c a s e m a t t e r . He knows e v e r y t h i n g on t h i s t h a t ' s been r e a d and p u b l i s h e d . "THE right. COURT: He knows what's been published, "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Y e s , s i r . So we w o u l d o b j e c t t o h i m and a s k f o r a f o r - c a u s e s t r i k e . "THE COURT: Response? "[PROSECUTOR]: J u d g e , we think the j u r o r i s q u a l i f i e d . 77 don't agree and we CR-06-1577 "THE COURT: C h a l l e n g e i s d e n i e d . H e ' l l be [ t h e v e n i r e ] . He was p r e t t y c l e a r t h a t he c o u l d e i t h e r way and t h a t he c o u l d d i s r e g a r d . " (R. on go 1579.) As evidenced from the first excerpt from the record, above, P h i l l i p s d i d not argue a t t r i a l t h a t the c i r c u i t s h o u l d have removed f o r c a u s e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r T . J . venire; in fact, defense counsel s a t i s f i e d w i t h T.J. r e m a i n i n g e r r o r o n l y . R u l e 45A, from i n d i c a t e d that counsel on t h e v e n i r e . Thus, w i t h t o p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r T . J . , we w i l l review h i s c l a i m Ala.R.Crim.P. " ' " [ A ] s t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d i n Ex p a r t e G r a y s o n , 479 So. 2d 76 (Ala.) cert. d e n i e d , 474 U.S. 865, 106 S.Ct. 189, 88 L.Ed. 2d 157 (1985) : "'"'"To hold t h a t t h e mere existence of a n y preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective j u r o r 's impartiality 78 court the was regard for plain CR-06-1577 would be to establish an i m p o s s i b l e standard. It is sufficient i f a j u r o r can lay aside his impressions or opinions and render a verdict based on t h e e v i d e n c e presented in court " "'"'The standard of fairness does not require j u r o r s to be t o t a l l y i g n o r a n t of the facts and issues involved. Murphy v. F l o r i d a , 421 U.S. 794, 799-800, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2035-2036, 44 L.Ed. 2d 589 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Thus, " t h e proper manner for ascertaining whether adverse publicity may have b i a s e d p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s i s through the v o i r d i r e examination." A n d e r s o n v. S t a t e , 3 62 So. 2d 1296, 1299 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978).' "'"479 So. 2d at 80. '"'The r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n i s not whether the community remembered the case, but whether the j u r o r s at [ t h e a c c u s e d ' s ] t r i a l had such f i x e d opinions t h a t they could 79 CR-06-1577 not judge i m p a r t i a l l y the g u i l t of the defendant.' P a t t o n v. Y o u n t , 467 U.S. 1025, 1035, 104 S.Ct. 2885, 2891, 81 L.Ed. 2d 847 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . " ' S i e b e r t v. S t a t e , 562 So. 2d 586, 589 ( A l a . C r . App. 1989) aff'd, 562 So. 2d 600 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 498 U.S. 963, 111 S.Ct. 398, 112 L.Ed. 2d 408 (1990), q u o t i n g F o r t e n b e r r y v. S t a t e , 545 So. 2d 129 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f ' d , 545 So. 2d 145 ( A l a . 1989), c e r t . d e n i e d , 495 U.S. 911, 110 S. C t . 1937, 109 L.Ed. 2d 300 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . " "'Whitehead v. S t a t e , 777 So. 2d 781, 801-02 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 777 So. 2d 854, ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . ' " G a v i n v. S t a t e , 891 So. 2d 907, 940 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 891 So. 2d 998 ( A l a . 2004). "In Alabama, the standard for s t r i k i n g a p o t e n t i a l j u r o r f o r cause because o f the juror's b i a s r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e j u r o r have a f i x e d o p i n i o n concerning the defendant's guilt that would i n t e r f e r e with h i s a b i l i t y to render a f a i r and unbiased verdict. " ' S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 6 - 1 5 0 ( 7 ) , A l a . Code 1975, states that a juror i s subject to being s t r u c k f o r c a u s e i f "he has a f i x e d o p i n i o n as t o t h e g u i l t or innocence of the defendant which would b i a s h i s v e r d i c t . " "'"To justify a challenge for c a u s e , t h e r e must be a p r o p e r s t a t u t o r y g r o u n d o r '"some m a t t e r which imports absolute b i a s or f a v o r , and l e a v e s n o t h i n g t o t h e 80 CR-06-1577 d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court."' C l a r k v . S t a t e , 621 So.2d 309, 321 ( A l a . C r . App.1992) ( q u o t i n g N e t t l e s v . S t a t e , 435 So.2d 146, 14 9 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 3 ) ) . T h i s c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t 'once a j u r o r i n d i c a t e s i n i t i a l l y t h a t he o r she i s b i a s e d o r p r e j u d i c e d o r has d e e p s e a t e d i m p r e s s i o n s ' a b o u t a case, the juror should be removed f o r cause. Knop v. M c C a i n , 561 So. 2d 229, 234 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . The t e s t t o be a p p l i e d i n determining whether a juror s h o u l d be removed f o r c a u s e i s whether t h e j u r o r can e l i m i n a t e the influence of h i s previous f e e l i n g s and render a verdict a c c o r d i n g t o t h e e v i d e n c e and t h e l a w . Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , 666 So. 2d 73, 82 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . A j u r o r 'need n o t be e x c u s e d m e r e l y because [the j u r o r ] knows s o m e t h i n g o f t h e c a s e t o be t r i e d o r b e c a u s e [the juror] has formed some o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g i t . ' K i n d e r v. S t a t e , 515 So. 2d 55, 61 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . " ' C r . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . "Pace v. S t a t e , 904 So. 2d 3 3 1 , 340 ( A l a . C r i m . App. v. 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g Ex P a r t e D a v i s , 718 So. 2d 1166, , ^ 1 1 n 1 TO 1171-72 /-Alo - II ( A l a . 1998). Y a n c e y v. S t a t e , r 1 C C O \ [Ms. CR-04-1171, M a r c h 20, 2009] (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . "'The t r i a l j u d g e i s g i v e n much d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s h o u l d be s t r u c k f o r c a u s e . A c c o r d i n g t o R u l e 1 8 . 4 ( e ) , A l a . R . C r i m . P.: 81 So. 3d CR-06-1577 "'"When a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r i s s u b j e c t t o c h a l l e n g e f o r cause o r i t reasonably appears t h a t the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r cannot or w i l l not r e n d e r a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l v e r d i c t , t h e c o u r t , on i t s own i n i t i a t i v e o r on m o t i o n o f any p a r t y , s h a l l excuse t h a t j u r o r from s e r v i c e i n the c a s e . " " ' II I II II "'Furthermore, i n order to determine whether the t r i a l judge's e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n was p r o p e r , t h i s C o u r t w i l l l o o k to t h e q u e s t i o n s d i r e c t e d t o and answers g i v e n b y t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r on v o i r d i r e . Ex p a r t e C o c h r a n , 500 So. 2d 1179 (Ala. 1985)." " H o l l i d a y v. S t a t e , 751 So. 2d 533, 535 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . A l s o , ' " [ t ] h e t r i a l j u d g e i s i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o h e a r a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r and t o o b s e r v e h i s o r h e r demeanor."' M c N a i r v. S t a t e , 653 So. 2d 320, 324 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , a f f ' d , 653 So. 2d 353 ( A l a . 1994) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e D i n k i n s , 567 So. 2d 1313, 1314 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . F i n a l l y , "'[t]he test f o r determining whether a s t r i k e r i s e s to the l e v e l of a challenge f o r cause i s "whether a j u r o r can s e t a s i d e t h e i r o p i n i o n s and t r y t h e case f a i r l y and i m p a r t i a l l y , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e law and t h e e v i d e n c e . " M a r s h a l l v. S t a t e , 598 So. 2d 14, 16 ( A l a . C r . App. 1991). "Broad d i s c r e t i o n i s vested with the t r i a l court i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether or not t o s u s t a i n c h a l l e n g e s f o r c a u s e . " Ex p a r t e N e t t l e s , 435 So. 2d 151, 153 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . "The decision of the t r i a l court "on such 82 CR-06-1577 q u e s t i o n s i s e n t i t l e d t o g r e a t w e i g h t and w i l l n o t be i n t e r f e r e d w i t h u n l e s s c l e a r l y erroneous, equivalent to an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . ' " N e t t l e s , 435 So. 2d a t 153.' " D u n n i n g v. S t a t e , App. 19 9 4 ) . " K i l l i n g s w o r t h v. S t a t e , So. 3d , So. 2d [Ms. CR-08-0469, A u g u s t 28, ( A l a . C r i m . App. T h i s C o u r t has the 659 completed reviewed 995, 997 (Ala. Crim. 2009] 2009). t h e e n t i r e v o i r d i r e , as w e l l as questionnaires, and we find no error c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s not e x c u s i n g do the we find Phillips's Although had T.J. any error challenge in for cause circuit as to court's the T.J, f o r cause veniremember in nor denial veniremember J.W.S. each of these p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t been exposed t o p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y about the may have had some i n c o r r e c t i m p r e s s i o n s c a s e -- fair and presented i m p a r t i a l v e r d i c t b a s e d s o l e l y upon t h e at they and from t h a t media c o v e r a g e -- t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t a of render evidence trial. A c c o r d i n g l y , no b a s i s f o r r e v e r s a l e x i s t s r e g a r d i n g claim. VI. 83 this CR-06-1577 P h i l l i p s contends t h a t the c i r c u i t court e r r e d i n denying his motion for a change community was so publicity" t h a t he was unbiased jury. The record o f venue "saturated because, with he argues, prejudicial unable to receive a f a i r the pretrial trial b y an a motion for a 2 0 reflects that Phillips filed change o f venue t h a t i n c l u d e d numerous n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e s and media r e p o r t s about the c r i m e s . to include additional T h i s m o t i o n was l a t e r amended newspaper articles and m e d i a reports t h a t were g e n e r a t e d a b o u t t h e t r i a l o f h i s a c c o m p l i c e , Doster, w h i c h was c o n d u c t e d a few months b e f o r e circuit court completion reserved of the v o i r ruling discussed i n Part member completed a members were questionnaires 2 0 brief motion V written of this opinion, questionnaire, to given prior pending pretrial an to voir T h i s argument was on a p p e a l . publicity. opportunity each which designed to e l i c i t the extent exposure counsel the The the d i r e of the v e n i r e a t t r i a l . As several questions on Phillips's trial. included of the v e n i r e The to review venire- the respective completed dire. presented 84 i n Issue VI i n P h i l l i p s ' s CR-06-1577 The q u a l i f i c a t i o n and v o i r d i r e o f t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s took approximately record on process, group, 3 days, appeal. (R. i n a d d i t i o n to the respective veniremember and e n c o m p a s s e s 763 910-1673.) the voir counsel individually, During dire the of the questioned in pages of qualifying venire each part, to the as a remaining probe the veniremember's answers i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e g a r d i n g p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y and i t s e f f e c t on t h e veniremember. Once t h e e n t i r e v o i r d i r e p r o c e s s counsel court renewed considered the motion additional from r e s p e c t i v e c o u n s e l . The for a was change arguments complete, of venue, regarding defense and the the motion c i r c u i t court ultimately denied t h e m o t i o n f o r a change o f v e n u e , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t s r u l i n g was based not to the v a r i o u s q u e s t i o n s p r o p o u n d e d by t h e r e s p e c t i v e c o u n s e l and the court, the but voir dire o n l y upon t h e veniremembers responses a l s o upon t h e v e n i r e m e m b e r s ' demeanor d u r i n g process. "The s t a n d a r d we use when e v a l u a t i n g w h e t h e r a t r i a l c o u r t has e r r e d i n d e n y i n g a m o t i o n f o r a change o f venue was a d d r e s s 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 G r a y s o n , 479 So. 2d 76, 80 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 474 U.S. 865, 106 S.Ct. 189, 88 L.Ed. 2d 157 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . The C o u r t s t a t e d : 85 CR-06-1577 " ' A b s e n t a s h o w i n g o f abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n , a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r change o f venue w i l l n o t be o v e r t u r n e d . Ex p a r t e Magwood, 426 So. 2d 929, 931 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 462 U.S. 1124, 103 S. C t . 3097, 77 L.Ed. 2d 1355 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . I n o r d e r t o g r a n t a m o t i o n f o r change o f v e n u e , t h e d e f e n d a n t must p r o v e t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t the defendant or that the community was saturated with p r e j u d i c i a l p u b l i c i t y . S h e p p a r d v. M a x w e l l , 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed. 2d 600 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ; F r a n k l i n v. S t a t e , 424 So.2d 1353 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1982) . Newspaper a r t i c l e s or widespread p u b l i c i t y , w i t h o u t more, a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o g r a n t a m o t i o n f o r change o f v e n u e . A n d e r s o n v. S t a t e , 362 So.2d 1296, 1298 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 8 ) . As t h e Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n I r v i n v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642-43, 6 L.Ed. 2d 751 ( 1 9 6 1 ) : "'"To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or i n n o c e n c e o f an a c c u s e d , w i t h o u t more, i s s u f f i c i e n t t o r e b u t t h e presumption of a prospective j u r o r ' s i m p a r t i a l i t y w o u l d be t o e s t a b l i s h an i m p o s s i b l e s t a n d a r d . I t i s s u f f i c i e n t i f t h e j u r o r can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict 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 in court " "'The s t a n d a r d o f f a i r n e s s does n o t r e q u i r e j u r o r s t o be t o t a l l y i g n o r a n t o f t h e f a c t s and i s s u e s i n v o l v e d . Murphy v. F l o r i d a , 421 U.S. 794, 799-800, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2035-2036, 44 L.Ed. 2d 589 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Thus, "[t]he proper manner for ascertaining 86 CR-06-1577 w h e t h e r a d v e r s e p u b l i c i t y may have b i a s e d the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s i s through the v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n . " A n d e r s o n v. S t a t e , 362 So. 2d 1296, 1299 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 8 ) . ' "'"The mere f a c t t h a t p u b l i c i t y and media a t t e n t i o n were w i d e s p r e a d i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o warrant a change of venue. Rather, Ex parte G r a y s o n [ , 479 So.2d 76 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , ] h e l d t h a t t h e appellant must show that he suffered actual p r e j u d i c e o r t h a t t h e community was s a t u r a t e d w i t h p r e j u d i c i a l p u b l i c i t y . " S l a g l e v. S t a t e , 606 So. 2d 193, 195 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . ' W i l s o n v. S t a t e , 777 So. 2d 856, 924 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 777 So. 2d 935 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 531 U.S. 1097, 121 S.Ct. 826, 148 L.Ed. 2d 709 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . M o r e o v e r , we must c o n s i d e r t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e b e t w e e n t h e a l l e g e d p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y and t h e t r i a l . W i l s o n . 'When r e q u e s t i n g a change o f v e n u e , " t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s on t h e d e f e n d a n t t o 'show t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t t h a t a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l and an u n b i a s e d v e r d i c t c a n n o t be r e a s o n a b l y expected i n the county i n which the defendant i s to be t r i e d . " ' J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 791 So. 2d 979, 995 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 791 So. 2d 1043 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g H a r d y v. S t a t e , 804 So. 2d 247, 293 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . W h e t h e r t o g r a n t a m o t i o n f o r a change o f venue i s a d d r e s s e d t o t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court. Acklin v. S t a t e , 790 So. 2d 975 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 790 So. 2d 1012 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 533 U.S. 936, 121 S. C t . 2565, 150 L.Ed. 2d 729 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . The t r i a l c o u r t i s i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t h a n i s an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o r u l e on s u c h a m o t i o n . The t r i a l c o u r t was p r e s e n t i n t h e community a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a l l e g e d p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y and knows t h e specifics of the h i s t o r y of the case i n the community. We w i l l n o t r e v e r s e a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a change o f venue u n l e s s a c l e a r abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n i s shown. A c k l i n . 87 CR-06-1577 " H e r e , t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s numerous a r t i c l e s a b o u t t h e two r o b b e r y / m u r d e r s . However, most o f t h e a r t i c l e s are f a c t u a l accounts of the circumstances s u r r o u n d i n g e a c h c a s e and t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f e a c h c a s e . No e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e community was s a t u r a t e d w i t h p r e j u d i c i a l p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y about the two c a s e s . The f a c t t h a t t h e community was n o t so s a t u r a t e d i s shown by t h e v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n . During voir dire the trial court asked the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s i f t h e y h a d any knowledge a b o u t the c a s e . (R. 1182.) E i g h t j u r o r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y had h e a r d about t h e case from r a d i o , newspaper, or t e l e v i s i o n r e p o r t s . Each o f t h e s e j u r o r s was t a k e n t o t h e b e n c h and q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t h i s o r h e r knowledge o f t h e c a s e . Two j u r o r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t r e n d e r a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l v e r d i c t . These j u r o r s were e x c u s e d f o r c a u s e . The o t h e r s i x j u r o r s who h a d h e a r d a b o u t t h e c a s e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y c o u l d be f a i r and i m p a r t i a l . A number o f them i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p u b l i c i t y a b o u t t h e c a s e h a d been so l o n g ago t h a t t h e y d i d n o t remember any p e r t i n e n t f a c t s a b o u t t h e c a s e . (R. 1182-1222.) The v o i r d i r e supports the t r i a l court's d e n i a l of the motion f o r a change o f v e n u e . T h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y no e v i d e n c e that the t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s discretion in denying t h i s motion." S t a l l w o r t h v. S t a t e , 868 So. 2d 1128, 1141-43 ( A l a . C r i m . 2 0 0 1 ) . See a l s o , Ex p a r t e T r a v i s , 776 So. 2d 874 G o b b l e v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-05-0225, Feb. 5, 2010] (Ala. App. ( A l a . 2000); 2010). C r i m . App. This reports for a C o u r t has introduced change of reviewed the a r t i c l e s into venue, and So. 3d various the r e c o r d i n support of the and we 88 conclude that "most media motion of the CR-06-1577 a r t i c l e s are f a c t u a l accounts of the circumstances surrounding e a c h c a s e a n d t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f e a c h c a s e . " S t a l l w o r t h , 868 So. 2d a t 1142-43. A l t h o u g h t h e r e a p p e a r e d t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f m e d i a c o v e r a g e s u r r o u n d i n g escape, crime spree, does capture, and D o s t e r ' s t r i a l , t h e e v i d e n c e the community as t o r e n d e r a f a i r t r i a l v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e . This shown voir that and D o s t e r ' s saturated is not e s t a b l i s h Phillips's the p u b l i c i t y so by t h e a n s w e r s t h e v e n i r e m e m b e r s gave d u r i n g t h e dire. The r e c o r d some f a m i l i a r i t y i n d i c a t e s t h a t many v e n i r e m e m b e r s d i d have with t h e c a s e ; however, only three venire- members i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y h a d a f i x e d o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e case. Those convicted veniremembers d i d not serve on t h e j u r y that Phillips. L i k e w i s e , P h i l l i p s d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t he s u f f e r e d any a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e as a r e s u l t o f t h e p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y . The 12 p e r s o n s who s e r v e d on t h e j u r y t h a t convicted Phillips i n d i c a t e d t h a t e v e n i f he o r she h a d some p r e t r i a l 89 each knowledge CR-06-1577 regarding t h e case, t h e j u r o r would base h i s o r h e r v e r d i c t o n l y on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d at t r i a l . 2 1 A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n f r o m t h e r e c o r d the c i r c u i t c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying m o t i o n f o r a change o f v e n u e . that Phillips's 2 2 VII. J u r o r M.B. - R. 1081-93; Supp. V. C. 32-58; J u r o r C.B. R. 1196-1200; Supp. V. C. 221-47; J u r o r C.C. - R. 1218-23; Supp. V. C. 329-55; J u r o r J.H. - R. 1282-85; Supp. V. C. 653¬ 79; J u r o r M.J. - R. 1336-26; Supp. V. C. 761-87; J u r o r T . J . R. 1342-52; Supp. V. C. 788-814; J u r o r J.K. - R. 1351-58; Supp. V. C. 815-41; J u r o r P.M. - R. 1473-84; Supp. V. C. 1102¬ 28; J u r o r E.R. - R. 1532-38; Supp. V. C. 1291-1317; J u r o r J . S . - R. 1567-79; Supp. V. C. 1399-1425; J u r o r P.S. - R. 1602-09; Supp. V. C. 1480-1606; J u r o r S.W. - R. 1658-66; Supp. V. C. 1642-68. 2 1 P h i l l i p s makes t h e s u g g e s t i o n a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f h i s argument t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h o u l d have g r a n t e d h i s r e n e w e d m o t i o n f o r a change o f venue made a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f the evidence and b e f o r e closing arguments because, he i n t i m a t e s , one o f t h e j u r o r s was e x p o s e d t o a d v e r s e p u b l i c i t y r e g a r d i n g the case d u r i n g a recess i n the t r i a l . (Phillips's b r i e f , a t 99-100.) T h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y no e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h i s s u g g e s t i o n . What i s c l e a r i s t h a t t h e j u r o r m i s u n d e r s t o o d the c o u r t ' s i n q u i r y r e g a r d i n g whether the j u r o r had f o l l o w e d the court's instructions to the jurors n o t t o expose t h e m s e l v e s t o any m e d i a c o v e r a g e r e g a r d i n g t h e c a s e d u r i n g t h e recess. This misunderstanding was clarified prior to p r o c e e d i n g w i t h t h e t r i a l . (R. 3470-74.) 2 2 90 CR-06-1577 Phillips denying h i s motion Covington 2002. coerced that the c i r c u i t t o suppress Sheriff's court the statement investigators on he of h i s confinement, occurred without the assistance record indicates that P h i l l i p s law-enforcement gave t o November 19, and t h a t h i s of counsel, he h a d i n v o k e d h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l e a r l i e r The erred i n P h i l l i p s c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t was by t h e c o n d i t i o n s statement to County Specifically, 23 though maintains officials made f o u r i n which he even t h a t day. statements confessed h i s i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e c r i m e s t h a t he a n d D o s t e r c o m m i t t e d i n the two-week p e r i o d t h a t t h e y were a t - l a r g e : t h r e e s t a t e m e n t s were made t o T e x a s R a n g e r B r o o k s into t h e C r o c k e t t County Long Jail after Phillips on November was b o o k e d 18, 2002, and a f o u r t h s t a t e m e n t was made t o C o v i n g t o n C o u n t y i n v e s t i g a t o r s on November 19, 2002, w h i l e P h i l l i p s the C r o c k e t t County was s t i l l incarcerated at jail. P h i l l i p s moved t o s u p p r e s s a l l t h e s t a t e m e n t s he made t o L o n g , as w e l l as t h e s t a t e m e n t County i n v e s t i g a t o r s . t h a t he gave t o t h e C o v i n g t o n In h i s w r i t t e n motions, P h i l l i p s argued T h i s a r g u m e n t was p r e s e n t e d i n I s s u e V I I i n P h i l l i p s ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l . 2 3 91 CR-06-1577 that his statements claimed, the miserable statements conditions a l l e g e d t h a t he was was not were due to were of his coerced by apprised of t h a t h i s statements b e c a u s e he was his Phillips c o u n s e l e v e n t h o u g h , he was rights cause, by obtained c l a i m e d , he had also that the the rendered of invoked h i s r i g h t to day. P h i l l i p s e l a b o r a t e d upon h i s c l a i m s i n an a f f i d a v i t support of his motions to suppress, which filed reads, relevant part: " I was a r r e s t e d by S t a t e a u t h o r i t i e s a b o u t noon and p l a c e d i n c u s t o d y . E a r l i e r t h a t day, we d r a n k a 12 p a c k o f b e e r and were on h e r o i n e . The needles were p l a c e d i n t h e c r u s h e d b e e r c a n s . The Texas officials took a l l my c l o t h e s , socks, shoes, u n d e r w e a r and e v e r y t h i n g and gave me a p l a s t i c s h o r t s l e e v e bag, w i t h o u t c l o s u r e s t o wear. I t l o o k e d similar t o a h o s p i t a l gown b u t made o f thick p l a s t i c . The g a r m e n t had no h e a t v a l u e , i n f a c t i t was c o l d t o t h e t o u c h . " I was p l a c e d i n a c o n c r e t e c e l l , no m a t t r e s s o n l y c o n c r e t e f l o o r , s t e e l bed, t o i l e t and shower. The h e a t was o f f and t h e c e l l was f r e e z i n g . I f e l t i t was a b o u t 40 d e g r e e s i n t h e r e . I was separated f r o m t h e o t h e r i n m a t e s . The c e l l was an i c e box w i t h 92 to benefit c o u n s e l t o a Texas j u s t i c e of the peace e a r l i e r t h a t in he Texas t h a t h i s statement without he purportedly were n o t v o l u n t a r i l y m e n t a l l y u n s t a b l e , and officials because, the a r r e s t e d without probable adequately Alabama suppressed confinement. officials, the be in CR-06-1577 no p l a c e t o g e t warm. The f r e e z i n g s u r f a c e s i n t h e u n h e a t e d c e l l , w i t h o n l y a p l a s t i c gown t o wear, a n d my b a r e f e e t on t h e c o l d c o n c r e t e f l o o r c a u s e d my t e e t h t o c h a t t e r a n d my body t o s h a k e , i t was unbearable. "A j a i l e r w o u l d c h e c k on me e v e r y 15 m i n u t e s a n d f i l l o u t a l o g on t h e o u t s i d e o f t h e b a r s . I a s k e d f o r a b l a n k e t a n d t o l d h i m I was f r e e z i n g . He s a i d I c o u l d n ' t have them. I w r a p p e d t o i l e t p a p e r a r o u n d my l e g s a n d f e e t l i k e a mummy t o t r y a n d g e t warm b u t i t d i d n ' t h e l p . They k e p t me i s o l a t e d . " I met w i t h a p a s t o r a f t e r I was b o o k e d i n a n d b e f o r e my c l o t h e s were t a k e n away. The p a s t o r gave me two d i f f e r e n t B i b l e s . The p a s t o r t o l d me t h e o n l y way y o u c a n be f o r g i v e n b y God was t o c o n f e s s t o t h e legal authorities. "He s a i d r e a d i t f o r y o u r s e l f a n d showed me James 5: v e r s e s 15 a n d 16 " . . . . a n d i f he h a s c o m m i t t e d s i n s , he w i l l be f o r g i v e n . 17 c o n f e s s y o u r t r e s p a s s e s (Nu-text reads...Therefore confess your s i n s ) t o one a n o t h e r a n d p r a y f o r one a n o t h e r t h a t you may be h e a l e d . ' I d i d not t e l l h i m what happened. "I s t a y e d i n t h e ' i c e box' u n t i l O f f i c e r Long came a n d a s k e d me i f I w a n t e d t o t a l k . I met w i t h Officer L o n g . He o f f e r e d me h o t c o f f e e a n d a c i g a r e t t e . I h a d n o t e a t e n a n d t h e warm d r i n k was a r e l i e f . I was w i l l i n g t o s a y a n y t h i n g t o s t a y i n t h e warm o f f i c e , say anything t o s t a y i n t h e warm o f f i c e , d r i n k i n g h o t c o f f e e and smoking c i g a r e t t e s e v e n i f i t was f o r o n l y 30 m i n u t e s t o s t a y o u t o f my c e l l , t h e ' i c e box.' " A f t e r I t a l k e d w i t h Mr. L o n g , I was t a k e n b a c k t o t h e ' i c e b o x ' a n d an o l d e r man i n h i s l a t e r 6 0 ' s , k i n d o f h e a v y s e t , 5'7" t a l l w i t h a g u t , w e a r i n g b l a c k frame g l a s s e s s a i d t h a t he was a m a g i s t r a t e . He b r o u g h t me e x t r a d i t i o n p a p e r s . He a s k e d me i f I 93 CR-06-1577 w a n t e d a l a w y e r and I s a i d going to f i g h t e x t r a d i t i o n , w a n t e d a l a w y e r and I f i l l e d f o r a l a w y e r . I n e v e r saw an y e s . They s a i d a r e you I s a i d no. I d i d s a y I out t h e i r form, a s k i n g a t t o r n e y i n Texas. "They k e p t me n a k e d i n t h e ' i c e box' u n t i l t h e A l a b a m a d e t e c t i v e s came. They s a i d I was s t i l l on s u i c i d e w a t c h . I was f r e e z i n g . The d e p u t y c o n t i n u e d t o c h e c k and w r i t e on a p a d e v e r y 15 m i n u t e s . I t h i n k i t was t o make s u r e I w a s n ' t f r e e z i n g t o death. " A f t e r I t a l k e dd w i t h t h e A l a b a m a O f f i c i a l s , t h e y lke with gave me my c l o t h e s and p l a c e d me in general p o p u l a t i o n i n the heated p o r t i o n of the j a i l . " I w o u l d have r e m a i n e d s i l e n t b u t f o r t h e p a s t o r , them t a k i n g my c l o t h e s , t h e c o l d c e l l , t h e c i g a r e t t e s and warm room and h o t c o f f e e d u r i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w . I a s k e d f o r an a t t o r n e y and t h e y n e v e r p r o v i d e d me one. The p a s t o r was p r o v i d e d r i g h t away. I was w i l l i n g t o s a y a n y t h i n g , n o t t o have t o go b a c k t o t h e ' i c e box' and f o r a warm room." (C. 2031-32.) On January conducted. (R. 9, 576-824.) motions to suppress i n more d e t a i l 2007, a l e n g t h y The conducted reexamine the circuit court by w r i t t e n o r d e r , w h i c h w i l l hearing was denied the be addressed below. Toward t h e end o f t h e t r i a l , was suppression outside the a second suppression h e a r i n g presence admissibility of the of the jury statement i n order that to Phillips made t o t h e A l a b a m a a u t h o r i t i e s on November 19, 2002, i n l i g h t 94 CR-06-1577 of the a d d i t i o n a l James H e a r n e , hearing. was by implication statement of the at the f i r s t Peace suppression denied counsel, the Phillips's circuit motion court to suppress by the t h a t he gave t o t h e A l a b a m a a u t h o r i t i e s on November 2002. The recorded f o r the played Justice A f t e r h e a r i n g H e a r n e ' s t e s t i m o n y , and respective again o f Texas not present (R. 3158-86.) arguments 19, who testimony jury statement at t r i a l , given and on November the t r a n s c r i p t s t a t e m e n t was i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . The t h r e e 19 was of the statements P h i l l i p s made t o Texas R a n g e r B r o o k s L o n g on November 18 were not admitted into evidence at t r i a l b e c a u s e R a n g e r Long was n o t a b l e t o be p r e s e n t a t t r i a l b e c a u s e o f a f a m i l y emergency. On appeal, statement Phillips t h a t he r e a s s e r t s h i s arguments gave A l a b a m a s h o u l d have been s u p p r e s s e d by the supposedly confinement counsel cold, t h o u g h he the on November 19 b e c a u s e , he s a y s , i t was miserable and b e c a u s e i t was even authorities that conditions given without requested coerced of his the b e n e f i t of the a s s i s t a n c e of counsel e a r l i e r t h a t day. In order t o address understanding Phillips's of the events a s s e r t i o n s on a p p e a l , an t h a t t r a n s p i r e d from the time of 95 CR-06-1577 Phillips's County a r r e s t u n t i l he made h i s s t a t e m e n t t o t h e C o v i n g t o n i n v e s t i g a t o r s on November 19, 2002, i s n e c e s s a r y . The f o l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d a t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g s : As d i s c u s s e d i n more d e t a i l i n P a r t V I I I of t h i s on November 18, 2002, a r o u n d 2:00, Officer were D o n a l d Van traveling Phillips Zant west on Van Zant said influence directly to conducted drugs an of the scene that on any Phillips D o s t e r as i n LeMaster's fugitive Phillips Crockett 2 4 they truck. and he appear scene. t o be indicated Van under that he and D o s t e r were t r a n s p o r t e d County, those Texas, items jail. that Van were Zant clearly cans truck. County Sheriff Shannon Fenton booked i n t o the C r o c k e t t County on November 18, Miranda and warrants. r i g h t s at the d i d not substances, i n v e n t o r y of i n the P h i l l i p s was 2 4 and i n t h e t r u c k , b u t he d i d n o t see any c r u s h e d b e e r Crockett p.m. 10 of h i s Miranda understood h i s r i g h t s . or Phillips Interstate at the Zant i n f o r m e d P h i l l i p s visible T e x a s Highway P a t r o l and D o s t e r were o r d e r e d t o g e t o u t o f t h e t r u c k , t h e y were a r r e s t e d the stopped p.m., opinion, 2002. v. A r i z o n a , 384 testified that j a i l around 3:00 During t h i s process, U.S. 96 436 (1966) . Phillips's CR-06-1577 clothing was standard white jumpsuit placed removed, he was searched, a n d he was and two b l a n k e t s . into a small holding issued Phillips a then the booking f a c i l i t y beside was area so t h e j a i l e r c o u l d communicate w i t h h i m and c o u l d c o n t i n u e to complete the paperwork. no indication that Phillips substances at that Around Crockett was under the that there was influence of any at the time. 3:15, County Fenton t e s t i f i e d p.m., jail Texas in order Ranger to Long assist arrived the local law- e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s w i t h t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . When R a n g e r L o n g entered later the j a i l , a man l e a r n e d was i n the h o l d i n g c e l l , Phillips, Texas Rangers w h i l e dispatcher's jumpsuit office Long r e s p o n d e d t h a t he was, engaged i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n Ranger Long w a i t e d According Long f o r the door t o the polite, t o Ranger Long, P h i l l i p s entered jail was [and] e n g a g i n g , " b u t he d i d n o t a p p e a r t o be u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f any Ranger about the t o be opened. P h i l l i p s was w e a r i n g a at t h a t time. "nervous, t a l k a t i v e , Ranger Long saw h i s badge and i n q u i r e d as t o w h e t h e r L o n g was a T e x a s R a n g e r . and t h e n he and P h i l l i p s who substances. the d i s p a t c h e r ' s office. The i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t L o n g h a d a t t h a t t i m e was t h a t t h e t r u c k 97 only was CR-06-1577 stolen, Ranger and that Long told Phillips Sheriff and Doster Fenton that had he P h i l l i p s t o " f i n d o u t what was g o i n g o n . " been arrested. needed to talk to A c c o r d i n g t o Ranger Long, S h e r i f f Fenton e s c o r t e d P h i l l i p s t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e t o t a l k w i t h Ranger Long. Ranger Long t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e Texas were i n communication w i t h time P h i l l i p s t h e Alabama authorities authorities, was b r o u g h t t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e , a u t h o r i t i e s d i d n o t know t h e e x t e n t o f P h i l l i p s ' s i n any c r i m e s . truck i t was was a hitchhiker o r why d i d not he was i n the stopped. t h a t when P h i l l i p s sheriff's he Phillips was office, n e r v o u s and was so Sheriff Fenton cigarettes, and he was allowed g i v e n a cup o f c o f f e e wearing talkative. cigarette, gave you here?" or was the brought i n t o jail Phillips Phillips jumpsuit. asked f o r a one t o smoke. P h i l l i p s of was his also to drink. Ranger Long a s k e d P h i l l i p s are involvement a l l t h e y knew was t h a t P h i l l i p s was i n t h e t r u c k when Ranger Long s t a t e d the t h e Texas L o n g s a i d t h a t t h e Texas a u t h o r i t i e s know w h e t h e r P h i l l i p s at the "What's the 98 something l i k e , deal, Bobby?" "Bobby, why Phillips CR-06-1577 volunteered, " W e l l , we b r o k e i n t o a g u y ' s h o u s e , k i l l e d shot him. Escaped from j a i l i n Texas and y ' a l l At that and d i d some b u r g l a r i e s , e n d e d up caught us." point, Ranger Long apprised Miranda r i g h t s . The t i m e was 3:37 p.m. Long that testified rights, and him, that Phillips he of h i s on November 18. R a n g e r appeared voluntarily Phillips to waived understand those his rights. A c c o r d i n g t o R a n g e r L o n g , no t h r e a t s o r p r o m i s e s were made t o Phillips i n return f o r h i s statement, and P h i l l i p s a p p e a r t o be u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f any Phillips d i d not substances. t h e n gave R a n g e r L o n g an a b b r e v i a t e d version of t h e c r i m e s p r e e , f r o m h i s e s c a p e t o how he and D o s t e r e n d e d up i n Texas. with no W h i l e R a n g e r Long was e n g a g e d i n t h i s Phillips, weapons Ranger Long l e a r n e d were found i n the conversation from the a u t h o r i t i e s truck and that the that Alabama a u t h o r i t i e s d i d n o t have a m u r d e r weapon, so R a n g e r Long a s k e d P h i l l i p s a b o u t t h e weapon. P h i l l i p s t o l d R a n g e r Long t h a t t h e weapon h a d been pawned i n B a t o n Rouge, L o u i s i a n a . Ranger Long l e f t t h e room and c o n t a c t e d t h e A n d a l u s i a , A l a b a m a , Sheriff's Department told regarding and informed i t o f what t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e weapon. 99 Phillips had him CR-06-1577 Ranger Long r e t u r n e d microcassette his recorder. to Sheriff w h i c h was 3:55 and p.m. After R a n g e r Long r e i n f o r m e d recorded. e n d e d a t 4:24 the taped The informed Phillips contact with An taped a of i n t e r v i e w began i n t e r v i e w ended, Phillips to R a n g e r Long l e f t t h e room and a s k e d him from the j a i l c o n t a c t e d Reverend John F l u t h , n e a r b y Ozona U n i t e d t o speak to P h i l l i p s . with h a l l w a y . " Rev. he i n f o r m e d talk R a n g e r Long t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d no f u r t h e r of the talked to Phillips. official pastor at requested t h e j a i l e r t o make a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r P h i l l i p s with a minister. not with p.m. see a p s y c h i a t r i s t o r a p r i e s t . and office r i g h t s , and t h e n c o n d u c t e d a more d e t a i l e d i n t e r v i e w w i t h Phillips, the Fenton's Phillips, who Rev. was Methodist F l u t h went t o t h e in a jail Fluth t e s t i f i e d that during their Phillips want t o d i s c u s s t h a t he was any of the Church, not a lawyer details cell jail "in a conversation, and of the and t h a t he crimes. did Rev. F l u t h encouraged P h i l l i p s to d i s c u s s the c r i m i n a l matters w i t h a lawyer. Rev. Fluth emphatically advised P h i l l i p s to "confess stated to the cops." 100 Rev. that he never F l u t h d i d not CR-06-1577 r e c a l l w h e t h e r i t was c o l d i n t h e j a i l , b u t he s t a t e d t h a t i f i t h a d b e e n , he w o u l d have i n f o r m e d t h e a u t h o r i t i e s . Around 4:30 were p l a c e d Sheriff p.m. on t h a t i n lock-down same day, i n separate cells and risk inmates are of escape. fed at According evidence, to the j a i l Phillips a r o u n d 6:00, p.m., and block Phillips in p.m. status, his criminal and that not f e d at t h a t there D o s t e r were p l a c e d that was no time. l o g s , w h i c h were i n t r o d u c e d on November 18. A. cell S h e r i f f Fenton t e s t i f i e d 5:30 i n d i c a t i o n t h a t P h i l l i p s was Doster c e l l b l o c k , b a s e d upon an a s s e s s m e n t o f P h i l l i p s ' s m e n t a l - h e a l t h history, and in cell F e n t o n made t h e d e c i s i o n t o p l a c e b l o c k A, w h i c h i s t h e m a x i m u m - s e c u r i t y the Phillips on suicide S h e r i f f Fenton into watch explained t h a t when an i n m a t e i s p l a c e d on s u i c i d e w a t c h , t h e i n m a t e s ' s c l o t h i n g and b e d d i n g a r e t y p i c a l l y removed, and t h e i n m a t e i s usually gown, clothed in a sleeveless, kevlar-like Velcro. jailer frequent A suicide vest held i s required to which together check is a long, at the sides on the inmate by at i n t e r v a l s and t o n o t e t h e s t a t u s o f t h e i n m a t e on a j a i l log. 101 CR-06-1577 Sheriff Fenton t e s t i f i e d t h a t b a s e d upon t h e j a i l logs, P h i l l i p s was p o s s i b l y on s u i c i d e w a t c h u n t i l a t l e a s t November 23. S h e r i f f F e n t o n s a i d t h a t i t was p o s s i b l e t h a t d u r i n g time a blanket and clothing could have been that returned to Phillips. A large portion of suppression hearing was Phillips's confinement S h e r i f f Fenton's directed whether c e l l w i t h no h e a t and d r e s s e d to area was the of was housed in a i n o n l y a s u i c i d e gown. S h e r i f f i n t h e 1890s. A l l o f c e l l b l o c k s were h e a t e d by one h e a t i n g of the j a i l at conditions the Phillips F e n t o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e j a i l was b u i l t the testimony u n i t ; the booking h e a t e d by a n o t h e r u n i t ; and t h e offices by a t h i r d u n i t . S h e r i f f F e n t o n d i d n o t r e c a l l t h e r e b e i n g h e a t i n g problems The jail at 7:00 cell. l o g s , w h i c h were a d m i t t e d l y indecipherable, that in Phillips's contained a.m. on a handwritten the morning confusing was and often notation indicating o f November P h i l l i p s and D o s t e r were b r o u g h t t o t h e j a i l afternoon any 18 a t 3:00 -p.m. before that -- t h e d o o r a t t h e end o f t h e c e l l b l o c k A c o r r i d o r opened. S h e r i f f F e n t o n d i d n o t know why this notation was made, b u t he s p e c u l a t e d t h a t i t was t o a l l o w h e a t i n t o t h e 102 CR-06-1577 c o r r i d o r or t o allow a i r to c i r c u l a t e . I t was a p p a r e n t l y n o t u n u s u a l t o open t h e d o o r t o t h e c o r r i d o r i n o r d e r t o a l l o w a i r to circulate. S h e r i f f F e n t o n s a i d t h a t t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n f r o m t h e jail had logs that Phillips had any t r o u b l e problems as a r e s u l t o f t h e a l l e g e d l y cold T h e r e was a l s o no i n d i c a t i o n f r o m t h e j a i l logs any o t h e r temperature. s l e e p i n g o r t h a t he t h a t P h i l l i p s h a d t o wrap h i m s e l f i n t o i l e t p a p e r i n o r d e r t o keep warm. As Crockett n o t e d a b o v e , James H e a r n e , a j u s t i c e County, suppression suppression Texas, hearing; d i d not however, he hearing held during t r i a l . o f t h e peace i n testify did at the testify first at the Hearne t e s t i f i e d that part of h i s duties included administering a magistrate warning o f r i g h t s t o p e r s o n s who have b e e n a r r e s t e d a n d b r o u g h t t o t h e Crockett County majority of cases, administration being jail. he Hearne went of the r i g h t s , explained to the j a i l that i n the vast t o perform the as o p p o s e d t o an i n d i v i d u a l ' s brought t o h i s o f f i c e . H e a r n e t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he a d m i n i s t e r e d t h e r i g h t s , he u s u a l l y stood i n s i d e t h e d i s p a t c h e r ' s o f f i c e , behind a heavy- 103 CR-06-1577 screen door, w h i l e t h e a r r e s t e d person remained o u t s i d e o f t h e dispatcher's office, execution at w i t h a j a i l e r or deputy present. of warnings i s administered the dispatcher's door n o t e d t h a t on t h e r i g h t s This was I f the a t any p l a c e o t h e r i n the j a i l , Hearne than specifically form. the procedure that Hearne followed when he a p p r i s e d P h i l l i p s o f h i s r i g h t s on t h e m o r n i n g o f November 19. When Hearne arrived at the dispatcher's office, the j a i l e r went t o g e t P h i l l i p s a n d e s c o r t e d h i m t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e place o u t s i d e t h e d i s p a t c h e r ' s o f f i c e . H e a r n e s a i d t h a t P h i l l i p s was dressed i n orange jail coveralls when he a d m i n i s t e r e d the r i g h t s t o him. H e a r n e i d e n t i f i e d t h e w a r n i n g o f r i g h t s f o r m t h a t he r e a d to Phillips, which was introduced into evidence at the s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g . The w a r n i n g - o f - r i g h t s f o r m i n d i c a t e s t h a t the place o f t h e w a r n i n g s was t h e C r o c k e t t County J a i l , and t h e t i m e was 9:30 a.m. on November 19, 2002. When Hearne was p r o v i d e d t h e name " M i c h a e l the rights Dwayne P h i l l i p s " 2 5 form by t h e j a i l e r , was a l r e a d y t y p e d on t h e When Phillips was arrested, a recently made i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c a r d w i t h a p h o t o g r a p h was f o u n d t h a t l i s t e d h i s names M i c h a e l Dwayne P h i l l i p s . 25 104 CR-06-1577 top o f t h e form. Phillips, O'Lee Phillips As H e a r n e i n f o r m e d h i m t h a t h i s r e a l name was "Bobby Phillips." Hearne ensured r e a d t h e name on t h e f o r m t o Hearne that then Phillips Phillips understood p r o c e e d i n g t o t h e n e x t one. did read each Hearne t e s t i f i e d his rights. right that before Phillips not invoke h i s r i g h t to counsel. A h a n d w r i t t e n n o t a t i o n a t t h e bottom o f t h e form reads, "My r e a l name i s Bobby O'Lee P h i l l i p s . " Phillips signedh i s name u n d e r n e a t h t h e n o t a t i o n . The n e x t d a y , on November 20, 2002, a t 11:00 a.m., returned to the j a i l Hearne and r e p e a t e d t h e e n t i r e p r o c e d u r e with P h i l l i p s b e c a u s e t h e r e h a d been a change i n t h e c h a r g e a g a i n s t Phillips. On t h e s e c o n d w a r n i n g - o f - r i g h t s f o r m d a t e d November 20, 2002, a t 11:00, a.m., P h i l l i p s ' s at the top of that Hearne testified form. that name was c o r r e c t l y Phillips Phillips also again listed s i g n e d t h e form. indicated that he h i s rights on u n d e r s t o o d each o f h i s r i g h t s . After Hearne reinformed Phillips of November 20, Hearne o b s e r v e d J a i l e r P a b l o T a l a m a n t e z w r i t e on the bottom o f an a p p l i c a t i o n - f o r - a p p o i n t m e n t - o f - c o u n s e l the following notation: "Note: 105 form I n f r o n t o f J P Hearne on 1 1 - CR-06-1577 20-02 a t 11:00 attorney." a.m. The Hearne was that requests application s t a t e d t h a t he notation clarified person Phillips Crockett in counsel, signed the by Pablo County person f o r appointment of counsel d i d n o t want when must Talamantez. an arrested complete f o r m , and an an the indigent form. At the s u p p r e s s i o n fact that State hearings, t h e d e f e n s e made much o f c o u l d not produce a r e q u e s t - f o r - c o u n s e l w i t h a s i m i l a r n o t a t i o n f r o m H e a r n e ' s November 1 9 t h the form encounter w i t h P h i l l i p s -- i n f e r r i n g f r o m t h e a b s e n c e o f s u c h a n o t a t i o n on a r e q u e s t - f o r - c o u n s e l c o u n s e l on November 19. as t o why there was not form t h a t P h i l l i p s d i d indeed When t h e p r o s e c u t o r a corresponding questioned to [him.]" requested counsel his testified on November 19, to complete the e n t i r e counsel. warning-of- Hearne responded t h a t " [ i ] t never However, Hearne f o r m , and that counsel. 106 occurred i f Phillips had he w o u l d have r e q u i r e d him he w o u l d have a p p o i n t e d him H e a r n e s t a t e d t h a t a t no p o i n t d i d P h i l l i p s r i g h t to Hearne request-for-counsel f o r m w i t h a s i m i l a r n o t a t i o n f o r t h e November 19 r i g h t s proceeding, request invoke CR-06-1577 Scott Conner, Sheriff's initial an i n v e s t i g a t o r f o r the Department suppression Sheriff's in November hearing that department r e c e i v e d D o s t e r had been c a p t u r e d , Investigator Walter 2002, Covington testified when t h e and Inabinett at Covington information he County that the County Phillips and Covington County S h e r i f f ' s t r a v e l e d to Ozona, Texas, to investigate. They Before and arrived talking County of Phillips, LeMaster's testified appear dressed to said truck. truck, that took the i n a white j a i l unhealthy, Phillips rights, alcohol. to the the Crockett sheriff's office, time of the jumpsuit and or appear interview, t h a t he unusually to be c o h e r e n t and using the cold. under the normal. Covington 107 According did Phillips his or not completing place. starving, did examined Conner, s p e e c h was drugs the 2002. Conner t e s t i f i e d t h a t W a l t e r I n a b i n e t t i n f o r m e d of any at went to 19, Inabinett After they escorted that November to Phillips of be of C o n n e r and interview with P h i l l i p s P h i l l i p s was influence afternoon They were Conner Conner the LeMaster's jail. where t h e not with inventoried inventory on County advice-of-rights CR-06-1577 f o r m , w h i c h was hearing. introduced into evidence at Conner s t a t e d t h a t P h i l l i p s his r i g h t s and his t h a t he the suppression appeared to rights. Conner t e s t i f i e d i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was understand t h a t n e i t h e r he nor willing to waive I n a b i n e t t made t h r e a t s t o P h i l l i p s o r o f f e r e d any p r o m i s e s o f r e w a r d i n to induce Phillips's Phillip's s t a t e m e n t was Phillips was statement. willing voluntarily i n i t i a l e d and to waive Phillips tell invoke his them t h a t he had Conner's a form i n d i c a t i n g t h a t rights and to answer Conner t e s t i f i e d right to counsel, that to counsel, without securing The he Phillips would not counsel for had earlier Conner said that testified his interview Phillips. p.m. and e n d e d a t 7:59 C o n n e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t when t h e i n t e r v i e w b e g a n , t h e jail. counsel invoked have c o n d u c t e d any i n t e r v i e w b e g a n a t 7:04 were d i r e c t e d t o P h i l l i p s ' s point Phillips supposedly invoked h i s r i g h t to that right did Conner he questions t h a t a t no nor t a l k i n g w i t h Hearne. been t o l d opinion, rendered. e a r l i e r t h a t day w h i l e i f had order signed his without a lawyer present. did In any escape from the Phillips 108 was very p.m. questions Covington County cooperative and CR-06-1577 forthcoming, a n d t h a t he t o l d them what h a p p e n e d f r o m t h e t i m e of h i s escape u n t i l Phillips hearing. all t h e t i m e he was testified on captured. h i s behalf at the suppression He t e s t i f i e d t h a t as soon as he a r r i v e d a t t h e j a i l , h i s clothes were removed a n d he was r e q u i r e d white c o v e r a l l s . Phillips t o p u t on s a i d t h a t he was t h e n p l a c e d i n a h o l d i n g c e l l , where he r e m a i n e d f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 30 m i n u t e s . P h i l l i p s c l a i m e d t h a t a f t e r he was t a k e n f r o m t h e h o l d i n g cell, he h a d t o remove h i s c o v e r a l l s a n d p u t on a s u i c i d e gown. He was t h e n p l a c e d only a metal toilet. table, Phillips i n t o a concrete a metal said that bed w i t h he talked cell furnished no m a t t r e s s , with Ranger with and a Long a c o u p l e o f h o u r s a f t e r he was a r r e s t e d , a n d t h a t he was w e a r i n g o n l y t h e s u i c i d e gown when he s p o k e w i t h R a n g e r L o n g . Phillips night claimed t h a t he was g i v e n following h i s arrest. Phillips nothing to eat that s a i d that the c e l l was v e r y c o l d a n d t h a t he r e p e a t e d l y a s k e d t h e g u a r d s f o r b l a n k e t s but was t o l d s u i c i d e watch. that he c o u l d Phillips n o t have testified n i g h t t h a t he was u n a b l e t o s l e e p . 109 any b e c a u s e he was on t h a t i t was s o c o l d that CR-06-1577 Phillips claimed that he was kept in the cold c l o t h e d o n l y i n a s u i c i d e gown, f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y and three Alabama nights. He authorities, testified he was watch, p r o v i d e d a mattress a l l o w e d i n t o the g e n e r a l that immediately counsel Phillips that during he also submitted Phillips the November t h a t he completed form to talking taken days to off inmate p o p u l a t i o n at the the testified three not a t h a t he 19 only with requested during their right Hearne, counsel, request-for-counsel Hearne and jail. invoked h i s hearing the suicide and s h e e t s , g i v e n h i s c l o t h e s , With regard to h i s a l l e g a t i o n to after cell, form first but and meeting. s a i d t h a t he n e v e r r e c e i v e d a c o p y o f t h a t c o m p l e t e d form. During the c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n questioned Phillips affidavit t h a t were hearing. P h i l l i p s events regarding of P h i l l i p s , some o f t h e inconsistent with the prosecutor statements h i s testimony s a i d t h a t h i s memory r e g a r d i n g t h e t h a t h a p p e n e d on t h e day despite his claim alcohol and heroin. that he o f h i s a r r e s t was had Phillips ingested copious conceded t h a t the 110 in his at the specific very clear, amounts alcohol of and CR-06-1577 drugs that ability he c l a i m e d consumed d i d n o t a f f e c t h i s to understand h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l When questioned inconsistencies testimony, might t o have between Phillips n o t be by the prosecutor his affidavit admitted rights. about and h i s suppression that the events i n h i s a f f i d a v i t i n the correct chronological order; however, Phillips remained f i r m i n h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t he was in suicide when the conversation gown with in a the cold cell R a n g e r Long t o o k p l a c e . the dressed extended He c l a i m e d that R a n g e r Long came t o h i s j a i l c e l l a n d s a i d t o h i m , "We g o t t h e Alabama K i l l e r s claimed the ... a n d Mr. D o s t e r i s the k i l l e r . " Phillips t h a t he r e s p o n d e d t o R a n g e r Long t h a t D o s t e r killer a n d t h a t i s how t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n was was n o t instigated. On F e b r u a r y 22, 2007, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d Phillips's m o t i o n s t o s u p p r e s s h i s s t a t e m e n t s by t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r : "The d e f e n d a n t h a s f i l e d two s e p a r a t e p l e a d i n g s s e e k i n g t o s u p p r e s s v a r i o u s s t a t e m e n t made t o t h e police. A hearing on s a i d m o t i o n s was h e l d on J a n u a r y 9, 2007, a n d t h i s c o u r t h e a r d a r g u m e n t s a n d testimony p e r t a i n i n g t o the defendant's motions t o s u p p r e s s . B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e C o u r t f i n d s as follows: " 1 . The d e f e n d a n t was p r o p e r l y a d v i s e d o f h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s a t t h e t i m e he was t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y on t h e s i d e o f t h e i n t e r s t a t e i n C r o c k e t t C o u n t y , T e x a s . T e s t i m o n y f r o m T e x a s S t a t e T r o o p e r D o n a l d Van 111 CR-06-1577 Z a n t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e r e was p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r the defendant's d e t e n t i o n and a r r e s t . "2. A t t h e t i m e o f h i s a r r e s t , he was n o t u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e o f any i n t o x i c a n t t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t it rendered him unable to understand h i s constitutional rights. "3. The d e f e n d a n t was t r a n s p o r t e d to the s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t a n d was b o o k e d . He was d r e s s e d in standard prison coveralls. "4. S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , t h e d e f e n d a n t i n i t i a t e d c o n t a c t w i t h Texas R a n g e r B r o o k s Long upon t h a t officer's arrival. At that time, the defendant, w i t h o u t p r o m p t i n g from any l a w enforcement o f f i c e r , c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d a d e s i r e t o speak w i t h Ranger Long. "5. Upon b e i n g t a k e n i n t o t h e S h e r i f f ' s p r i v a t e c e , t h e d e f e n d a n t v o l u n t a r i l y made a s t a t e m e n t he p o l i c e . Prior t o and d u r i n g t h i s oral u n r e c o r d e d s t a t e m e n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t was s u b j e c t t o no i n t e r r o g a t i o n by l a w e n f o r c e m e n t . "6. B e f o r e i n t e r r o g a t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t , R a n g e r Long p r o p e r l y a d v i s e d t h e d e f e n d a n t o f h i s M i r a n d a rights and o b t a i n e d a knowing, v o l u n t a r y , and i n t e l l i g e n t waiver of those r i g h t s before obtaining a r e c o r d e d statement from t h e defendant. "7. The d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t s e e a r e v e r e n d o f a n y s o r t u n t i l a f t e r h i s i n t e r v i e w w i t h Ranger Long. D u r i n g t h e m e e t i n g w i t h t h e m i n i s t e r , no s t a t e m e n t s were made t o t h e d e f e n d a n t t h a t he c o u l d o n l y s e e k f o r g i v e n e s s f r o m God i f he c o n f e s s e d t o p o l i c e . "8. The d e f e n d a n t was t a k e n b e f o r e a m a g i s t r a t e w i t h i n 48 h o u r s o f h i s a r r e s t . I n l i g h t o f t h e documentary evidence at t r i a l [the suppression h e a r i n g ] ; t h e numerous d i s t u r b i n g c o n f l i c t s i n t h e defendant's affidavit and t e s t i m o n y ; and t h e 112 CR-06-1577 d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n s i s t e n t w i l l i n g n e s s t o speak w i t h law e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s , t h e C o u r t i s n o t swayed b y t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n s t h a t he r e q u e s t e d c o u n s e l when b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e m a g i s t r a t e . "9. P r i o r t o b e i n g i n t e r v i e w e d b y C o v i n g t o n County Sheriff's I n v e s t i g a t o r s S c o t t Conner and W a l t e r I n a b i n e t t a l i t t l e o v e r 29 h o u r s a f t e r h i s i n i t i a l a r r e s t , t h e d e f e n d a n t was p r o p e r l y a d v i s e d of h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s a n d v o l u n t a r i l y , k n o w i n g l y , and i n t e l l i g e n t l y w a i v e d t h o s e r i g h t s . "10. The C o u r t f i n d s no c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t h a t a t any t i m e t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n t e r v i e w e d , he d i d s o o u t o f d e s p e r a t i o n t o s e e k warmth o r c o m f o r t o r f o o d . T h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t may have b e e n on a s u i c i d e w a t c h a n d d r e s s e d i n a s u i c i d e gown a n d t h a t t h e h e a t i n t h e j a i l may n o t have b e e n i n t h e b e s t w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n . R e g a r d l e s s , t h i s Court f i n d s from t h e t e s t i m o n y o f S h e r i f f Shannon F e n t o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was n o t i m p r i s o n e d u n d e r t h e inhumane a n d t o r t u r o u s c o n d i t i o n s o f w h i c h the defendant describes. Further, t h e r e i s no credible evidence that the defendant's prison conditions impacted his ability to form an i n t e l l i g e n t d e c i s i o n a b o u t w h e t h e r t o i n v o k e any o f his Miranda r i g h t s , e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t of the testimony of Sheriff Fenton, Ranger Long, and I n v e s t i g a t o r Conner. L i k e w i s e , t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e was no i m p a i r m e n t i n the d e f e n d a n t ' s c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s e i t h e r . " A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s hereby ordered, adjudged, and d e c r e e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n s t o s u p p r e s s are o v e r r u l e d and d e n i e d . " (C. 2143-45.) A. R e q u e s t - f o r - C o u n s e l C l a i m 113 CR-06-1577 As n o t e d , P h i l l i p s a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l i s t w o f o l d . F i r s t , he c l a i m s t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t t o t h e A l a b a m a i n v e s t i g a t o r s was made a f t e r h i s r e q u e s t f o r c o u n s e l was i g n o r e d . State, (Ala. 914 So. 2d 883 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) , 2005), addressed statements cert. quashed d e n i e d , 546 U.S. 1140 ( 2 0 0 6 ) , t h i s an a s s e r t i o n involuntary We cert. I n Eggers v. because by Eggers he that requested a Court h i s statements lawyer before were his on two o c c a s i o n s , b u t t h o s e r e q u e s t s were d e n i e d . held: " I n Edwards v. A r i z o n a , 451 U.S. 477, 101 S. C t . 1880, 68 L . E d . 2d 378 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d : "'[W]hen an a c c u s e d h a s i n v o k e d h i s r i g h t t o have c o u n s e l p r e s e n t d u r i n g c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n , a v a l i d waiver of that r i g h t c a n n o t be e s t a b l i s h e d by s h o w i n g o n l y t h a t he r e s p o n d e d t o f u r t h e r p o l i c e - i n i t i a t e d c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n e v e n i f he h a s b e e n advised of h i s rights [A]n a c c u s e d , ... having expressed h i s desire t o deal with the p o l i c e only through counsel, i s not s u b j e c t t o f u r t h e r i n t e r r o g a t i o n by t h e a u t h o r i t i e s u n t i l c o u n s e l h a s b e e n made available t o him, u n l e s s the accused himself i n i t i a t e s further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.' "451 U.S. a t 484-85, 101 S. C t . 1880 ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . The p u r p o s e o f t h i s r u l e i s t o p r o t e c t an accused i n p o l i c e custody from ' " b a d g e r [ i n g ] " o r "overreaching"-explicit or subtle, deliberate or 114 CR-06-1577 u n i n t e n t i o n a l - [ t h a t ] m i g h t o t h e r w i s e wear down t h e accused and persuade him t o i n c r i m i n a t e h i m s e l f notwithstanding h i s e a r l i e r request f o r counsel's a s s i s t a n c e . ' S m i t h v. I l l i n o i s , 469 U.S. 91, 98, 105 S. C t . 490, 83 L. E d . 2 d 488 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , q u o t i n g Oregon v. B r a d s h a w , 462 U.S. 1039, 1044, 103 S. C t . 2830, 77 L. E d . 2 d 405 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . " ' T h i s " r i g i d " p r o p h y l a c t i c r u l e , F a r e v. M i c h a e l C., 442 U.S. 707, 719 (1979), e m b o d i e s two d i s t i n c t i n q u i r i e s . First, c o u r t s must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e a c c u s e d a c t u a l l y i n v o k e d h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l . See, e.g., Edwards v . A r i z o n a , s u p r a , 451 U.S. [ 4 7 7 ] , a t 484-485 [ ( 1 9 8 1 ) ] (whether a c c u s e d "expressed h i s d e s i r e " f o r , or " c l e a r l y asserted" h i s r i g h t t o , the assistance of c o u n s e l ) ; M i r a n d a v . A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. [ 4 3 6 ] , a t 444-445 [ ( 1 9 6 6 ) ] (whether a c c u s e d " i n d i c a t e [ d ] i n a n y manner a n d a t any s t a g e of t h e p r o c e s s t h a t he w i s h [ e d ] t o c o n s u l t w i t h an a t t o r n e y b e f o r e s p e a k i n g " ) . S e c o n d , if the accused invoked h i s right to c o u n s e l , c o u r t s may a d m i t h i s r e s p o n s e s t o f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n i n g o n l y on f i n d i n g t h a t he (a) i n i t i a t e d f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h t h e p o l i c e , a n d (b) k n o w i n g l y a n d i n t e l l i g e n t l y w a i v e d t h e r i g h t he h a d i n v o k e d . Edwards v . A r i z o n a , s u p r a , [451 U.S.,] a t 485, 486, n. 9.' " S m i t h v. I l l i n o i s , 469 U.S. a t 95, 105 S . C t . 490. "At t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g , Eggers testified t h a t he r e q u e s t e d a l a w y e r i m m e d i a t e l y upon h i s a r r e s t i n t h e t e n t c i t y and a g a i n i n t h e p a t r o l c a r while being transported t o the Osceola County S h e r i f f ' s Department. Agent Maldonado's t e s t i m o n y d i r e c t l y r e f u t e d E g g e r s ' s c l a i m t h a t he r e q u e s t e d a l a w y e r i m m e d i a t e l y upon h i s a r r e s t ; A g e n t M a l d o n a d o s p e c i f i c a l l y t e s t i f i e d t h a t Eggers never r e q u e s t e d a l a w y e r when he was a r r e s t e d a t t h e t e n t c i t y . 115 CR-06-1577 R e s o l v i n g t h i s c o n f l i c t i n g evidence i n f a v o r of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g , as we must, we c o n c l u d e t h a t Eggers d i d not r e q u e s t a l a w y e r when he was arrested. Eggers, As 914 in So. 2d a t 899-900 Eggers, (emphasis Phillips's claim lawyer during h i s f i r s t encounter Hearne was on November 19 added). that he with Justice directly refuted requested of the by a Peace Hearne's t e s t i m o n y t h a t P h i l l i p s never r e q u e s t e d c o u n s e l . In a d d i t i o n , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of P h i l l i p s ' s testimony, a l l the remaining evidence supports the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t P h i l l i p s d i d not invoke his right to counsel at d i s c u s s i o n w i t h the Alabama any point before or during investigators. "'"The q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r a c o n f e s s i o n was v o l u n t a r y i s i n i t i a l l y t o be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ' M i n o r v. S t a t e , 914 So. 2d 372, 388 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) , q u o t i n g J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 562 So. 2d 1373, 1381 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1990). '[A]ny conflicts i n the testimony or credibility of witnesses during a suppression hearing i s a matter f o r r e s o l u t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . A b s e n t a g r o s s abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n , a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e s o l u t i o n o f [such] conflict[s] should not be reversed on a p p e a l . ' S h e e l y v. S t a t e , 629 So. 2d 23, 29 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . ' [A] t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g b a s e d upon c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e g i v e n a t a s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g i s b i n d i n g on t h i s C o u r t , ... and i s n o t t o be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . ' J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 589 So. 2d 781, 784 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1991). 'When there is conflicting evidence of the circumstances surrounding an incriminating statement or a 116 his CR-06-1577 c o n f e s s i o n , i t i s the duty of the t r i a l judge t o d e t e r m i n e i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y , and i f t h e t r i a l j u d g e d e c i d e s i t i s a d m i s s i b l e h i s d e c i s i o n w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l " u n l e s s f o u n d t o be m a n i f e s t l y c o n t r a r y to the g r e a t weight of the evidence."' Ex p a r t e M a t t h e w s , 601 So. 2d 52, 53 ( A l a . 1992), q u o t i n g W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 456 So. 2d 852, 855 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 4 ) . ' " I n r e v i e w i n g t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o suppress, t h i s C o u r t makes a l l t h e r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s and c r e d i b i l i t y choices s u p p o r t i v e of the d e c i s i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ' Kennedy v. S t a t e , 640 So.2d 22, 26 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) , q u o t i n g B r a d l e y v. S t a t e , 494 So.2d 750, 761 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) , a f f ' d , 494 So.2d 772 (Ala.1986)." Eggers, 914 The regard So. circuit to counsel, 2d a t court Phillips's and the B. Phillips voluntarily coercive rendered conditions only i n order the that ruled i n the Coercive also heard claim court abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n 899. he invoked against circuit Conditions contends conflicting that to secure his We right to find no ruling. his confession i t was was i n d u c e d by confinement, i . e . , he warmth, f o o d and clothes. not the confessed "'When reviewing a claim questioning the v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f a s t a t e m e n t we a p p l y t h e s t a n d a r d a r t i c u l a t e d by t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n McLeod v. S t a t e , 718 So. 2d 727 ( A l a . ) , on remand, 718 So. 2d 731 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 524 U.S. 117 in Confinement b e c a u s e , he s a y s , of his Phillips. court's of evidence CR-06-1577 929, 118 S.Ct. 2327, McLeod c o u r t s t a t e d : 141 L.Ed. 2d 701 (1998). " ' " F o r a c o n f e s s i o n , o r an i n c u l p a t o r y s t a t e m e n t , t o be a d m i s s i b l e , t h e S t a t e must p r o v e by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t i t was v o l u n t a r y . Ex p a r t e S i n g l e t o n , 465 So. 2d 443, 445 ( A l a . 1985). The i n i t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s made by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . S i n g l e t o n , 465 So.2d a t 445. The t r i a l court's determination w i l l not be disturbed unless i t i s contrary to the great weight of the evidence or is m a n i f e s t l y wrong. M a r s c h k e v. S t a t e , 450 So. 2d 177 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) . . . . II III "'"It has long been h e l d that a c o n f e s s i o n , o r any i n c u l p a t o r y s t a t e m e n t , is involuntary i f i t i s either coerced t h r o u g h f o r c e o r i n d u c e d t h r o u g h an e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d p r o m i s e o f l e n i e n c y . Bram v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897). In Culombe [v. C o n n e c t i c u t ] , 367 U.S. 568, a t 602, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 6 L.Ed. 2d 1037 [(1961)], the Supreme Court of the United States explained that for a confession to be voluntary, t h e d e f e n d a n t must have the c a p a c i t y t o e x e r c i s e h i s own f r e e w i l l i n c h o o s i n g t o c o n f e s s . I f h i s c a p a c i t y has been i m p a i r e d , t h a t i s , ' i f h i s w i l l has b e e n o v e r b o r n e ' by c o e r c i o n o r i n d u c e m e n t , then the c o n f e s s i o n i s involuntary and c a n n o t be admitted into evidence. Id. ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n McLeod ) . "'"The Supreme C o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t when a c o u r t i s determining whether a c o n f e s s i o n was g i v e n v o l u n t a r i l y i t must consider the 'totality of the 118 The CR-06-1577 c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ' B o u l d e n v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478, 480, 89 S.Ct. 1138, 22 L.Ed. 2d 433, ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; G r e e n w a l d v. W i s c o n s i n , 390 U.S. 519, 521, 88 S.Ct. 1152, 20 L.Ed. 2d 77, ( 1 9 6 8 ) ; see B e e c h e r v. A l a b a m a , 389 U.S. 35, 38, 88 S.Ct. 189, 19 L.Ed. 2d 35, ( 1 9 6 7 ) . A l a b a m a c o u r t s have a l s o h e l d t h a t a c o u r t must c o n s i d e r t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e circumstances to determine i f the d e f e n d a n t ' s w i l l was o v e r b o r n e by c o e r c i o n or i n d u c e m e n t . See Ex p a r t e M a t t h e w s , 601 So. 2d 52, 54 ( A l a . ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t a c o u r t must a n a l y z e a c o n f e s s i o n by l o o k i n g a t t h e totality of the circumstances), cert. d e n i e d , 505 U.S. 1206, 112 S.Ct. 2996, 120 L.Ed. 2d 872, ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 562 So.2d 1373, 1380 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1990) ( s t a t i n g t h a t , t o admit a c o n f e s s i o n , a c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s w i l l was n o t o v e r b o r n e by p r e s s u r e s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s s w i r l i n g around him); Eakes v. S t a t e , 387 So. 2d 855, 859 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1978) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e t r u e t e s t t o be e m p l o y e d i s 'whether t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s will was overborne at the time he c o n f e s s e d ' ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n McLeod ) . " ' " M c G r i f f v. S t a t e , App. 2 0 0 0 ) . [908 So. 2d 961, S t a l l w o r t h v. S t a t e , 868 So. 2d 1128, 983 ( A l a . Crim. 1148-49 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001). W i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e s a d d r e s s e d i n S t a l l w o r t h and E g g e r s i n mind, we have suppress. whether reviewed Although P h i l l i p s was the a l l the evidence evidence was on the conflicting motions to regarding c o n f i n e d i n o n l y a s u i c i d e gown i n l e s s 119 CR-06-1577 than i d e a l was no circumstances, circuit court found t h a t there c r e d i b l e evidence i n d i c a t i n g that P h i l l i p s ' s w i l l overborne rendering by the the conditions his confession of the evidence, on the we of his evidence is not weight of the e v i d e n c e or m a n i f e s t l y court's thereby B a s e d upon o u r involuntary. confinement review conclude t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g conflicting Accordingly, was contrary to the great wrong. f o r the reasons s e t f o r t h above, the circuit d e n i a l of P h i l l i p s ' s motion t o suppress i s a f f i r m e d . VIII. Phillips allowed argues into evidence arrest. Specifically, of innocence arrested, was Sutton County, N o v e m b e r 18, westbound a video and State's Texas, of T h i s argument was b r i e f on a p p e a l . 2 6 when roadside the jury erroneously detention that around patrolling 10, presented 120 car." him being 2 6 Hartman, a deputy s h e r i f f testified was and "presumption viewed in a patrol c a s e , Bob Interstate court contends that h i s placed he circuit of his Phillips 2002, w h i l e side the destroyed shackled, During the that he p.m. a r e s t area noticed i n Issue 1:50 an IV "older in in on on the model Phillips's CR-06-1577 black pickup "didn't on ... [ w i t h ] seem q u i t e the truck right." Hartman was n o t o r i g i n a l . the license plate to, and t o f i n d Hartman Alabama p l a t e s to determine that when the rest After patrolling towards Senora, Hartman dispatcher telephone phone, [a] return" stolen she told shell him on When H a r t m a n side rest the paint a c h e c k on was r e g i s t e r e d reported an stolen. immediate of the i n t e r s t a t e . area, three he drove radio contacted Hartman plate miles, and east crimes." him t h e model should year told that 121 him t o and t h a t Hartman she had on h i s "gotten the "vehicle was out of the State said of the pickup be r e d i n c o l o r w i t h on i t . when t h e the dispatcher i n i t [were wanted] f o r various him the truck the told on t h e l i c e n s e gave said, t h a t r e s t area and drove approximately and t h e s u b j e c t s dispatcher he Texas. the dispatcher Alabama had been he l e f t the eastbound had d r i v e n her. requested whom t h e t r u c k on t h e e a s t b o u n d contacted cell of area that he d i d n o t r e c e i v e response from the d i s p a t c h e r , to testified Hartman out i f the truck testified on i t " t h a t , that the t r u c k , and a camper- CR-06-1577 When vehicle side Hartman around received and drove back of Interstate Hartman drove this information, the rest area 10, b u t t h e t r u c k west on Interstate was 10, he turned his on t h e w e s t b o u n d no longer hoping to there. catch the truck. He r a d i o e d trooper he could saw the truck, and asked h e r t o see i f a s t a t e i n t e r c e p t t h e t r u c k . Hartman t e s t i f i e d t h a t the Interstate the dispatcher truck again, 10 i n C r o c k e t t and the i t was County. occupants parked on the A state trooper of the truck testify was Donald when side of had stopped were "on the ground." The next corporal with November toward broadcast dispatcher detail Van that around from out of area to that 2 : 0 0 , p.m., Ozona, Sutton was Texas, County wanted." Zant, a Van Zant s a i d t h a t t h e Texas Highway P a t r o l . 18, 2002, Senora roadside witness on he was when that (Vol. a he Van traveling "heard vehicle 1 6 , R. Zant t e s t i f i e d that radio left a 3 1 0 4 - 0 5 . ) The broadcast a d e s c r i p t i o n of the truck, t h e t r u c k was m a r o o n - c o l o r e d w i t h had a east including the a camper-shell. Deputy Hartman c o n t a c t e d him d i r e c t l y 122 CR-06-1577 and clarified it, and t h a t that the truck the truck Around that same d i d n o t have was a c t u a l l y time, Van Zant a camper-shell black. saw t h e t r u c k the d e s c r i p t i o n t r a v e l i n g t o w a r d h i m . He t u r n e d and pulled i n behind the truck. and d e t e r m i n i n g given by Hartman, Van Zant activated his c a r . The d r i v e r s t e e r e d the truck and matching h i s c a r around reading the license stopped. Van his in Zant t e s t i f i e d t h e t r u c k matched t h e description t h e emergency to the side lights i n of the road t h a t he g o t o u t o f h i s a u t o m o b i l e with s h o t g u n a n d a p p r o a c h e d t h e t r u c k . The d r i v e r a n d p a s s e n g e r the truck, Doster, a who w e r e later determined respectively, raised their instructed at that After plate on Phillips and Doster t o be P h i l l i p s and hands i n t h e a i r . Van Zant t o g e t o u t o f t h e v e h i c l e one time. When P h i l l i p s g o t o u t o f t h e v e h i c l e , Van Zant asked him w h e t h e r t h e y were wanted f o r any c r i m e s . When P h i l l i p s t h a t t h e y were, Van Zant i n s t r u c t e d P h i l l i p s "belly down i n t h e d i t c h . " Zant t e s t i f i e d down P h i l l i p s that Phillips he r a d i o e d and Doster t o l i e and Doster f o r backup, replied c o m p l i e d . Van and t h a t he patted and D o s t e r t o d e t e r m i n e i ft h e y had any weapons. 123 CR-06-1577 Texas Highway enforcement that that asked "[N]o, they Curt Knapp and o t h e r l a w - h i m i f t h e t w o men w e r e but they think they h a d n o t "moved a m u s c l e . " Knapp and a n o t h e r and Officer p e r s o n n e l a r r i v e d a t t h e scene. Van Zant when K n a p p replied, Patrol law-enforcement testified handcuffed he a r e , " a n d he e x p l a i n e d Van Zant officer testified handcuffed that Phillips Doster. Van Zant general informed Zant said t h a t w h i l e h e was a t t h e s c e n e , information Phillips testified from Phillips of h i s rights that by that time and Doster, using he o b t a i n e d and t h a t a standard Phillips was form. he Van in a seated recorded by t h e position. Van Zant testified that the events v i d e o camera i n h i s v e h i c l e were a n d t h a t he h a d r e v i e w e d the night before h i s t e s t i m o n y . Van Zant said was an a c c u r a t e depiction as t h e y that the of the events the video that the video transpired d a y a n d t h a t t h e r e h a d b e e n no a d d i t i o n s o r d e l e t i o n s t o video. At that p o i n t admit State's i n Van Z a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y , t h e S t a t e moved t o E x h i b i t 234, a DVD of the r o a d s i d e d e t e n t i o n copy and a r r e s t . 124 of the video recording P h i l l i p s d i d not object CR-06-1577 to the admission evidence o f t h e v i d e o . The and p l a y e d f o r t h e Van Zant testified DVD c o p y was admitted into jury. that the video contained no audio b e c a u s e he d i d n o t t u r n on t h e a u d i o - r e c o r d i n g when he g o t of h i s v e h i c l e . e x p l a i n e d who On As the video played and what was appeal, Phillips e x p o s u r e t o Mr. f o r the jury, Van out Zant being depicted. asserts that "the jury's prolonged P h i l l i p s ' s h a c k l i n g and a r r e s t u n d e r m i n e d t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f h i s c o n v i c t i o n . " ( P h i l l i p s ' s b r i e f , a t 19.) claims that minutes as caution reserved presume Mr. phase "[b]ecause officers jurors t r e a t e d Mr. had determination was brief, at Because P h i l l i p s Phillips engaged thus a right[s]." adversely Rule 45A, with twenty type of t h e y were a p t to and foregone the their guilt conclusion." d i d not o b j e c t to the admission the i f so, whether such e r r o r affected" Phillips's Ala.R.App.P. 125 of whether the admission of the v i d e o c o n s t i t u t e d p l a i n e r r o r , and, has i n crime nearly 20.) v i d e o a t t r i a l , we must d e t e r m i n e "probably for f o r a dangerous c r i m i n a l , Phillips (Phillips's watched He "substantial CR-06-1577 I n t h e c a p i t a l - m u r d e r c a s e o f G o b b l e v. S t a t e , 05-0225, F e b r u a r y 5, 2010] So. 3d , [Ms. CR- ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , G o b b l e a r g u e d t h a t h e r " ' p r e s u m p t i o n o f i n n o c e n c e ' was d e s t r o y e d when t h e j u r y was a l l o w e d t o s e e h e r i n s h a c k l e s a n d an o r a n g e p r i s o n - i s s u e d j u m p s u i t d u r i n g h e r t h i r d v i d e o t a p e d statement t o p o l i c e . " This Court disagreed, reasoning: " I n B a r b e r v . S t a t e , 952 So. 2d 393 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , we a d d r e s s e d w h e t h e r i t was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r t o allow a videotape of the defendant's s t a t e m e n t t o be shown t o t h e j u r y when t h e v i d e o t a p e showed the defendant wearing handcuffs. In c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e r e must be a s h o w i n g o f ' a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e , ' we s t a t e d : "'[D]uring the t h i r d interview with Edger, the a p p e l l a n t i s wearing h a n d c u f f s . I n G a t e s v . Z a n t , 863 F. 2d 1492, 1501-02 (11th C i r . 1989), which the appellant c i t e s , the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh C i r c u i t addressed a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n as f o l l o w s : "'"Gates' other c h a l l e n g e t o the v i d e o t a p e d c o n f e s s i o n i s t h a t its admission was unduly p r e j u d i c i a l because i t p o r t r a y e d him i n h a n d c u f f s . As we have noted p r e v i o u s l y , although the handcuffs are not always v i s i b l e , it i s evident throughout the fifteen-minute tape that the d e f e n d a n t i s h a n d c u f f e d . We a r e aware o f no c a s e s w h i c h a d d r e s s the propriety of handcuffing during a videotaped confession. Nonetheless, the r e s o l u t i o n of 126 CR-06-1577 the issue is apparent from earlier cases addressing h a n d c u f f i n g i n and a r o u n d t r i a l s . "'"The p r i n c i p a l d i f f i c u l t y arising from shackling or handcuffing a defendant at t r i a l i s t h a t i t tends t o negate the presumption of innocence by p o r t r a y i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t as a b a d o r d a n g e r o u s p e r s o n . The Supreme C o u r t has r e f e r r e d t o s h a c k l i n g d u r i n g t r i a l as an 'inherently p r e j u d i c i a l p r a c t i c e ' which may only be justified by an 'essential state interest s p e c i f i c t o each t r i a l . ' Holbrook v. F l y n n , 475 U.S. 560, 569, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 1346, 89 L.Ed. 2d 525 (1986) . See also I l l i n o i s v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1061, 25 L.Ed. 2d 353 ( 1 9 7 0 ) . T h i s c o u r t r e c e n t l y has extended the g e n e r a l p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t s h a c k l i n g at t r i a l to the sentencing phase of a death p e n a l t y c a s e . E l l e d g e v. Dugger, 823 F.2d 1439, 1450-52 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) , m o d i f i e d , 833 F.2d 250 (1987) , c e r t . d e n i e d , [485] U.S. [ 1 0 1 4 ] , 485 U.S. 1014, 108 S.Ct. 1487, 99 L.Ed. 2d 715 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . "'"On the o t h e r hand, a defendant is not necessarily prejudiced by a brief or i n c i d e n t a l v i e w i n g by t h e j u r y o f the d e f e n d a n t i n h a n d c u f f s . A l l e n v. Montgomery, 728 F.2d 1409, 1414 (11th C i r . 1984); U n i t e d S t a t e s v. D i e c i d u e , 603 F.2d 535, 549-50 (5th C i r . 1979), cert. 127 CR-06-1577 d e n i e d sub nom. A n t o n e v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 445 U.S. 946, 100 S . C t . 1345, 63 L . E d . 2d 781, 446 U.S. 912, 100 S . C t . 1842, 64 L . E d . 2d 266 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ; W r i g h t v. T e x a s , 533 F.2d 185, 187-88 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 6 ) ; J o n e s v. G a i t h e r , 640 F.Supp. 741, 747 (N.D. Ga. 1 9 8 6 ) , a f f ' d without opinion, 813 F.2d 410 (11th C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) . The new f i f t h c i r c u i t i s among t h o s e c i r c u i t s which adhere t o t h i s r u l e . K i n g v. L y n a u g h , 828 F.2d 257, 264-65 (5th C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) , v a c a t e d on o t h e r grounds, 850 F.2d 1055 ( 5 t h Cir.1988) ; see a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 809 F.2d 75, 83-86 (1st C i r . 1986), c e r t . d e n i e d , 481 U.S. 1030, 107 S . C t . 1959, 2469, 2484, 95 L . E d . 2d 5 3 1 , 877, 96 L . E d . 2d 377 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . R o b i n s o n , 645 F.2d 616, 617-18 ( 8 t h C i r . 1981), cert. d e n i e d , 454 U.S. 875, 102 S.Ct. 351, 70 L . E d . 2d 182 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . I n these l a t t e r cases, the courts generally have held that the d e f e n d a n t must make some s h o w i n g of actual prejudice before a r e t r i a l i s required. "'"Thus, t h e c a s e l a w i n t h i s a r e a p r e s e n t s two ends o f a spectrum. T h i s case f a l l s c l o s e r to t h e ' b r i e f v i e w i n g ' end o f t h e spectrum and r e q u i r e s a showing of actual prejudice before a retrial is required. The prosecution showed the f i f t e e n - m i n u t e tape t w i c e d u r i n g several days of trial. The handcuffs were only visible 128 CR-06-1577 during tape. short portions of the " ' " G a t e s h a s made no a t t e m p t t o show t h a t he s u f f e r e d a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e b e c a u s e t h e j u r y saw h i m i n h a n d c u f f s . Our i n d e p e n d e n t examination of the record also persuades us t h a t he d i d n o t s u f f e r any p r e j u d i c e . Although defense counsel strenuously objected to the admission of the v i d e o t a p e , he d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e h a n d c u f f i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r . He d i d not ask f o r a c a u t i o n a r y instruction or a p o l l of the j u r y . Furthermore, the videotape a t i s s u e h e r e was t a k e n a t t h e scene o f t h e c r i m e , n o t a t t h e police station. Thus, jurors likely would infer that h a n d c u f f i n g was s i m p l y s t a n d a r d procedure when a d e f e n d a n t i s taken outside the j a i l . The viewing of the defendant in h a n d c u f f s on t e l e v i s i o n rather than i n person f u r t h e r reduces the p o t e n t i a l f o r p r e j u d i c e . In l i g h t o f t h e f o r e g o i n g f a c t s , and the f a c t t h a t Gates s a t b e f o r e the j u r y without handcuffs f o r s e v e r a l d a y s d u r i n g h i s t r i a l , we conclude that the relatively b r i e f appearance o f the defendant i n h a n d c u f f s on t h e v i d e o t a p e d i d not tend to negate the presumption of innocence or portray the defendant as a dangerous o r bad person. We therefore conclude on the particular facts of t h i s case t h a t t h e h a n d c u f f i n g of Gates 129 CR-06-1577 during the videotaped confession does n o t r e q u i r e a new t r i a l . " "'In t h i s case, although the a p p e l l a n t i s c l e a r l y wearing handcuffs during the i n t e r v i e w , because the v i d e o t a p e i s b l u r r y in p l a c e s , the handcuffs are not p l a i n l y v i s i b l e a l l of the time. Rather, they are more n o t i c e a b l e when t h e a p p e l l a n t i s m o v i n g h i s h a n d s . A l s o , as i n G a t e s , t h e defense d i d not o b j e c t t o the admission of t h e v i d e o t a p e on t h i s g r o u n d o r a s k f o r a c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n ; t h e v i e w i n g was on t e l e v i s i o n r a t h e r t h a n i n p e r s o n ; and t h e appellant d i d n o t wear handcuffs or shackles during the actual t r i a l . F i n a l l y , t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d b e e n a r r e s t e d on an o u t s t a n d i n g w a r r a n t a n d n o t on t h e c a p i t a l m u r d e r c h a r g e a t t h e t i m e he made h i s statement. T h e r e f o r e , under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , we do n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e was any p l a i n e r r o r i n t h i s r e g a r d . ' " B a r b e r v. S t a t e , 952 So. 2d 393, 445-46 ( A l a . C r i m . App.2005) . "We have r e v i e w e d t h e v i d e o t a p e o f G o b b l e ' s t h i r d statement. At the beginning of q u e s t i o n i n g G o b b l e was i n h a n d c u f f s b u t w i t h i n s e c o n d s t h o s e h a n d c u f f s were removed. G o b b l e i s s i t t i n g f o r t h e e n t i r e s t a t e m e n t a n d i s w e a r i n g an o r a n g e j u m p s u i t , b u t t h e j u m p s u i t a p p e a r s t o have no i d e n t i f y i n g marks o r w r i t i n g on t h e f r o n t . T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t G o b b l e was w e a r i n g h a n d c u f f s o r s h a c k l e s d u r i n g h e r t r i a l . As d i d t h e C o u r t i n Barber, we find no evidence of prejudice. A c c o r d i n g l y , we f i n d no p l a i n e r r o r i n r e g a r d t o this claim." Gobble, So. 3d a t . 130 CR-06-1577 In R o b i t a i l l e App. v. State, 971 So. 2d 43, 64 (Ala. Crim. 2005), R o b i t a i l l e argued t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n admitting two videotapes that shackles." Robitaille irrelevant, and character." R o b i t a i l l e , 971 This showed him maintained t h a t t h e y were o n l y Court disagreed. So. We 2d a t that " i n handcuffs the introduced tapes were t o show "bad 64. wrote: "We have r e v i e w e d t h e v i d e o t a p e s t h a t were introduced. On each videotape Robitaille made statements to r e p o r t e r s . In the f i r s t videotape a r e p o r t e r a s k e d R o b i t a i l l e : 'Do you have a n y t h i n g t o s a y ? ' He r e p l i e d : ' I n e v e r meant t o h u r t a n y b o d y . ' In the second videotape another r e p o r t e r asked: 'How a r e you d o i n g ? A n y t h i n g you want t o s a y t o the T a y l o r f a m i l y ? ' He r e p l i e d , ' S o r r y . ' The reporter then asked: 'Sorry f o r what?' R o b i t a i l l e r e p l i e d , 'For what I d i d . ' "Rule 401, Ala.R.Evid., states: '"Relevant e v i d e n c e " means e v i d e n c e h a v i n g any t e n d e n c y t o make t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any f a c t t h a t i s o f c o n s e q u e n c e t o the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n more p r o b a b l e o r less probable than i t would be without the evidence.' "'Alabama c o u r t s have r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t has b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n in determining the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of evidence, and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s determination w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e c o u r t has abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . E.g., Gavin v. S t a t e , 891 So. 2d 907, 963 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . R u l e 402, A l a . R. E v i d . , s t a t e s t h a t a l l relevant evidence i s admissible, unless o t h e r w i s e p r e c l u d e d by l a w As w i t h t h e 131 and CR-06-1577 determination of admissibility, trial c o u r t s have b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r e v i d e n c e i s r e l e v a n t , and a c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s the decision constituted an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . G a v i n a t 963.' "Yeomans v. S t a t e , 898 So. 2d 878, 894 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . 'The t e s t o f r e l e v a n c y s a n c t i o n e d by t h e A l a b a m a a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s has b e e n d e s c r i b e d as a " l i b e r a l t e s t of r e l e v a n c y under which evidence i s a d m i s s i b l e i f i t has any p r o b a t i v e v a l u e , however s l i g h t , upon a m a t t e r i n t h e c a s e . " ' Moody v. S t a t e , 888 So. 2d 532, 584 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 2 1 . 0 1 ( 1 ) ( 5 t h ed. 1 9 9 6 ) . " C l e a r l y , t h e a d m i s s i o n s made by R o b i t a i l l e on the two videotapes were relevant to prove R o b i t a i l l e ' s g u i l t ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e v i d e o t a p e s were c o r r e c t l y r e c e i v e d into evidence at t r i a l . " M o r e o v e r , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e v i d e o t a p e s showed Robitaille i n handcuffs and s h a c k l e s was not sufficient, i n and o f i t s e l f , to exclude their a d m i t t a n c e . The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e Roberts, 735 So. 2d 1270, 1275 (Ala. 1999), addressing a similar claim, stated: "'We agree w i t h the Court of Criminal A p p e a l s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t abuse its discretion in a d m i t t i n g the two photographs of Roberts r e t r i e v i n g evidence, e v e n t h o u g h t h o s e p h o t o g r a p h s showed h i m t o be h a n d c u f f e d . We a r e p e r s u a d e d by t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s ' r e a s o n i n g and t h a t o f t h e c a s e s upon w h i c h i t r e l i e d , that a photograph of a defendant in h a n d c u f f s o r o t h e r w i s e d e t a i n e d may be a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e so l o n g as the photograph has p r o b a t i v e v a l u e and i s relevant.' 132 CR-06-1577 " ( F o o t n o t e o m i t t e d . ) The v i d e o t a p e s o f R o b i t a i l l e ' s a d m i s s i o n s t o r e p o r t e r s were c o r r e c t l y r e c e i v e d i n t o evidence." Robitaille v . S t a t e , 971 So. 2d 43, 64-65 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2005). Furthermore, e v i d e n c e , we have with regard to photographic or video written: "Photographic evidence i s admissible i n c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s i f i t t e n d s t o p r o v e o r d i s p r o v e some disputed or material issue, to illustrate some relevant fact or evidence, or to corroborate or d i s p u t e other evidence i n the case. Photographs t h a t tend t o shed light on, t o s t r e n g t h e n , or to i l l u s t r a t e o t h e r t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d may be a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . K u e n z e l v. S t a t e , 577 So.2d 474 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f ' d , 577 So. 2d 531 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 502 U.S. 886, 112 S . C t . 242, 116 L . E d . 2d 197 (1991). The a d m i s s i o n of photographic or videotape evidence i s completely within the d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . S t e w a r t v. S t a t e , 443 So.2d 1362, 1364 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 3 ) . Matters r e s t i n g i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d , a b s e n t a c l e a r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . Pace v. S t a t e , 284 A l a . 585, 226 So.2d 645 ( A l a . 1 9 6 9 ) . " A c k l i n v. S t a t e , 790 So. 2d 975, 997 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 790 So. 2d 1012 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , A c k l i n v . A l a b a m a , 533 U.S. 936 (2001) (emphasis added). T h i s C o u r t has r e v i e w e d t h e v i d e o r e c o r d i n g i n q u e s t i o n . The t i m e s p a n f r o m when L e M a s t e r ' s video u n t i l Phillips and Doster 133 truck i s f i r s t shown i n t h e are e s c o r t e d out o f view o f CR-06-1577 the camera i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 15 m i n u t e s . C o n t r a r y t o P h i l l i p s ' s assertions, neither Phillips nor D o s t e r were does t h e v i d e o show t h e two b e i n g p l a c e d i n t o vehicles. With the exception of the fact s h a c k l e d , nor law-enforcement that the video a p p e a r s t o show Van Z a n t h a n d c u f f i n g P h i l l i p s b e f o r e r a d i o i n g f o r b a c k u p , t h e v i d e o i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Van Z a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y . B a s e d upon o u r i n d e p e n d e n t v i e w i n g o f t h e v i d e o , we are n o t p e r s u a d e d t h a t P h i l l i p s s u f f e r e d any a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e f r o m the j u r y ' s v i e w i n g of the video. that P h i l l i p s The j u r o r s were w e l l aware and D o s t e r were s u s p e c t s i n a number o f c r i m e s i n A l a b a m a , i n c l u d i n g L e M a s t e r ' s m u r d e r , and t h e t h e f t o f h i s t r u c k . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e v i d e o d e p i c t s what one w o u l d e x p e c t t o t r a n s p i r e when a l o n e l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r c o n t a i n i n g two p e r s o n s who another stops a vehicle were w a n t e d by l a w e n f o r c e m e n t i n state. T h i s i s n o t a s i t u a t i o n where a d e f e n d a n t i s h a n d c u f f e d , shackled, or otherwise r e s t r a i n e d courtroom, would logically himself, flight. just the a few feet from infer that the persons In t h i s i n the within the jury, defendant courtroom, c a s e , t h e r e i s no 134 the confines so that is a and/or at a of juror danger risk evidence i n d i c a t i n g a to for that CR-06-1577 Phillips was handcuffed or otherwise the j u r y d u r i n g the t r i a l . the circuit did not court took view d u r i n g the In f a c t , the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t great Phillips in care The to ensure t h a t the shackles or otherwise jurors restrained trial. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e v i d e o was trial. r e s t r a i n e d i n f r o n t of video confirmed r e l e v a n t to the i s s u e s i n the that Phillips and Doster were t r a v e l i n g t o g e t h e r i n L e M a s t e r ' s t r u c k i n Texas approximately two weeks a f t e r t h e i r e s c a p e f r o m t h e C o v i n g t o n County The s h o e s P h i l l i p s was have b e e n one burglary at of video the also i n t h e v i d e o were d e t e r m i n e d t o pair t e n n i s shoes t a k e n High corroborated P h i l l i p s wearing wearing the Florala of School. In during a d d i t i o n , the Phillips's closely was arrested. cropped hair, the video s t a t e m e n t i n h i s c o n f e s s i o n t h a t he s t o l e n t e n n i s s h o e s when he showed jail. was The which corroborated h i s statement i n h i s confession that Doster cut his the hair video while they were in Pettie's showed what a p p e a r e d t o be Van o f h i s r i g h t s -d e p i c t e d i n the Phillips trailer. Finally, Zant i n f o r m i n g does n o t d i s p u t e t h a t was video. 135 Phillips what was CR-06-1577 Accordingly, b e c a u s e we find that a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e by t h e a d m i s s i o n because the video c o u r t d i d not the reasons this r e c o r d i n g had forth above, suffered of the v i d e o r e c o r d i n g , probative value, e r r i n a l l o w i n g the set Phillips video Phillips the and circuit i n t o evidence. i s due not no For relief on claim. IX. Phillips lists were i m p r o p e r l y State's allowed State failed regard to the e x h i b i t s . First, to 54 into present Phillips 2 7 a exhibits that, e v i d e n c e b e c a u s e , he complete failed chain of contends, says, the custody with H i s argument i s t w o f o l d . maintains that e s t a b l i s h a complete chain of custody State he the State did not b e c a u s e , he c l a i m s , t o show t h a t t h e e x h i b i t s r e m a i n e d s e c u r e the after Walter I n a b i n e t t , the evidence t e c h n i c i a n , p l a c e d the e x h i b i t s into the Phillips testimony evidence argues room. t h a t because the regard State o f t h e e v i d e n c e t e c h n i c i a n who e v i d e n c e room a t t h e time of t r i a l , T h i s a r g u m e n t was b r i e f on a p p e a l . 2 7 With presented 136 the to this d i d not was assertion, present the i n charge of the e x h i b i t s should not i n Issue V I I I i n Phillips's CR-06-1577 have b e e n a l l o w e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . S e c o n d , P h i l l i p s the State because failed to establish the State a complete d i d not present Covington County c i r c u i t clerk that also admitted into were trial chain of the testimony to testify evidence had n o t been tampered w i t h argues that custody of the that the e x h i b i t s at h i s o r changed codefendant's following that trial. Near t h e end o f t h e S t a t e ' s case, called to testify as a w i t n e s s . Walter I n a b i n e t t was P a r t of the purpose of h i s t e s t i m o n y was t o " t i e - u p l o o s e e n d s " w i t h r e g a r d t o some o f the S t a t e ' s e x h i b i t s t h a t had a l r e a d y been i d e n t i f i e d and, i n some cases, Inabinett admitted testified into evidence before h i s testimony. t h a t he was e m p l o y e d w i t h t h e C o v i n g t o n C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s D e p a r t m e n t f r o m S e p t e m b e r 2000 u n t i l 2007. I n a b i n e t t w o r k e d as an i n v e s t i g a t o r January from A p r i l 2001 u n t i l he l e f t t h e employment o f t h e C o v i n g t o n C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s Department. Sheriff's technician During Department, with the Covington County I n a b i n e t t a l s o s e r v e d as t h e e v i d e n c e f r o m l a t e 2002 u n t i l Inabinett Covington h i s tenure testified County S h e r i f f ' s that 2004. the evidence room f o r the Department i s l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e 137 CR-06-1577 County A d m i n i s t r a t i v e B u i l d i n g , near the j a i l . I t i s a single room w i t h no w i n d o w s , a n d one d o o r . Only t h e s h e r i f f and t h e evidence to technician Inabinett t e s t i f i e d removed from evidence have a key the evidence t h a t whenever e v i d e n c e i s p l a c e d the evidence technician room, i t has t o be because the t e c h n i c i a n room. into or done by t h e has t h e key and maintains the evidence l o g . I n a b i n e t t i d e n t i f i e d a number o f S t a t e ' s e x h i b i t s t h a t he received and p l a c e d into evidence technician. instance, he sealed the evidence Inabinett the items room w h i l e testified and p l a c e d he was t h e that in the items each i n the e v i d e n c e room, i n a s e a l e d c o n d i t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o I n a b i n e t t , the items exception remained in that sealed condition, o f t h e t i m e s t h e i t e m s were v i e w e d b y t h e with the attorneys i n P h i l l i p s o r D o s t e r ' s c a s e s , o r when t h e y were u s e d i n o t h e r court procedures in relation to t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was p r e s e n t d u r i n g the cases. Inabinett t h o s e i n s t a n c e s . He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t none o f t h e i t e m s a p p e a r e d t o have b e e n c h a n g e d o r a l t e r e d , e x c e p t f o r a w h i s k e y b o t t l e t h a t was b r o k e n i t was i n t h e e v i d e n c e room. 138 while CR-06-1577 Inabinett testified that Investigator Scott assumed t h e d u t i e s o f t h e e v i d e n c e t e c h n i c i a n a f t e r completed h i s term as e v i d e n c e technician. Conner Inabinett Inabinett said t h a t S e r g e a n t Teddy M o t l e y was t h e e v i d e n c e t e c h n i c i a n a t t h e time of t r i a l , b u t he d i d n o t know when M o t l e y assumed t h o s e duties. I n V a n p e l t v. S t a t e , So. 3d [Ms. CR-06-1539, December 18, 2009] ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , t h i s C o u r t a d d r e s s e d a c l a i m by V a n p e l t t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred i n allowing e v i d e n c e l e t t e r s Van P e l t h a d w r i t t e n b e c a u s e , he a r g u e d , witness into "no t e s t i f i e d c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h a i n o f c u s t o d y o f any o f the l e t t e r s . " V a n p e l t , So. 3d a t . T h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e l e t t e r s were p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d . We reasoned: 590 "The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e H o l t o n , So. 2d 918 ( A l a . 1991), addressed the " ' P r o o f o f [an] u n b r o k e n c h a i n o f c u s t o d y is required in order to establish s u f f i c i e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e i t e m and c o n t i n u i t y o f p o s s e s s i o n , so as t o a s s u r e the a u t h e n t i c i t y of the item. I d . In order t o e s t a b l i s h a p r o p e r c h a i n , t h e S t a t e must show t o a " r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e o b j e c t i s i n t h e same c o n d i t i o n a s , a n d n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from, i t s c o n d i t i o n a t t h e commencement o f t h e c h a i n . " M c C r a y 139 CR-06-1577 v. S t a t e , 548 So. 2d 573, 576 App. 1 9 8 8 ) . ' ( A l a . Crim. 590 So. 2d a t 919-20. L a t e r i n H a l e v. S t a t e , 848 So. 2d 224 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , t h e Supreme C o u r t r e e x a m i n e d i t s h o l d i n g i n H o l t o n a f t e r t h e 1995 c o d i f i c a t i o n o f § 12-21-13, A l a . Code 1975. The Supreme Court stated: "'Section provides: 12-21-13, Ala. Code 1975, "'"Physical evidence connected with or collected in the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a crime shall not be excluded from c o n s i d e r a t i o n by a j u r y o r c o u r t due t o a f a i l u r e t o p r o v e t h e chain of custody of the evidence. Whenever a w i t n e s s i n a c r i m i n a l t r i a l i d e n t i f i e s a physical piece of evidence connected w i t h or c o l l e c t e d i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a c r i m e , t h e e v i d e n c e s h a l l be submitted t o the j u r y or court f o r whatever weight the j u r y or c o u r t may deem p r o p e r . The t r i a l c o u r t i n i t s charge t o the j u r y s h a l l e x p l a i n any b r e a k i n t h e chain of custody concerning the physical evidence."' " ' ( E m p h a s i s added.) T h i s s t a t u t e , b y i t s terms, a p p l i e s o n l y t o " [ p ] h y s i c a l evidence connected with or collected i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f " t h e c h a r g e d c r i m e . To invoke the s t a t u t e the proponent of the e v i d e n c e must f i r s t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e p r o f f e r e d p h y s i c a l evidence i s i n fact the very evidence "connected w i t h or c o l l e c t e d i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . " Moreover, 140 CR-06-1577 " ' " [ i ] n L a n d v. S t a t e , 678 So. 2d 201 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , a f f ' d , 678 So. 2d 224 ( A l a . 1996), a c a s e w h i c h a p p e a r s t o r e l y on § 12-21-13, t h i s c o u r t r u l e d t h a t where a w i t n e s s can s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y the evidence, and i t s c o n d i t i o n i s n o t an i s s u e i n t h e case, then the State is not r e q u i r e d to e s t a b l i s h a complete c h a i n of custody i n order f o r the evidence to be admitted into evidence. We stated: 'The eyeglasses were admissible without e s t a b l i s h i n g a chain of c u s t o d y because [the t e s t i f y i n g o f f i c e r ] was a b l e t o s p e c i f i c a l l y identify them, and their c o n d i t i o n was n o t an i s s u e i n t h e case.' Land, 678 So. 2d at 210 "' "848 So. 2d a t 228 c i t a t i o n s omitted). (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l and some "Here, each of the e x h i b i t s was physical e v i d e n c e t h a t was c o l l e c t e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of Sandra's murder. F u r t h e r , each e x h i b i t was p r o p e r l y i d e n t i f i e d by a w i t n e s s and t h e condition of the e x h i b i t s was not in issue. A c c o r d i n g l y , p u r s u a n t § 12-21-13, A l a . C o d e 1975, t h e e x h i b i t s were p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d . " Vanpelt, So. Phillips appeal, that 3d a t d i d not the . assert at t r i a l , exhibits were nor actually does he tampered a l t e r e d , o r c o n t a m i n a t e d once t h e y were s e c u r e d 141 claim and on with, locked i n CR-06-1577 the evidence room by Inabinett. that because Sergeant merely technician at the time of R a t h e r , he Teddy trial, seems t o Motley, d i d not the suggest evidence testify that the e x h i b i t s had not been tampered w i t h o r a l t e r e d w h i l e under h i s c a r e , t h e n t h e e x h i b i t s were i n a d m i s s i b l e . We d i s a g r e e . E a c h c o n t e s t e d e x h i b i t l i s t e d by P h i l l i p s i n h i s argument was i d e n t i f i e d by a t l e a s t one, w i t n e s s as e v i d e n c e t h a t was the investigation" of and s o m e t i m e s more t h a n one, "connected w i t h or c o l l e c t e d i n the crimes charged. Inabinett i d e n t i f i e d t h e e x h i b i t s t h a t he r e c e i v e d , and he t e s t i f i e d i n d e t a i l a b o u t t h e s t e p s t h a t he t o o k t o s a f e g u a r d t h e w h i l e he was This indication the evidence Court has exhibits technician. reviewed the from the r e c o r d t h a t record, and there is the c o n t e s t e d e x h i b i t s i m p r o p e r l y tampered w i t h or a l t e r e d . A c c o r d i n g l y , even t h e e v i d e n c e t e c h n i c i a n who the time of t r i a l was i n charge in the circuit court's evidence. 142 allowing though the at t h i s does n o t r e n d e r t h e e v i d e n c e i n a d m i s s i b l e i n t h i s c a s e , and we error were of the evidence d i d not t e s t i f y at the t r i a l , no find exhibits no into CR-06-1577 As n o t e d above, P h i l l i p s exhibits Circuit were a l s o argues t h a t the inadmissible because Covington County C l e r k d i d n o t t e s t i f y t h a t t h e e x h i b i t s t h a t were a l s o i n t r o d u c e d a t D o s t e r ' s t r i a l had with since Doster's In the contested App. 1991), t h i s Court addressed a c l a i m t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t erred in clerk admitting not v. trial. Crim. did Dority not been a l t e r e d or tampered cocaine testify as which had cocaine, State, 586 So. trials. We 973 (Ala. i n t o evidence because the a chain-of-custody been introduced t r i a l s and w h i c h had b e e n s e c u r e d the 2d witness into circuit regarding the codefendant's i n the c l e r k ' s o f f i c e held that "[t]he failure of the the circuit since clerk t o t e s t i f y c o n s t i t u t e d a weak l i n k r a t h e r t h a n a m i s s i n g in the chain of custody." Dority, 586 So.2d at explained: "'"The p u r p o s e o f r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h e c h a i n o f c u s t o d y be shown i s t o e s t a b l i s h t o a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e r e has b e e n no t a m p e r i n g w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e . W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 375 So. 2d 1257 ( A l a . Cr. App.), c e r t . d e n i e d , 375 So. 2d 1271 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ; T a t e v. S t a t e , 435 So. 2d 190 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 3 ) ; S m i t h v. S t a t e , 446 So. 2d 68 ( A l a . C r . App. 1984) 'The e v i d e n c e n e e d n o t negate the most remote p o s s i b i l i t y of s u b s t i t u t i o n , a l t e r a t i o n , or tampering w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e , b u t r a t h e r must p r o v e t o a 143 977. link We CR-06-1577 reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y that the item i s the same a s , a n d n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m , t h e o b j e c t as i t e x i s t e d a t t h e beginning of the chain.' Slaughter v. S t a t e , 411 So. 2d 819, 822 ( A l a . C r . App. 1981) (emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . " ' "Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m s , 505 So. 2d 1254, 1255 ( A l a . 1987) ( q u o t i n g t h i s c o u r t i n W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 505 So.2d 1252 a t 1253 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . 'A weak l i n k i n the chain of custody presents a question of c r e d i b i l i t y and w e i g h t f o r t h e j u r y r a t h e r than a q u e s t i o n o f a d m i s s i b i l i t y . ' H o l t o n v . S t a t e , [590 So. 2d 914 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) ] . " Dority, 586 So. 2d a t 977 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . Again, Phillips does not argue that t h e e x h i b i t s were a c t u a l l y t a m p e r e d w i t h o r a l t e r e d w h i l e t h e y were i n t h e c a r e of the c i r c u i t intimates that clerk t h e absence Clerk's testimony For the addressing following Doster's trial. of the Covington Rather, County reasons his first that we contention, we set find forth above no e r r o r c i r c u i t court's allowing the contested e x h i b i t s i n t o testify the fact regarding f o l l o w i n g Doster's Accordingly, Circuit renders the e x h i b i t s i n a d m i s s i b l e . same notwithstanding he that the care the c i r c u i t and c o n d i t i o n clerk in i n the evidence, d i d not of the e x h i b i t s trial. Phillips i s due no r e l i e f on t h e s e 144 claims. CR-06-1577 Phillips commented closing on contends his failure that the to t e s t i f y prosecutor improperly at t r i a l during h i s argument a t t h e g u i l t p h a s e o f t h e t r i a l . 2 8 Phillips c i t e s s e v e n e x c e r p t s f r o m t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s c l o s i n g argument i n support of h i s a s s e r t i o n . At the beginning of the prosecutor's closing argument, the p r o s e c u t o r t o l d the j u r y : "Now y ' a l l know as w e l l as I do, you've h e a r d i t from t h e c o u r t a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e t r i a l ; you h e a r d i t f r o m t h e c o u r t i n i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s what t h e l a w y e r s s a y i n argument i s j u s t t h a t . I t ' s argument. What t h e l a w y e r s s a y i s n ' t e v i d e n c e . B u t what t h e d e f e n d a n t s a i d t o t h e p o l i c e , t h a t i s e v i d e n c e . What was c o l l e c t e d a t t h e c r i m e s c e n e s , that i s evidence. What was c o l l e c t e d i n Paul L e M a s t e r ' s t r u c k as i t was f o u n d i n T e x a s , t h a t i s evidence. What was analyzed by the forensic s c i e n t i s t s , that i s evidence. "But s i n c e my words a r e a r g u m e n t , i n my c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s t o d a y , I ' v e d e c i d e d t h a t I'm g o i n g t o t a k e t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n f e s s i o n a n d I'm g o i n g t o l e t h i m h e l p me w i t h my c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s . A n d as I go t h r o u g h e a c h a n d e v e r y one o f t h e s e c r i m e s a n d show how we have p r o v e n them b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , I'm g o i n g t o i n t e r j e c t t h i n g s h e r e a n d t h e r e , t h i n g s he l e f t o u t , t h i n g s t h a t he d i d n ' t t e l l u s , t h i n g s t h a t he may have f i b b e d a l i t t l e b i t on. Why w o u l d he do t h a t ? W e ' l l t a l k a b o u t t h a t i n a m i n u t e . " T h i s a r g u m e n t was p r e s e n t e d b r i e f on a p p e a l . 2 8 145 i n Issue IX i n P h i l l i p s ' s CR-06-1577 (R. 3478-79.) The prosecutor continued his closing argument, w h i c h he c o m p a r e d and c o n t r a s t e d P h i l l i p s ' s s t a t e m e n t made t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s t o t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e presented at argument, the trial. At prosecutor various d i r e c t e d the p o r t i o n s of P h i l l i p s ' s statement Phillips and points during t h a t he t h a t had his closing to the i n v e s t i g a t o r s i n which that p o r t i o n of the prosecutor's details, argument t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n t e s t e d comments o c c u r r e d : "But you know, t h e r e ' s one t h i n g a b o u t t h i s t h a t [ P h i l l i p s ] l e a v e s o u t . Now he t a l k s a b o u t how t h e y a t e b u t he l e a v e s o u t t h e f a c t a b o u t how t h e y j u s t made t h e m s e l v e s a t home, and a l s o a b o u t how they t r a s h e d the p l a c e . " (R. 3484-85.) "And t h e n [ P h i l l i p s ] comes down and he s a y s and we g o t i n t o t h a t t r a i l e r . W e l l , he l e a v e s o u t a l i t t l e s o m e t h i n g , d o e s n ' t he? He l e a v e s o u t t h e f a c t t h a t they broke i n the back door." (R. 3489.) was " J a s o n P e t t i e s a i d he w a l k e d i n and h i s t r a i l e r t r a s h e d . But they l e a v e t h a t he l e a v e s o u t that (R. detail." 3490.) 146 been jury's attention to o m i t t e d some i n c r i m i n a t i n g o r u n f l a t t e r i n g i t i s during during CR-06-1577 took "What does he f o r g e t t o m e n t i o n ? Oh, y e a h . We t h e a m m u n i t i o n f o r e a c h one o f t h e s e g u n s , too." (R. (R. 3491.) "Now w e ' l l f i n d o u t l a t e r more t h a n he s a y s t h e r e . " he d i d a l i t t l e b i t 3502.) "And again, he d o e s n ' t t a l k a b o u t how t h e y [ P h i l l i p s and h i s codefendant] t r a s h t h e p u l p i t o f a c h u r c h a n d how t h e y go i n t o a c h u r c h a n d t r a s h t h e p u l p i t l o o k i n g f o r money." (R. 3523.) "Now e a r l i e r I t o l d y o u a b o u t how t h e d e f e n d a n t p u t a s p i n on c e r t a i n t h i n g s . He t o l d us t h e t r u t h , v e r y d e t a i l e d s t a t e m e n t , b u t he l e f t o u t d e t a i l s a n d he l e f t o u t c e r t a i n t h i n g s . F o r i n s t a n c e " (R. 3530.) After defense place this last purportedly counsel objected, outside the hearing improper comment occurred, and t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n of the jury: "[DEFENSE COUNSEL] : This i s the f o u r t h time t h a t t h e y have t a l k e d a b o u t t h e d e f e n d a n t l e a v i n g out things. We believe that i s an improper p r o s e c u t o r i a l argument i n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t t a k e t h e s t a n d . The o n l y p e r s o n t h a t c o u l d e x p l a i n these items or i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n h i s statement w o u l d be f o r h i m t o have t a k e n t h e s t a n d . A n d we b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s i s t h e f o u r t h , I b e l i e v e , comment that t h e s t a t e has s t a t e d t h a t he h a s e i t h e r f o r g o t t e n t o m e n t i o n o r he c a n n o t e x p l a i n o r t h i s l a s t t i m e t h a t he d i d n o t e x p l a i n . A n d we b e l i e v e 147 took CR-06-1577 them t o be i m p r o p e r p r o s e c u t o r i a l comment on d e f e n d a n t n o t t a k i n g t h e s t a n d and we o b j e c t . " our "[PROSECUTOR]: I made no m e n t i o n o f t h a t , J u d g e . What we know f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e and t h e s t a t e m e n t he gave p o l i c e , he's l e f t o u t d e t a i l s f r o m what we know i n t h e e v i d e n c e . " "THE (R. 3530-31.) Because prosecutor's for COURT: (Emphasis Phillips Overruled." added.) timely objected comments, t h e r e m a i n i n g p l a i n error only. R u l e 45A, to just one the comments w i l l be r e v i e w e d Ala.R.Crim.P. " ' T h i s c o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t " [ i ] n reviewing a l l e g e d l y improper p r o s e c u t o r i a l comments, conduct, and questioning of witnesses, the task of t h i s court i s t o c o n s i d e r t h e i r impact i n the context of the particular trial, and n o t t o v i e w t h e a l l e g e d l y improper acts i n the a b s t r a c t . " B a n k h e a d v. S t a t e , 585 So.2d 97, 106 ( A l a . C r . 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 . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 625 So. 2d 1146 ( A l a . 1993) . See a l s o H e n d e r s o n v. S t a t e , 583 So. 2d 305 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 503 U.S. 908, 112 S. C t . 1268, 117 L. Ed. 2d 496 (1992). "In judging a p r o s e c u t o r ' s c l o s i n g argument, the s t a n d a r d i s w h e t h e r t h e a r g u m e n t 'so i n f e c t e d t h e trial with unfairness as t o make t h e resulting conviction a denial of due process.'" B a n k h e a d , 585 So.2d a t 107, q u o t i n g D a r d e n v. W a i n w r i g h t , 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S. C t . 2464, 2471, 91 L.Ed. 2d 144 (1986) ( q u o t i n g D o n n e l l y v. D e C h r i s t o f o r o , 148 of CR-06-1577 416 U.S. 637, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed. 2d 431 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ) . "A p r o s e c u t o r ' s s t a t e m e n t must be v i e w e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d and i n t h e c o n t e x t o f the complete closing arguments to the j u r y . " R o b e r t s v. S t a t e , [735 So. 2d 1244 ( A l a . C r . App. 1997) ] , a f f ' d , [735 So. 2d 1270 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 538 U.S. 939, 120 S.Ct. 346, 145 L.Ed. 2d 271 (1999) ] . Moreover, "statements of counsel in 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 the heat of d e b a t e ; such 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 t h e j u r y a t t h e i r t r u e w o r t h and a r e n o t e x p e c t e d t o become f a c t o r s i n the f o r m a t i o n of the v e r d i c t . " B a n k h e a d , 585 So. 2d a t 106. " Q u e s t i o n s o f t h e p r o p r i e t y o f argument o f counsel are largely within the trial c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n , M c C u l l o u g h v. S t a t e , 357 So. 2d 397, 399 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , and t h a t c o u r t i s g i v e n b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g what i s p e r m i s s i b l e a r g u m e n t . " B a n k h e a d , 585 So. 2d a t 105. We w i l l n o t r e v e r s e the judgment o f the t r i a l court u n l e s s t h e r e has b e e n an abuse o f t h a t discretion. Id.' "Freeman v. 1999). State, 776 So. 2d 160 ( A l a . Cr. App. " "A 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 i s t o be ' s c r u p u l o u s l y a v o i d e d . ' A r t h u r v. S t a t e , 575 So. 2d 1165, 1186 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 575 So. 2d 1191 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . ' E v e r y t i m e a prosecutor stresses a f a i l u r e to present testimony, t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s must be c l o s e l y e x a m i n e d t o see w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t has b e e n v i o l a t e d . ' W i n d s o r v. S t a t e , 593 So. 2d 87, 91 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , q u o t i n g P a d g e t t v. S t a t e , 45 A l a . App. 56, 223 So. 2d 597, 602 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . 149 CR-06-1577 'In a c a s e where t h e r e h a s been o n l y an i n d i r e c t reference t o a defendant's f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y , i n order f o r t h e comment t o c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r , t h e r e must be a c l o s e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t as t h e p e r s o n who d i d n o t become a w i t n e s s . ' W i n d s o r v . S t a t e , s u p r a , q u o t i n g , Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m s , 461 So.2d 852 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . "'"Alabama l a w c l e a r l y h o l d s t h a t ' [ w ] h e r e there is the possibility that a p r o s e c u t o r ' s comment c o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d b y the j u r y as r e f e r e n c e t o f a i l u r e o f t h e defendant t o t e s t i f y , A r t . I , § 6 [Const. of Alabama o f 1901], i s v i o l a t e d . ' " Ex parte Wilson, 571 So.2d 1 2 5 1 , 1262 (Ala.1990). However, 'a p r o s e c u t o r may l e g i t i m a t e l y b a s e h i s argument on t h e evidence o f the appellant's statement' t o t h e p o l i c e . H e r e f o r d v . S t a t e , 608 So. 2d 439, 442 ( A l a . C r . App. 1992) . See a l s o H e n d e r s o n v . S t a t e , 584 So. 2 d 8 4 1 , 855 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 8 ) ; S m i t h v . S t a t e , 588 So. 2 d 5 6 1 , 570 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ; K i m b l e v . S t a t e , 545 So. 2 d 228, 230 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 9 ) ; B r i n k s v . S t a t e , 500 So. 2 d 1311, 1314-15 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . 'Argument b y t h e p r o s e c u t i o n concerning omissions and i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n the defendant's v e r s i o n o f t h e case i s n o t A,^^-^^^^-^ O 1 4 ^ OA ^ C T O i m p r o p e r . 'I S a l t-e r v . S t a, t4 e- , 578 So. 2 d 1092, 1096 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , cert. d e n i e d , 578 So.2d 1097 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " ' "Mosely v. State, (Ala.Cr.App.1993)." Taylor v. S t a t e , 2000), aff'd, 628 So.2d 808 So.2d 1148, 1185-1187 1041, 1042 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 808 So. 2 d 1215 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , cert. denied, T a y l o r v . A l a b a m a , 534 U.S. 1086 (2002) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . 150 See CR-06-1577 a l s o B u r g e s s v. 1 9 9 8 ) ( " I t was to remain S t a t e , 827 So. 134, 168 ( A l a . Crim. App. n o t an i m p e r m i s s i b l e comment on B u r g e s s ' s silent f o r the prosecutor t r u t h f u l n e s s i n making h i s With 2d question Burgess's statement"). t h e above p r i n c i p l e s objectionable to right comments i n t h e i n m i n d , we context have r e v i e w e d of the entire the closing a r g u m e n t , and i n l i g h t o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t trial, and we do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e comments c o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d the jury Rather, to be comments the p r o s e c u t o r on was Phillips's drawing the failure i n P h i l l i p s ' s statement the other evidence at t r i a l , consequently, accurate or encouraging simply that the because to the some p o r t i o n s o f completely jury there not when c o m p a r e d w i t h t h a t P h i l l i p s was light truthful. to attempting investigators h i s statement The dismiss prosecutor the were p o r t i o n s o f testify. legitimate inference from the omissions p o r t r a y h i m s e l f i n the best to by the entire and, were was to not also confession confession where P h i l l i p s o m i t t e d c e r t a i n f a c t s , o r b e c a u s e t h e r e were p o r t i o n s of the confession that were inconsistent with evidence. The p r o s e c u t o r e x p l a i n e d to the 151 jury: the other CR-06-1577 "What we n o t e f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e d e f e n d a n t has l e f t o u t some d e t a i l s These a r e j u s t l i t t l e things that the defendant g l a z e s over in his s t a t e m e n t t r y i n g t o l e a d t h e p o l i c e away f r o m w h a t ' s a c t u a l l y g o i n g on h e r e . "The d e f e n d a n t ' s c a u g h t . He knows he's c a u g h t . He's j u s t b e e n a r r e s t e d i n a d e a d man's t r u c k f u l l of p r o p e r t y s t o l e n f r o m a l l o v e r C o v i n g t o n C o u n t y . He knows he's c a u g h t and so a l l he can do a t t h i s p o i n t i s damage c o n t r o l . And so he c o n f e s s e s , b u t he t r i e s t o p u t a s p i n on i t t o make i t s o u n d l i k e what he d i d w a s n ' t so God a w f u l . " (R. 3531-33.) rebuttal The closing c o n f e s s i o n was prosecutor reiterated a r g u m e n t when he this stated: "And an a c t o f d e s p e r a t i o n as w e l l . point in his h i s act of He w a n t e d t o g i v e t h e p o l i c e h i s v e r s i o n o f t h i n g s and w a n t e d t o p u t some s p i n on i t i f he c o u l d . " Furthermore, the even (R. 3571.) though Phillips c l a i m s on a p p e a l p r o s e c u t o r ' s r e m a r k s c o n s t i t u t e d a d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e on h i s failure to testify, this was not how u l t i m a t e l y i n t e r p r e t e d t h e s e remarks a t t r i a l , the that defense counsel as e v i d e n c e d by f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t from d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s c l o s i n g argument: "Okay, You h e a r d t h e t a p e d s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , Mr. Bobby P h i l l i p s . . . . Well, l e t ' s look c l o s e l y a t Mr. P h i l l i p s ' s s t a t e m e n t and f i n d o u t really what we know f r o m there. I call your a t t e n t i o n t o the c l o s i n g arguments of the D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y , Mr. Gambril.... Numerous t i m e s [he] t a l k e d a b o u t t h e s t a t e m e n t o f Mr. P h i l l i p s and how he l e f t t h i n g s o u t o r h a d c h a n g e d t h i n g s o r he d i d 152 CR-06-1577 t h i s o r d i d t h a t i n h i s s t a t e m e n t . You r e c a l l t h a t . Yeah. He d i s c u s s e s t h o s e e v e n t s i n a v e r y c o m p l e t e , a p p e a r s t o be, and v e r y s i n c e r e manner. B u t let's l o o k a t h i s s t a t e m e n t . Not i n what he d i d n ' t s a y o r s h o u l d have s a i d , b u t l e t ' s l o o k a t h i s s t a t e m e n t as dealing with the physical evidence that's presented." (R. 3 5 5 7 - 5 8 . ) ( E m p h a s i s added.) L a s t , we that the note t h a t the arguments of c i r c u i t court counsel were n o t e v i d e n c e and t h a t P h i l l i p s had a right no be negative inferences could i n s t r u c t e d the t o be jury considered n o t t o t e s t i f y and drawn from his as that failure to testify. For the reasons set f o r t h or otherwise, in his indirect a b o v e , we i n the p r o s e c u t o r ' s brief. The comments were f i n d no e r r o r , comments c i t e d an comment on P h i l l i p s ' s f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y ; r a t h e r , the remarks truthfulness of investigators. were permissible Phillips's Accordingly, statement P h i l l i p s i s due claim. 153 a direct Phillips nor prosecutor's neither by plain comments on to Alabama the no r e l i e f on the this CR-06-1577 XI. P h i l l i p s contends t h a t the c i r c u i t court e r r e d i n denying his motion f o r a new t r i a l w i t h o u t an e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. 2 9 "'"A d e f e n d a n t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a h e a r i n g on a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l w i t h o u t a s p e c i a l b a s i s t h e r e f o r . " ' C l a r k v. S t a t e , 621 So. 2d 309, 327 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , q u o t i n g S m e l c h e r v. S t a t e , 520 So. 2d 229, 232 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . See a l s o A r r i n g t o n v. S t a t e , 757 So. 2d 484 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999). ' [ B ] a r e a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d ' a r e n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . Weeks v. S t a t e , 697 So. 2d 60, 61 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . M o r e o v e r , u n l e s s t h e grounds a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c and s u p p o r t e d by f a c t s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d , a motion f o r a new t r i a l must be v e r i f i e d a n d s u p p o r t e d by a f f i d a v i t . See, e.g., Ex p a r t e J e f f e r s o n , 749 So. 2d 406 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ; J o n e s v. S t a t e , 727 So. 2d 866 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; a n d H i l l v. S t a t e , 675 So. 2d 484 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1995) . ' A s s e r t i o n s o f c o u n s e l i n an u n v e r i f i e d m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l a r e bare allegations and cannot be c o n s i d e r e d as e v i d e n c e o r p r o o f o f t h e f a c t s a l l e g e d . ' S m i t h v. S t a t e , 364 So. 2d 1, 14 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1978) . ' " E r r o r may n o t be p r e d i c a t e d upon t h e o v e r r u l i n g o f a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l where t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d i n s u p p o r t o f t h e m o t i o n . " ' B r i t a i n v. S t a t e , 518 So. 2d 198, 203 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) , q u o t i n g T u c k e r v. S t a t e , 454 So. 2d 541, 547-48 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 3 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 454 So. 2d 552 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . See a l s o A r n o l d v. S t a t e , 601 So. 2d 145, 154 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992) ('There i s no e r r o r i n a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l where no e v i d e n c e i s o f f e r e d i n support of that motion.')." 2 9 brief T h i s a r g u m e n t was p r e s e n t e d i n I s s u e X I i n P h i l l i p s ' s on a p p e a l . 154 CR-06-1577 W a s h i n g t o n v. S t a t e , 922 So. 2d 145, 176-77 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2005). Phillips's sentence, motion bare, f o r new trial conclusory allegations; v e r i f i e d o r s u p p o r t e d by a f f i d a v i t s . abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e c i r c u i t Phillips's consisted motion f o r a new of the motion 14 one- was not A c c o r d i n g l y , we f i n d no c o u r t ' s summary d e n i a l o f trial. Sentencing Issues XII. Phillips requests t h a t t h i s Court bar the i m p o s i t i o n of t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y b e c a u s e , he s u g g e s t s , n e i t h e r t h i s C o u r t n o r the Alabama Supreme Court engage in a meaningful p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y r e v i e w , as d i r e c t e d i n § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . 30 Phillips argues: " I n a p p l y i n g A l a b a m a Code § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) , A l a b a m a c o u r t s have f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e u n i q u e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f e a c h i n d i v i d u a l when d e t e r m i n i n g whether a g i v e n death sentence i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e o f f e n s e ; r a t h e r , a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have r e g u l a r l y l i m i t e d t h e scope o f t h e i r p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y r e v i e w t o the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance t h a t e l e v a t e s the crime t o a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e . ... I n f a c t , no A l a b a m a c o u r t has ever found a death sentence to be d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e o f f e n s e f o r w h i c h he o r she T h i s argument was p r e s e n t e d i n I s s u e X I I i n P h i l l i p s ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l . 3 0 155 CR-06-1577 was c o n v i c t e d . In Alabama, the p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t has b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h a t a d e a t h s e n t e n c e i s n o t d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e as l o n g as t h e d e f e n d a n t was f o u n d g u i l t y o f a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e and a t l e a s t one o t h e r p e r s o n has p r e v i o u s l y been f o u n d g u i l t y o f t h e same o f f e n s e . " (Phillips's brief, We take a t 139-40.) exception to Phillips's suggestion that this C o u r t ' s p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y r e v i e w i s e s s e n t i a l l y a sham a n d t h a t when a d d r e s s i n g § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) than ensure that "at least one t h i s C o u r t does l i t t l e other person has more previously been f o u n d g u i l t y o f t h e same o f f e n s e . " ( P h i l l i p s ' s b r i e f , a t 139-40.) this A l t h o u g h § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 3 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975, does r e q u i r e Court to address each of the subsections of § 13A-5- 5 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, i t does n o t r e q u i r e t h i s C o u r t t o make specific factual findings r e g a r d i n g each of those T h e r e f o r e , one c a n n o t i n f e r f r o m t h e l a c k o f s p e c i f i c sections. findings w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y r e v i e w r e q u i r e d by § 13A-55 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975, t h a t t h i s C o u r t d i d n o t engage i n the necessary review. Perhaps J u s t i c e Maddox's Tarver, best addresses s p e c i a l c o n c u r r e n c e i n Ex p a r t e Phillips's assertion: " T h i s C o u r t , i n B e c k v. A l a b a m a , 396 So. 2d 645 (Ala. 1981), s p e l l e d out the r u l e i n t h i s S t a t e f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f d e a t h s e n t e n c e s , as f o l l o w s : 156 CR-06-1577 "'The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , i n G r e g g v. G e o r g i a , 428 U.S. 153, 96 S . C t . 2909, 49 L.Ed. 2d 859 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , e x p r e s s e d i t s approval of Georgia's appellate review p r o c e s s i n c a p i t a l p u n i s h m e n t c a s e s . The Georgia procedures require that the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ( t h e S t a t e Supreme C o u r t i n Georgia) review every death sentence t o d e t e r m i n e (1) w h e t h e r i t was i m p o s e d u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f p a s s i o n , p r e j u d i c e , o r any other a r b i t r a r y factor; (2) w h e t h e r t h e evidence supports the findings of a s t a t u t o r y a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e ; a n d (3) whether the sentence as imposed is excessive or d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e i n r e l a t i o n t o the p e n a l t y imposed i n s i m i l a r cases, considering both the crime and the defendant. "'The p r o c e d u r e we a d o p t r e q u i r e s t h a t the r e v i e w i n g c o u r t examine cases i n w h i c h the d e a t h p e n a l t y i s imposed and a s c e r t a i n t h a t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y i s i m p o s e d w i t h some u n i f o r m i t y and t h a t i t s i m p o s i t i o n i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y out of l i n e w i t h sentences imposed f o r o t h e r a c t s . In o t h e r words, t h e reviewing court should not a f f i r m a death sentence unless the death p e n a l t y i s being imposed generally in similar cases throughout the s t a t e . " ' I n Alabama, a sentence o f death i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e v i e w e d by t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s and, i f a f f i r m e d , i s t h e n automatically r e v i e w e d on p e t i t i o n f o r certiorari by t h i s Court. Rule 39(k), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, provides: "'"In death a l l cases i n which the p e n a l t y has been imposed, 157 CR-06-1577 upon r e v i e w o f t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e court of criminal appeals on c e r t i o r a r i , t h e supreme c o u r t may 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 under r e v i e w , whether or not brought t o 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 take 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 error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial rights of the petitioner."' " ' T h i s p r o c e d u r e adds one s t e p o f review to the Georgia procedure and, therefore, adds one more s a f e g u a r d t o insure that the death sentence i s not being imposed arbitrarily or capriciously. F u r t h e r m o r e , ARAP R u l e 3 9 ( k ) p r o v i d e s a " p l a i n e r r o r " scope o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o death p e n a l t y cases only. "'To i n s u r e t h a t s e n t e n c e s o f d e a t h w i l l n o t be a r b i t r a r i l y a n d c a p r i c i o u s l y i m p o s e d , we h o l d t h a t b o t h t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s and t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d examine a l l d e a t h s e n t e n c e s i n l i g h t o f t h e s t a n d a r d s and p r o c e d u r e approved i n Gregg. E a c h d e a t h s e n t e n c e s h o u l d be r e v i e w e d t o a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r t h e c r i m e was i n f a c t one properly p u n i s h a b l e by d e a t h , whether s i m i l a r crimes throughout the s t a t e are b e i n g p u n i s h e d c a p i t a l l y and whether t h e sentence of death i s appropriate i n r e l a t i o n t o the p a r t i c u l a r defendant. In making t h i s f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h e c o u r t s s h o u l d e x a m i n e t h e p e n a l t y i m p o s e d upon t h e d e f e n d a n t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h a t i m p o s e d upon h i s a c c o m p l i c e s , i f any.' 158 CR-06-1577 "This s t a n d a r d of a p p e l l a t e review, I b e l i e v e , i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the standard of review approved by t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . " I b e l i e v e t h a t i n B e c k v. A l a b a m a , 396 So.2d 645 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) , t h i s C o u r t ' b u i l t i n t o t h e j u d i c i a l machinery checks a g a i n s t the f r e a k i s h i m p o s i t i o n of the death penalty.' (Adams, J., concurring s p e c i a l l y , 396 So.2d, a t 6 6 6 ) . "I b e l i e v e t h a t the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals and t h i s C o u r t a r e s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r r o l e s as a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s and a r e c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y a p p l y i n g the Beck standards on review, and are not a u t o m a t i c a l l y a f f i r m i n g t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s made by trial judges of the appropriateness of death sentences... ." Ex parte denied, Tarver, 494 specially) U.S. 553 So. 1090 2d 633, (1990) 635 (Ala. (Maddox, (footnote omitted)(emphasis 1989), J., cert. concurring added). XIII. Phillips claims that Alabama's " s y s t e m " 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 , he no s t a t e w i d e to standards capital-punishment contends, are to ensure t h a t p r o s e c u t o r s ' d e c i s i o n s seek the death p e n a l t y are u n i f o r m a c r o s s jurisdictions. P h i l l i p s m a i n t a i n s t h a t under the c u r r e n t system, are f r e e t o base these there life and T h i s argument was p r e s e n t e d b r i e f on a p p e a l a t pp. 141-44. 3 1 159 death 3 1 "prosecutors d e c i s i o n s on p e r s o n a l , i n Issue X I I I i n P h i l l i p s ' s CR-06-1577 i r r e l e v a n t , and i m p r o p e r c r i t e r i a , " w h i c h , he a r g u e s , results in capital geographic punishment brief, disparities among in similarly the imposition situated persons. of (Phillips's a t 142-44.) Phillips c i t e s B u s h v. G o r e , 531 U.S. 98 (2000), f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t " c l a i m s l i k e t h i s one and t h e one i n B u s h a r e not based on an i n d i v i d u a l a c t o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , b u t c h a l l e n g e a system i n which u n c o n t r o l l e d o f f i c i a l makes a r b i t r a r y and u n e q u a l t r e a t m e n t i n e v i t a b l e . " brief, a t p. 142.)(Emphasis rather discretion (Phillips's added.) B u s h v. Gore i n v o l v e d a 2000 p r e s i d e n t i a l election v o t e - c o u n t i n g c o n t r o v e r s y i n the State of F l o r i d a , i n w h i c h t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t where a s t a t e c o u r t o r d e r s a s t a t e w i d e v o t e r e c o u n t , " t h e r e must be a t l e a s t some a s s u r a n c e t h a t t h e r u d i m e n t a r y r e q u i r e m e n t s e q u a l t r e a t m e n t and a t 109. f a i r n e s s are s a t i s f i e d . " A claim similar predicated on t h e h o l d i n g i n B u s h v. L e w i s v. S t a t e , 24 So. 3d 540 t o t h e one 24 So. 3d 480 Phillips Gore -- ( A l a . C r i m . App. of B u s h , 531 U.S. raises also was -- raised 2006), in aff'd, ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , L e w i s v. A l a b a m a , U.S. , 130 noted: "We S.Ct. fail 796 (2009). t o see how this 160 Rejecting decision that claim, we lends support f o r CR-06-1577 L e w i s ' s c l a i m , g i v e n t h a t 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 d e c i s i o n was noting that 'the problem processes generally 109, 121 S.Ct. The core ' l i m i t e d t o the p r e s e n t equal protection p r e s e n t many c o m p l e x i t i e s . ' 525.'" of of 24 So. 3d a t Phillips's argument d i s c r e t i o n i n determining death penalty r e s u l t s i n u n e q u a l and similarly s i t u a t e d persons across He the punishment prosecute suggestion system cases that enables based contention r e j e c t e d by this I n B e c k v. a f f ' d , 365 So. has election 531 U.S. that whether to disparate at Alabama's their own allowing seek treatment jurisdictions a g e n d a s , r a t h e r t h a n upon t h e law and Phillips's is to personal been of capital- selectively biases the f a c t s of the previously the i n Alabama. current prosecutors upon in 536. prosecutorial makes circumstances,' and case. addressed 3 2 and Court. State, 2d 1006 365 So. 2d 985 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1978), ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) , r e v ' d on u n r e l a t e d ground, P h i l l i p s does n o t c o n t e n d t h a t t h e c h a r g e s i n h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e r e s u l t e d f r o m s e l e c t i v e p r o s e c u t i o n , and t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e record that improper s e l e c t i v e p r o s e c u t i o n p l a y e d any r o l e i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t r e t u r n e d a g a i n s t P h i l l i p s . See C r a w f o r d v. S t a t e , 548 So. 2d 615 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f s e l e c t i v e p r o s e c u t i o n . 3 2 161 CR-06-1577 B e c k v. A l a b a m a , 447 that Alabama's P r o t e c t i o n Clause U.S. 625 (1980), the death-penalty statute b e c a u s e , he appellant violated claimed the Equal contended: "The g r a n d j u r y a l o n e , u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f the district attorney of a county, makes the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any aggravating c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and i t i s f r o m t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y t h a t the grand j u r y hears evidence of a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances." B e c k , 365 So. 2d a t 999. He claimed that s i d e d p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e v i d e n c e and t h e "[t]his 'chilling is a one¬ fact i s that t h e l o c a l d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y a l o n e makes t h e d e c i s i o n t o t r y a d e f e n d a n t u n d e r t h e new at d e a t h p e n a l t y a c t . ' " B e c k , 365 So. 999. This Court r e j e c t e d Beck's c l a i m : "The Alabama d e a t h p e n a l t y statute, supra, p r o v i d e s f o r s e n t e n c e of d e a t h i n v o l v i n g murder w i t h a g g r a v a t i o n . W i t h t h i s g u i d a n c e we c a n n o t accept [ B e c k ' s ] a s s e r t i o n ... t h a t d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y s o f t h i s State w i l l s y s t e m a t i c a l l y f a i l to f i l e c a p i t a l m u r d e r c h a r g e s , when t h e e v i d e n c e w a r r a n t s i t , o r s e e k c o n v i c t i o n s on i n a d e q u a t e e v i d e n c e . "Someone must e x e r c i s e t h i s discretion and j u d g m e n t as t o what c h a r g e s a r e t o be f i l e d and a g a i n s t whom. T h i s i s p a r t o f o u r c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m and i s e s s e n t i a l to i t s operation and e n f o r c e m e n t . The d i s c r e t i o n r e p o s i n g i n A l a b a m a ' s d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y s i s no more t h a n t h a t i n v e s t e d i n other prosecutors across t h i s country. I t furnishes no b a s i s f o r i n f e r r i n g t h a t c a p i t a l c r i m e s w i l l be prosecuted on an a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s b a s i s . 162 2d CR-06-1577 A l s o , t h a t c a p i t a l m u r d e r s w i l l be p r o s e c u t e d so f r e q u e n t l y and a r b i t r a r i l y t h a t our death p e n a l t y s t a t u t e w o u l d be v o i d u n d e r Furman v. G e o r g i a , 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346, i s an i n v a l i d assumption." B e c k , 365 So.2d a t 999-1000. Likewise, prosecutors we across reject this Phillips's State suggestion are s e l e c t i v e l y that choosing to prosecute or not to prosecute i n d i v i d u a l s f o r c a p i t a l offenses based on Phillips the prosecutor's own personal i s due no r e l i e f on t h i s agenda or b i a s e s . claim. XIV. Phillips of the death contends that this p e n a l t y because, Court he should bar i m p o s i t i o n c l a i m s , Alabama's penalty statute " f a i l s to constitutionally people sentenced addressed to death." 3 3 This death- narrow the c l a s s of assertion has been and r e j e c t e d by t h i s C o u r t . See, V a n p e l t v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-06-1539, December 18, 2009] App. 2 0 0 9 ) . So. 3d P h i l l i p s i s due no r e l i e f i n t h i s ( A l a . Crim. claim. XV. 3 3 T h i s a r g u m e n t was p r e s e n t e d i n I s s u e X I V i n P h i l l i p s ' s brief. 163 CR-06-1577 In P h i l l i p s ' s method l a s t a r g u m e n t , he c o n t e n d s t h a t A l a b a m a ' s of performing lethal injection Amendment b a n on c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l violates punishment and t h a t i t i s " i n c o n s i s t e n t with s o c i e t y ' s e v o l v i n g standards This Court contention. has previously the Eighth addressed and of decency." rejected 34 this I n G o b b l e v . S t a t e , we w r o t e : "Gobble argues that evolving standards of d e c e n c y have r e n d e r e d A l a b a m a ' s method o f p e r f o r m i n g l e t h a l i n j e c t i o n u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . She c i t e s t h e article, Leonidas G. Koniaris, Inadeguate A n a e s t h e s i a i n L e t h a l I n j e c t i o n f o r E x e c u t i o n , 3 65 L a n c e t 1412 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , t o s u p p o r t h e r a r g u m e n t . T h i s s t u d y was b a s e d on t h e i m p r o p e r a d m i n i s t e r i n g o f t h e first drug-sodium thiopental-which acts as an a n a e s t h e s i a . The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t c i t e d t h i s s t u d y i n B a z e v . R e e s , 553 U.S. 35, n. 2, 128 S.Ct. 1520, 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008) . A l a b a m a ' s method of performing lethal injection, a three-drug protocol, i s substantially similar t o t h e one c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n B a z e v. R e e s . "The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e B e l i s l e , 11 So. 3d 323 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , h e l d t h a t A l a b a m a ' s method o f p e r f o r m i n g lethal i n j e c t i o n does n o t c o n s t i t u t e c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t . The C o u r t stated: "'The E i g h t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Constitution provides: "Excessive bail s h a l l n o t be r e q u i r e d , n o r e x c e s s i v e f i n e s T h i s argument was p r e s e n t e d b r i e f on a p p e a l . 3 4 164 i n Issue XV i n P h i l l i p s ' s CR-06-1577 i m p o s e d , n o r c r u e l and u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t s inflicted." "Punishments are c r u e l when they i n v o l v e t o r t u r e or a l i n g e r i n g death; but the punishment of d e a t h i s not cruel w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h a t w o r d as u s e d i n the constitution. It implies there s o m e t h i n g inhuman and b a r b a r o u s , - s o m e t h i n g more t h a n t h e mere e x t i n g u i s h m e n t o f l i f e . " I n r e Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 447, 10 S. C t . 930, 34 L. Ed. 519 (1890) . However, as t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s r e c e n t l y s t a t e d i n B a z e v. R e e s , 553 U.S. 35, 128 S.Ct. 1520, 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008): "'"Our cases recognize that s u b j e c t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s to a r i s k of future harm -not simply a c t u a l l y i n f l i c t i n g p a i n -can qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. To establish that such exposure v i o l a t e s the E i g h t h Amendment, however, the conditions p r e s e n t i n g the risk must be ' s u r e o r v e r y l i k e l y t o cause serious illness and needless suffering,' and give rise to 'sufficiently imminent d a n g e r s . ' H e l l i n g v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33, 34-35, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed. 2d 22 (1993) (emphasis added) . We have e x p l a i n e d t h a t t o p r e v a i l on s u c h a claim there must be a 'substantial risk of serious harm,' an 'objectively i n t o l e r a b l e r i s k o f harm' that prevents prison officials from pleading that they were 'subjectively blameless for purposes of the Eighth Amendment.' F a r m e r v. Brennan, 165 CR-06-1577 511 U.S. 825, 842, 846, and n. 9, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed. 2d 811 (1994)."' "'553 U.S. at , 128 S.Ct. at 1530-31. "'In Baze, two death-row inmates c h a l l e n g e d K e n t u c k y ' s use o f t h e t h r e e - d r u g protocol, arguing "that there is a s i g n i f i c a n t r i s k t h a t the p r o c e d u r e s w i l l n o t be p r o p e r l y followed-in particular, t h a t the sodium t h i o p e n t a l w i l l not be properly administered to achieve its intended e f f e c t - r e s u l t i n g i n severe pain when t h e o t h e r c h e m i c a l s a r e a d m i n i s t e r e d . " 553 U.S. at , 128 S.Ct. at 1530. B e l i s l e ' s c l a i m , l i k e t h e c l a i m s made by the inmates i n Baze, "hinges on the improper a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the f i r s t drug, s o d i u m t h i o p e n t a l . " B a z e , 553 U.S. a t , 128 S.Ct. a t 1533. "'The Supreme Court upheld the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f K e n t u c k y ' s method o f e x e c u t i o n , B a z e , 553 U.S. a t , 128 S.Ct. a t 1538, and n o t e d t h a t " [ a ] S t a t e w i t h a lethal injection protocol substantially s i m i l a r t o t h e p r o t o c o l we u p h o l d t o d a y w o u l d n o t c r e a t e a r i s k t h a t meets t h i s s t a n d a r d . " B a z e , 553 U.S. a t , 128 S.Ct. at 1537. J u s t i c e G i n s b u r g and Justice S o u t e r d i s s e n t e d from the main o p i n i o n , arguing that "Kentucky's p r o t o c o l lacks b a s i c s a f e g u a r d s u s e d by o t h e r S t a t e s t o confirm that an inmate i s unconscious b e f o r e i n j e c t i o n o f t h e s e c o n d and third d r u g s . " B a z e , 553 U.S. a t , 128 S.Ct. a t 1567 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). The dissenting J u s t i c e s recognized, however, that Alabama's procedures, along with procedures used i n M i s s o u r i , C a l i f o r n i a , and Indiana "provide a degree of 166 CR-06-1577 assurance-missing from Kentucky's protocol-that the f i r s t drug had been p r o p e r l y a d m i n i s t e r e d . " B a z e , 553 U.S. a t , 128 S.Ct. a t 1571 (Ginsburg, J . , dissenting). "'The S t a t e a r g u e s , and we a g r e e , t h a t B e l i s l e , l i k e the inmates i n Baze, cannot meet h i s b u r d e n of demonstrating t h a t Alabama's l e t h a l - i n j e c t i o n p r o t o c o l poses a s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k o f harm by a s s e r t i n g t h e mere p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s o m e t h i n g may go w r o n g . " S i m p l y b e c a u s e an e x e c u t i o n method may r e s u l t i n p a i n , e i t h e r by a c c i d e n t o r as an i n e s c a p a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e of death, does n o t e s t a b l i s h t h e s o r t o f ' o b j e c t i v e l y i n t o l e r a b l e r i s k o f harm' t h a t q u a l i f i e s as c r u e l and u n u s u a l . " B a z e , 553 U.S. a t , 128 S.Ct. a t 1531. Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t A l a b a m a ' s u s e o f l e t h a l i n j e c t i o n as a method o f e x e c u t i o n does n o t v i o l a t e t h e E i g h t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Constitution.'" "11 So.3d a t 338-39. A l a b a m a ' s method o f p e r f o r m i n g l e t h a l i n j e c t i o n i s n o t c r u e l and u n u s u a l . " G o b b l e v. S t a t e , 3d , [Ms. CR-05-0225, F e b r u a r y 5, 2 0 1 0 ] , ( A l a . C r i m . App. a l s o M o r r i s v. S t a t e , So. 3d 2010.) So. (footnote omitted). [Ms. CR-07-1997, F e b r u a r y 5, 2 0 1 0 ] , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; V a n p e l t v. S t a t e , 06-1539, December 18, 2 0 0 9 ] , So. 3d [Ms. ( A l a . Crim. 2009). Accordingly, See Phillips i s due no r e l i e f XVI. 167 on h i s c l a i m . CRApp. CR-06-1577 As r e q u i r e d b y § 13A-5-53, A l a . Code 1975, we w i l l address the p r o p r i e t y of P h i l l i p s ' s death now sentence. P h i l l i p s 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 c a p i t a l m u r d e r : (1) murdering degree, Paul LeMaster during see § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 4 ) , a burglary i n the first A l a . Code 1975; (2) m u r d e r i n g P a u l L e M a s t e r d u r i n g a r o b b e r y i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e , s e e 13A-54 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975; a n d (3) m u r d e r i n g P a u l L e M a s t e r b y shooting him w h i l e Phillips was outside the d w e l l i n g and L e M a s t e r was i n s i d e t h e d w e l l i n g , s e e § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 1 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. The Phillips be s e n t e n c e d Pursuant reviewed to by §13A-5-53(a), affecting proceedings. a vote o f 12-0, recommended that t o death. the sentencing adversely the jury, Code proceedings Phillips's of Alabama, a n d we find during the rights we no have error sentencing In i t s sentencing order, the c i r c u i t court found existence of three statutory aggravating circumstances: (1) t h a t t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was c o m m i t t e d w h i l e P h i l l i p s was u n d e r a s e n t e n c e o f i m p r i s o n m e n t , s e e § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975; (2) Phillips of, that the capital offense was "was e n g a g e d o r was an a c c o m p l i c e o r an a t t e m p t t o commit, o r f l i g h t 168 committed while i n the commission after committing, or CR-06-1577 attempting Code 1975; while t o commit, and Phillips ... b u r g l a r y , s e e § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 4 ) , A l a . (3) t h a t was the c a p i t a l "engaged attempt was committed accomplice committing, o r a t t e m p t i n g t o commit, ... r o b b e r y , " s e e § 13A- specific § or flight after 1975. r e q u i r e d by As commit, i n the of, or A l a . Code to an was commission 5-49(4), an or offense 13A-5-47(d), the c i r c u i t court w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s t h a t none o f t h e r e m a i n i n g made statutory f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n § 13A-5-49, A l a . Code 1975, e x i s t e d i n t h i s case. to The c i r c u i t c o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t a s s i g n e d no those The weight factors. circuit court d i d not f i n d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any o f t h e s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s e n u m e r a t e d i n § 13A-551, A l a b a m a Code 1975. Code 1975, the However, p u r s u a n t circuit court did nonstatutory mitigating circumstances: consumption prior to t h e murder; present mental-health issues; and (2) t o § 13A-5-52, A l a . find the following (1) P h i l l i p s ' s a l c o h o l Phillips's (3) P h i l l i p s ' s past and decision to c o n f e s s and h i s e x p r e s s i o n o f r e m o r s e . P u r s u a n t t o § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 3 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, t h i s r e v i e w e d t h e r e c o r d , and we d e t e r m i n e 169 C o u r t has that the c i r c u i t court's CR-06-1577 findings regarding the aggravating and mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e s u p p o r t e d by the e v i d e n c e . Because Phillips's we find rights that was no error adversely made i n t h e s e n t e n c e affecting proceedings and that the c i r c u i t court's findings concerning the aggravating and m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e , we s h a l l now p r o c e e d t o r e v i e w t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e d e c i s i o n t h a t d e a t h was t h e p r o p e r sentenced. In d e t e r m i n i n g whether death i s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e , this Court will specifically enumerated i n § 13A-5-53(b), The imposed record under reflects address of the factors A l a . Code 1975: that the influence each Phillips's sentence of passion, prejudice, was not o r any o t h e r a r b i t r a r y f a c t o r . See § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. After mitigating an independent weighing c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we a g r e e of the aggravating that death and i s the proper s e n t e n c e . See § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Section Court to 13A-5-53(b)(3), determine whether A l a . Code Phillips's 1975, r e q u i r e s death sentence this is d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e o r e x c e s s i v e when compared t o t h e p e n a l t i e s imposed i n s i m i l a r cases. P h i l l i p s was c o n v i c t e d o f one c o u n t 170 CR-06-1577 o f murder d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f a b u r g l a r y , during a r o b b e r y , a n d one c o u n t one c o u n t o f m u r d e r of shooting the v i c t i m from o u t s i d e t h e d w e l l i n g w h i l e t h e v i c t i m was i n s i d e t h e d w e l l i n g . These o f f e n s e s a r e d e f i n e d b y s t a t u t e . See § § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) , ( a ) ( 4 ) , a n d ( a ) ( 1 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Considering that the the crime sentence disproportionate "'"In fact, Alabama State, death two-thirds So. is to the penalty involve 868 of committed cases 2d and P h i l l i p s , imposed of the death of 1128, nor in similar sentences robbery/murder."'" 1188 find excessive neither we ( A l a . Crim. cases. imposed i n Stallworth App. v. 2001) . F o r b u r g l a r y / m u r d e r s e e B e l i s l e v. S t a t e , 11 So. 3d 256, 322 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , Finally, thoroughly adversely by Rule therein. 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P , we f o r any e r r o r that may affected P h i l l i p s ' s substantial rights with capital-murder whether attention defect as r e q u i r e d examined the r e c o r d to P h i l l i p s ' s death, and cases c i t e d convictions or not brought of the c i r c u i t court. i n the proceedings. 171 find have respect and h i s sentence o f t o our a t t e n t i o n We have or t o the no p l a i n e r r o r or CR-06-1577 Based upon the foregoing, Phillips's capital-murder c o n v i c t i o n s and h i s s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h a r e a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. Wise, P . J . , a n d W e l c h , Windom, a n d M a i n , J J . , c o n c u r . 172

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.