Michael Wayne Reynolds v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/01/2010 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-07-0443 M i c h a e l Wayne R e y n o l d s v. S t a t e o f Alabama A p p e a l from Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t (CC-05-257.01 - CC-05-257.05) KELLUM, In Judge. March indictment charging with 2005, against him with t h e deaths an E t o w a h County the appellant, five grand Michael jury returned Wayne an Reynolds, counts o f c a p i t a l murder i n c o n n e c t i o n o f Charles James M a r t i n I I I , Melinda Martin, CR-07-0443 and t h e M a r t i n s ' e i g h t - y e a r - o l d d a u g h t e r , S a v a n n a h M a r t i n . murders were were k i l l e d conduct, made b e c a u s e : ( 1 ) two b y one a c t o r p u r s u a n t see § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , indictment); committed (2) indictment); the 40(a)(2), the Code of of a murdered, 1975 1975 III robbery, (count II M a r t i n was robbery, § 13A-5- indictment); Code o f A l a b a m a (5) t h e m u r d e r the committed l e s s t h a n 1 4 y e a r s o f a g e when s h e IV o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t ) ; and was see § of see (count I I I of the see § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 1 5 ) , of (count I of the Martin of a f i r s t - d e g r e e of Melinda persons scheme o r c o u r s e Charles first-degree Code o f A l a b a m a (4) S a v a n n a h M a r t i n was of Alabama (3) t h e m u r d e r course t o one o r more A l a . Code 1975 murder during the course 13A-5-40(a)(2), during capital The 1975 was (count of Savannah M a r t i n was c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f a f i r s t - d e g r e e r o b b e r y , see § the 13A-5-40(a)(2), Code of Alabama 1975 (count V of indictment). Following five The counts jury sentenced a trial by j u r y , of c a p i t a l recommended, to death. murder, by The a Reynolds as c h a r g e d vote circuit 2 was of 12-0, court c o n v i c t e d of a l l i n the indictment. that accepted Reynolds the be jury's CR-07-0443 recommendation and capital-murder convictions. Reynolds d e n i e d by sentenced filed a timely o p e r a t i o n of law. hours State presented o f S u n d a y , May 25, motion death gasoline in and This appeal that morning purse and f o r the trial, five which was Crimes 1 evidence that followed. i n the early morning 2003, C h a r l e s M a r t i n I I I , h i s their house. set fire. on death f o r new M e l i n d a , and t h e i r 8 - y e a r - o l d d a u g h t e r , to to of the Facts The Reynolds Their The Savannah, were bodies crimes were were wife, stabbed doused with discovered later by M e l i n d a ' s f a t h e r , J e r r y V e a l . M e l i n d a M a r t i n ' s a cordless t e l e p h o n e were m i s s i n g from the house. R e y n o l d s was s e n t e n c e d on D e c e m b e r 6, 2 0 0 7 . A p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l f i l e d a t i m e l y m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l on D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 . On February 11, 2008, appellate counsel f i l e d an a m e n d m e n t t o t h e m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . On F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g o n t h e m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n b y w r i t t e n o r d e r on F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 . H o w e v e r , t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e m o t i o n was c o n t i n u e d i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h R u l e 24.4, A l a . R. C r i m . P . ; t h u s , t h e m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l was d e e m e d d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on F e b r u a r y 4, 2 0 0 8 ( 6 0 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e R e y n o l d s was s e n t e n c e d ) . T h e r e f o r e , a l l p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t r e l a t i n g t o t h e m o t i o n f o r a new trial s u b s e q u e n t t o F e b r u a r y 4, 2 0 0 8 , a r e m o o t . 1 3 CR-07-0443 A d r i a n M a r c e l l a " M a r c i e " W e s t , who was M i c h a e l R e y n o l d s ' s girlfriend at the time of the murders, t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l . She and R e y n o l d s l i v e d w i t h R e y n o l d s ' s f a t h e r , H a r o l d R e y n o l d s , a t the time 24, 2003, M i c h a e l Reynolds Harvey, o f t h e c r i m e s . West who cocaine. crack was West also installed known several used more on S a t u r d a y , a car stereo as " D i n o , " and R e y n o l d s cocaine t e s t i f i e d that f o r Donald i n exchange f o r some the c o c a i n e ; they times throughout May also that used day and night. West t e s t i f i e d that morning, a she d r o v e vehicle Sandra West said the M a r t i n s ' a s s u m e d he m e a n t When the owned were good f r i e n d s . to they vehicle Reynolds that night Michael Reynolds was Roberts. Martin going that later that arrived by Reynolds's girlfriend, Michael Reynolds and C h a r l e s Reynolds house he was told " t o get West t h a t some t h e y were money," going to rob Charles at the Martin i n the driveway, on S u n d a y t o the M a r t i n s ' house i n Harold that or e a r l y residence, and she Martin. West and M i c h a e l R e y n o l d s t o l d West t o w a i t i n t h e c a r . West s a i d t h a t parked got out. Reynolds was n o t w e a r i n g a n y s h o e s , a n d t h a t he was c a r r y i n g a s c a b b a r d c o n t a i n i n g a d a g g e r - s t y l e k n i f e . She had seen t h e k n i f e b e f o r e 4 CR-07-0443 at H a r o l d Reynolds's not alarmed said, residence. that Reynolds Reynolds sometimes West testified she was had the k n i f e w i t h him because, she traded various that items f o r drugs or money. Reynolds Martin went to the carport opened the door Reynolds went While into West and knocked. saw waiting Charles Martin heard Melinda Martin i n the c a r , she t o t h e bedroom, next to Martin the bed was West as lying on the kitchen screaming i n the back went and house. heard M a r t i n s c r e a m . West g o t o u t o f t h e c a r and r a n i n t o She Charles and waved a t West, and t h e n M a r t i n the was door where s h e saw Michael the floor house. and of the house. Melinda Martin Reynolds Melinda stabbed bent she West over h e r . Savannah on t h e b e d . testified that she g o t between R e y n o l d s and t r i e d t o s t o p h i m f r o m s t a b b i n g h e r . R e y n o l d s and M e l i n d a accidentally s t a b b e d W e s t t h r o u g h t h e a r m when s h e t r i e d t o i n t e r v e n e . W e s t testified that Reynolds yelled a t h e r and a s k e d h e r what she was d o i n g t h e r e . He t o l d W e s t t o g e t t h e t e l e p h o n e a n d M e l i n d a M a r t i n ' s p u r s e a n d t o go w a i t i n t h e c a r . R e y n o l d s 5 handed her CR-07-0443 two a knives steak knife West and -- t h e k n i f e took t h a t West h a d n o t s e e n grabbed the telephone the knives room, Melinda bed, and testified and l e f t Martin Savannah that was she f e l t i n the hallway. over Charles Martin's was body the kitchen-counter. Martin's over" a t t h e end on so she l e a n e d felt i n the and faint the up when kitchen, West l e f t purse, When s h e l e f t standing again the house, before. t h e bedroom. faint, She into and M e l i n d a "slouched Martin wall against t h a t he h a d t a k e n the of the bed. West against the she so crossed she leaned t h e house and went t o the c a r . West opened t h e f r o n t p a s s e n g e r d o o r and p l a c e d t h e i t e m s i n t h e f l o o r b o a r d and then vehicle -- t h e d r i v e r ' s West West testified not to leave, went b a c k i n t o car a second testified for that crawled d o o r was that to the d r i v e r ' s damaged Reynolds and then he came grabbed and d i d n o t open. t o t h e c a r and the larger the house. Reynolds a p p a r e n t l y time and s h e was again told afraid, West side of the not knife stabbed. 6 and returned to the to leave. so she d i d n o t l e a v e h e l p . A t t h a t t i m e , West d i d n o t r e a l i z e told or West call t h a t she had been CR-07-0443 West t e s t i f i e d the third t h a t when R e y n o l d s r e t u r n e d t o t h e c a r f o r t i m e , he g o t i n t h e v e h i c l e and t o l d h a d b e e n s t a b b e d a n d t h a t he s h o u l d d r i v e . d i d not a l l o w Reynolds to d r i v e because going t o t a k e h e r somewhere orange glow of a f i r e She d r o v e b a c k arrived give West was house, Sandra bandaged her bedroom. Reynolds that h e r . West could Michael Reynolds looking see t h e a using shower, told a When t h e y told a shower. West West to stated through Melinda Martin's purse. Reynolds Roberts's car. After arm, she s h e f e a r e d t h a t he was t o him and t o t a k e taking cleaned she i n the house. at Reynolds's s h e saw R e y n o l d s While West s a i d to Harold Reynolds's residence. her clothes that and k i l l her that West first-aid West that took showered, k i t they there a was no had cloth and Reynolds in blood their i n the car. Sandra Roberts testified that s h e was asleep R e y n o l d s ' s b e d when W e s t a n d M i c h a e l R e y n o l d s the house. was a w a k e n e d when stand She beside testified that Reynolds t h e b e d . West around placed 3:00 7 a r r i v e d back at o r 4:00 h e r c a r keys and R e y n o l d s then i n Harold a.m., on t h e went to she night their CR-07-0443 bedroom. R o b e r t s noticed that W e s t was walking with her arms folded. Roberts out down sat got the kitchen Reynolds at entered the t o l d h e r t o go b u y of the bed took Reynolds's When Reynolds of the went into A short time table. kitchen and a shower the k i t c h e n later, gave R o b e r t s some d r u g s . R o b e r t s l e f t c r a c k c o c a i n e . West s a i d Reynolds and that Michael some money and p u r c h a s e d t h a t w h i l e R o b e r t s was and and and some gone, M i c h a e l i s when s h e noticed the she blood on legs. Roberts divided drugs the returned house, crack cocaine. Roberts w h i l e she Michael Reynolds to was seated at the and Michael used her portion kitchen table, but t o o k h i s and West's s h a r e o f t h e c r a c k t o h i s bedroom. Roberts testified that Reynolds r e e n t e r e d the k i t c h e n but refused. Roberts a she more drugs give him Roberts but, more money. R e y n o l d s time later, Michael and p r o p o s i t i o n e d h e r f o r s e x , said according to short that him, asked agreed. 8 Michael he could Roberts Reynolds not get to t a l k wanted West to to West. CR-07-0443 When Roberts entered t h e bedroom, West was i n the bed w i t h t h e c o v e r s p u l l e d up t o h e r n e c k , s t a r i n g a t t h e c e i l i n g . Roberts testified was u n a b l e to t h a t W e s t was a c t i n g s t r a n g e l y and t h a t she t o engage West i n a n y c o n v e r s a t i o n . R o b e r t s l e a v e a n d go t o h e r h o u s e . A s s h e was d r i v i n g , a cordless telephone car. Roberts West that had never West eyeglass piece Reynolds told their t h e base woke noticed that would melt her that the of her before. around 9:00 o r 9:30 o n eyeglasses the night before out to Reynolds, she n o t i c e d on t h e b a c k s e a t that telephone Reynolds had been w e a r i n g she p o i n t e d t h i s that seen and M i c h a e l morning. Reynolds without decided Michael were b r o k e n . When he t o l d h e r t h a t t h e m i s s i n g i n the f i r e . the knives were West testified under c l o t h e s and M e l i n d a M a r t i n ' s purse that t h e t r u c k and were i n a w h i t e bag. Around 1 0 : 0 0 a.m. Martin's father, residence located became c o n c e r n e d o n S u n d a y May 2 5 , J e r r y drove by Charles and Veal, Melinda Melinda Martin's on T i d m o r e Bend Road i n E t o w a h C o u n t y . when h e saw M e l i n d a ' s vehicle parked Veal i n the d r i v e w a y b e c a u s e M e l i n d a r e g u l a r l y a t t e n d e d c h u r c h s e r v i c e s on 9 CR-07-0443 Sunday but mornings. Veal telephoned Melinda vehicle drove back to the Martin i n the driveway. door and knocked. the carport When door residence and found the t o r n down, a n d t h e r e was b l o o d returned telephoned phone w i t h Gadsden 911. officer, drive saw i n a pool was by the saw and she on t h e house. were of blood. h i s wife, talking -¬ cell retired Veal was w i t h M u l k e y , s o he s t o p p e d M u l k e y a n d t o l d h i m w h a t had seen. Mulkey i n s t r u c t e d Veal to Veal treatments everywhere. Veal t o h i s c a r and t o l d Jerry opened i n disarray t h e window on t h e k i t c h e n f l o o r While Veal t h e 911 d i s p a t c h e r , h e saw J a m e s M u l k e y , a police acquainted around, kitchen partially Veal moved lying to the carport no o n e came t o t h e d o o r , had been son-in-law and parked h i s He g o t o u t a n d w e n t furniture he phone, no o n e a n s w e r e d . Veal his on h i s c e l l the carport Charles kitchen door. Martin, floor. When M u l k e y who Mulkey t i m e b e c a u s e he c o u l d t o r e m a i n o u t s i d e , and M u l k e y went appeared opened t o be d i d not enter detect the strong gunpowder. 10 the carport dead, lying the residence odor o f d o o r , he on t h e at that g a s o l i n e and CR-07-0443 When the paramedics arrived, Mulkey entered the r e s i d e n c e ; they determined and the paramedics that Charles Martin was d e a d . M u l k e y and t h e p a r a m e d i c s p r o c e e d e d down t h e h a l l w a y determine one i f any was d i s c o v e r e d the bodies a bedroom. The i n need of Melinda b e d r o o m was of m e d i c a l M a r t i n and to a s s i s t a n c e . They Savannah M a r t i n i n i n d i s a r r a y and there was blood so M u l k e y opened everywhere. The s m e l l o f g a s o l i n e was overpowering, t h e b a c k d o o r t o t h e r e s i d e n c e , and left through disturb the t h e n he and the the back door of the house, being paramedics careful not scene. I n v e s t i g a t o r s a r r i v e d and p r o c e s s e d investigation, a bloody partial the scene. footprint and a During blood w e r e d i s c o v e r e d on t h e s t e p s o u t s i d e t h e c a r p o r t d o o r . M a r t i n was found lying on the floor in a pool c i g a r e t t e by h i s mouth. T h e r e were t h r e e b l o o d y the kitchen floor. The k i t c h e n c h a i r s were s p a t t e r e d e v e r y w h e r e . A g a s o l i n e can b e s i d e C h a r l e s M a r t i n ' s body, and throughout the into drop with shoe p r i n t s over, t h e r e was sitting exploded k i t c h e n and 11 was the Charles of b l o o d knocked k i t c h e n b l i n d s had b e e n r i p p e d o r s l a s h e d , and scattered to on the a on the blood floor b o t t l e r o c k e t s were the living room. CR-07-0443 A utensil blood the burners of a spoon located on the prescription Blood door kitchen with to counter the the stove gray open, and a l s o on was sandwiches lit. on one Investigators i t and stove. a A the the hallway syringe basket bodies wall of of opposite Melinda and discovered. M a r t i n was foot of the found lying bed. on She the had floor slits was back near brace. A walking cane was found c o r d e x t e n d e d f r o m t h e w a l l by bed to Melinda the M a r t i n ' s b o d y , b u t no on the i n her t h a t w e r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s t a b w o u n d s . She telephone were counter. on where there t h e s t o v e , and in the the found bedroom by material beside d r o p l e t s were Melinda of the d r u g s was Savannah were side k i t c h e n was p l a t e on t h e k i t c h e n c o u n t e r observed the i n the d r o p l e t s u n d e r t h e d r a w e r . T h e r e w e r e two a Styrofoam of drawer right clothing also wearing her body. the headboard of been stabbed through her lying m u l t i p l e times neck. A bloody on h e r b a c k on and hand 12 had a print was A the cord. S a v a n n a h M a r t i n was telephone a the bed. prominent was attached She stab discovered to had wound near CR-07-0443 S a v a n n a h ' s b o d y on t h e f i t t e d surface, An bed there transport testing. later pair was no r i d g e d e t a i l investigator linens the bedding that An the a nearby inquired whether the eyeglass piece to a Law-enforcement piece. Martin of 11 s t a b wounds t o h i s body. Savannah o f 5 s t a b wounds t o h e r body. A l l t h e burns to their bodies, and Chuck Martin b u r n s on h i s b o d y . None o f t h e s t a b w o u n d s t o that convenience asked and a temple o f 24 s t a b w o u n d s t o h e r b o d y . C h a r l e s testified Reynolds to a n d p u t up t o d r y out of the bedding. v i c t i m s was i m m e d i a t e l y West bag i n order Martin had chemical a l s o had thermal remote and laboratory f o rfurther was u n p a c k a g e d about d i e d as a r e s u l t victims paper comforter that Melinda as a r e s u l t Martin large of the v i c t i m s confirmed d i e d as a r e s u l t died fell informed autopsy to the print. to the forensic day, a t e l e v i s i o n were h o w e v e r , due t o t h e s o f t the wet, bloody in a the bedding of eyeglasses personnel collected and p u t them When sheet; West West fatal. as she and R e y n o l d s store i f he later that h a d made had seen 13 same were w a l k i n g t o Sunday morning, the headlines, Charles Martin's face. a n d he Later CR-07-0443 t h a t day, the p o l i c e a r r e s t e d M i c h a e l R e y n o l d s on an unrelated matter. That the same alley Harvey's with a f t e r n o o n , West behind the c a r , a n d he what happened affirmative. purchased Charles Martin. West and H a r v e y and from West some g a s o l i n e to and a doused the bag knives into located the Coosa drove at Gadsden On the day the State potential including Langley, who lived Martin's in anything to nodded the in 14 do the regarding area near Tuscaloosa i n t o t h e woods, and clothes and the purse West and H a r v e y threw a pier and then at a boat launch College. discovered the nephew, same in station and i n the questioned several persons involvement Charles from were had service t o an their Junior murders that f o l l o w e d , the p o l i c e their River into conflicting w i t h g a s o l i n e a n d s e t t h e i t e m s on f i r e . the got West West gasoline containing into scene. A v e n u e . West t h r e w t h e t e l e p h o n e b a s e Harvey drive agreed that they should get the crime went Harvey residence. asked her i f Reynolds to of the evidence Harvey Reynolds's Donald A l t h o u g h t h e e v i d e n c e was whose i d e a i t was, rid saw murders Chad and Martin, neighborhood as days regarding robbery, and the John Martin CR-07-0443 family. The p o l i c e individuals o u t as A few d a y s a f t e r t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t h e c r i m e s , West talked suspects. with ruled these 2 her former what ultimately had employer, happened. who The was an a t t o r n e y , attorney contacted and t o l d the attorney's office, regarding district and as a r e s u l t , West s u b s e q u e n t l y police a statement Based police the clothes from the information provided and p u r s e the telephone the burn p i l e . Roberts's floor were Gadsden residence. West, found by eyeglasses. The burned, West, i n t h e woods the conducted bedroom discovered glasses were a cord a pair broken said also a short lying of Melinda distance by across and of Harold Michael of -- found Savannah Reynolds's Reynolds prescription the temple and tinted piece The f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n o f t h o s e suspects and t h e r e s u l t i n g s t a t e m e n t s g i v e n by t h e s u s p e c t s i s addressed i n Part V I I of t h i s opinion. 15 the products. search shared where West t h e c o r d l e s s phone telephone the bodies the Gadsden the p o l i c e and were a l l Uniden brand the the p o l i c e base where police In been The p h o n e b a s e , c a r , and i n t h e room Martin had gave t h e crimes. l o c a t e d and p h o t o g r a p h e d t h e b u r n p i l e recovered in on the him was CR-07-0443 missing, The and one glasses frames piece the of the were l e n s e s was consistent with lying beside the the p r e s c r i p t i o n lenses s o l d t o R e y n o l d s by a p r o f e s s i o n a l o p t i c i a n . r e c o v e r e d from temple piece the bedding still at the M a r t i n attached to Reynolds residence. A f i r s t - a i d the k i t was glasses. The house frame and temple matched found at the a l s o d i s c o v e r e d i n the bedroom. A scuba diver recovered an the where area Harvey. with the oriental-style the knives Etowah County scabbard from had been Rescue the Coosa discarded by residence. she West a l s o and skin. at not of the indicate that Reynolds's his arrest showed the b r u i s i n g West and flaking was to the one River. taken bruising and Reynolds's s c a b b a r d was hands in and by the flaking not p r e s e n t murders. e x a m i n a t i o n of the presence extracted the d i s p o s e d of i n the Coosa Michael after forensic o f t h e DNA had of West t e s t i f i e d A did police the time testified Harvey Photographs Gadsden River Sandra Roberts t e s t i f i e d t h a t the scabbard appeared be t h e same s c a b b a r d s h e h a d p r e v i o u s l y s e e n a t t h e that Squad the interior o f any of Roberts's blood. Forensic f r o m t h e swab o f t h e b l o o d d r o p 16 car testing from the CR-07-0443 outside steps the obtained on DNA and the b l o o d the h a l l w a y at the M a r t i n r e s i d e n c e f r o m A d r i a n W e s t . T h e r e was swabbed from the h a n d l e primary c o n t r i b u t o r o f t h a t DNA Martin, but be as a c o n t r i b u t o r of mixture o f DNA Michael Reynolds's primary c o m p o n e n t o f t h a t DNA outside Reynolds's The glasses DNA g a s o l i n e can. The t o be the -- DNA. Melinda mixture. matched a The bloody ink was could also from the Martin's known Martin There obtained Savannah DNA lens was of match any of the footprint print a on Michael footprint. shoe p r i n t s from i n the submitted the known DNA outside k i t c h e n d i d not f o r comparison purposes, door frame did not and match of a any the blood of the samples. Michael t h a t he met Reynolds testified C h a r l e s M a r t i n i n May i n h i s defense. 2002 and became good f r i e n d s . R e y n o l d s t e s t i f i e d the people of determined f r o m a swab o f b l o o d door-step known s a m p l e s swab a mixture n e i t h e r M i c h a e l Reynolds nor M e l i n d a excluded the was of the matched a u t h o r i z e d to take Reynolds's Reynolds and his several months, son even at Martin's lived with mother's 17 t h a t he He testified and t h a t M a r t i n was Charles one of s o n home f r o m s c h o o l . Charles residence. Martin for CR-07-0443 Reynolds until said that he saw M a r t i n t h e t i m e R e y n o l d s was a r r e s t e d several t i m e s a w e e k up fora different offense. Reynolds t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d s e e n M e l i n d a M a r t i n a couple of times, he Martin. but testified three that that and the last weeks b e f o r e Reynolds Adrian had time testified Reynolds that Savannah were with that alive h i s father residence for morning, on t h e m o r n i n g and asked him. Reynolds Donald Michael of Saturday Roberts came said that of their drugs with gave Roberts some money addition that to the to i n s t a l l before. Reynolds a car radio t h e r a d i o , and Harvey between 9:00 and Reynolds 1 0 : 0 0 p.m, to get some that more testified drugs. the drugs he h a d r e c e i v e d 18 Sandra and West s h a r e d t h e Roberts. Reynolds he h a d money t o p u r c h a s e t o t h e money t h e day i n return. to the residence. last explained Reynolds May and p a i d h i s f a t h e r came s a i d t h a t he i n s t a l l e d gave h i m a gram o f c o c a i n e Reynolds Harvey he at h i s father's and h i m f o r a p a i n t i n g j o b t h e y h a d c o m p l e t e d that two o r of the i n c i d e n t , 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 , h i s " b o s s " came b y t h e r e s i d e n c e Later was He killed. at the time living said seen he saw M a r t i n the Martins West were residence. never that that he Reynolds because i n morning f o r CR-07-0443 completing the Reynolds's father needed post to outstanding more Roberts, that bond -- When time later, together i n Sandra's testified that he thought previous and a T-shirt, told attend told how i n case that that Reynolds there was an time. Roberts left and went t o the drugs, Reynolds, a l l of those drugs. Reynolds testified A d r i a n West car to go and Sandra g e t more West Reynolds drugs. t o go w i t h had cheated testified said him that that of hours, went o u t ; h e was Reynolds and $500 left Reynolds because out of drugs them Roberts on t h e transaction. f o ra couple passed had at that Sandra he i n s t r u c t e d Roberts Reynolds gone testified she r e t u r n e d w i t h a n d West u s e d some he that also her to hold f o rh i s arrest testified drugs. j o b , West had given warrant Reynolds buy painting after he c h a n g e d t o bed, and f e l l a n d West h a d b e e n into a pair of shorts asleep. His father was intoxicated. that some t i m e s h e was h u r t . t o W e s t . When R e y n o l d s him that Roberts later, Reynolds got out of bed t o a s k e d h e r how s h e was h u r t , s h e she had been stabbed. she had been s t a b b e d , A d r i a n West woke h i m Reynolds then asked and she responded that " C h u c k was 19 West CR-07-0443 d e a d a n d s h e ... g o t s t a b b e d t r y i n g Chuck's West wife." ( V o l . X I , R. d i d not t e l l him who to stop 1567.) she was them from Reynolds with stabbing testified at the time that of the stabbings. Reynolds h e r arm, so he b a n d a g e d i t u s i n g a f i r s t - a i d k i t he h a d i n t h e b e d r o o m . He said was that looked stated t h e wound he was concerned not bleeding about very much but that i t b a d . A f t e r b a n d a g i n g h e r arm, R e y n o l d s i n s t r u c t e d to accompany her without him o u t s i d e fear Reynolds continued not that want worried, the house of h i s f a t h e r testified to question to t a l k he could talk to overhearing. when her about about s o he t o l d that so t h a t West what i t . Reynolds they got outside, he h a p p e n e d , b u t West d i d said that West her to get Sandra Roberts's was very c a r keys and she d i d . Reynolds West said drove because Reynolds was went t o s l e e p , put on a n y still that they left Reynolds's dressed and, a l t h o u g h i n Roberts's license i n the clothes had c a r , and been that revoked. he h a d on when he he p u t on h i s g l a s s e s , he d i d n o t shoes. 20 CR-07-0443 T h e y w e n t t o t h e M a r t i n r e s i d e n c e . He s a i d t h a t when t h e y g o t t o t h e r e s i d e n c e , W e s t s l o w e d down i n o r d e r t o p u l l driveway; however, Reynolds on i n t h e h o u s e , When the l i g h t s he i n s t r u c t e d h e r t o k e e p d r i v i n g . t o a n e a r b y gas the M a r t i n s a i d that because station, turned around, they got to the Martin West asked testified t h a t he again (Vol. XI, her to testified that to drive scared, "just to she [he] h a d Reynolds to drive." the Reynolds's as t h e y w e r e t r a v e l i n g , that again drive "just back and said knew asked as him what they neared t o do testified that 1571.) residence. West t o l d they were his father's something," to the M a r t i n R. so he residence. when t h e y West Reynolds him that going light West t o r e m a i n d o o r , he the door saw was on. Reynolds i n t h e c a r . As t h a t t h e d o o r was open and saw got out ( V o l . X I , R. Reynolds of Charles 21 Martin car approached lying West Martin and the Reynolds on he 1571.) at the the c r a c k e d open. do. residence, instructed arrived she to r e s i d e n c e t h a t t i m e , West d r o v e t h e c a r i n t o t h e d r i v e w a y . carport to residence, instructed Reynolds drove residence. He was West were and t h e n d r o v e b a c k R e y n o l d s w h a t he w a n t e d h e r t o d o . began i n the the The told carport pushed floor. CR-07-0443 Reynolds he said knew a t He that he was point testified instead, and there went blood that that went to the M a r t i n s ' that West had he inside, a l l around Martin did telephone over stepped Charles b e d r o o m . He them from s t a b b i n g Reynolds said bedroom, the Melinda said i n the tripped, his glasses from Melinda Martin, that never outside, were when the between the Reynolds bed who saw said stepping and Savannah that to him and so went and the the "trying R. 1573.) in the did not see the Martin, and room. who doorway. bed, he grabbed that is when be dead. Reynolds he caught he and was When that up to on into Melinda testified he his saw testified Martin. went back back over Charles gave West h i s g l a s s e s a s k e d West t o t e l l he on, onto stood appeared he bed off (Vol. XI, body, went been h u r t not over police; t h a t he was first the fell bed. had said, truth. the television he tripped glasses on Reynolds lights he floor himself he the body that she he Martin's explained Chuck's w i f e . " although bedroom Martin's Reynolds lying that the not bedroom b e c a u s e West t o l d him to stop t o l d him so, t o l d her everything 22 through Martin the house and i n the p r o c e s s . He t o h o l d them. R e y n o l d s t h a t she had t o u c h e d so then that CR-07-0443 he c o u l d w i p e i t o f f , b u t West c o u l d n o t r e c a l l e v e r y t h i n g she had Reynolds the touched. house, intent everything on w i p i n g t h e burn gasoline house can said a n a p k i n and and trail. told Reynolds residence, happen and he fire." ( V o l . X I , R. the house. beside that know l o o k e d and that the saw s o he d e c i d e d t o testified when he l i t i t from Reynolds's Reynolds's lit, said d i d not he he into he got the steps, and kitchen, he porch gasoline. she her got back to the t h e b u r n e r , and then West t o l e a v e . Reynolds back o f f . Reynolds at that p o i n t , located that told went a mess t h a t Reynolds was t h e rooms w i t h gasoline car that down. that Reynolds got said such he o f t h e b u r n e r s on t h e s t o v e was the doused He that surfaces i n t h e h o u s e was where t o s t a r t . t h a t one testified left As the house "[N]othing, I the got i n the toward Harold what Reynolds and i t on back West d r o v e asked threw was going to the place on caught 1576.) testified residence, that when they parked As they walked Roberts asked them i f they Reynolds told by father's back c a r and to Harold went into bedroom, Sandra " a n y t h i n g , " meaning drugs. h e r t h e y d i d n o t , and 23 got Sandra's his had they t h e n he and West went to CR-07-0443 the bedroom point, $20. they he t o l d He g a v e get some Roberts into He out o f t h e house. arm. I n a testified that at that h i m some money a n d W e s t g a v e h i m money t o S a n d r a drugs. t h e bathroom, West's Reynolds West t o g i v e that more shared. Roberts testified Reynolds and t o l d that said he wanted to get t h a t he a n d W e s t w e n t a n d he c l e a n e d a n d r e w r a p p e d few m i n u t e s , h e r t o go Roberts t h e i n j u r y on returned with more went into drugs. When R o b e r t s with kitchen the returned he Roberts Reynolds into she and prepared a syringe their just bedroom; a n d when took o f t h e drugs however, West w a n t e d t o go t o s l e e p . Roberts, used and the drugs, Reynolds she d e c l i n e d Reynolds to take t h e m . He t h e n w e n t b a c k of the drugs. f o r West a n d t o o k i t refused the drugs, saying o f f e r e d t h e drugs t o the drugs, Reynolds to sleep. Reynolds West were tried testified that later w a l k i n g home from the convenience to question before. she some told Reynolds him that West about that what morning while store, had happened he a n d he a g a i n the night s a i d t h a t W e s t was a c t i n g s t r a n g e l y a n d t h a t she d i d n o t want 24 to think about i t . He CR-07-0443 testified it that at that point, did not want t o think about either. Reynolds s a i d that father's that he residence, had After the jury counts been both instructed that the law the cruel 49(8), the as phase applicable evidence Apparently, the offenses State of to for of capital With regard the that trial, 25 of five the State during the reasons, defense aggravating factor offenses. Reynolds case, indictment. introduced to the had guilty were e s p e c i a l l y h e i n o u s , other agreed i n the strategic presence and to Reynolds's Reynolds's i t had him court circuit charged a l l the compared the and his time. murder, A l a . Code 1975. factors, that arrested f i n d i n g Reynolds penalty capital and a verdict s t i p u l a t e d to the since rested capital counsel arrived had returned phase. police sides of guilt the j u r y on the resubmitted s h o r t l y a f t e r they a r r i v e d back at incarcerated During or he atrocious, See § 13A-5- statutory mitigating had no significant CR-07-0443 history Code of p r i o r criminal activity. See 3 § 13A-5-51(1), Ala. 1975. R e y n o l d s p r e s e n t e d s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s who neglect and abuse father and mother testified that Reynolds witnessed during Reynolds his was testified and endured developing introduced from and his and years to drugs to the who crime an e a r l y a g e . R e y n o l d s a l s o p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g he had child overcome and that professional crystal and many he of the hardships that managed social life to create until he he a began endured fairly using at that as a stable the drug methamphetamine. After both sides had rested and the circuit court had i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y on t h e l a w a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e p e n a l t y phase proceeding, 12-0, the jury sentencing Reynolds jury's five recommendation returned a verdict, to death. and The circuit by a vote court sentenced Reynolds of accepted the to death f o r the capital-murder convictions. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t Reynolds had been c o n v i c t e d of a number o f f e l o n y o f f e n s e s t h a t he h a d c o m m i t t e d b e f o r e t h e crimes in this c a s e ; however, because Reynolds was not i c t e d f o r those crimes u n t i l a f t e r the offenses i n the p r e s e n t case had been committed, the S t a t e agreed not t o d i s p u t e the presence of the s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r t h a t Reynolds had no significant history of prior criminal activity. 3 26 CR-07-0443 Standard In Court any every case must i n which review the of Review the death p e n a l t y i s imposed, r e c o r d f o r any plain d e f e c t i n the p r o c e e d i n g s , whether brought to the attention of the error, or not trial the this i.e., for defect court. Rule was 45A, Ala.R.App.P., p r o v i d e s : "In a l l c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y has been imposed, the 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 t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e a c t i o n by r e a s o n t h e r e o f , whenever such e r r o r has or 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 the s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of the a p p e l l a n t . " As 121-22 this Court (Ala. Crim. stated App. in Hall 1999), v. State, aff'd, 820 820 So. So. 2d 2d 152 113, (Ala. 2001): "The standard of review i n r e v i e w i n g a c l a i m under the 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 the standard used in reviewing an issue 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 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 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 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 r e p u t a t i o n o f j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s . ' See E x parte Price, 725 So. 2d 1063 ( A l a . 1 998), 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 . 2d 1012 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ; B u r g e s s v . S t a t e , 723 So. 2 d 742 ( A l a . Cr. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 723 So. 2d 770 ( A l a . 1998), c e r t . d e n i e d , 526 U.S. 1052, 119 S . C t . 1360, 143 27 CR-07-0443 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 679, 701 ( A l a . C r . App. 1992), rev'd on other g r o u n d s , 620 S o . 2d 709 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , on r e m a n d , 620 So. 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 Reynolds's this Court failure from to object reviewing at t r i a l an issue, will i t not will, n e v e r t h e l e s s , 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 appeal. See 1991), aff'd, U.S. 924 Dill v. 600 State, So. 600 2d 372 So. 2d 343 ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a . 1992), cert. App. denied, 507 (1993). Guilt-Phase Issues I. Reynolds ordered maintains [him] to that wear a the stun circuit belt court throughout S p e c i f i c a l l y , Reynolds argues that the " t r i a l improperly process, and n e e d l e s s l y d e p r i v e d a fair (Reynolds's brief, Reynolds Accordingly, Rule 45A, trial, d i d not we will V I I , at object review to 28 trial." court's decision i n h i s own t o due defense." 69-71.) the use his claim Ala.R.App.P. his [him] o f h i s r i g h t s and t o p a r t i c i p a t e Issue "improperly of the for plain stun belt. error only. CR-07-0443 The r e c o r d does not i n d i c a t e the stun belt the sheriff's indicating confer a s we App. the b e l t required interfered aff'd, , 129 11 So. S.Ct. 3d 2865 by the Court is no with 323 was even right aware have r e v i e w e d the 11 So. 3d 256 ( A l a . 2008), ( 2 0 0 9 ) , we by to that record (Ala. Crim. cert. f i n d no or evidence Reynolds's the j u r y State, t o wear there However, d i d i n B e l i s l e v. U.S. 45A, ordered Reynolds w e a r i n g a s t u n b e l t . We 2007), Rule i t was h i s counsel or that was and, whether department. that with Reynolds -- who denied, plain error. Ala.R.App.P. II. Reynolds argues that the c i r c u i t of errors brief, during Issue XX, individually the at court committed jury-selection pp. 108-10.) process. These will a number (Reynolds's be addressed below. A Reynolds circuit contends, court summoned jurors violation of i n a one-sentence "erroneously outside the excused at presence [ h i s ] S i x t h Amendment r i g h t 29 argument, least of the 150 that the of the parties, t o be p r e s e n t a n d in to CR-07-0443 a fair trial by an impartial jury." (Reynolds's brief, the venire was at 108.) The record assembled, regarding indicates during that the c i r c u i t the proceedings, when court's the court general first instructions stated: " B u t h e r e i s k i n d o f t h e way i t w o r k s : We s e n t out four hundred j u r y summons. You w i l l look around. There a r e not four hundred people i n t h i s r o o m . Of t h o s e f o u r h u n d r e d , a b o u t o n e h u n d r e d a n d f i f t y o f t h e m h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n e x c u s e d . ..." (Vol. V, R. introduction 3 2 7 . ) The c o u r t to the Reynolds the Accordingly, Rule we continued with its general proceedings. d i d not object potential jurors then to the c i r c u i t outside review this court's h i s or h i s counsel's assertion for plain excusing presence. error only. 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . " S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 6 - 7 4 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , s p e c i f i c a l l y gives a t r i a l court the r i g h t to excuse p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s o u t s i d e t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e p a r t i e s and t h e i r c o u n s e l . No e r r o r , much l e s s p l a i n e r r o r , o c c u r r e d here." Dorsey v. S t a t e , aff'd 533 i n part, rev'd ( A l a . 2003). instance 881 S o . 2 d 4 6 0 , 482 i n which i n part Reynolds ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , on u n r e l a t e d has the c i r c u i t not court 30 ground, 881 S o . 2 d presented any specific supposedly exceeded i t s CR-07-0443 discretion presence in of excusing the the parties, potential and we find jurors no outside error, the plain or that the otherwise. B Reynolds circuit alleges, in a court one-paragraph e r r e d t o r e v e r s a l b e c a u s e , he "directed that a l l self-employed age of removed 80, and from full-time the 108.)(Emphasis contention o b j e c t on be Court the automatically (Reynolds's brief, t h i s ground at t r i a l . indicated that ( V o l . V, for plain Section the i n d i v i d u a l s over would venire." claims, at added.) counsel proceedings. persons, students jury Reynolds d i d not defense argument, R. 401.) error only. 12-16-63, A l a . Code they were satisfied Accordingly, Rule 1975, 45A, we In with review provides, in this relevant "(a) The court, upon the request of a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r pursuant to t h i s s e c t i o n , s h a l l determine on the basis of information provided d u r i n g an i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r o r based on other competent evidence whether the prospective juror should be excused from jury service. p e r s o n who i s n o t d i s q u a l i f i e d f o r j u r y a p p l y t o be e x c u s e d f r o m j u r y s e r v i c e b y 31 the Ala.R.App.P. part: "(b) A s e r v i c e may fact, CR-07-0443 the c o u r t o n l y upon a s h o w i n g of undue or e x t r e m e p h y s i c a l or f i n a n c i a l h a r d s h i p , a mental or p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n t h a t i n c a p a c i t a t e s the p e r s o n , or p u b l i c necessity "(1) "(2) For p u r p o s e s of t h i s a r t i c l e , undue or extreme p h y s i c a l or f i n a n c i a l h a r d s h i p i s l i m i t e d to any of the following circumstances i n which an i n d i v i d u a l would: " ( a ) Be r e q u i r e d t o a b a n d o n a person under his or her p e r s o n a l care or s u p e r v i s i o n due to the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of o b t a i n i n g an appropriate substitute caregiver during the period of participation i n the j u r y p o o l o r on t h e j u r y . "(b) I n c u r c o s t s t h a t w o u l d have a s u b s t a n t i a l a d v e r s e impact on the payment of the individual's necessary daily l i v i n g e x p e n s e s o r on t h o s e f o r whom he or she provides the p r i n c i p a l means o f s u p p o r t . "(c) Suffer hardship that would i l l n e s s or d i s e a s e . physical result in "(3) Undue o r e x t r e m e p h y s i c a l o r financial hardship d o e s n o t e x i s t s o l e l y b a s e d on t h e fact that a prospective j u r o r w i l l be required to be absent from h i s or p l a c e of employment." The court record informed indicates the that during prospective 32 the jurors jury that assembly, there the were CR-07-0443 g e n e r a l l y four reasons that the court would excuse a medical prospective condition juror that from (2) p e r s o n s who were full-time students; and (4) R. the over (1) a prospective the age of self-employed who the c i r c u i t sought to j u r o r s who granted 402.) be court interviewed excused. ( V o l . V, juror 80 persons. 21 of the requests T h o s e 21 j u r o r s w e r e e x c u s e d 1 2 - 1 6 - 6 3 , A l a . Code The find t o be circuit d i d not 924 So. 2 d 7 3 7 , v. 715 So. 2d Of the ( V o l . V. 48 court R. 362¬ f o r reasons encompassed i n abuse or o t h e r w i s e , v. S t a t e , State, jurors 1975. court no e r r o r , p l a i n ( V o l . V, the c i r c u i t excused. (3) prospective 362-402.) were i n t e r v i e w e d i n t h i s p r o c e s s , from years; the p r o s p e c t i v e R. to verifiable 329-30.) A f t e r t h e g e n e r a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e jurors, § service: precluded serving; accept i n order 752-53 825, 843 i t s discretion, in this regard. ( A l a . C r i m . App. ( A l a . C r i m . App. and See we Turner 2002); Boyd 1997). C In circuit based on a one-sentence court erred argument, Reynolds to r e v e r s a l i n removing the veniremembers' opposition 33 contends 10 that the veniremembers to the death penalty. CR-07-0443 First court's 2 of 10 VI, R. 600.) Reynolds We Rule have r e v i e w e d of each jurors, the objected challenges Thus, 4 regarding error only. court that prospective allegations plain note granting of the State's the (Vol. we Z.B we to f o r cause ( V o l . 6, will remainder of the f o r only 533) review the circuit and Reynolds's challenges for 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . the v o i r dire conducted o f t h e 10 p r o s p e c t i v e by the circuit jurors: 1. Z.B. - ( V o l . V I , R. 487, 492, 2. F.G. - ( V o l . V I , R. 550, 554-55, 3. N.M. - ( V o l . V I , R. 638; V o l . V I I , 664, 692.) 4. - ( V o l . V I , R. 640; V o l . V I I , 664, 689-91.) 5. J.M - ( V o l . V I , R. 639, V o l . V I I , 683-84.) 6. J.R. - ( V o l . V I , R. 6 4 0 , V o l . V I I , R. 7. J.M. - ( V o l . V I I , R. 705-07.) 8. M.W. - ( V o l . V I I , R. 765-67.) 9. O.H. - ( V o l . V I I , R. 768-69.) 10. S.O. E.F.T. -(Vol. V I I , R. Because of these j u r o r s we F.G find no error in the 512-15.) 600.) 685.) 772-73.) opposition to the death circuit court's I n an e f f o r t t o p r o t e c t t h e a n o n y m i t y j u r o r s , we h a v e u s e d t h e i r initials. 4 34 penalty, granting of the of the challenged CR-07-0443 challenges f o r cause w i t h regard See B r y a n t v. S t a t e , 2003), for a t o t h e 10 p r o s p e c t i v e 951 S o . 2 d 7 3 2 , 7 3 7 - 3 9 thorough regarding appellate challenge discussion review of of a t r i a l jurors. (Ala. Crim. App. pertinent law granting of a the court's f o r cause. D. In a related vein, death q u a l i f i c a t i o n impartial best at we violated guilty-phase can determine, trial, and we Reynolds (Reynolds's Reynolds no that the [his] c o n s t i t u t i o n a l jury." find argues plain right brief, d i d not object error. "pre-trial t o an a t 109.) on t h i s This As basis Court has p r e v i o u s l y a d d r e s s e d a n d r e j e c t e d t h i s a s s e r t i o n . See D o t c h v . State [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 1 9 1 3 , Crim. App. April 2, 2010], So. 3d (Ala. 2010.) E. Reynolds asserts that the c i r c u i t his request to sequester the jury. court erred i n refusing (Reynolds's brief, 109.) " ' E v e n i n a c a p i t a l c a s e t h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t that a court sequester the j u r o r s during the t r i a l . The d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t o r d e n y a m o t i o n t o s e q u e s t e r the j u r y d u r i n g t r i a l i s w i t h i n the 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 . See C e n t o b i e v . S t a t e , 861 S o . 2d 1111 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . ' B e l i s l e v . S t a t e , 35 at CR-07-0443 11 So. 3d 2 5 6 , 279 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) . See also B r o w n v . S t a t e , 11 So. 3d 8 6 6 , 885 (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 0 7 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e j u r y be sequestered). Vanpelt v. State, [Ms. 3d (Ala. Crim. App. C R - 0 5 - 1 5 3 9 , D e c e m b e r 18, 2009] So. 2009.) In s u p p o r t of h i s a s s e r t i o n , Reynolds a l l e g e s t h a t is a substantial likelihood jury's exposure brief, at those "highly to 109-10.) purportedly highly [he] prejudicial However, prejudicial prejudiced that by Reynolds matters" was prejudiced matters." does not were, "there by the (Reynolds's specify or how he what was them. "What [ R e y n o l d s ] h a s p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t i s o n l y b a r e a l l e g a t i o n s o f p r e j u d i c e t h a t , he says, r e s u l t e d from the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e to sequester t h e j u r y ; he o f f e r s no c o n c r e t e factual basis to s u p p o r t t h e s e c l a i m s . We will not base e r r o r on s p e c u l a t i o n and c o n j e c t u r e . In d e c i d i n g t o a l l o w t h e j u r y to separate, the t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s case d i d so with great caution, providing adequate i n s t r u c t i o n s to the jury. Therefore, we conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n when i t p e r m i t t e d t h e j u r y t o separate." Broadnax v. State, 825 So. 2d 134, 155-56 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). Finally, Reynolds cumulative-error rule. argues, in effect, Specifically, 36 a violation he maintains of the that CR-07-0443 "[i]ndividually or c o l l e c t i v e l y , the aforementioned errors the denied trial fair court and i m p a r t i a l [him] h i s r i g h t jury...." to a f a i r (Reynolds's b r i e f , trial by a a t 1 1 0 . ) The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s s e t f o r t h t h e c u m u l a t i v e - e r r o r as follows: single "[W]hile, error to accumulated multiple errors substantial of 2d 941, require may have n.1 As or otherwise, error i n Parts scrupulously be sufficiently Rule 45, i f the injuriously that regard affected the substantial of cumulative cumulative errors rights effect III. 37 find of i n this at t r i a l . no 45, error, allegations after i n Ex and Rule found Likewise, s e t out record nonreversible we effect W o o d s , 789 S o . (quoting to Reynolds's II-E. allegation the Ex p a r t e discussed, standard reviewed aforementioned reversal." I I - A through to Reynolds's Reynolds's under ( A l a . 2001) with cumulative-error indicating may 'probably previously plain supra, reversal require 942-43 Ala.R.App.P.). the errors r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s , ' then the cumulative the errors rule u n d e r t h e f a c t s o f a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , no among prejudicial of parte error, no any case of applying Woods, we have evidence of the affected CR-07-0443 Reynolds, State who i s Caucasian, used i t s peremptory African-American jury in concluding Kentucky, the Reynolds strikes veniremembers, there 476 U.S. 79 Because trial, that were no specifically court's to evidence d i d n o t make written violations of the t h e 14 court erred of Batson v. a Batson objection at the plain-error sentencing standard. In order, the court found: now argues that of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a prima i n this facie to find case require the prosecutor to state (Reynolds's b r i e f , i n this f i v e (5) and a l l w e r e no a n d no of the case, males. of the Batson Batson jury." 5 "[g]iven failure erroneous." 9 the c i r c u i t I I , C. 3 2 0 , 3 2 7 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 1 , 3 4 8 . ) Reynolds because remove "A j u r y was s t r u c k a n d s w o r n c o n s i s t i n g o f s e v e n (7) f e m a l e s a n d One o f t h e m a l e j u r o r s was b l a c k , r e m a i n i n g j u r o r s were w h i t e . There challenges made by e i t h e r side v i o l a t i o n s occurred i n the selection (Vol. that (1986). we r e v i e w t h i s c l a i m u n d e r circuit asserts the unquestionable case, the t r i a l court's of discrimination reasons and t o for his strikes a t 106-07.) R e y n o l d s was does n o t The c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d a w r i t t e n s e n t e n c i n g order f o r e a c h c o n v i c t i o n ; h o w e v e r , o n l y o n e d e a t h s e n t e n c e was i m p o s e d . 5 38 CR-07-0443 s p e c i f y what t h a t " u n q u e s t i o n a b l e evident to this With evidence" was, and i t i s n o t Court. regard to Batson claims: "'"'For p l a i n e r r o r to e x i s t i n the Batson c o n t e x t , t h e r e c o r d must r a i s e an i n f e r e n c e t h a t the s t a t e [or the defendant] engaged in "purposeful d i s c r i m i n a t i o n " i n the e x e r c i s e o f i t s p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s . See Ex p a r t e W a t k i n s , 509 S o . 2 d 1074 (Ala.), c e r t . d e n i e d , 484 U.S. 9 1 8 , 108 S. C t . 2 6 9 , 98 L. E d . 2 d 226 (1987).'"' " S m i t h v . S t a t e , 756 S o . 2 d 8 92 , 915 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1998), aff'd, 756 S o . 2 d 957 ( A l a . 2000 ) ( q u o t i n g R i e b e r v . S t a t e , 663 S o . 2 d 9 8 5 , 991 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994), q u o t i n g i n t u r n o t h e r c a s e s ) . " Ex parte denied, Walker, 552 U.S. The only allegation remove 972 1077 ground i s that held Reynolds the establish that a prima 2d 737, 742 ( A l a . 2007 ), State offers used 9 of veniremembers. numbers face case alone in i t s 14 are not Court and of his strikes to have sufficient to of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . " Vanpelt v. [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 1 5 3 9 , D e c e m b e r 18 , 200 9] this support "Alabama c o u r t s ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) . We h a v e t h o r o u g h l y before cert. (2007). African-American repeatedly State, So. find no 39 So. 3d reviewed inference of , the record purposeful CR-07-0443 discrimination in this by the State. Thus, 6 there i s no plain error regard. IV. Reynolds contends t h a t the his w r i t t e n motion he maintains that "irreconcilable communication [his] record veniremembers, handwritten remove h i s he his that (Reynolds's Reynolds [lead brief, that lead a Issue the the Specifically, counsel breakdown counsel's] after presented court erred i n denying counsel. caused impaired reflects lead and conflict and defense." The to circuit in an their preparation VIII, voir circuit m o t i o n t o remove h i s l e a d c o u n s e l . had at 71-75.) dire court The for of with motion the a was The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t each of the veniremembers c o m p l e t e d a j u r o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t was u s e d i n t h e v o i r d i r e of the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . ( V o l . V, R. 399.) As i n W a l k e r , supra, those q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were not i n c l u d e d i n the a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d . H o w e v e r , when t h i s C o u r t r e q u e s t e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 8 . 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., we w e r e informed by the Etowah c i r c u i t c l e r k t h a t the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s had not been retained. Accordingly, the questionnaires are not a v a i l a b l e for t h i s Court's consideration i n e v a l u a t i n g t h i s i s s u e . C f . E x p a r t e S h a r p [Ms. 1 0 8 0 9 5 9 , D e c e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 9 ] So. 3 d ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) . (The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t requested and r e c e i v e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t h a t were not i n t h e r e c o r d , and a f t e r r e v i e w i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and record, found that the r e c o r d r a i s e d an i n f e r e n c e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and r e v e r s e d t h e judgment of t h i s C o u r t and remanded t h e c a s e t o t h i s C o u r t f o r i t to order f u r t h e r proceedings consistent with i t s opinion). 6 40 CR-07-0443 read into the record. Reynolds asserted t h a t he counsel b e c a u s e , he that was he from him; had (Vol. VII, (2) requested counsel (1) to f i l e ; R e y n o l d s had defense not vital information f i l e ; counsel file (4) R e y n o l d s c o n c l u d e d by his lead counsel and to lead counsel asking continued in to adequate time to State responded tirelessly that i t had provided represented The with no that by prosecutor give prepare. the objection the his also lead co-defense trial two to emphatically 41 court to with the 790¬ remove another trial be cocounsel 791.) counsel The counsel's proceed co- disclosed appointed defense lead object (Vol. VII, counsel counsel. remaining counsel R. Reynolds his previous circuit newly (Vol. VII, that information requested that that lead believe d i d not State. lead Reynolds also The lead the replace appointed attorney. order d i d not a motion that (5) motion, removal of h i s requested that and, the withheld about h i s case to the 91.) In counsel lead d i d not to a motion that counsel the lead lead counsel 789-91.) entitled claimed: innocent; (3) was R. with appointed denied that had State being worked indicated removed, Reynolds defense being counsel. Reynolds's lead CR-07-0443 counsel had d i s c l o s e d any c o n f i d e n t i a l information court defense to the State. When the c i r c u i t opportunity to reply, Reynolds's motion adequately respond. circuit court were gave counsel so (Vol. lead stated vague that that V I I , R. counsel an the claims in counsel 793.) could not Thereafter, the noted: "THE COURT: W e l l , t r e a t i n g t h i s a s a m o t i o n b y the d e f e n d a n t and f r o m what I have o b s e r v e d i n t h e c a s e , y o u h a v e d o n e e v e r y t h i n g t h a t y o u n e e d t o do or could possibly do, and you have adamantly championed your c l i e n t ' s p o s i t i o n . You have f i l e d a p p r o p r i a t e m o t i o n s . You have a r g u e d m o t i o n s t o t h e Court. I f i n d no s h o r t c o m i n g s i n y o u r s k i l l s a s a n attorney. Y o u h a v e p r a c t i c e d b e f o r e me o n many, many occasions. And I have seen nothing i n a p p r o p r i a t e on y o u r b e h a l f i n t h i s c a s e so f a r . So t h i s w o u l d b e d e n i e d . " (Vol. V I I , R. 7 9 3 . ) However, b e f o r e gave Reynolds court. making a f i n a l an o p p o r t u n i t y Reynolds ruling, t o argue the c i r c u i t h i s motion before the argued: " S u n d a y O c t o b e r 1 4 t h , [ l e a d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] came t o s e e me h e r e i n t h e j a i l . He h a d i n f o r m a t i o n o n a m o t i o n t h a t h e h a d i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n t h a t we h a d a h e a r i n g o n , a n d I a s k e d [ l e a d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] why he d i d n ' t show t h a t m o t i o n i n C o u r t t h a t d a y . He s a i d he d i d n ' t know. 42 court CR-07-0443 "[Lead defense counsel] has made several c o m m e n t s a b o u t h i m n o t b e l i e v i n g i n my i n n o c e n c e . He made a comment t o me on t h e 1 4 t h a g a i n when he came t o s e e me t h a t I f o u n d n o t a p p r o p r i a t e . [Lead d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] s a i d he -- I a s k e d h i m how many c a s e s he h a s h a n d l e d a s a d e f e n s e on a capital c a s e s , m u r d e r c a s e s . A n d he s a i d he h a s h a n d l e d q u i t e a f e w a n d h a s a l w a y s b e e n on t h e l o s i n g e n d e x c e p t when he was a p r o s e c u t o r a n d [ h e ] h a d a g o o d l i t t l e l a u g h about t h a t . "The m o t i o n i n t h i s -- [ l e a d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] also knew t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s t o o k my c a s e o f f another judge's docket I d i d n ' t have any i d e a about this until [lead defense counsel] r e v e a l e d t h i s i n a h e a r i n g a n d a f t e r we h a d d o n e s e t a c o u r t date. I asked f o r a change of venue at the beginning f o r [lead defense counsel] to put a motion i n a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s c a s e . He h a s f a i l e d t o do s o . "My r i g h t s w e r e v i o l a t e d -- I e x p l a i n e d t h i s t o [ l e a d defense c o u n s e l ] by [the d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y ] when t h e y w e r e q u e s t i o n i n g me on t h i s b e f o r e I was e v e r c h a r g e d on t h i s . My c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s w e r e v i o l a t e d . [Lead defense c o u n s e l ] doesn't even t h i n k t h i s i s an i s s u e , t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l rights were w i t h i n r e a s o n . I f e e l i t does. N o t h i n g e l s e , Your Honor." (Vol. V I I , R. The 794-95.) court proceeding with asked Reynolds the t r i a l whether two satisfied with that h a d an issue with w h i l e b e i n g r e p r e s e n t e d b y h i s two other appointed counsel. Reynolds be he option c o u n s e l had not p r e p a r e d indicated because, t h a t he w o u l d n o t he a r g u e d , the other t o r e p r e s e n t h i m on t h e e n t i r e 43 CR-07-0443 case, try those the neither VII, c o u n s e l had not had s u f f i c i e n t time t o prepare t o case without the assistance of the c o c o u n s e l had ever t r i e d R. 7 9 7 - 9 8 . ) The c i r c u i t remove lead of lead counsel, a c a p i t a l case. ( V o l . court denied Reynolds's counsel. "'"An i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t who cannot afford to retain an a t t o r n e y h a s an a b s o l u t e r i g h t t o have counsel appointed by t h e Court i n a l l c r i m i n a l proceedings in which representation by counsel i s constitutionally r e q u i r e d . Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 3 3 5 , 83 S. C t . 7 9 2 , 9 L.Ed. 2 d 799 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ; Strickland v . S t a t e , 280 A l a . 3 1 , 189 S o . 2 d 771 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; U.S. C o n s t . amend. V and X I V ; A r t . I , A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 , § 6; A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , § 1 5 - 1 2 - 2 1 ; A l a . R. C r i m . P. 6.1. W h i l e a n i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t may h a v e t h e right to be represented by c o u n s e l , he h a s no a b s o l u t e r i g h t to be represented by any p a r t i c u l a r c o u n s e l o r by c o u n s e l of h i s c h o i c e . B r i g g s v. S t a t e , 54 9 S o . 2 d 155 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . The e s s e n t i a l a i m o f t h e S i x t h Amendment i s t o g u a r a n t e e an effective advocate, not counsel preferred by the defendant. Wheat v. United S t a t e s , 48 6 U.S. 1 5 3 , 108 S . C t . 1 692, 100 L . E d . 2 d 14 0 (1 98 8 ) . The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a defendant a meaningful relationship, rapport, 44 and motion to CR-07-0443 or even confidence in court-appointed counsel. Morris v . S l a p p y , 4 6 1 U.S. 1, 103 S . C t . 1610, 75 L . E d . 2 d 610 (1983); S i e r s v . R y a n , 773 F . 2 d 37 ( 3 d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1 0 2 5 , 109 S . C t . 1 7 5 8 , 104 L . E d . 2 d 194 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . " ' " ' S n e l l v . S t a t e , 723 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 , 107 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1998).' "'"'[T]he decision whether to remove an appointed counsel and appoint another counsel for defendant i s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the trial court.' C r a w f o r d v . S t a t e , 47 9 So. 2 d 1 3 4 9 , 1 3 5 5 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1985). See a l s o , Tudhope v. S t a t e , 364 S o . 2 d 708 ( A l a . C r . App. 1978) The r i g h t t o choose c o u n s e l may n o t b e s u b v e r t e d t o obstruct the orderly procedure i n the court or to interfere with the f a i r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of justice. United States v. Sexton, 47 3 F.2d 512 (5th C i r . 1973)." " ' B r i g g s v. S t a t e , 54 9 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989). So. 2d 155, "'"In order to prevail on a motion for substitution of c o u n s e l , t h e a c c u s e d m u s t show a 45 160 CR-07-0443 demonstrated c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t or the existence of an i r r e c o n c i l a b l e c o n f l i c t so g r e a t t h a t i t has r e s u l t e d i n a t o t a l lack of communication that will prevent the preparation o f an adequate defense." Snell v. S t a t e , s u p r a , a t 107.' "Baker v. S t a t e , A p p . 20 0 1 ) . ' So. 90 6 So. 2d 210 , 22 6 "... A s t h i s C o u r t n o t e d i n C o x v . 2 d 612 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) : ( A l a . Crim. State, "'"A defendant is entitled to counsel capable of rendering competent, meaningful a s s i s t a n c e i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n and t r i a l o f the pending charges, including a p p r o p r i a t e e v a l u a t i o n and a d v i c e with reference to a plea of guilty. A defendant is not entitled to an attorney who agrees with the defendant's personal view of the p r e v a i l i n g law or the equities of the prosecutor's case. A defendant i s e n t i t l e d t o a n a t t o r n e y who w i l l consider the defendant's views and seek to accommodate a l l reasonable requests with respect to trial preparation and trial t a c t i c s . A defendant i s e n t i t l e d t o an a p p o i n t m e n t o f an a t t o r n e y with whom he can communicate reasonably, b u t h a s no r i g h t t o an a t t o r n e y who w i l l d o c i l e l y do a s he i s t o l d . E v e r y d e f e n d a n t i s entitled to the assistance of 46 489 CR-07-0443 counsel dedicated to the proposition, and capable of assuring that, the prosecution's case shall be presented in conformity with the Constitution, r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e and a l l other c o n t r o l l i n g r u l e s and p r a c t i c e s . No defendant has a right to more." U n i t e d States v. Moore, 706 F . 2 d 5 3 8 , 540 (5th C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 464 U.S. 8 5 9 , 104 S.Ct. 183, 78 L.Ed. 2d 163 (1983).' "489 Gavin S o . 2 d a t 622 v. State, 891 2003), c e r t . denied, (2005)(emphasis Although " So. 2d 907 , 941-43 Reynolds h a d many opportunities after the t r i a l court have [ a n d ] ... justice." State, Gavin, 581 Furthermore, "counsel So. App. deleted). f o rs u b s t i t u t i o n of lead counsel, would Crim. 8 9 1 S o . 2 d 998 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ; 543 U.S. 1 1 2 3 court date (Ala. began. Substitution "obstruct[ed] 891 2d So. 2d 1197, Reynolds had a c o n f l i c t has at 1200 not of counsel at that procedure late i n the the f a i r administration of 9 4 1 . See also v. ( A l a . Crim. established of i n t e r e s t or that l a c k o f communication' between h i s counsel 47 the he d i d n o t do s o u n t i l the orderly interfered with t o move Robinson App. that there 1990.) his lead was a 'total and him t h a t would CR-07-0443 have p r e v e n t e d 891 in So 2d the lead at t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f an a d e q u a t e d e f e n s e . " 942. circuit Accordingly, court's find no abuse of discretion d e n i a l R e y n o l d s ' s m o t i o n t o remove his counsel. Reynolds argues that the we Gavin, State to present pathologist Issue IV, who at the the circuit court e r r e d by deposition testimony performed the autopsy. 42-51; R e y n o l d s ' s allowing of the forensic (Reynolds's reply brief, Issue brief, IV, at 35¬ 40.) The the State introduced videotaped deposition p a t h o l o g i s t who at the time provided namely, of the the the r e s u l t s of the of performed the Dr. Craig's defense with possibility Dr. Adam autopsies. Craig, that two the State discovery did not have that deposition, he possibility o f two Thus, Reynolds was information different unable different argues, to at the question knives being admission 48 of forensic knives time Dr. had may yet have that because Dr. Craig's of Craig about used i n the the not that information," been used to stab the v i c t i m s . Reynolds m a i n t a i n s he through Reynolds claims d e p o s i t i o n , the "crucial autopsies autopsy the murders. results CR-07-0443 through Dr. Craig's rights Craig's deposition a c t u a l appearance under as a w i t n e s s the Confrontation Supreme C o u r t ' s testimony in lieu at t r i a l Clause of Dr. violated his and t h e U n i t e d States h o l d i n g i n C r a w f o r d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The that the Confrontation of the Sixth " [ i ] n a l l criminal prosecutions, right him." U.S. U.S. ... t o be Const. a t 53-54, Confrontation statements he Clause Amend. the United confront V I . In Crawford v. Washington, Supreme C o u r t to testify, and t h e defendant Dr. Craig of t e s t i m o n i a l unless [has] had a cross-examination." on appeal to the deposition testimony 541 that the [does] n o t appear a t t r i a l argues the "admission held who for enjoy against of a witness Reynolds deposition the witnesses prohibits opportunity consented with States states the accused s h a l l Clause [is] unavailable prior confronted Amendment that although o f Dr. C r a i g at t r i a l , about may have and t h e use o f t h a t he d i d n o t w a i v e discovery he h i s right to information that he r e c e i v e d a f t e r t h e d e p o s i t i o n . Reynolds argues that the use of the deposition testimony to introduce the autopsy results v i o l a t e s C r a w f o r d because t h e S t a t e d i d not e s t a b l i s h t h a t Dr. 49 CR-07-0443 Craig was prior unavailable opportunity discovery The to materials State he contends the deposition the facts of for t r i a l case, b e c a u s e he cross-examine received that testimony, this and we Dr. Craig a f t e r the i f error i t was did have about a the deposition. occur i n v i t e d by agree. "'"'"'"A party cannot assume inconsistent p o s i t i o n s i n the trial and appellate courts a n d , as a g e n e r a l r u l e , will not be permitted t o a l l e g e an error in the t r i a l court proceedings which was i n v i t e d b y h i m o r was a natural consequence of his own actions."'" Slaton v. State, 68 0 So. 2d 87 9, 900 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995), aff'd, 680 So. 2d 909 (Ala. 1996), cert. d e n i e d , 519 U.S. 1079, 117 S.Ct. 742, 136 L. Ed. 2d 680 (1997), quoting Campbell v. S t a t e , 570 So. 2d 1276, 1282 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 0 ) . As we h a v e s a i d in applying the invited-error doctrine, "'It would be a sad commentary upon the v i t a l i t y of the j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s i f an 50 d i d not i n the Reynolds. use of Under CR-07-0443 accused could render i t impotent by his own choice.'" Murrell v. S t a t e , 377 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 2 , 1105 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , cert. denied, 377 So. 2d 1108 ( A l a . 1979), quoting Aldridge v. State, 278 A l a . 470, 4 7 4 , 179 S o . 2 d 5 1 , 54 (1965). "The invited error rule has been applied equally in capital cases and noncapital cases." Rogers v. State, 63 0 So. 2d 78, 84 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991), r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 630 So. 2 d 88 (Ala.1992), aff'd on remand, sub nom. M u s q r o v e v . S t a t e , 638 S o . 2 d 1347 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1992), a f f ' d , 638 S o . 2 d 1360 (Ala. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 845, 115 S. C t . 1 3 6 , 130 L. E d . 2 d 78 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . ' " ' " P e r k i n s v . S t a t e , 8 08 S o . 2 d 1041 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So. 2d 1143 ( A l a . 2001). '"An invited error is waived, unless i t rises to the l e v e l of p l a i n e r r o r . " ' W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 710 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 3 1 6 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1996), aff'd, 710 So. 2d 1350 ( A l a . 1997), c e r t . d e n i e d , 524 U.S. 9 2 9 , 118 S. C t . 2 3 2 5 , 141 L. E d . 2 d 699 (1998), quoting Ex parte 51 CR-07-0443 Bankhead, 585 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 , 126 (Ala.1991). 'To r i s e t o t h e l e v e l of p l a i n e r r o r , the c l a i m e d e r r o r must n o t o n l y s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t a defendant's " s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s , " b u t i t m u s t a l s o h a v e an u n f a i r p r e j u d i c i a l i m p a c t on t h e j u r y ' s deliberations.' Hyde v. State, 778 S o . 2 d 1 9 9 , 209 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) , a f f ' d , 778 S o . 2 d 237 (Ala. 2000), c e r t . denied, 532 U.S. 9 0 7 , 121 S. C t . 1 2 3 3 , 149 L.Ed. 2 d 142 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . " "'McNabb v . S t a t e , 887 S o . ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . ' " C l a r k v . S t a t e , 896 S o . 2 d 5 8 4 , App. 2000) (opinion on r e t u r n application for rehearing). 2d 929, 892-93 640-41 ( A l a . C r i m . t o r e m a n d a n d on "'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 h a s stated that the p l a i n e r r o r doctrine should be used in those situations that " ' s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t the f a i r n e s s , i n t e g r i t y or public reputation of judicial p r o c e e d i n g s . . . . ' " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 1 5 , 105 S. C t . 1 0 3 8 , 1 0 4 6 , 84 L. E d . 2 d 1 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , q u o t i n g U n i t e d States v . A t k i n s o n , 297 U.S. 1 5 7 , 1 6 0 , 56 S. C t . 3 9 1 , 3 9 2 , 80 L. E d . 555 ( 1 9 3 6 ) . ' " K n i g h t v. S t a t e , A p p . 19 9 5 ) . " Ex parte Sharp, , [Ms. 675 So. 1080959, 2d 487, 496 ( A l a . Crim. December 4, 2009] parties agreed to depose results and use So. 3d ( A l a . 2009). Before regarding trial, the the autopsy 52 to that Dr. Craig deposition CR-07-0443 testimony at t r i a l presenting Ala. R. to introduce the autopsy r e s u l t s Dr. C r a i g Crim. P.; as a w i t n e s s see a l s o as See, Rule 7 § 1 2 - 2 1 - 2 6 4 , A l a . Code deposition took courthouse, a n d R e y n o l d s was p e r m i t t e d Dr. place at t r i a l . instead of scheduled at the 16.6, 1 9 7 5 . The Etowah to thoroughly County examine Craig. Nevertheless, informed the court at a that pretrial hearing he h a d n o t b e e n when able Reynolds t o examine Dr. C r a i g r e g a r d i n g d i s c o v e r y m a t e r i a l he p u r p o r t e d l y d i d n o t h a v e at the time the o f Dr. C r a i g ' s State's deposition expense, to deposition, the court allow the discovery m a t e r i a l . 57-68.) See § 12-21-283, the Attendance supplement Proceeding." Reynolds d i d not pursue I V , R. A l a . Code Despite many either the i n order to ( V o l . 1, C. 1 3 9 ; V o l . I V , R. of Witnesses Criminal (Vol. to and/or t o subpoena Dr. C r a i g f o r t r i a l address Secure Reynolds offered, at 1975, from "Uniform Without Act to a State i n subsequent o p p o r t u n i t i e s , option o f f e r e d by t h e c o u r t . 1 0 4 ; 1 1 0 - 1 1 2 ; V o l . V, R. 4 4 1 ) . The p a r t i e s agreed t o depose Dr. C r a i g and t o use t h a t d e p o s i t i o n testimony i n l i e u of h i s l i v e testimony because Dr. C r a i g was no l o n g e r e m p l o y e d b y t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a a n d no l o n g e r r e s i d e d i n A l a b a m a . ( V o l . 1 , C. 1 0 4 - 0 5 . ) 7 53 CR-07-0443 When through the Dr. State sought Craig's introduce deposition was Craig unavailable for t r i a l . Assuming, without deciding, by allowing Craig's into the State evidence deposition the autopsy testimony, objection was that to had not the ( V o l . IX, the any R. was Dr. 1218.) court results error only that 1212- circuit autopsy testimony, Reynolds's demonstrated that results erred through the Dr. natural consequence of R e y n o l d s ' s a c t i o n s . Moreover, even i f a l l o w i n g the deposition testimony rise to the level Confrontation D e l a w a r e v. v. State, of Clause are Van 898 Reynolds court's plain Arsdall, So. 2d error. subject 475 U.S. 907, 917 that argues he to harmless-error 673, C r a i g . In had been support of t h i s allowed have challenged were stabbed with the same time, to Dr. the and confront Craig's 684 that 54 of the analysis. (1986)." App. 2004). by Smith the circuit deposition claim, Reynolds a l l e g e s Dr. Craig a similar this not ... prejudiced conclusion same o r does "[V]iolations (Ala. Crim. was error, i t a l l o w i n g the autopsy r e s u l t s i n through the o f Dr. he i n t o e v i d e n c e was would at that trial, a l l the weapon and have he at enabled that could victims around him to CR-07-0443 undermine the State's theory that there was only one assailant. However, Reynolds we had believe confronted that two d i f f e r e n t that testimony that Dr. knives could have i t is Craig equally and Dr. were used t o s t a b strengthened Craig the State's i n the facts p o r t i o n of t h i s testified t h a t R e y n o l d s h a n d e d h e r two d i f f e r e n t found him s t a b b i n g Melinda she subsequently disposed Accordingly, injuriously agreed case. opinion, Adrian knives M a r t i n . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d o f t h e two Reynolds's As West after that knives. i f any e r r o r o c c u r r e d , affect had i f the v i c t i m s , that discussed she possible i t d i d not substantial rights. probably Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. VI. Reynolds presented argues evidence (Reynolds's that the of offenses Brief, Issue Reynolds contends that "evidence of sexual testimony of the medical t h o u g h n e i t h e r o f f e n s e was impermissibly not charged i n the indictment. XV, the assault prosecutor at 101-02.) State and improperly rape examiner, Specifically, introduced during deposition Dr. Adam the Craig," charged i n the indictment. 55 even Despite CR-07-0443 Reynolds's insinuation otherwise, Reynolds d i d not object t h i s b a s i s when t h e d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y was o f f e r e d a t Therefore, we review h i s argument for plain on trial. error only. Rule 45A. We r e c o g n i z e t h a t " [ u ] n d e r evidence o f an o f f e n s e indictment than i s not a d m i s s i b l e offense." Krumm v . (Ala. Crim. deposition City to the on of Robertsdale, cited standard charged i n the a specific 648 So. 2d charged 651, 652 i n t h e p o r t i o n o f Dr. C r a i g ' s by Reynolds, tests Neither the prosecutor, of the p h y s i c a l evidence the offense at t r i a l App. 1994.) However, testimony testifying autopsy. other the general e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e , that Dr. are Craig performed the State's witness, suggested in sexually assaulted. Accordingly, there to this i s simply an n o r any t h a t t h e v i c t i m s were or was no raped merit assertion. VII. On May of the interest Chad 25, 2003, d u r i n g t h e h o u r s f o l l o w i n g t h e d i s c o v e r y crimes, -- Martin, addressed the police including and Chad interviewed Charles Martin's Martin's friend, several 25-year-old John b e l o w , Chad M a r t i n and John L a n g l e y 56 people nephew, Langley. were of As ultimately CR-07-0443 ruled at o u t as a s u s p e c t s . trial Langley and also testimony denied any testified corroborated a number o f i s s u e s addressed Chad M a r t i n participation as a w i t n e s s f o r the State i n the crimes. f o r the State, Chad M a r t i n ' s r e l a t e d to their separately testified alibi. and h i s Reynolds testimony. John raises These w i l l be below. A. Reynolds argues that the c i r c u i t to allow to the crime[s]." The [him] t o p r e s e n t inference (Reynolds's Issue i s that Chad M a r t i n confessed I I , a t 17.) during told t h e May 2 5 , the i n v e s t i g a t o r s c o n f l i c t i n g v e r s i o n s of h i s whereabouts at the time of the murders. In involvement purportedly the "erred i n refusing t h a t Chad M a r t i n brief, from the r e c o r d 2003, p o l i c e q u e s t i o n i n g , two evidence court police later, in first the Martin in Chad the to the crimes. Chad Martin recanted to the p o l i c e . become t h e t a r g e t account crimes; confessed excluded Chad narrative the as Martin second a suspect. time, of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 57 account any Martin A f t e r an i n v e s t i g a t i o n , h i s confession By t h a t denied Several days in a third oral Reynolds had already CR-07-0443 Chad M a r t i n ' s w h i c h he a denied written first any involvement statement c o n f e s s i o n -- the on -- was was t h e May 25 n a r r a t i v e account and was subsequently in was reduced to by oral r e d u c e d t o an documented police, signed s e c o n d o f t h e two not the crimes, i n the to i n two Martin. accounts official police t h a t he 25, prepared and 2003. Sgt. introduced signed into out of state by Fincher's evidence and at d i d not Sgt. Dale May 25 trial Fincher, police at the dated reasons May that 29, 2003, will be trial, the circuit signed by Capt. Martin's trial Reynolds ruling and signed addressed court Harbin by Fincher Capt. below, ruled that could not be May was not May 29 used to had moved The 8 Roy after the dated report trial. first confession and p o l i c e r e p o r t p u r p o r t e d l y d o c u m e n t i n g Chad M a r t i n ' s was but r e p o r t s . The because testify gave statement, p o l i c e r e p o r t p u r p o r t e d l y d o c u m e n t i n g Chad M a r t i n ' s was Martin's second confession Harbin. a hearing police For at report impeach Chad testimony. now regarding argues the May on appeal that the circuit 29 report effectively court's prevented him Before trial, the prosecutor offered to assist in s e c u r i n g F i n c h e r ' s presence at t r i a l ; however, the defense i n d i c a t e d t h a t F i n c h e r was n o t a c r i t i c a l w i t n e s s t o i t s c a s e . ( V o l . V, R. 4 4 2 - 4 3 . ) 8 58 CR-07-0443 from p r e s e n t i n g e v i d e n c e showing t h a t Chad M a r t i n c o n f e s s e d t o the crimes. reply (Reynolds's b r i e f , brief, Issue Issue I I , at 17-30; I I , a t 13-30.) R e y n o l d s Reynolds's contends that the May 29 r e p o r t p u r p o r t e d l y d o c u m e n t i n g C h a d M a r t i n ' s c o n f e s s i o n was admissible substantive committed evidence the complicated is in State made deaths motion, and Chad from Martin see as someone e l s e had relevant mentioning the such are of these facts Reynolds has ruling. motion i n limine any " a l l e g e d ( V o l . 1, C. that facts events statements" surrounding 188.) I n s u p p o r t "statements" to were of the i t s hearsay ( V o l . I , C. 1 8 8 . ) beginning arguments and that pretrial regarding the State argued considered that the to a written of the v i c t i m s . the purposes c o n f u s i n g , a knowledge order filed were u n r e l i a b l e . At Although the c i r c u i t court's the defense by impeachment tending to prove and o f t e n mischaracterized prevent both crimes. necessary The for of the trial, the circuit r e g a r d i n g the State's motion D u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g , one o f R e y n o l d s ' s defense court i n limine. counsel stated: " I w o u l d a l s o a n t i c i p a t e -- we h a v e t h e o n e -¬ we do h a v e o n e s t a t e m e n t s i g n e d b y C h a d M a r t i n . We also have some statements signed by some investigating officers. Two o f t h o s e t h r e e o f f i c e r s 59 CR-07-0443 are a v a i l a b l e . And I w o u l d a n t i c i p a t e t a l k i n g about those statements; maybe p o s s i b l y a s k i n g M r . M a r t i n about them t h r o u g h t h o s e o f f i c e r s . They s i g n e d them, a n d he s u p p o s e d l y made t h e s e v e r b a l s t a t e m e n t s t o them. They a r e v e r y p e r t i n e n t t o t h e c r i m e . " (Vol. V, R. 434-45.) The c i r c u i t at t r i a l , or court ruled that u n t i l neither party could refer to w r i t t e n statements. that However, at the appropriate arguments from time, counsel the court's ruling. Chad uncle, a were for testified Martin, ( V o l . I X , R. the that and t h a t he 1139-40.) I X , R. 1 1 3 9 - 4 0 . ) M a r t i n do w i t h IX, R. to consider of the Both the circuit During direct close to h i s 436.) testified with oral indicated ( V o l . V, R. 4 3 3 - 3 6 . ) he State. was Chad testified t h e murders and r o b b e r y 1140-41.) 60 very considered Martin a l s o had a good r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h M a r t i n ' s (Vol. court admissibility satisfied R. Martin Charles brother. ( V o l . V, Martin examination, they testified previous i t w o u l d be w i l l i n g regarding indicated that Martin's the c i r c u i t s t a t e m e n t s f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s . parties Chad M a r t i n wife h i m t o be said and like that daughter. t h a t he h a d n o t h i n g of the M a r t i n he to family. (Vol. CR-07-0443 Chad through Martin the following construction in during their Martin house Langley's on that time, at various sight that and was that Chad morning because Martin ( V o l . IX, employer telephoned not have afternoon murders drugs. times, house. located ( V o l . IX, 9 Langley took point people left 1141-43.) were also at 1143.) the only time Martin that to Langley's ( V o l . I X , R. he was garage 1143-44.) h o u s e was out of t o work According open d u r i n g ( V o l . I X , R. home 1144-45.) him around that R. drugs they ( V o l . I X , R. other doing sometime Martin 6:00 a.m. early testified and t o l d d a y b e c a u s e i t was to that 1144.) Sunday t h o u g h t he h a d t o go t o w o r k l a t e r R. t o work the a t one knew w h e r e he w a s . drove of and that when he w e n t lawnmower. Saturday h o u s e , w h i c h was he the back door to Langley's Langley did spent the Martin ( V o l . I X , R. and L a n g l e y morning. he morning g e t more testified Langley's Martin, together to house. Martin as testified time said Langley's Sunday neighborhood Martin Langley's that work a t John L a n g l e y ' s t h e same 1141-43.) testified that that his him t h a t going to he rain. John Langley's testimony corroborated Chad Martin's t e s t i m o n y w i t h r e g a r d t o w h a t t r a n s p i r e d w h i l e C h a d M a r t i n was at h i s residence. 9 61 CR-07-0443 (Vol. IX, R. h o u s e , and 1144.) M a r t i n then returned took a shower, went to John Langley's to house. a friend's ( V o l . IX, R. 1145.) Martin h o u s e , he saw residence. a fire (Vol. Langley's Martin testified that as he t r u c k and was R. 1145-46.) he residence the told Langley When Chad what he expressed his 1145-46.) Chad Martin IX, R. Charles Martin had been depressed and that t h a t M a r t i n might have c o m m i t t e d s u i c i d e . Martin drove parked the c a r he was backyard. ( V o l . IX, officer and Martin not recognized engaged him Martin Martin could was Martin's to the d r i v i n g behind a p p r o a c h e d him t h a t he back R. the be Sgt. told with him the James ( V o l . IX, testified Sgt. Mulkey Mulkey also dead body was and that that found. ( V o l . IX, 62 he was R. concerned 1145.) i n the that ( V o l . IX, R. and Martin's a police c o u l d n o t be told told that residence standing in a conversation. the Charles ( V o l . I X , R. t h a t he to at seen testified Mulkey got testified fence family. Martin's about Martin's 1146.) M a r t i n and Langley's Martin concern (Vol. to had and Martin. Chad way p o l i c e v e h i c l e s at the IX, house, on R. there 1146.) nearby and 1147) him him that Charles where Charles 1148-49.) Sgt. Mulkey CR-07-0443 then asked daughter. Chad Martin f o r t h e names ( V o l . I X , R. 1 1 4 8 . ) C h a d M a r t i n Sgt. Mulkey upset that a s k e d h i m f o r Chad's he c o l l a p s e d . Although not clear Chad M a r t i n left time the scene methamphetamine, claimed because IX, R. heard crimes. Chad f o r a short when he was actually over i t appears and d u r i n g time, that that amounts and c o c a i n e . testified of crystal ( V o l . I X , R. 1150-51.) trying to k i l l the Martins' police officers (R. 1 1 4 8 - 4 9 . ) Martin himself deaths. ( V o l . discussing had about instigated that although i s when the d e t a i l s of the a conversation ( V o l . I X , R. with 1149.) d i d not r e c a l l the w i t h L t . G a r y , he d i d n o t t e l l L t . overheard the d e t a i l s he to the scene, and t h a t he was on t h e s c e n e . testified he talking Martin of h i s conversation that t h a t when he r e t u r n e d f a m i l y members w h e r e t h e r e Faye Gary w h i l e details Gary that 1151.) some o f t h e o t h e r Lt. and name, he b e c a m e s o h i s testimony, he was s o d i s t r a u g h t Chad M a r t i n he niece's substantial Prozac, that testified wife ( V o l . I X , R. 1 1 4 8 ) from ingested he Martin of Martin's the of the crimes. 63 other police officers ( V o l . I X , R. 1149-50.) CR-07-0443 Chad M a r t i n (Vol. I X , R. Martin he was (Vol. testified from the participation to of Martin was statement i n which i n the crimes. testified that that there." not ( V o l . I X , R. remember however, Martin (Vol. he w o u l d what he the inference apparently I X , R. Martin p.m., apparently told from them a n y t h i n g Martin by Chad denied by any 1152-58.) 18 o r 19 h o u r s 1158.) confessed 8:40 the p o l i c e nevertheless "tell also abuse. had been prepared ( V o l . I X , R. 1 0 he was f o r many h o u r s Around that station, of h i s drug questioned 1151-52.) i n t e r r o g a t e him, and a f t e r he d e c i d e d and t h a t d e p r i v a t i o n because a written officers Martin for questioning. t h a t w h i l e he was a t t h e p o l i c e ( V o l . I X , R. signed of sleep 1151.) police. one to the p o l i c e s t a t i o n the i n f l u e n c e of the drugs I X , R. Martin taken 1149.) under suffering the was of questioning, just testified continued to get out that he d i d the i n v e s t i g a t o r s at that point; the record to being i s that involved at that i n the time crimes. 1160.) T h e s t a t e m e n t , w h i c h was r e f e r r e d t o a s b o t h State's E x h i b i t 63 a n d D e f e n s e ' s E x h i b i t 2, was n o t i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e b y e i t h e r p a r t y . ( V o l . I X , R. 1 1 5 2 - 5 6 . ) 1 0 64 CR-07-0443 Although after Chad Martin further Martin testified that narrative recanted confessed a suspect. V o l . I X , R. 1 1 s e v e r a l days l a t e r , him to the p o l i c e i n which he a n d he h i s confession. apparently told same v e r s i o n o f e v e n t s he g a v e i n h i s f i r s t w h i c h he t e s t i f i e d Martin, offer Chad Martin's o f Chad the also t h a t he t o l d that court point crimes, intimated exculpatory Martin's admit statements i n the t r i a l . a lawyer gave who another When Martin the p o l i c e the and t o examination he might into of later evidence. h a d no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e statements, inculpatory version to the i n v e s t i g a t o r s during indicated that Martin 1160-61.) that exculpatory Martin's excluded statement, completed h i s d i r e c t responded that counsel admission circuit ( V o l . I X , R. the prosecutor Defense counsel court at t r i a l . the prosecutor Chad the 1158-60.) he c o n t a c t e d station, he r e c a n t e d h i s confession, After to i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the p o l i c e u l t i m a t e l y as accompanied purportedly provided of events the questioning. The t h e d i s c u s s i o n was p r e m a t u r e a t ( V o l . I X , R. 1162.) The p o l i c e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Chad M a r t i n knew d e t a i l s o f t h e c r i m e b e c a u s e o f what he h a d o v e r h e a r d w h i l e a t t h e scene of t h e crimes. ( V o l . X I , R. 1 5 1 9 - 1 5 2 1 . ) 1 1 65 CR-07-0443 During asked Chad Martin a b o u t w h e t h e r he h a d made a s t a t e m e n t t o L t . F a y e Gary. Martin responded he cross-examination, had s a i d . specific tell he h a d b u t t h a t Defense counsel by a s k i n g Ms. G a r y t h a t you were s e e i n g this tell Ms. ... For he d i d n o t r e c a l l questioned Gary hear that her screaming t h e most p a r t , because, Martin he s a i d , said he clarified i n hisfirst signed trial. that because ( V o l I X , R. Defense the only reason counsel making a statement Martin responded s t a t e m e n t , he c o u l d he 1185-87.) Gary at the ( V o l . I X , R. 1 1 8 5 . ) he r e m e m b e r e d had read and I what he t o l d s t a t e m e n t -- t h e e x c u l p a t o r y -- was and " D i d you the i n f l u e n c e of drugs t i m e he made t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s . Martin like, "Did ( V o l . I X , R. not r e c a l l h e was u n d e r supposedly see Savannah's eyes f o r help?'" could about s o u n d e d c r a z y b u t i t was through Chuck's eyes?' 'I could what Martin a series of questions 'You knew t h i s like could then counsel i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s t h a t Chad M a r t i n made t o L t . G a r y you that defense what statement the statement he that before 1185-86.) then asked t o Capt. that, Martin whether Roy H a r b i n . although not r e c a l l he he remembered ( V o l . I X , R. recalled 1187.) making a t o whom h e made t h e s t a t e m e n t . 66 CR-07-0443 At that point, the prosecutor (Vol. I X , R. Outside contents a sidebar conference. 1187.) the hearing that defense requested counsel of the j u r y , the prosecutor s h o u l d n o t be a l l o w e d to "back-door" the o f t h e May 29 r e p o r t s i g n e d b y C a p t . H a r b i n b y a s k i n g M a r t i n l i n e - b y - l i n e questions from the r e p o r t l i k e done when Gary. ( V o l . I X , R. questioning Martin 1187-89.) about the i n v e s t i g a t o r s , statement through prosecutor anything Harbin Martin's statement testimony. to Roy i n i t , the proper The C o u r t Martin investigators, Harbin method did defense agreed, and i s f o r him remember counsel of the report. 67 1187-91.) to call he Roy ( V o l .IX, defense could not e l i c i t ( V o l . I X , R. remember say?' what The remember doesn't and i n s t r u c t e d not 1189.) he d o e s n ' t of t h e r e p o r t by q u e s t i o n i n g M a r t i n l i n e - b y - l i n e details that made b y M a r t i n t o a n d s a y ' D i d he do i t a n d w h a t d i d he i f responded ( V o l . I X , R. " [ I ] f Chad t e s t i f i e s statement R. 1 1 8 9 - 9 0 . ) that counsel to L t . counsel needed t o i n t r o d u c e the contents of replied: the c o u n s e l had h i s statements Defense b e c a u s e t h e c o n f e s s i o n was an o r a l giving asserted counsel told the the contents regarding the CR-07-0443 When d e f e n s e reiterated that inculpatory counsel resumed cross-examination, he d i d n o t remember t o whom h e h a d made t h e oral statement, so cross-examination of Martin. ( V o l . I X , R. Later i n the t r i a l , defense's presentation after defense the State of i t s case, counsel r e s t e d and b e f o r e t h e the prosecutor t h e May 29 p o l i c e r e p o r t which that intended to was s i g n e d The State the i n t r o d u c t i o n o r m e n t i o n o f t h e May 29 p o l i c e r e p o r t . ( V o l . X I , R. 1 4 7 4 . ) jury. ( V o l . X I , R. During Capt. that division investigators murders showed which labeled was admitted that the State i n May involved Harbin h e was he t h e head from of the several i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the t h e May 1475-76.) 29, 2003, Exhibit he h a d s i g n e d 68 testimony supervised ( V o l . X I , R. Defendant's although elicited 2003, that and robbery. prosecutor the presence of 1474-1503.) and who w e r e confession. i n limine prohibiting was c o n d u c t e d o u t s i d e the hearing, Roy H a r b i n detective Martin A hearing f o r an o r d e r Martin's by Capt. Harbin, moved t h e C o u r t documented informed Roy the supposedly ended i t s 1191-93.) t h e C o u r t t h a t he h a d l e a r n e d t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l introduce Martin 10, When t h e police report, Capt. Harbin the report, he d i d n o t CR-07-0443 prepare and or type the report he h a d n o t e v e n until a few days Harbin testified interview interviews May with before that Chad with 29 p o l i c e report trial. he was why rendition because he Capt. would sign a when he was n o t p r e s e n t the interview. questions when conceded, [and] "Detective I signed During confirmed by Fincher at the R e y n o l d s was t h e p r i m a r y he suspect 69 monitoring version Chad of Martin. Harbin at purporting he entire length t o be h i s had not read interview the with what M a r t i n had s a i d 1481-92.) In response to counsel, Capt. on my Harbin desk ... 1490.) redirect time the stated that the put the paper i t . " ( V o l . X I , R. the State's that defense Capt. also f o r the entire ( V o l . X I , R. propounded was Capt. C h a d M a r t i n , a n d when he c o u l d n o t r e c a l l during report an a c c u r a t e report confession of the during the interview with - 1476-79.) Harbin d i d not contain of Martin's report, not present cross-examined regarding version ( V o l . X I , R. suspects. during counsel he a completed Martin other w h a t he h a d h e a r d Defense read -- t h a t was d o n e b y S g t . F i n c h e r examination, signed Capt. t h e May i n the crimes 29 a n d was Harbin report, already CR-07-0443 in custody. the ( V o l . X I , R. 1 4 9 3 - 9 5 . ) A f t e r t h e S t a t e ' s following colloquy redirect, occurred: "THE COURT: A n d t h i s d o c u m e n t t h a t I'm l o o k i n g a t , i t ' s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t y o u w e r e n o t a w a r e o f the c o n t e n t s o f t h i s document u n t i l approximately t h r e e o r f o u r days ago? " [ C A P T . H A R B I N ] : I may h a v e g l a n c e d o v e r i t , Your Honor. But t h e f i r s t time I read i t t h o r o u g h l y was t h r e e o r f o u r d a y s a g o . this "THE COURT: Y o u d i d n o t r e a d i t p r i o r t o s i g n i n g document. "[CAPT. HARBIN]: I c o u l d have l o o k e d o v e r i t . I won't s a y t h a t I d i d n ' t l o o k o v e r i t . But I d i d n ' t r e a d i t t h o r o u g h l y , no, s i r . "THE COURT: A n d t h i s d o c u m e n t i s n o t a n a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e f a c t s as you u n d e r s t o o d them t o be at t h e time o f t h i s i n t e r v i e w ? "[CAPT. "THE document? HARBIN]: COURT: "[CAPT. And HARBIN]: No, s i r . you d i d not prepare this I d i d not. fl "THE COURT: The d o c u m e n t i s out." 1 2 A l t h o u g h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t r u l e d t h a t t h e May 2 9 p o l i c e r e p o r t ( D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t 10) c o u l d n o t b e u s e d a s e x t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e t o impeach Chad M a r t i n ' s t r i a l t e s t i m o n y , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t made t h e r e p o r t p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l . ( V o l . X I , R. 1 4 9 9 - 1 5 0 2 ; S e c o n d S u p p l e m e n t a l R e c o r d o n A p p e a l , V o l . 3, C. 407-10.) 1 2 70 CR-07-0443 (Vol. X I . R. The 1498-99.) court was (Emphasis careful added.) to c l a r i f y i t sruling, stating: "[Defense counsel], you can c a l l Detective H a r b i n and you can ask him a n y t h i n g t h a t you t h i n k that's appropriate i n regard to t h i s case. I'm n o t i n a n y way l i m i t i n g y o u i n y o u r q u e s t i o n i n g o f t h a t p a r t i c u l a r witness. J u s t t h e document i t s e l f i s n o t in. You can ask him whatever you think is appropriate, any inconsistencies, just not the document." (Vol. X I , R. 1502-03.) Toward t h e end o f t h e d e f e n s e ' s case, t h e c o u r t that call i t was u n d e r t h e i m p r e s s i o n Capt. Roy Harbin as that a indicated t h e d e f e n s e was g o i n g t o witness. The following occurred: "[DEFENSE C O U N S E L ] : He's n o t any good t o me. fl "THE COURT: O k a y Y o u do n o t w a n t t o c a l l Captain Harbin. I w a n t y o u t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t I am n o t i n a n y way p r e c l u d i n g y o u f r o m e x a m i n i n g h i m a n d going into anything you want to about his i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s or whatever." help "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: me a t t h i s p o i n t . I understand. It doesn't "[PROSECUTOR]: I t h i n k you r u l e d t h e o t h e r day, anybody t h a t i s not here, anybody t h e y have not called -anybody t h a t i s not here was trial s t r a t e g y on t h e i r p a r t . 71 then CR-07-0443 "THE COURT: "[THE Yea. P R O S E C U T O R ] : I t w a s n ' t a n y b o d y we c o u l d n ' t get." "[THE COURT]: e v e r y b o d y i s aware Okay. I j u s t of t h a t . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: (Vol. X I , R. stated above, court's ruling r e g a r d i n g the precluded inconsistent make sure understand." Impeachment As testimony to 1540-41.) 1. report I want with Reynolds him from extrinsic Evidence now argues that inadmissibility impeaching evidence Chad of of the the circuit May Martin's Martin's statement. "When a w i t n e s s , on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , d e n i e s having made a s t a t e m e n t out of c o u r t which is i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e w i t n e s s ' t e s t i m o n y on d i r e c t examination, the only available move for the i m p e a c h i n g p a r t y i s t o b r i n g on e x t r i n s i c p r o o f e i t h e r i n the form of w r i t i n g , tape r e c o r d i n g or i m p e a c h i n g w i t n e s s who c a n t e s t i f y a s t o t h e p r i o r inconsistent statement. Before such extrinsic e v i d e n c e may be e l i c i t e d , h o w e v e r , i t i s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t t h e i m p e a c h i n g p a r t y must l a y a p r o p e r p r e d i c a t e by a s k i n g the w i t n e s s being impeached w h e t h e r s u c h a s t a t e m e n t was made, s p e c i f y i n g w i t h reasonable c e r t a i n t y the time, the p l a c e , the person t o whom s u c h s u p p o s e d s t a t e m e n t was made a n d t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e s t a t e m e n t . The w i t n e s s likewise m u s t be g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o a d m i t o r d e n y h a v i n g made t h e s t a t e m e n t . T h i s f o u n d a t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t i s c o n t i n u e d under the Alabama Rule of E v i d e n c e : 72 29 trial prior CR-07-0443 "'Rule 613. P r i o r Statements of Witnesses. "'(b)Extrinsic evidence or prior inconsistent statement of witness. E x t r i n s i c evidence of a p r i o r inconsistent statement by a w i t n e s s i s not a d m i s s i b l e u n l e s s t h e w i t n e s s has been c o n f r o n t e d w i t h the circumstances of the statement with sufficient particularity to enable the w i t n e s s t o i d e n t i f y t h e statement and i s a f f o r d e d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o a d m i t o r d e n y h a v i n g made i t '" Charles Evidence W. Gamble and Robert § 157.01(1)(b) Reynolds J . Goodwin, ( 6 t h e d . 2009) maintains that court's "restriction [him] from [Chad M a r t i n ] w i t h h i s p r i o r statement, and a l s o Martin] admit deny the opportunity to (Reynolds's b r i e f , It Martin i s clear Issue from understood II(A)(1), our review which of Alabama (footnotes omitted). the c i r c u i t on t h e c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n ... p r e v e n t e d McElroy's or confronting denied the [Chad statement." a t 20-22.) of the record his prior that statements Chad defense c o u n s e l was r e f e r r i n g t o when c o u n s e l a s k e d h i m i f he h a d made a Harbin. statement t o Capt. Under the facts of this case, M a r t i n was " c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e s t a t e m e n t with the sufficient statement." particularity t o e n a b l e t h e [him] t o i d e n t i f y Furthermore, Martin's f a i l u r e 73 to recall what CR-07-0443 he said during the conversation with t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s was t a n t a m o u n t t o a d e n i a l t h a t he made t h e s t a t e m e n t f o r p u r p o s e s of introducing the prior impeaching witness. Crim. App. trial inconsistent Capt. Harbin. report, to d i d not prevent Reynolds's Reynolds predicate t o impeach Chad extrinsic evidence of with from Martin's a argues that he should (Reynolds's because the report brief, Capt. was been through Issue Harbin have prior allowed to the testimony of II(A)(2), admitted sufficiently that a t 2 2 - 2 7 . ) He he s i g n e d t h e authenticated. disagree. "Nothing i n this rule [Rule 613, A l a . R . C r i m . P . ] abrogates the requirement that i f the witness denies having made the statement then any extrinsic e v i d e n c e o f t h e p r i o r i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t must be properly authenticated." Advisory an 5 8 1 S o . 2 d 570 ( A l a . contrary t h e May 29 p o l i c e r e p o r t that through statement. Reynolds argues court the proper testimony introduce Accordingly, the c i r c u i t establishing statement See W a l k e r v . S t a t e , 1991). contention, conflicting Committee Notes to Rule 613, A l a . R . E v i d . Furthermore, "The question of a u t h e n t i c i t y or proper i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s , i n the f i r s t i n s t a n c e , f o rthe 74 We CR-07-0443 t r i a l j u d g e as a p r e l i m i n a r y m a t t e r . See A l a . R . E v i d . 104(a). The required foundational showing must c o n s i s t of evidence ' s u f f i c i e n t to support a f i n d i n g t h a t the m a t t e r i n q u e s t i o n i s what i t s p r o p o n e n t claims." Advisory Committee Notes Here, report, report although Capt. and recollection not secure the to report. See, the Criminal report presence testify § at of Attendance of that the was Capt. Harbin's written rendition say police during abuse of the discretion 2. Substantive the reflect his Code party. as (Reynolds's substantive brief, 75 the Act to State in Without a simply d i d not support i t was claimed Accordingly, court's be: Martin find no ruling. Third-party 29 we the to h e a r d Chad Guilt report should evidence of the Issue the "Uniform o f w h a t he of of authenticate to author from R e y n o l d s a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e May been a d m i t t e d he the 1 975, what circuit Evidence prepare order interrogation. i n the not did Fincher, evidence report that Furthermore, the defense d i d Witnesses The the he not in Ala. signed accurately that Sgt. trial Ala.R.Evid. admitted did 12-21-283, Proceeding." conclusion Harbin testified the 901, of the c o n v e r s a t i o n . report, Secure Capt. Harbin that to Rule guilt of a have third I I ( c ) , at 27-30.) R e y n o l d s d i d CR-07-0443 not move to accordingly, only. present Dorsey sought a defense h i s assertion aff'd 881 S o . 2 d 533 that a third a prison testimony, Henderson the that murders basis at trial; for plain error had 881 S o . 2 d rev'd i n part Dorsey on sought t o confessed to the Dorsey's Henderson, inmate, Johnny a n d "two w h i t e Dorsey was boys" accused about p r e s e n t i n g of Henderson's counsel informed the court to the defense's Defense to t e s t i f y him because, Henderson Wayne another Likely that defense fortrial. be a l l o w e d told that Gary 881 S o . 2 d a t 4 9 1 . had not responded unavailable to party inmate, During a discussion at t r i a l had i n part, ( A l a . 2003), witness to t e s t i f y had t o l d committing. should this murder case o f Dorsey v. S t a t e , to call committed Likely on t h a t D o r s e y was c h a r g e d w i t h c o m m i t t i n g . S p e c i f i c a l l y , Likely, had review App. 2001), evidence murders report Ala.R.App.P. the c a p i t a l grounds, the will (Ala. Crim. other as we R u l e 45A, In 460 admit subpoena counsel argued at t r i a l that regarding was a d m i s s i b l e as an e x c i t e d - u t t e r a n c e 76 a n d was Henderson what counsel maintained, Likely's that Likely statement exception CR-07-0443 to the hearsay rule 881 and, court sometime testify. immediately later, After determined some that ruled investigation, that i fLikely interest. he denied purposes another person's guilt." i t s ruling, Henderson On court's defense. ruling and L i k e l y to counsel was g o i n g t o d e n y was g o i n g the crimes. the statements, then t o deny The court Henderson's t o l d h i m w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e f o r not as substantive evidence of 881 S o . 2 d a t 4 9 2 - 9 3 . A f t e r t h e c o u r t defense or L i k e l y appeal, and defense Likely committed for Likely, to the courthouse Dorsey's testified, " t e s t i m o n y as t o what L i k e l y impeachment an a t t a c h m e n t was b r o u g h t i n the murders, Henderson that issued Likely i fLikely involvement telling made against penal So. 2d a t 4 9 1 . The any and as a s t a t e m e n t counsel declined to call either as w i t n e s s e s . Dorsey prevented argued, i n essence, him from that the presenting evidence trial in his We d i s a g r e e d : "The trial court, when ruling on the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of the hearsay evidence, applied the law as i t existed at the time of trial. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , Alabama c o u r t s had h e l d t h a t hearsay evidence concerning a t h i r d party's g u i l t i s not admissible. See C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 48.01(4) ( 5 t h ed. 1996). See also 77 CR-07-0443 G r i f f i n v . S t a t e , 7 90 S o . 2 d 267 ( A l a . C r i m . 1 9 9 9 ) , r e v ' d , 790 S o . 2 d 351 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . App. " A f t e r D o r s e y was c o n v i c t e d , t h e A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e G r i f f i n , s u p r a , r e c o g n i z e d that t h e r e may b e s i t u a t i o n s when h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e o f a t h i r d party's g u i l t i s admissible against a claim that i t violates the hearsay rule. The Supreme C o u r t , r e l y i n g on t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n Chambers v. M i s s i s s i p p i , s u p r a , h e l d t h a t an a c c u s e d ' s ' c o n s t i t u t i o n a l rights [ i n t h a t case] supersede[d] the hearsay r u l e i n the Alabama Rules of Evidence.' 790 S o . 2 d a t 3 5 5 . " I n Ex p a r t e G r i f f i n , the accused sought t o i n t r o d u c e evidence t h a t a t h i r d p a r t y had pleaded g u i l t y t o t h e c r i m e f o r w h i c h G r i f f i n was c h a r g e d , t h a t t h e p l e a was t a k e n i n an A l a b a m a c o u r t u n d e r oath, and t h a t t h i s i n d i v i d u a l had s e r v e d f o u r years i n p r i s o n f o r t h e c r i m e f o r w h i c h G r i f f i n was on t r i a l . The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t , when h o l d i n g t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e was a d m i s s i b l e , s t a t e d : "'The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t has h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t h a s a r i g h t t o p u t on a defense and t h a t t h a t r i g h t i n c l u d e s t h e opportunity to present evidence proving that another person committed the offense f o r w h i c h he h a s b e e n c h a r g e d . S e e C h a m b e r s v. M i s s i s s i p p i , 410 U.S. 2 8 4 , 93 S. C t . 1 0 3 8 , 35 L . E d . 2 d 297 (1 9 7 3 ) ; W a s h i n g t o n v . T e x a s , 388 U.S. 1 4 , 87 S. C t . 1920 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1019 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . However, t h i s right is not absolute; instead, the t r i a l court w i l l have t o c o n s i d e r t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f such evidence i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h other legitimate interests involved i n the t r i a l p r o c e s s . C h a m b e r s , 410 U.S. a t 2 9 5 , 93 S. C t . 1 0 3 8 ; s e e a l s o Guam v . I g n a c i o , 10 F. 3d 608 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) . A s a r e s u l t , t h e t r i a l court i s presented with a balancing test i n order t o determine whether the 78 CR-07-0443 evidence of a t h i r d p a r t y ' s properly admissible: culpability is "'"The court must weigh the defendant's 'strong interest in presenting exculpatory evidence' against the s t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t ' i n promoting reliable trials, particularly in preventing the injection of collateral issues into the trial through unsupported s p e c u l a t i o n about the g u i l t of another p a r t y . ' " "'United States v. Johnson, 904 F. Supp. 1303, 1311 (M.D. Ala. 1995) (citations omitted). In weighing those i n t e r e s t s , the f e d e r a l c o u r t s have r e q u i r e d t h e d e f e n d a n t t o show t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e he is offering i s p r o b a t i v e and n o t merely s p e c u l a t i o n that would confuse the j u r y : "'"To satisfy this balancing t e s t , t h e r e m u s t be 'some s h o w i n g of a nexus between the other party and the p a r t i c u l a r crime with which a defendant is c h a r g e d . ' Of c o u r s e , t h i s nexus must be substantial--that i s , probative--and not tenuous or merely s p e c u l a t i v e . " "'Id. (citations omitted). "'Like the federal courts, Alabama c o u r t s have l o n g r e c o g n i z e d the r i g h t of a defendant to prove his innocence by presenting evidence that another person a c t u a l l y c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e . See Ex p a r t e W a l k e r , 623 So. 2d 281 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ; Thomas v . S t a t e , 539 So. 2 d 375 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) ; G r e e n v . S t a t e , 258 A l a . 4 7 1 , 64 So. 79 CR-07-0443 2 d 84 ( 1 9 5 3 ) ; U n d e r w o o d v . S t a t e , 239 A l a . 2 9 , 193 So. 155 ( 1 9 3 9 ) ; O r r v . S t a t e , 225 A l a . 6 4 2 , 144 S o . 867 (1932); H o u s t o n v. S t a t e , 208 A l a . 6 6 0 , 95 So. 145 (1923); T e n n i s o n v . S t a t e , 183 A l a . 1, 62 So. 780 ( 1 9 1 3 ) ; M c G e h e e v . S t a t e , 171 A l a . 19, 55 So. 159 ( 1 9 1 1 ) ; M c D o n a l d v . S t a t e , 165 A l a . 8 5 , 51 So. 629 ( 1 9 1 0 ) . I n a d d i t i o n , A l a b a m a c o u r t s have a l s o r e c o g n i z e d the danger i n c o n f u s i n g t h e j u r y w i t h mere s p e c u l a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the g u i l t of a t h i r d p a r t y : "'"It generally is agreed that the defense, i n d i s p r o v i n g the accused's own guilt, may prove that another person committed the crime f o r which the accused i s being prosecuted The p r o b l e m w h i c h a r i s e s i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s g e n e r a l r u l e , however, is the degree of s t r e n g t h t h a t m u s t be possessed by t h e e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e to r e n d e r i t a d m i s s i b l e . The t a s k o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e w e i g h t t h a t must be p o s s e s s e d b y s u c h e v i d e n c e o f another's guilt is a difficult one." "'Charles W. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama E v i d e n c e § 48.01 ( 5 t h e d . 1 9 9 6 ) . To r e m o v e t h i s d i f f i c u l t y , t h i s C o u r t has s e t out a t e s t i n t e n d e d t o e n s u r e t h a t any e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d f o r t h i s purpose i s a d m i s s i b l e only when i t is probative and not merely speculative. Three elements must exist before this evidence can be ruled a d m i s s i b l e : (1) t h e e v i d e n c e " m u s t r e l a t e t o t h e ' r e s g e s t a e ' o f t h e c r i m e " ; (2) t h e e v i d e n c e must e x c l u d e t h e a c c u s e d as a p e r p e t r a t o r o f t h e o f f e n s e ; and (3) the e v i d e n c e " w o u l d h a v e t o be a d m i s s i b l e i f 80 CR-07-0443 t h e t h i r d p a r t y was on t r i a l . " See E x p a r t e W a l k e r , 623 So. 2 d a t 2 8 4 , a n d T h o m a s , 539 So. 2 d a t 3 9 4 - 9 6 . "'The State makes an additional a r g u m e n t as t o E m b r y ' s g u i l t y p l e a . It a p p a r e n t l y argues i n i t s b r i e f t h a t , even if the evidence of the p l e a passes the three-pronged test, at Griffin's trial Embry's p l e a i s s t i l l h e a r s a y t h a t does not f a l l w i t h i n any e x c e p t i o n . P r o f e s s o r Gamble has s t a t e d : "'"The a c c u s e d c a n n o t ... prove t h e g u i l t o f a n o t h e r by t h e use of hearsay statements. This h e a r s a y ban c o n s t i t u t e s t h e m a j o r b a r r i e r to e x c u l p a t o r y evidence, particularly i n the form of a t h i r d p a r t y ' s c o n f e s s i o n to the crime w i t h which the accused i s c h a r g e d . Such a s t a t e m e n t c o u l d surmount a hearsay o b j e c t i o n i f i t q u a l i f i e s u n d e r some h e a r s a y exception." "'McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 4 8.01(1). However, Gamble a l s o n o t e s t h a t a s i t u a t i o n could arise where "an accused's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to present h i s defense would dictate admission of evidence s u g g e s t i n g a n o t h e r ' s g u i l t , " I d . The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t has e n c o u n t e r e d such a situation, where the defendant's due-process rights conflicted with the r u l e s of e v i d e n c e . In Chambers, the C o u r t stated: "In these circumstances, where constitutional rights directly affecting the ascertainment of g u i l t are i m p l i c a t e d , the hearsay rule may not be applied 81 CR-07-0443 mechanistically to defeat t h e ends of j u s t i c e . " 410 U.S. a t 3 0 2 , 93 S. C t . 1 0 3 8 . fl I "'[W]e follow the United States Supreme C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n Chambers and hold that G r i f f i n ' s constitutional rights supersede the hearsay r u l e i n the Alabama R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e . H o w e v e r , i n d o i n g s o , we note that not i n every case will the defendant's r i g h t to present h i s defense supersede the hearsay rule; i t will supersede that rule only i n those cases that, as indicated by the first two e l e m e n t s o f t h e t e s t s t a t e d above, have a probative a l t e r n a t i v e theory of c u l p a b i l i t y and n o t an alternative theory that i s merely speculative and meant only to confuse the j u r y . ' "790 So. 2d a t 3 5 3 - 5 5 . (Emphasis added.) " O t h e r c o u r t s , l i k e t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n G r i f f i n , h a v e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e m a i n c o n c e r n when a p p l y i n g t h e Chambers h o l d i n g i s w h e t h e r t h e h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e has a ' s u f f i c i e n t i n d i c i a o f r e l i a b i l i t y . ' See C a r d v . D u g g e r , 911 F. 2 d 1494 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ( n o t i n g t h a t t h e Chambers Court c i t e d four facts t h a t made t h e h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t s r e l i a b l e : ' ( 1 ) t h e t i m e o f t h e d e c l a r a t i o n a n d t h e p a r t y t o whom t h e declaration was made; (2) the existence of c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e ; (3) t h e e x t e n t of which the declaration i s really against a d e c l a r a n t ' s p e n a l i n t e r e s t ; a n d (4) t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h e d e c l a r a n t as a w i t n e s s , t h a t i s , w h e t h e r t h e state could cross-examine him regarding his s t a t e m e n t s . ' 911 F. 2 d a t 1 5 1 5 ) ; T u r n e r v . S t a t e , 2 67 Ga. 1 4 9 , 476 S.E. 2 d 252 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ('must h a v e " p a r t i c u l a r i z e d guarantees of t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s , " that is, i t must be " c o u p l e d w i t h c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h a t t r i b u t e v e r i t y t o i t . " ' 476 S . E . 2 d a t 2 5 8 ) ; D a v i s 82 CR-07-0443 v . S t a t e , 194 G a . A p p . 4 8 2 , 3 9 1 S.E. 2 d 124 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ('In t h o s e c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e Court has r u l e d t h e c o n f e s s i o n o f a t h i r d p a r t y t o be a d m i s s i b l e a s a n e x c e p t i o n t o h e a r s a y , t h e C o u r t found strong indicia of reliability of the o u t - o f - c o u r t s t a t e m e n t . I n Chambers, t h e t h i r d - p a r t y declarant h a d made t h r e e s e p a r a t e a d m i s s i o n s o f g u i l t t o three d i f f e r e n t people, the statements bore persuasive assurances o f t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s and t h e d e c l a r a n t was a v a i l a b l e f o r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n b y t h e S t a t e so t h a t h i s demeanor a n d r e s p o n s e s c o u l d be w e i g h e d b y t h e j u r y . I n G r e e n v . G e o r g i a , 442 U.S. 9 5 , 99 S. C t . 2 1 5 0 , 60 L. E d . 2 d 738 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e Due P r o c e s s Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, testimony concerning the c o n f e s s i o n of a codefendant should have been a d m i t t e d i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g phase o f t r i a l because i t was relevant and because of i t s r e l i a b i l i t y ' ) ; A l d e r m a n v . Z a n t , 22 F. 3 d 1 5 4 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 1 3 U.S. 1 0 6 1 , 115 S . C t . 6 7 3 , 130 L. E d . 2 d 606 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( ' I t i s g e n e r a l l y t r u e t h a t a defendant must be p e r m i t t e d t o i n t r o d u c e any m i t i g a t i n g evidence a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g phase of a capital case i f the evidence relates to the defendant's character, record or the circumstances of t h e p a r t i c u l a r o f f e n s e However, a judge s t i l l retains the discretion to exclude otherwise inadmissible evidence which i t determines lacks considerable assurances of trustworthiness. C h a m b e r s , 410 U.S. a t 3 0 0 , 93 S . C t . a t 1 0 4 8 . ' 22 F. 3d a t 1 5 5 7 ) ; J o n e s v . S t a t e , 70 9 S o . 2 d 512 ( F l a . 1998) ( ' [ U ] n l i k e t h e c o n f e s s i o n s i n Chambers, t h e a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n s i n t h i s case l a c k i n d i c i a o f trustworthiness The c o n f e s s i o n s w e r e n o t made prior to the o r i g i n a l trial i n circumstances i n d i c a t i n g t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s , s u c h as s p o n t a n e o u s l y t o a c l o s e a c q u a i n t a n c e a s i n C h a m b e r s , o r t o h i s own c o u n s e l o r t h e p o l i c e s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e c r i m e , ... b u t w e r e made t o a v a r i e t y o f i n m a t e s w i t h whom [ t h e w i t n e s s ] s e r v e d p r i s o n t i m e . ' 709 So. 2 d a t 5 2 5 ) . 83 CR-07-0443 " H e r e , we do n o t h a v e t h e s i t u a t i o n t h a t was presented i n G r i f f i n . In G r i f f i n , the evidence that was i n t r o d u c e d had a h i g h degree of r e l i a b i l i t y . T h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y no i n d i c i a o f r e l i a b i l i t y i n a s t a t e m e n t made b y o n e i n m a t e t o a n o t h e r i n m a t e . The f a c t s of t h i s case a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from those p r e s e n t e d i n G r i f f i n ; t h u s , G r i f f i n does n o t mandate a r e v e r s a l i n t h i s case. There i s a b s o l u t e l y no evidence i n t h e r e c o r d that t h e statements bore such a d e g r e e o f r e l i a b i l i t y t h a t we w o u l d d e p a r t f r o m the l o n g - s t a n d i n g r u l e r e g a r d i n g the e x c l u s i o n of h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e . I n f a c t , L i k e l y , when q u e s t i o n e d about t h e s t a t e m e n t h e was s a i d t o h a v e made t o H e n d e r s o n , t o l d i n v e s t i g a t o r s t h a t h e d i d n o t make t h e s t a t e m e n t . L i k e l y was p r e p a r e d t o t e s t i f y , b u t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l d i d n o t want h i m t o t e s t i f y . Defense c o u n s e l knew t h a t i f L i k e l y d e n i e d t h e s t a t e m e n t t h e n Henderson's t e s t i m o n y as t o what L i k e l y told h i m was a d m i s s i b l e o n l y f o r i m p e a c h m e n t p u r p o s e s a n d not as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e of another person's g u i l t . The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n e x c l u d i n g t h i s evidence." 881 So. 2d a t 493-96. With assertion. the above law The e v i d e n c e i n mind, we that Reynolds turn of a t h i r d a documenting confession report -- a supposedly confession unreliable -- p r e p a r e d signed the o f f i c e r ' s by c o n f e s s i o n nor would in the report. Under subsequently by an o f f i c e r these party's guilt Chad been was Martin's determined t o be who d i d n o t t e s t i f y a n d supervisor, attest Reynolds's c l a i m s s h o u l d have a d m i t t e d as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e police to who neither heard the to the accuracy of the statements unusual 84 facts, t h e May 29 police CR-07-0443 r e p o r t s i m p l y d i d n o t have " s u f f i c i e n t to overcome guilt the prohibition by use of hearsay In any event, inadmissibility against the c i r c u i t that presenting Reynolds regarding inconsistencies testimony and a witness. to on what May he told ruling h e r t h a t he h a d l o s t Harbin Martin's trial say during Capt. the Harbin spoke w i t h Chad Martin She s a i d about where t h e M a r t i n ' s of h i s sunglasses. (Vol. XI, R. 1 5 0 7 . ) L t . G a r y t e s t i f i e d t h a t M a r t i n was v e r y u p s e t . R. her s u s p i c i o u s , so she t o l d her. 1508.) L t . Gary ( V o l . X I , R. stated that Sgt. 1508.) 85 that ( V o l . X I , R. 1 5 0 6 - 0 7 . ) He a l s o a pair XI, as made t o h e r . of the crimes. were f o u n d i n t h e house. prevent L t . Gary t o t e s t i f y Martin she f i r s t a t t h e scene the Capt. to c a l l Furthermore, Reynolds d i dc a l l Gary t e s t i f i e d that d i d not Chad declined that regarding question Martin Chad a p p r o a c h e d h e r and began t o t a l k bodies party's h i s d e f e n s e . The c i r c u i t could heard but Reynolds 25, 2003, third report between the i n c u l p a t o r y statements Lt. court's o f t h e May 29 p o l i c e emphasized interrogation, proving evidence. Reynolds from e f f e c t i v e l y court i n d i c i a of r e l i a b i l i t y " Martin's Fincher statements what M a r t i n (Vol. made had t o l d CR-07-0443 She when testified the break detectives in their testified he was t h a t she brought interview. that Martin sobbing. l a t e r spoke w i t h was (Vol. XI, Martin (Vol. visibly R. to Chad M a r t i n her XI, R. upset at office 1510.) that 1512.) L t . G a r y during a Lt. Gary t i m e and that testified: " I was t e l l i n g h i m e v e r y t h i n g was g o i n g t o be o k a y , j u s t c a l m down. A n d t h e n he s a i d Ms. G a r y , y o u know -- s o m e t h i n g t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h i s may seem o r sound c r a z y t o you, but i t ' s -i t ' s as i f I'm seeing t h i s t h r o u g h -I b e l i e v e i t was Chuck's e y e s . A n d he s a i d i t was l i k e he c o u l d s m e l l t h e g a s on h i s h a n d s a n d he d i d n ' t know w h e r e t h e c u t s came from. A n d t h e n he s a i d t h a t I know t h a t I c o u l d n ' t h u r t S a v a n n a h . I j u s t -I know I c o u l d n ' t hurt Savannah. A n d he s a i d he t o l d t h e m t h e t r u t h but t h e y d i d n ' t b e l i e v e him. T h e n he w e n t on t o say s o m e t h i n g a b o u t a p h o n e c a l l t h a t he h a d made t h a t was going to probably make h i m l o o k bad. And I a s k e d h i m why do y o u s a y t h a t , w h a t d i d y o u say. And he said something to the effect about the message t h a t [Charles Martin] had on the phone, s o m e t h i n g a b o u t him s o u n d i n g d e a d o r s o m e t h i n g , you know, on t h e m e s s a g e . " [ I ] t s e e m s l i k e he s a i d he -- s o m e t h i n g a b o u t her [ S a v a n n a h ] s c r e a m i n g . Y e a h , t h a t was in the conversation. S o m e t h i n g a b o u t he c o u l d h e a r her s c r e a m i n g d o n ' t h u r t me o r s o m e t h i n g t o t h a t e f f e c t . fl "... [ H ] e was t a l k i n g a b o u t a m e s s a g e t h a t he h a d l e f t C h u c k on t h e p h o n e , t h a t t h e m e s s a g e t h a t he l e f t -- s o m e t h i n g a b o u t he n e e d e d t o c h a n g e t h e 86 again CR-07-0443 m e s s a g e b e c a u s e he s o u n d e d d e a d . A n d t h a t i s g o i n g t o l o o k bad f o r me." (Vol. XI, R. exclusion evidence of said I know 1512-14.) Under these the he circumstances, of the May we 29 a third-party's can police find no plain report as error in substantive guilt. B. Reynolds argues reversed because, bolstered the John Langley statements, by claims, presenting and by a test. of convictions the (Reynolds's i t s witnesses to or had offered Issue I I I , pp. Issue I I I , at Reynolds's Bolstering to Reynolds's claim as note that c o n t r a r y introduce into discussion assertion that in part any the A State either a 30-42, had polygraph Reynolds's 30-35.) of o r a l o r w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t s -our take and consistent they Claim regarding Chad M a r t i n , to Reynolds's a s s e r t i o n , the evidence be Martin e v i d e n c e of t h e i r p r i o r that to improperly Chad introducing evidence brief, due prosecutor 1. First, are test polygraph brief, he his credibility taken reply that of the content of State Chad did issue.) introduced 87 Thus, into not Martin's i n c u l p a t o r y or e x c u l p a t o r y . this we (See Reynolds's evidence Chad CR-07-0443 Martin's trial prior c o n s i s t e n t statement testimony i s without John Langley, Martins, Sunday during i n essence, of the and a n e i g h b o r State's case-in-chief. t h a t Chad M a r t i n s p e n t S a t u r d a y the crimes through c o n s t r u c t i o n work and t a k i n g d r u g s . L a n g l e y ' s t e s t i m o n y tended c o r r o b o r a t e Chad M a r t i n ' s t r i a l During Martin left around 8:00 direct R. Langley's house and As discussed the crimes were in discrepancy discrepancy. house testified police and and Langley around testified returned fire the on again t e s t i f i e d 8:00 officials facts or Sunday portion 8:30 Langley that Sunday morning (Vol. of IX, this approximately regarding morning. h i m t h a t he h a d at the M a r t i n and c o n c e r n e d Chad this the t h a t C h a d M a r t i n came t o Martin told h i m s e l f and h i s w i f e . that D e f e n s e c o u n s e l s e i z e d upon cross-examined t h a t at t h a t time M a r t i n was u p s e t killed Langley not d i s c o v e r e d u n t i l 1 0 : 0 0 on t h a t S u n d a y m o r n i n g . time testimony. o r 8:30, a n d t h a t M a r t i n was v e r y u p s e t . 1116-17.) opinion, examination, Langley's He doing his at of the house to morning to bolster h i s merit. Chad M a r t i n ' s f r i e n d testified testified, i n order seen and that t h a t Charles M a r t i n might have ( V o l . I X , R. 88 residence He 1122-23.) CR-07-0443 During State the sought police Exhibit Chad the State's redirect examination of Langley, the to introduce Langley's statement t h a t h e made t o during his interrogation, 62. I n L a n g l e y ' s statement M a r t i n r e t u r n e d t o h i s house 10:30 and t h a t trucks M a r t i n was v e r y and p o l i c e vehicles w h i c h was m a r k e d S t a t e ' s he t o l d the police on S u n d a y upset morning because at the Martins' that around had seen house. fire ( I V , R. 1127-28.) The d e f e n s e o b j e c t e d t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e s t a t e m e n t on the grounds the witness's testimony. ensued that outside following i t was b e i n g offered to improperly ( V o l . I X , R. 1 1 2 8 - 2 9 . ) the presence of the jury, A bolster discussion d u r i n g which occurred: "[THE COURT]: [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] , c l e a r l y from the testimony I have heard the bodies weren't d i s c o v e r e d u n t i l a r o u n d 10:00 o ' c l o c k , c o r r e c t ? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Y e s , s i r , t h a t i s correct. "THE COURT: On t h e way t o c h u r c h . And you d i d q u e s t i o n him about t h i s statement and you q u e s t i o n e d him about t h e t i m e . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Sure. "[THE C O U R T ] : A n d i f w h a t h e h a s t e s t i f i e d t o i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s statement and t h e statement s a y s o t h e r w i s e , I t h i n k t h a t w i l l be v e r y d a m a g i n g to t h e s t a t e . 89 the CR-07-0443 "[DEFENSE (Vol. I X , R. C O U N S E L ] : We 1132-33.) State's Exhibit (Emphasis redirect Exhibit 62 was of prosecutor, the statement 1135.) h i s statement Langley confirmed then read evidence During that the State's Upon t h e r e q u e s t the portion of h i s t h a t M a r t i n r e t u r n e d to h i s house at t h e c r i m e s w e r e d i s c o v e r e d . ( V o l . I X , R. agreed that the time i n his police was i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h w h a t he t e s t i f i e d R. 1133-35.) to the p o l i c e . Langley w h e r e he w r o t e Langley added.) ( V o l . I X , R. examination, 1 0 : 3 0 on t h e m o r n i n g object." 62 was o f f e r e d a n d a d m i t t e d i n t o without further objection. State's won't statement to during t r i a l . (Vol. 1135.) Although Reynolds did initially i n t r o d u c t i o n of Langley's statement offered to bolster withdrew that his trial objection. that the statement bolstering the testimony was we will offered for plain error Ala.R.App.P "Rule 607, A l a . R . E v i d . , p r o v i d e s : 90 to the on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t i t was testimony, Reynolds, Thus, contention object review i n essence, Reynolds's f o r the purpose only. Rule of 45A, CR-07-0443 "The credibility of a t t a c k e d by any p a r t y , c a l l i n g the w i t n e s s . " a witness may be i n c l u d i n g the p a r t y Further, " R u l e 607 a u t h o r i z e s a p a r t y t o b r i n g a g a i n s t his own witness a l l weapons f r o m the a r s e n a l of impeachment that historically were reserved generally for opposing witnesses.... One may, for e x a m p l e , i m p e a c h h i s own w i t n e s s b y s h o w i n g t h a t t h e w i t n e s s made a s t a t e m e n t o r p e r f o r m e d an a c t t h a t i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the w i t n e s s ' present testimony. ... Inconsistencies, whether in the form of statements or acts, likewise could be used to i m p e a c h o n e ' s own witness." M c E l r o y ' s Alabama Evidence § 165.01(6)(a) emphasis added). Ala.R.Evid., of one's 129, (Ala. App. the implementation omitted; of Rule a p a r t y c o u l d c o r r e c t or c o n t r a d i c t the own witness. 137-38 (Ala. 1989); See Crim. Bell v. Fortenberry App. State, 1988), 466 So. v. State, testimony 545 So. 2d 2d 145 aff'd, 545 So. 167, 173 (Ala. 2d 607, Crim. 1985). The inference introduced at from Langley's correct Langley's house Even b e f o r e (footnotes 8:30 We introduced this record statement to statement at t r i a l a.m. discovered. the are on the not statement Sunday is the 91 order the police prosecutor in order t h a t Chad r e t u r n e d morning persuaded in that that to the the to to h i s crimes were prosecutor improperly bolster CR-07-0443 Langley's trial testimony. admission into evidence statement to the Likewise, soliciting of find no were initially that they were questioned they were then excluded At Reynolds no object point to and considered by as Exhibit the the witnesses' error 62, Chad t o be i n the Martin suspects the p o l i c e suspects. during Langley's this i n the at length, (Reynolds's line of the and brief, grounds to e l i c i t that testimony that crimes, questioning on trial prosecutor's testimony questions p r o s e c u t o r was a t t e m p t i n g bolster plain John Langley they 37-38.) State's police. we from T h u s , we f i n d no p l a i n e r r o r i n t h e that that at did the i n order to testimony. " T h e r e i s a g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e t h a t one may n o t b o l s t e r t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f h i s own w i t n e s s before t h a t c r e d i b i l i t y has been a t t a c k e d by t h e opponent. However, t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l p r e c l u s i o n has been h e l d inapplicable to preclude a calling party from anticipating such an attack and d i f f u s i n g bias impeachment by himself bringing out the biasr e v e a l i n g m a t t e r on d i r e c t . " McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 149.01(15) (footnotes omitted). Furthermore: " [ A ] p a r t y may n o t b o l s t e r t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f h i s own w i t n e s s u n t i l i t f i r s t h a s b e e n a t t a c k e d . This p r i n c i p l e , h o w e v e r , i n no way p r e c l u d e s a p a r t y f r o m diffusing the impact o f p o s s i b l e impeachment by b r i n g i n g out the impeaching i n f o r m a t i o n on d i r e c t . 92 CR-07-0443 A w i t n e s s ' i n c o n s i s t e n t statement, f o r example, may be brought out on direct so as to d i f f u s e the p r e j u d i c i a l impact such i n f o r m a t i o n would have i f f i r s t b r o u g h t out by t h e o p p o n e n t . " McElroy's It to Alabama Evidence i s apparent elicit from testimony suspects purportedly confessed men subsequently anticipate of this had and attempting to by regard we John that crimes and the crimes. By not do matter the line agree that bolster the of on questions intended Langley Chad eliciting a t l e n g t h by the improperly direct. were Martin the fact the p o l i c e attempting Under the the credibility by to facts prosecutor referenced and of was the Reynolds. do n o t f i n d t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s q u e s t i o n s i n also error Langley testimony Martin contends the t h a t he 38-42.) error. Polygraph when o f f e r e d to at defense and the amounted to p l a i n Reynolds III(B), Martin been q u e s t i o n e d 2. reversible r e c o r d t h a t the Chad to diffuse A c c o r d i n g l y , we this in 176.01(2). e x c l u d e d a s s u s p e c t s , t h e S t a t e was case, witnesses the that originally that both § take 45A, the prosecutor prosecutor elicited a polygraph a polygraph d i d not 93 Ala.R.App.P. Evidence that took Reynolds Rule test. test and committed from that (Reynolds's object to the John Chad brief, questions CR-07-0443 that elicited witnesses' review these answers. this prosecutor App. see to 2007), V. error deciding, that the statements State, under d i d he move t o e x c l u d e the 98 9 facts So. of this i t was error r e g a r d i n g the 2d witnesses told the each truth. testified Each e x a m i n e d by d e f e n s e unlikely each 1167, case 1177 we do witness adversely also in light affected" v. State, of their remaining Reynolds's not Crim. believe Ala.R.App.P. that they thoroughly 650 cert. d e n i e d , 514 So. 1064, 1067 So. 2d U.S. 544, 1024 (Ala. Crim. testimony "substantial 556-57 had crossIt is tests by "probably rights." See (Ala. Crim. App. ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; Logue v. S t a t e , App. the polygraph counsel regarding his possible bias. 1994), 2d was objection for (Ala. t h a t the p a s s i n g r e f e r e n c e to the polygraph witness Daniels without we only. s u c h e r r o r w o u l d a m o u n t t o p l a i n e r r o r . R u l e 45A, The the 1117-18; 1160.) T h e r e f o r e for plain without elicit A.G. nor ( V o l . I X . R. allegation Assuming, test, responses, 529 1988). C Reynolds contends j u r y t o r e l y on i m p r o p e r that the evidence 94 prosecutor "encouraged the i n c o n s i d e r i n g Chad M a r t i n ' s CR-07-0443 testimony." (Reynolds's brief, Issue XIII(A), a t 92-93.) We disagree. Toward t h e end o f t h e S t a t e ' s Martin, the following direct examination occurred: "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : C h a d , o n e m o r e t i m e . a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h [ C h a r l e s M a r t i n ' s ] "A. No, o f Chad D i d you have death? I d i dnot. fl these "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : C h a d , do f o l k s s i t t i n g out here? "A. Y e s , I d o . I t ' s my you know some family. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : The s e c o n d l a d y f r o m t h e t h e r e , who i s s h e ? "A. you; T h a t w o u l d be my "Q. [PROSECUTOR]: i s n ' t she? of left mother. She's the lady that raised "A. Y e s , s i r . "Q. C a n y o u s i t r i g h t t h e r e i n t h a t witness s t a n d and l o o k t h a t l a d y r i g h t t h e r e i n t h e eye and t e l l h e r w h e t h e r y o u h a d a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h k i l l i n g [Charles Martin]? "[CHAD "[THE "THE (Vol. I X , R. M A R T I N ] : Momma, I d i d n ' t PROSECUTOR]: COURT: Y o u r That's a l l . witness." 1161-62.) 95 kill him. CR-07-0443 Reynolds the grounds d i d not now object asserted to on the prosecutor's appeal. Thus, for plain error only. Rule 45A, credibility Chad Martin's crediting of Chad M a r t i n by assurances Chad M a r t i n ' s to incident will be the mother statements." of improperly bolstered asking his allegation Ala.R.App.P. Reynolds argues t h a t "the p r o s e c u t o r the on his p r o s e c u t o r i a l misconduct with regard to t h i s reviewed question jury as a (Reynolds's to rely basis brief on for at p. 92.) Although perhaps this distinction p r o s e c u t o r d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y innocence to his prosecutor was essentially most, the Martin question mother; called t o make a d i r e c t convinced that the encourage the jury evidence. viewing context of Robitaille the v. asking the was appears rhetorical to or "no" although we do improper trial, we 971 So. as 2d 96 answer, not improperly i t s verdict 43, are 61-63 on that question. h i s mother. allegedly entire State, a i t f o r a "yes" statement Nevertheless, question, rather, base subtle, the ask Chad M a r t i n t o p r o f e s s h i s prosecutor to is We are attempting matters not condone question bound not to the At for not to in the in the do, see (Ala. Crim. App. CR-07-0443 2005), cert. persuaded denied, that Chad M a r t i n ' s as already U.S. the prosecutor's 990 (2007), question we 1 3 971 n o t commit the Accordingly, prosecutorial several (citations times, not unfairness c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f due S o . 2 d a t 62 testified are that p r e c i p i t a t e d response "'so i n f e c t e d the t r i a l w i t h t o make t h e r e s u l t i n g Robitaille, did 552 omitted). without process'" Martin objection, that had he crimes. we find no p l a i n error i n this a s s e r t i o n of misconduct. VIII. Reynolds allowed Adrian at argues the State that to e l i c i t West and Chad M a r t i n . 104-06.) First, Reynolds the hearsay the crime," testimony from was improperly court testimony (Reynolds's alleges e f f o r t t o b o l s t e r West's t e s t i m o n y in circuit from brief, that the erroneously witnesses Issue State, XVIII, in an and "excuse h e r i n v o l v e m e n t allowed to e l i c i t the f o l l o w i n g West: " A n d he [Donald Harvey, aka, Dino], a s k e d me i f M i c h a e l had a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h w h a t h a p p e n e d t o Chuck [ C h a r l e s M a r t i n ] . A n d I n o d d e d y e s . A n d he s a i d f o r me t o g e t t h e s t u f f . A n d I g o t t h e s t u f f , a n d we w e n t a n d g o t r i d o f i t . " The a p p l i c a b l e law r e g a r d i n g p r o s e c u t o r i a l m i s c o n d u c t i s a d d r e s s e d i n more d e t a i l i n P a r t XV o f t h i s o p i n i o n . 1 3 97 CR-07-0443 (Vol. VIII, R. 9 4 4 . ) "And D i n o t o l d me t h a t getting out of j a i l . " (Vol. VIII, hearsay. purportedly testimony asserted When improper b u t was these statement, under Reynolds being (Vol. VIII, offered investigating (Reynolds's officers brief, residence Sgt. Mulkey State asked the prosecutor we w i l l review at to exonerate solicited about what the hearsay one o f t h e crime scene." cited were d i s c o v e r e d , him i n a conversation. Sgt. Mulkey 98 Chad t h a t when h e a r r i v e d a t t h e the morning the crimes what to standard. [Martin] testified and engaged Chad court d i d a t 105.) I n t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d by R e y n o l d s , Chad M a r t i n Martins' told directly him that the t o e s t a b l i s h West's " [ i ] n an e f f o r t told second of the matter R. 9 4 5 . ) The c i r c u i t the State the witness the responded R. 9 4 5 . ) A c c o r d i n g l y , contends that from to f o r the truth the p l a i n - e r r o r confession, testimony t o be alleged instance of the State offered instead (Vol. VIII, claims Martin's going objected r u l e on h i s o b j e c t i o n , b u t s i m p l y "Go a h e a d . " saw to the f i r s t Reynolds was n o t b e i n g subsequent conduct. not was R. 9 4 4 . ) Reynolds d i dnot object improper Michael told him, the he When t h e defense CR-07-0443 objected (Vol. on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n I X , R. The for State responded him subsequent then argued something, himself." that of the matter Martin's defense that the the testimony asserted actions. allege should have then the court instructed (Vol. I X , R. 1148.) Sgt. Mulkey had that The told the State State him and Sgt. Mulkey t o l d 1147.) asked Sgt. As wife Chad Martin testified, him that a n d d a u g h t e r , he c o l l a p s e d . discussed, Reynolds d i d not Charles object to the other supposed hearsay testimony, adverse r u l i n g . ruling Martin is nothing preserved failure f o rappellate review.'" Charles 1148.) first he d i d o b j e c t a request fora to rule, there Johnson v. S t a t e , 542 S o . 2 d 3 4 1 , 345 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) ( c i t a t i o n s 99 the was he d i d n o t o b t a i n a n " ' I n the absence of a r u l i n g , o r an o b j e c t i o n t o t h e c o u r t ' s what without ( V o l . I X , R. a l l e g e d l y i m p r o p e r comment b y W e s t a n d , a l t h o u g h to Mulkey question. d e a d a n d t h a t when S g t . M u l k e y a s k e d h i m f o r names o f Martin's told s t a t e d " F i n e , " and asked Chad The Sgt. Mulkey to ask i t s next again elicited to explain ( V o l . I X , R. " [ i ] f they State was n o t but rather ( V o l . I X , R. 1 1 4 7 - 4 8 . ) The c o u r t objection, f o r hearsay. 1147.) the truth Chad called omitted). CR-07-0443 Nevertheless, admission of we the find no error, plain or otherwise, in the testimony. "Rule 801(c), Ala.R.Evid., states: " ' " H e a r s a y " i s a s t a t e m e n t , o t h e r t h a n one made b y t h e d e c l a r a n t w h i l e t e s t i f y i n g a t the t r i a l or h e a r i n g , o f f e r e d i n evidence to prove the t r u t h of the m a t t e r a s s e r t e d . ' " '"[The h e a r s a y rule] does not exclude e x t r a j u d i c i a l utterances offered merely to prove the f a c t of the making or d e l i v e r y t h e r e o f , or to e x p l a i n subsequent c o n d u c t o f a h e a r e r . " ' A s h f o r d v. State, 472 So. 2 d 7 1 7 , 719 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) , quoting 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 718 (19 6 1 ) . " R o b i t a i l l e v. State, cert. 552 denied, So. U.S. 990 statement Neither was matter asserted; explain the error 971 43, 57 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005), prove (2007). o f f e r e d to rather, declarant's 2d each subsequent truth of the was statement the elicited to conduct. Accordingly, no occurred. IX. Reynolds prohibited witnesses. him alleges from that the impeaching (Reynolds's R e y n o l d s c o n t e n d s t h a t he brief, should 100 circuit the Issue court testimony XI, at of erroneously two 83-87.) have been a l l o w e d to State's First, question CR-07-0443 Chad M a r t i n regarding victims. (Reynolds's Reynolds asserts questioning Reynolds. whether M a r t i n brief, that Adrian West (Reynolds's allegations will he be Issue was at incorrectly her Issue addressed a motive to XI(A), regarding brief, had 84-85.) separately the Second, prohibited possible XI(B), kill bias at from against 85-87.) These below. A At trial, regarding During Chad alleged Martin there conflicts had ever to stab were a r e p o r t were a s u s p e c t cross-examined Martin Before the State objected, and the him. a had note with defense and counsel Martin. Martin's then saying could Martin asked whether door stated, " finish "If done t h a t somebody had are Chad Charles Charles counsel somewhere t h a t and ( V o l . IX, the court parties. i t s objection, R. question, a d i s c u s s i o n ensued between the support d e f e n s e was to of attempting motive evidence on Defense respective In a left i n t h a t , you 1179-80.) had counsel t h a t l i n e of q u e s t i o n i n g , defense counsel threatening you Reynolds's to kill the to improperly Charles substantiate the 101 State argued that s u g g e s t t h a t Chad Martin without suggestion. Martin having Defense the any counsel CR-07-0443 c o n c e d e d t h a t i t d i d n o t have a " r e p o r t " naming Chad M a r t i n as a suspect i n leaving Martin note, maintained Martin's l e a v i n g t h e t h r e a t e n i n g n o t e was b a s e d u p o n one i t s supposition but defense counsel material provided that a threatening by t h e S t a t e , of the Martins' regarding in particular, relatives Chad discovery a statement by to a detective. ( V o l . I X , R. 1181-82.) The c i r c u i t thus, by objection (Vol. court i n s t r u c t e d t h e p a r t i e s t o "move implication, the court sustained to Reynolds's further questions I X , R. Reynolds the regarding murder. plain error Ala.R.Evid.; App. 1182.) d i d n o t make any o f f e r of proof a s t o how t h e Accordingly, only. Rule and Jennings we will 45A, review Ala.R.App.P; v. S t a t e , have Rule 103(a)(2), 513 S o . 2 d 91 ( A l a . C r i m . stated: "'Alabama c o u r t s have l o n g r e c o g n i z e d the right of a defendant to prove h i s innocence by presenting evidence that another person actually committed the c r i m e . S e e E x p a r t e W a l k e r , 623 S o . 2 d 2 8 1 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ; Thomas v . S t a t e , 5 3 9 S o . 2 d 102 motive his assertion for 1991). We State's the note. e x t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e w o u l d have e s t a b l i s h e d Chad M a r t i n ' s for along"; CR-07-0443 375 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) ; G r e e n v . S t a t e , 258 Ala. 471, 64 So. 2d 84 (1953); U n d e r w o o d v . S t a t e , 239 A l a . 2 9 , 193 So. 155 ( 1 9 3 9 ) ; O r r v . S t a t e , 225 A l a . 6 4 2 , 144 So. 867 ( 1 9 3 2 ) ; H o u s t o n v . S t a t e , 208 A l a . 6 6 0 , 95 So. 145 ( 1 9 2 3 ) ; T e n n i s o n v . S t a t e , 183 A l a . 1, 62 So. 780 ( 1 9 1 3 ) ; McGehee v. State, 171 A l a . 19, 55 So. 159 (1911); M c D o n a l d v . S t a t e , 165 A l a . 8 5 , 51 So. 629 (1910). In a d d i t i o n , Alabama c o u r t s have a l s o r e c o g n i z e d the danger i n c o n f u s i n g the j u r y w i t h mere s p e c u l a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e g u i l t of a t h i r d p a r t y : "'"It generally i s agreed that the defense, in disproving the accused's own g u i l t , may prove that another person committed the crime f o r which the accused i s being prosecuted The problem which a r i s e s i n the application of t h i s g e n e r a l r u l e , however, i s t h e degree of s t r e n g t h t h a t must be p o s s e s s e d b y t h e e x c u l p a t o r y evidence to render i t a d m i s s i b l e . The task of determining the w e i g h t t h a t m u s t be p o s s e s s e d b y such evidence of another's g u i l t is a d i f f i c u l t one." "'Charles W. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 48.01(1) (5th ed. 1996). To remove t h i s d i f f i c u l t y , t h i s C o u r t has s e t out a t e s t intended to ensure that any evidence offered for this purpose is a d m i s s i b l e o n l y when i t i s p r o b a t i v e a n d not m e r e l y s p e c u l a t i v e . Three e l e m e n t s must e x i s t b e f o r e t h i s e v i d e n c e c a n be ruled admissible: (1) t h e e v i d e n c e " m u s t r e l a t e t o t h e ' r e s g e s t a e ' o f t h e c r i m e " ; (2) t h e e v i d e n c e must e x c l u d e t h e a c c u s e d as a p e r p e t r a t o r o f t h e o f f e n s e ; and (3) t h e 103 CR-07-0443 e v i d e n c e " w o u l d h a v e t o be a d m i s s i b l e i f t h e t h i r d p a r t y was on t r i a l . " See Ex p a r t e W a l k e r , 623 So. 2 d a t 2 8 4 , a n d T h o m a s , 539 So. 2 d a t 3 9 4 - 9 6 . ' "Ex parte 2 00 0)." G o b b l e v. 3d State, , 893 [Ms. 7 90 2d So. 488, 2d 2d 351, (Ala. 2010). See App. 2004), 354-55 February (Ala. Crim. 534-37 563 So. CR-05-0225, ( A l a . C r i m . App. So. 893 Griffin, cert. 5, (Ala. 2010] So. a l s o S n y d e r v. 2003), denied, cert. 544 State, denied, U.S. 1062 (2005). Reynolds Chad M a r t i n Martin. was allowed regarding The wide latitude conflicts court circuit his prior not in did cross-examining with victim abuse Charles i t s discretion r e f u s i n g to a l l o w f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n i n g about a t h r e a t e n i n g Chad Martin denied leaving than a vague r e f e r e n c e an unspecified Martin had assuming still pronged Gobble left Reynolds Reynolds proved not e s t a b l i s h that requirements and Snyder, Martin's offered no such a t h r e a t e n i n g that did Charles door. to a hearsay statement contained report, in fact on set that such i t would forth supra. 104 in proof note. a report have Griffin met as in note Other within that Chad Furthermore, existed, the he three- addressed in CR-07-0443 B a s e d upon the "'[T]he tendency substantially Snyder, error 893 of this outweighed So. i n the information provided 2d at circuit evidence to the c i r c u i t to i t s probative 537. mislead value Accordingly, court's in we court, the the find jury case.'" no plain ruling. B. Reynolds ruling also t h a t he argues c o u l d not w i t h evidence of b i a s . 87.) We trial, whether West use information testimony privilege. 256.) was at circuit impeach the (Reynolds's eliciting and trial that that as R e y n o l d s ' s electronically hearing she court testimony brief, C. was erred of A d r i a n Issue XI(B), 1 4 7 - 4 8 ; R. was to violate hearing, in West at 85¬ by R. Reynolds's Reynolds's she a commercial 105 whether 209 the and her - V o l . V, counsel common-law had signed against spouse. However, because the filed and determine marital-communication V o l . IV, application to investigators the f r o m West t h a t advance loan conducted common-law w i f e provided would West testimony an a Reynolds's ( V o l . 1, During establish return the disagree. Before of that tax the sought to wife by a 2002 tax tax return documents had preparer, R. there been was CR-07-0443 no signature not yet line, signed preparer to and, an at the time authorization release the of the form paperwork hearing, West had the tax bearing her permitting purportedly signature. During questioning hearing, West authorization tax return; by admitted f o r the however, defense that she tax preparer she counsel at pretrial given had the written to e l e c t r o n i c a l l y testified that she did file not the recall s i g n i n g e i t h e r t h e t a x f o r m o r t h e a d v a n c e l o a n a p p l i c a t i o n as R e y n o l d s ' s spouse. For a v a r i e t y of reasons, u l t i m a t e l y r u l e d t h a t W e s t was (Vol. I , C. During limine the trial, seeking the from documents, which I I I , C. motion 10.) n o t R e y n o l d s ' s common-law w i f e . the defense court's permission pretrial defense counsel hearing counsel had filed to and a motion in spouse. 410-13.) the the 2002 tax after the obtained ( V o l . I I , C. 216-17; Second The court limine before In support circuit West testified. addressed capacity Supplement, Reynolds's (Vol. VIII, of the m o t i o n , R e y n o l d s ' s c o u n s e l 106 in introduce t h a t p u r p o r t e d l y bore West's s i g n a t u r e i n the as R e y n o l d s ' s Vol. court 165-66.) transcript hearing the c i r c u i t R. argued 902¬ that CR-07-0443 the purpose of i n t r o d u c i n g the t r a n s c r i p t from the h e a r i n g and the t a x d o c u m e n t s was hearing when application counsel biased her she to e s t a b l i s h that testified that f o r an a d v a n c e l o a n a l l e g e d t h a t West l i e d against trial After lied during the had not signed an she as R e y n o l d s ' s spouse. Defense i n the hearing because s h e was R e y n o l d s and b e c a u s e she wanted t o e n s u r e testimony communications West would n o t be e x c l u d e d under that the m a r i t a l - privilege. further discussion, the circuit court denied R e y n o l d s ' s m o t i o n b e c a u s e , i t f o u n d , West d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y deny that rather, recall she West how Rule had signed testified she s i g n e d at the papers the as hearing Reynolds's that she spouse; could the paperwork. 616, A l a . R . E v i d , provides: "A p a r t y may a t t a c k t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f a w i t n e s s by p r e s e n t i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e w i t n e s s has a b i a s or a p r e j u d i c e f o r or a g a i n s t a p a r t y t o the case of t h a t t h e w i t n e s s h a s an i n t e r e s t i n t h e c a s e . " In this regard: "Any a c t s , s t a t e m e n t s o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f f e r e d under Rule 616 must be relevant to bias. It o r d i n a r i l y l i e s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o allow or d i s a l l o w proof of s p e c i f i c f a c t s which tend t o show t h e w i t n e s s ' b i a s o r t h e e x t e n t t h e r e o f . The p a r t y a l l e g i n g e r r o r on a p p e a l i n t h i s r e g a r d m u s t 107 not CR-07-0443 show an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n court." on the p a r t M c E l r o y ' s Alabama Evidence § 149.01(2)(a) The West p r o f f e r e d d o c u m e n t s do testified recall in at what the not pretrial capacity establish had of in order t o be not by Reynolds's able testify established that its spouse the do circuit the proffered not s i g n a t u r e i n the that at t r i a l . court noted, could establish a g a i n s t him As she signed not omitted). bias. that documents. F u r t h e r m o r e , documents b e a r i n g her capacity trial (footnotes hearing she of the abused she lied Reynolds has i t s discretion ruling. X Reynolds contends reversed because, defense with his convictions are claims, he that the State to provide "critical v.Maryland, 373 (Reynolds's U.S. brief, evidence" 83 Issue V, in (1963), at failed violation and due of Alabama to be the Brady caselaw. 51-59.) A Reynolds provide their the argues defense that with interviews with Langley and the notes State's defense witness State made b y witnesses improperly investigators Adrian Donald Harvey. 108 failed West and Reynolds to during John maintains CR-07-0443 t h a t he was e n t i t l e d allegedly t o the i n t e r v i e w notes c o n t a i n impeachment e v i d e n c e . because the notes (Reynolds's brief, at 57-59.) Although Reynolds "interview that notes" i n t e r c h a n g e s t h e terms "statements" and i n v a r i o u s p o i n t s i n h i s a r g u m e n t , we f o r d i s c o v e r y purposes these terms note are different: " I n C o o k s v . S t a t e , 50 A l a . A p p . 4 9 , 2 7 6 S o . 2 d 634, c e r t . d e n i e d 290 A l a . 3 6 3 , 2 7 6 S o . 2 d 6 4 0 , i t was h e l d : "'The f i r s t r e q u i s i t e necessary to secure for i n s p e c t i o n p r o d u c t i o n of a "statement" of a w i t n e s s f o r u s e on c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e w i t n e s s i s t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t must be one i n w r i t i n g prepared by him o r prepared by another a t h i s i n s t a n c e and s i g n e d by him o r o t h e r w i s e a u t h e n t i c a t e d by h i m . I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e r e was n o t h i n g to i n d i c a t e by q u e r y o f t h e w i t n e s s by t h e defense or otherwise t h a t the witness had g i v e n t o any o f f i c e r a w r i t t e n statement s i g n e d o r a u t h e n t i c a t e d b y h e r . T h e r e was not l a i d i n t h e e v i d e n c e any showing t h a t any statement made by t h e w i t n e s s to officers before trial differed i n any r e s p e c t f r o m s t a t e m e n t s made t o t h e j u r y during trial. See B e l l e w v. S t a t e o f M i s s i s s i p p i , 238 M i s s . 7 3 4 , 106 S o . 2 d 1 4 6 , cited with approval i n t h e Mabry case, s u p r a . N e i t h e r was t h e r e a n y s u c h s h o w i n g of i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n t e s t i m o n y g i v e n b y t h e witness at a preliminary hearing previously h e l d a n d t h e t e s t i m o n y g i v e n b y h e r on t h e t r i a l b e f o r e t h e j u r y . T h e r e i s no s h o w i n g t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t r e q u e s t e d , i f a n y , was of such nature that without i t the 109 CR-07-0443 d e f e n d a n t ' s t r i a l w o u l d be f u n d a m e n t a l l y u n f a i r . The p r o d u c t i o n f o r i n s p e c t i o n o f any s u c h s t a t e m e n t as above d e f i n e d lies w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the c o u r t a n d we f i n d no a b u s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e r u l i n g h e r e made. See A n n o t a t i o n , R i g h t of Defendant i n C r i m i n a l Case to I n s p e c t i o n of Statement of P r o s e c u t i o n ' s Witness f o r Purpose of Cross Examination or Impeachment, 7 A.L.R.3d, pp. 181, 217, 219, 213 c i t i n g t h e M a b r y c a s e , s u p r a , a n d t h e a u t h o r i t i e s therein noted.' " A f t e r a r e v i e w of the e v i d e n c e adduced at the h e a r i n g on a p p e l l a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l , we are c l e a r to the c o n c l u s i o n that the unsigned notes i n q u e s t i o n d i d n o t a m o u n t t o a s t a t e m e n t as d e f i n e d i n Cooks, s u p r a , but m e r e l y r e p r e s e n t e d the work product of a county i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s i n t e r v i e w of a p r o s p e c t i v e w i t n e s s , a n d as s u c h w e r e n o t s u b j e c t t o a p p e l l a n t ' s m o t i o n t o p r o d u c e . Mabry v. S t a t e , 40 A l a . A p p . 1 2 9 , 110 So. 2 d 2 5 0 ; T h i g p e n v . S t a t e , 49 A l a . A p p . 2 3 3 , 270 So. 2 d 6 6 6 ; F o r t e n b e r r y v . S t a t e , 55 A l a . A p p . 1, 312 So. 2 d 5 7 3 ; a n d C o o k s , s u p r a . " Maness v. 124 State, 57 A l a . A p p . ( A l a . C r i m . App. 431, 435, 329 So. 2d 120, 123- 1976). R e y n o l d s does not a c t u a l l y c l a i m t h a t the S t a t e f a i l e d provide statements from the t h r e e w i t n e s s e s ; r a t h e r , argues that the State should have also Reynolds produced investigators' i n t e r v i e w n o t e s w i t h West, L a n g l e y , and because, asserts, he i m p e a c h m e n t e v i d e n c e . We those notes disagree. 110 purportedly to the Harvey contain CR-07-0443 As d i s c u s s e d i n Maness, supra, the i n v e s t i g a t o r s ' notes from t h e i n t e r v i e w s a r e c o n s i d e r e d p r i v i l e g e d work p r o d u c t are not necessarily 16.1(c)(1)-(3) discoverable and 1 6 . 1 ( e ) , A l a . R . C r i m . P . State, 417 S o . 2 d 2 4 1 , 247 notes [of i n v e s t i g a t o r ] such a defendant However, "[n]othing discovery a other Rule Rule 16.1 i s entitled product and as to their production."). Ala.R.Crim.P., shall of exculpatory m a t e r i a l provisions See See a l s o R o g e r s v . a r e c o n s i d e r e d work 16.1(f), Rule Reynolds. ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 19 8 2 . ) ( " [ O ] r i g i n a l h a s no r i g h t in this defendant by and under provides be c o n s t r u e d t o l i m i t or other m a t e r i a l constitutional to the which provisions of law." "'In Brady [ v . M a r y l a n d ] , 373 U.S. [83,] 87, 83 S. Ct. [1194] 1196-97 [ ( 1 9 6 3 ) ] , t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t " t h e s u p p r e s s i o n by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of e v i d e n c e favorable to an accused upon request v i o l a t e s due p r o c e s s w h e r e t h e e v i d e n c e i s m a t e r i a l e i t h e r to g u i l t or to punishment, i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e good f a i t h o r bad f a i t h of the p r o s e c u t i o n . " A Brady violation occurs where: (1) the prosecution suppresses evidence; (2) t h e e v i d e n c e i s f a v o r a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d (3) m a t e r i a l t o t h e i s s u e s a t t r i a l . Stano v. Dugger, 901 F. 2 d 8 9 8 , 899 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ; D e l a p v . D u g g e r , 890 F. 2 d 285 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B l a s c o , 702 F . 2 d 1 3 1 5 , 1327 ( 1 1 t h C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 464 U.S. 914, 104 S . C t . 2 7 5 , 2 7 6 , 78 L . E d . 2 d 2 5 6 111 that or CR-07-0443 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ; E x p a r t e K e n n e d y , 472 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1110 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 474 U.S. 9 7 5 , 106 S. C t . 3 4 0 , 88 L . E d . 2 d 325 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . The Supreme Court of the United States i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B a g l e y , 473 U.S. 6 6 7 , 6 8 2 , 105 S . C t . 3 3 7 5 , 3 3 8 3 , 87 L . E d . 2 d 481 ( 1 9 8 5 ) (plurality opinion by Blackmun, J . ) , defined the standard of materiality required t o show a B r a d y v i o l a t i o n as f o l l o w s : "The e v i d e n c e i s m a t e r i a l o n l y i f there i s a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , had the evidence been d i s c l o s e d t o t h e defense, the r e s u l t of the p r o c e e d i n g would have been d i f f e r e n t . A 'reasonable probability' i s a p r o b a b i l i t y s u f f i c i e n t t o undermine confidence i n t h e outcome." See also P e n n s y l v a n i a v . R i t c h i e , 480 U.S. 3 9 , 107 S.Ct. 9 8 9 , 94 L . E d . 2 d 40 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ; S t a n o v . D u g g e r , 901 F . 2 d a t 8 9 9 ; D e l a p v . D u g g e r , 890 F . 2 d a t 2 9 9 ; C o r a l v . S t a t e , 628 S o . 2 d 954 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ; Thompson v . State, 581 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 6 ( A l a . C r . App. 1991), c e r t . denied, 502 U.S. 1 0 3 0 , 112 S . C t . 8 6 8 , 116 L. E d . 2 d 774 (1992). "'The same s t a n d a r d o f m a t e r i a l i t y a n d due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s a p p l y w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e i s e x c u l p a t o r y o r f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. B a g l e y ; Giglio v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 405 U.S. 1 5 0 , 92 S . C t . 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Ex parte W o m a c k [ , 435 S o . 2 d 7 66 ( A l a . 1 983) ] . "When the 'reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence,' nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls w i t h i n the g e n e r a l r u l e . " G i g l i o , 405 U.S. a t 1 5 4 , 92 S.Ct. a t 766 ( q u o t i n g N a p u e v . I l l i n o i s , 360 U.S. 2 6 4 , 2 6 9 , 79 S . C t . 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 7 , 3 L . E d . 2 d 1217 ( 1 9 5 9 ) ) . I n s h o r t , d u e p r o c e s s requires the prosecution to disclose 112 CR-07-0443 material evidence, upon r e q u e s t by the d e f e n s e , when t h a t e v i d e n c e w o u l d t e n d t o exculpate the a c c u s e d or to impeach the v e r a c i t y of a c r i t i c a l s t a t e ' s w i t n e s s . ' " W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , C r i m . App. 1996)." Giles v. State, 90 6 2004), overruled 2d (Ala. Reynolds claims So. other So. 2d 2d 1276, 1296-97 973-974 (Ala. Ex Jenkins, 963, grounds, parte (Ala. Crim. 972 App. 2005). 159 on 710 So. that, " [ h ] a d these s t a t e m e n t s [ i n v e s t i g a t o r s notes] been turned over to defense counsel, i t i s c l e a r that c o u n s e l would have not o n l y been a b l e to e f f e c t i v e l y c r o s s - e x a m i n e two k e y S t a t e w i t n e s s e s , b u t t h a t i t would have been a b l e to d i s c r e d i t the S t a t e ' s t h e o r y o f t h e c r i m e i n a way that would render [him] not g u i l t y of c a p i t a l murder." (Reynolds's notes in question n o t e s were The portion trial C. from Harvey. 58.) were Reynolds the on 87-182.) the appeal State's of does not exculpatory inconsistent with record of at for purposes Record, notes brief, the has file This interviews been supplemental 113 trial placed review. ( F i r s t S u p p l e m e n t a l R e c o r d , C. the with (First record West, of testimony. supplemented was conducted the portion what witnesses' that appellate or s p e c i f y how with under seal the at Supplemental includes the Langley, and 156-64, 167-71, 172-73, CR-07-0443 178.) This Court investigators' Despite clear how impeach Reynolds's these the may trial contention contrary, testimony. less notes the or do information any i s contemplated by not Brady no detail that or i s due to the trial more appear and this the i t is not used to been Although the to have exculpatory r e l i e f on have than could from witnesses. witnesses' purposes Reynolds three could statements, term the notes notes contain conflicting the additional three impeachment reviewed interviews with notes any has these witnesses' contain been useful information i t s progeny. either as for that Accordingly, claim. B Likewise, the State forensic the he h a d blood withheld scientist crimes. counsel's R e y n o l d s i s due field who no notes r e l i e f on h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t prepared participated (Reynolds's brief, cross-examination at Reynolds and West u s e d Mark the Hopwood, investigation 53-56.) During a of defense o f Hopwood, Hopwood t e s t i f i e d t h a t performed a chemical-screening in various places in by t e s t f o r the presence of of the interior of the a u t o m o b i l e that on night the that the 114 of murders, but CR-07-0443 the test did not detect the presence of blood. ( V o l . X, R. 1329-30.) Defense informed the certified reports, report counsel copies did not the i t was not A that the discussion i t did not i t would obtain of of during Hopwood, t h e the the interior ensued have any a c o p y and requested Forensic Science's copy of Hopwood's vehicle. aware during such The of which report, provide necessary. and had defense the of the v e h i c l e . defense counsel's following a previously d e t e r m i n e i f f u r t h e r a c t i o n was Later, of receive testing conference defense Department H o p w o o d on 1331-32.) possible the the that indicated although sidebar of regarding p e r f o r m e d by that a defense the maintained R. court requested test (Vol. the but i t the ( V o l . X., X, State that i f defense to R. 1333.) re-cross-examination occurred: "Q. [DEFENSE C O U N S E L ] : D i d y o u b r i n g a s p e c i f i c r e p o r t w i t h you t o d a y t h a t has the f a c t t h a t you t e s t e d t h e c a r t h a t t h e y h a v e s t i p u l a t e d was Sandra Roberts's, or i s t h a t j u s t i n n o t e s . "A. I h a v e my n o t e s , s h o u l d h a v e DNA r e p o r t s on t h a t I sent down.[ ] and t h e n you h a v e you the r e s u l t s f o r the towel 1 4 T h e DNA p r o f i l e f r o m t h e b l o o d s t a i n on a t o w e l f o u n d i n t h e c a r m a t c h e d a DNA p r o f i l e f r o m a n A l a b a m a p r i s o n e r i n t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f F o r e n s i c S c i e n c e s ' s DNA d a t a b a s e . ( V o l . X, R. 1 4 115 CR-07-0443 "Q. [DEFENSE "A. I mean, COUNSEL]: But you don't have I have f i e l d notes. "Q. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You i n d i v i d u a l report f o r that car? "A. (Vol. X., R. from t h e above e x c e r p t , his field t o an o f f i c i a l Reynolds have an 1346-47.) not reduce vehicle don't No." As e v i d e n c e d did -¬ was not notes regarding apparently the t e s t i n g of the r e p o r t , and, as d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y , necessarily field/investigative Hopwood notes. overcome t h e p r i v i l e g e In entitled to case, Reynolds this Hopwood's has against d i s c l o s u r e of the State's not work product. Reynolds evidence. notes are appellate December has not shown that The S t a t e a p p a r e n t l y not part review. 18, 2009)("Although of See 2009] the Vanpelt 16.1 State suppressed d i d not have t h e n o t e s , record So. Rule the v. 3d and placed State , the under [Ms. and t h e seal for CR-06-1539, ( A l a . Crim. circuit the court's App. order r e q u i r e d t h e S t a t e t o d i s c l o s e r e p o r t s o f t e s t s made, t h e r e i s no indication that 1 4 3 9 - 4 1 . ) The t o w e l [ t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r ] made apparently a h a d no r e l a t i o n 116 report to this of h i s case. CR-07-0443 comparison. Nothing i n the c i r c u i t in Rule 1 6 . 1 , A l a . R. a report Crim. of comparisons Furthermore, even P., court's required made d u r i n g assuming, discovery the State f o r t h e sake t o Hopwood's f i e l d the of the v e h i c l e , on demonstrated reasonable would the i n t e r i o r that h a d he b e e n p r o v i d e d p r o b a b i l i t y that have been d i f f e r e n t . " As we h a v e to or create an i n v e s t i g a t i o n . " ) . t h a t R e y n o l d s was e n t i t l e d test order of argument, notes regarding Reynolds the notes has not "there i s a ... t h e r e s u l t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g Giles, 906 S o . 2 d a t 9 7 3 . stated: "We f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h i s t e s t i m o n y . T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r deliberately withheld any evidence from the a p p e l l a n t . 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 b e l a t e d discovery of this oral statement prejudiced the a p p e l l a n t . P r e j u d i c e caused by t h e l a t e d i s c l o s u r e i s a ' p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r a r e v e r s a l on t h i s i s s u e . ' P e t t w a y , 607 S o . 2 d a t 3 3 2 . S e e S t e w a r t v . S t a t e , 601 S o . 2 d 4 9 1 , 499 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ; R o b i n s o n v . S t a t e , 577 S o . 2 d 9 2 8 , 930 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) ; B r o w n v . S t a t e , 545 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 , 1 1 4 - 1 5 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f i r m e d , 545 S o . 2 d 122 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 493 U.S. 9 0 0 , 110 S . C t . 2 5 7 , 107 L . E d . 2 d 206 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . S e e a l s o D e B r u c e v . S t a t e , 651 S o . 2 d 5 9 9 , 622 ( A l a . C r . App. 1993) ('"'Tardy d i s c l o s u r e o f Brady m a t e r i a l i s g e n e r a l l y not r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r u n l e s s t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n show t h a t he was d e n i e d a fair trial." ... A delay in disclosing Brady material requires r e v e r s a l only i f the "lateness of t h e d i s c l o s u r e so p r e j u d i c e d a p p e l l a n t ' s p r e p a r a t i o n o r p r e s e n t a t i o n o f h i s d e f e n s e t h a t he was p r e v e n t e d from r e c e i v i n g h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y guaranteed f a i r 117 CR-07-0443 trial."'). T h e r e i s no p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e j u r y would have r e s o l v e d the a p p e l l a n t ' s case d i f f e r e n t l y had t h e S t a t e d i s c l o s e d t h e o r a l s t a t e m e n t on a timely basis." Taylor See v. also So. State, Smith 3d 666 v. West h a d a l r e a d y in that defense counsel able i t s c l o s i n g statement was detected Accordingly, prejudice in the was App. February to this detected to the j u r y has 2010] same f a c t when i n the v e h i c l e , the f a c t (Vol. XI, not 5, 1994). 2010.) t o argue to Reynolds's vehicle. Reynolds to j u s t i f y App. testified no b l o o d was ( A l a . Crim. [Ms. C R - 0 8 - 0 3 6 9 , ( A l a .Crim. Hopwood t e s t i f i e d and 2 d 3 6 , 54 State, , Adrian So. that R. established advantage no 1644, the blood 1650.) requisite a r e v e r s a l of h i s c o n v i c t i o n s . XI. Reynolds reversed to that his convictions are due to b e c a u s e , he a l l e g e s , t h e S t a t e was i m p r o p e r l y introduce analysis argues DNA allowed t e s t r e s u l t s and t h e r e s u l t s o f a f o o t p r i n t without (Reynolds's b r i e f , establishing of custody. I s s u e V I , a t 59-69.) S p e c i f i c a l l y , Reynolds contends that the State's been to t e s t i f y allowed be DNA a proper expert regarding 118 chain witness should not have t h e r e s u l t s o f DNA tests CR-07-0443 b e c a u s e , he a l l e g e s , chain for of custody comparison from the scene samples. the State d i d not e s t a b l i s h for either purposes t h e known or f o r t h e swabs of the crime (Reynolds's samples t h a t were brief, a sufficient t h a t were of blood used obtained compared t o the a t 59-65.) Reynolds known also argues t h a t t h e S t a t e was i m p r o p e r l y a l l o w e d t o i n t r o d u c e t h e r e s u l t s of a f o o t p r i n t a n a l y s i s b e c a u s e , he c l a i m s , t h e S t a t e d i d n o t establish a sufficient chain of custody (Reynolds's 65-69.) brief, at An u n d e r s t a n d i n g to the r e s o l u t i o n Mark of t h i s Hopwood, Department of o f what a process the crime located on t h e t o p s t e p bloody, partial Vol. X, R. drop (State's 1280.) gasoline Exhibit can 27) also found and i s helpful helped with the Alabama investigate drop o u t s i d e t h e c a r p o r t d o o r as w e l l as a on t h e 26) beside steps. ( V o l . I X , R. subsequently and swabbed photographed and a blood Hopwood blood scientist Hopwood footprint Exhibit samples. issue. Sciences, scene. 1280-81.) Hopwood t r a n s p i r e d at t r i a l forensic Forensic f o r t h e known footprint. the blood Charles droplets 119 on on swabbed the blood ( V o l . X, R. 1278¬ the handle Martin's the 1246-50; wall body of the (State's opposite the CR-07-0443 entrance to the Savannah M a r t i n X, R. 1285, R. the were d i s c o v e r e d . testified individually, X, where bodies of Melinda and ( S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 24.) ( V o l . 1287-88.) Hopwood (Vol. bedroom labeled, 1280, that and 1297, the then swabs sealed 1301-03.) were with Hopwood packaged his initials. testified that he p e r s o n a l l y d e l i v e r e d the samples to the Birmingham d i v i s i o n of the Alabama Department of F o r e n s i c (Vol. X, R. 1297.) division would samples. ( V o l . X, R. State's hallway the have wall), handle evidence records of the other of Michael suspects. received these that testing. the Birmingham he d e l i v e r e d the gasoline d r o p l e t s on t h e (a swab o f t h e b l o o d E x h i b i t s 27 objection. seven that ( t h e swab o f t h e b l o o d and S t a t e ' s Hopwood i d e n t i f i e d Langley, to v e r i f y S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 26 without footprints testified f o r DNA 1297.) E x h i b i t 24 doorstep), the Hopwood Sciences can) (the blood were ( V o l . X, R. d r o p on swab a l l admitted into 1301-03.) S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 185 a s t h e known original from suspects: Chad inked Martin, John R e y n o l d s , D o n a l d H a r v e y , A d r i a n W e s t , a n d two ( V o l . X, known R. 1304-06.) prints 120 from He the testified Gadsden that he Police CR-07-0443 Department. State's ( V o l . X, Exhibits footprints forensic of R. 186, the 1304-06.) 187, three pathologist objection. Hopwood footprint, as w e l l to Shannon Chris Police he was investigation, he testified biological comparison the latent crime-scene and testified that following or inked from swabs the ( V o l . X, R. evidence that depicted i n r e q u e s t e d t o send print examiner X, R. during were from bloody 1282, with persons ( V o l . X, R. 1363.) someone in his of the to Gadsden of h i s collect interest Specifically, from A d r i a n unit collected West (State's Exhibit 2. Two o r a l s w a b s f r o m J o h n L a n g l e y 7); (State's Exhibit 121 the 1304-05.) the course required them with samples: 1. Two o r a l 21); he received footprints technician his "unit" samples purposes. known o f t h e unknown of I n v e s t i g a t i o n s . ( V o l . a identified 1305-06.) inked Crow, the the autopsy. a s t h e known Department, various he the photographs Fitzgerald, Alabama Bureau that 185-188, u n t i l State's Exhibits as also 185-188 were a d m i t t e d i n t o ( V o l . X, R. retained 188 performed 1304-05.) S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t s without and victims who Hopwood for he the CR-07-0443 3. 4. Fingernail scrapings E x h i b i t 12); 5. Two 5); 6. M u l t i p l e head Exhibit 6); hairs from 7. M u l t i p l e head E x h i b i t 20); hairs from A d r i a n 8. (Vol. M u l t i p l e head Exhibit 4); Oral 17). 10, 67.) Crow collecting to (Vol. X, the R. and (State's (State's Donald (State's Chad M a r t i n Harvey i n some d e t a i l secure the v a r i o u s stated that officer's to each of initials to the Exhibit (State's West (State's (State's items the and obtained Exhibit State laboratory Department for the procedures ( V o l . X, exhibits that bore of the that testing R. the e x h i b i t s Forensic scene of a f t e r t e s t i n g and Sciences the for crimes. were sent to packaging v a r i o u s e x h i b i t s documented the c h a i n of custody. 122 the appeared returned that 1366¬ manner f o r the samples and used h i s or i n the customary from testified about samples. Department 1 3 6 5 - 6 6 . ) He Gadsden P o l i c e the Langley Chad M a r t i n from have been s e c u r e d and p a c k a g e d comparison John 1364-65.) transportation to from testified collect from swabs f r o m Chad M a r t i n swabs R. Crow to oral hairs the on ( V o l . X, CR-07-0443 R. 1367-71.) without A l leight objection. Crow t e s t i f i e d Reynolds head same ( V o l . X, R. admitted t h a t he a l s o c o l l e c t e d t w o o r a l that manner Exhibit these as 190). ( V o l . X, samples were the other also analysis. admitted Forensic ( V o l . X, without biologist, Department of F o r e n s i c expert. He 1 5 State's from the outside Exhibit 27 Reynolds's ( V o l . X, R. testified State's Exhibit from the hallway Reynolds's 24 i n the of the Martins' as a r e d / b r o w n stain samples were 1373-74.) of the Alabama as t h e S t a t e ' s as t h e swab DNA of a w a l l i n the Martins' residence, obtained and laboratory E x h i b i t 26 a s a swab o f a r e d / b r o w n steps Crow exhibits to the State Sciences, from 1371-74.) discussed Mauterer, identified swabs and p a c k a g e d Carl red/brown s t a i n obtained residence, 1371-74.) objection. R. secured previously R. evidence 1367-71.) t h a t R e y n o l d s ' s samples were a l s o sent for into ( S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 189) a n d some h a i r s f r o m (State's verified e x h i b i t s were from and stain State's the handle of A s b e s t we c a n d e t e r m i n e , R e y n o l d s d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e g e n e r a l a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e DNA e v i d e n c e ; n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e c i r c u i t court conducted a hearing outside the presence of the j u r y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e DNA e v i d e n c e . ( V o l X, R. 1 3 8 7 - 1 4 0 1 . ) S e e § 3 6 - 1 8 - 3 0 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 . 1 5 123 CR-07-0443 the gasoline several can. ( V o l X, known b i o l o g i c a l five original John L a n g l e y , and comparison of 1 6 R. 1407-10.) samples that suspects: Reynolds, Donald Harvey. purposes, 1 7 He were also o b t a i n e d from ( V o l . X, R. the A d r i a n West, Chad Mauterer received for also b l o o d - s t a n d a r d cards from the three v i c t i m s . identified 1412.) Martin, the a u t o p s i e s Mauterer testified t h a t e a c h e x h i b i t had b e e n l a b e l e d w i t h a c a s e number a s s i g n e d from the Alabama Department exhibits had Mauterer been o f F o r e n s i c S c i e n c e s , and t h a t initialed testified that by him. the DNA ( V o l . X, profile t h e b l o o d swabs f r o m t h e d o o r s t e p and h a l l w a y profile X, R. the f r o m t h e known s a m p l e can handle 1407-11.) extracted tested from matched the o b t a i n e d from A d r i a n 1420-21.) M a u t e r e r t e s t i f i e d gasoline R. the DNA West ( V o l . t h a t t h e swab o b t a i n e d f r o m positive f o r the presence of During the State's q u e s t i o n i n g of Mauterer, the State i n c o r r e c t l y r e f e r r e d t o S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 27 a s S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 29. T h e r e d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o be any q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e b o t h t h e S t a t e a n d M a u t e r e r w e r e r e f e r r i n g t o S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 27 i n t h i s e x c h a n g e . ( V o l . 1 0 , R. 1 4 1 0 . ) 1 6 M a u t e r e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r e c e i v e d f i n g e r n a i l s c r a p i n g s (State's E x h i b i t 12) and oral swabs (State's E x h i b i t 5) o b t a i n e d from Chad M a r t i n , o r a l swabs o b t a i n e d f r o m John L a n g l e y ( S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 7 ) , M a r c i e West ( S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 2 1 ) , a n d D o n a l d H a r v e y ( S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 17.) M a u t e r e r a l s o r e c e i v e d o r a l swabs ( S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 1 8 9 ) , and head h a i r s o b t a i n e d f r o m R e y n o l d s ( S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 1 9 0 ) . ( V o l . 1 0 , R. 1 4 0 8 - 1 1 . ) 1 7 124 CR-07-0443 blood R. and that i t contained 1421-22.) DNA on He testified the handle Reynolds and contributors was Charles Martin, Donald Harvey extracted (Vol. 10, the Alabama 191 as two R. 1452.) as of the a R. latent of the objection. that he received State's from the three ( V o l . X, victims, seven o r i g i n a l suspects Mark on Hopwood July Fitzgerald testified However, to the DNA gasoline can. regarding print examiner identified 191 R. was 191 the State's footprint. admitted 1453.) -- with the to into Fitzgerald the inked inked footprints 2007. (Vol. that after performing 125 X, R. the Exhibit ( V o l . X, evidence testified footprints from -- p a c k a g e d i n a s e a l e d e n v e l o p e , 11, and s t a t i c s with regard same b l o o d y Exhibit and as 1420-1424.) photographs without the Michael Langley, contributors of the excluded John also t e s t i f i e d Investigation, Exhibit that be West, handle of State's c o n t r i b u t o r to not population-frequency ( V o l . X, ( V o l . X, 1421-22, 1430.) excluded Fitzgerald, Bureau R. Adrian swab above matches. Shannon ( V o l . X, 1443-44.) M a u t e r e r r e s u l t s o f t h e DNA the could Martin, were from R. Chad traits. Savannah M a r t i n but Martin DNA. o f DNA t h a t the primary victim Melinda of the a mixture the from 1452-53.) a comparison of the CR-07-0443 unidentified f o o t p r i n t to r e c e i v e d f r o m H o p w o o d , he from the Michael crime Reynolds's Reynolds testimony analysis scene the that had the R. inked footprint of 1453-55.) admissibility test results and various samples used of the footprint perform t h e t e s t s w e r e n o t p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e d b a s e d on t h e State's failure to test ground known ( V o l . X, DNA f o o t p r i n t s he to to the foot. inked t h a t t h e unknown f o o t p r i n t the challenges regarding on known concluded matched left now the e s t a b l i s h an samples. We have adequate chain of custody as stated: " I n Ex p a r t e S l a t o n , 680 So. 2 d 909 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 107 9, 117 S.Ct. 742, 136 L.Ed.2d 680 (1997), the Alabama Supreme Court discussed the requirements f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g the c h a i n of custody: "'Ex parte Holton, 590 So. 2 d 918 (Ala. 1 9 9 1 ) , s e t s f o r t h t h e l e g a l a n a l y s i s t o be a p p l i e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g i f a proper c h a i n of c u s t o d y has been e s t a b l i s h e d : "'"The chain of custody is composed of ' l i n k s . ' A ' l i n k ' i s a n y o n e who h a n d l e d t h e i t e m . The State must identify each link from the time the item was s e i z e d . I n o r d e r t o show a p r o p e r c h a i n of c u s t o d y , the r e c o r d must show each link and also the following with regard to each link's possession of the item: '(1) [the] r e c e i p t of the item; 126 the CR-07-0443 (2) [ t h e ] u l t i m a t e d i s p o s i t i o n o f the item, i.e., transfer, destruction, or r e t e n t i o n ; and (3) [the] safeguarding and handling of the item between receipt and disposition.' I m w i n k l e r e i d , The I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of O r i g i n a l , Real Evidence, 61 M i l . L . R e v . 1 4 5 , 159 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . "'"If the State o r any other proponent of demonstrative evidence, fails to identify a link or f a i l s t o show f o r t h e record any one of the three criteria as t o e a c h link, the r e s u l t i s a ' m i s s i n g ' l i n k , and the item i s inadmissible. I f , h o w e v e r , t h e S t a t e h a s shown e a c h link and has shown a l l three c r i t e r i a as t o e a c h l i n k , b u t has done so with circumstantial evidence, as opposed to the d i r e c t testimony of the ' l i n k , ' as t o one o r more c r i t e r i a o r as t o one o r more l i n k s , t h e r e s u l t i s a 'weak' l i n k . When t h e l i n k is 'weak,' question of credibility and weight is presented, not one of admissibility." "'590 S o . 2 d a t 9 2 0 . While each l i n k i n t h e c h a i n o f c u s t o d y must be i d e n t i f i e d , i t i s not necessary t h a t each l i n k t e s t i f y i n order to prove a complete chain of custody. H a r r i s o n v . S t a t e , 650 S o . 2 d 603 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1994).' "680 S o . 2 d a t 9 1 8 . ' " I n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h a p r o p e r chain, the State must show to a 'reasonable 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 127 CR-07-0443 as, and not s u b s t a n t i a l l y different from, i t s condition a t t h e commencement of the chain.'"' I n g r a m v . S t a t e , 779 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 5 , 1254 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e H o l t o n , 590 S o . 2 d a t 9 1 9 - 2 0 ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d i n H o l t o n ) ) , a f f ' d , 779 So. 2d 1283 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1193, 121 S . C t . 1 1 9 4 , 149 L . E d . 2 d 109 (2001). ' [ E ] v i d e n c e t h a t an i t e m h a s b e e n s e a l e d i s a d e q u a t e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence to e s t a b l i s h the handling a n d s a f e g u a r d i n g o f t h e i t e m . ' L a n e v . S t a t e , 644 So. 2 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) ; s e e a l s o I n g r a m v . S t a t e , 779 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 5 4 . A d d i t i o n a l l y , ' " [ c ] h a i n o f c u s t o d y r e q u i r e m e n t s do n o t a p p l y w i t h t h e same f o r c e t o i t e m s o f e v i d e n c e w h i c h a r e u n i q u e and i d e n t i f i a b l e i n t h e m s e l v e s . " ' Ex p a r t e S c o t t , 728 S o . 2 d 1 7 2 , 182 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ( q u o t i n g Magwood v . S t a t e , 494 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 , 144 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) , a f f ' d , 494 S o . 2 d 154 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 479 U.S. 9 9 5 , 107 S . C t . 5 9 9 , 93 L . E d . 2 d 599 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 528 U.S. 8 3 1 , 120 S . C t . 8 7 , 528 U.S. 831 (1999). " ' P h y s i c a l evidence connected with 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 crime s h a l l n o t be e x c l u d e d f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n b y 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 the chain of custody of the evidence. Whenever a w i t n e s s i n a criminal trial identifies a p h y s i c a l piece of evidence connected with or collected i n the investigation of a crime, the evidence s h a l l be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y o r c o u r t f o r w h a t e v e r w e i g h t t h e j u r y o r 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 c h a r g e t o the j u r y s h a l l e x p l a i n any break i n the chain of custody concerning the p h y s i c a l evidence.' "§12-21-13, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . T h e r e f o r e , as t o t h e a d e q u a c y o f t h e s a f e g u a r d i n g 128 any q u e s t i o n and h a n d l i n g CR-07-0443 o f t h e e v i d e n c e d i d n o t go t o i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y . R a t h e r , i t went t o t h e w e i g h t t h e j u r y w o u l d a s s i g n to the e v i d e n c e . " Martin v. 2003); aff'd So. 759 2d State, 931 in part, So. rev'd 2d 736, in part 748-4 9 on (Ala. Crim. u n r e l a t e d ground,931 ( A l a . 2004.) "Additionally, "'"'"The p u r p o s e for requiring that the chain of custody be shown is to establish to a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y that there h a s 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 . " Ex p a r t e J o n e s , 592 So. 2d 210, 212 (Ala. 1991); H a r r e l l v . S t a t e , 608 So. 2d 4 3 4 , 437 ( A l a . C r . App. 1992 ) ; S m i t h v . S t a t e , 583 So. 2 d 990 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 583 So. 2d 993 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . Moreover, the e v i d e n c e need not negate the remotest p o s s i b i l i t y of substitution, alteration, or t a m p e r i n g , b u t i n s t e a d must p r o v e to a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y that t h e i t e m i s t h e same a s i t was a t the beginning of the chain. Harrell, at 4 37; Ex parte Williams, 548 So. 2 d 518 (Ala. 1989). Evidence has been held c o r r e c t l y a d m i t t e d e v e n when t h e c h a i n o f c u s t o d y has a weak o r missing link. Gordon v. State, 587 So. 2d 427, 433 (Ala. Cr. A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) , r e v ' d , 587 So. 2d 434 ( A l a . ) , on r e m a n d , 587 So. 2 d 435 (Ala. Cr. App.), appeal after r e m a n d , 591 So. 2d 149 ( A l a . C r . 129 App. CR-07-0443 App. 19 9 1 ) ; So. 2d 6 7 0 , 1984).'"'" Broadnax v. State, Shute v. S t a t e , 469 674 ( A l a . Cr. App. 825 So. 2d 134, 170 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). With these specific principles in mind, v. State, cites Brooks C r i m . App. 2007), and C r i m . App. 2006), which i s addressed Brooks, the defendant Court, Brooks argued in allowing objection, test results that -- the argued that custody and same t y p e the the b l o o d drawn 1262 2d (Ala. 159 (Ala. i n support and footprint of analysis. c o n v i c t e d o f two the State to Brooks counts of 130 appeal court that had. swabs him. On H.F. On i t s over his had appeal, Type blood 1 Brooks a sufficient and to abused introduce, to e s t a b l i s h vaginal from circuit indicated herpes State f a i l e d r e g a r d i n g the So. s t e p d a u g h t e r , H.F. the herpes 962 i n Brooks, DNA was that discretion H.F. 3d count of f i r s t - d e g r e e s e x u a l abuse involving his eight-year-old of So. Reynolds's court erroneously allowed into testimony r e g a r d i n g the f i r s t - d e g r e e s o d o m y a n d one this to 33 Ex p a r t e P h i l l i p s , h i s a l l e g a t i o n that the c i r c u i t In turn allegations. Reynolds evidence we drawn chain from CR-07-0443 We agreed s a m p l e s was that the chain insufficient. We of custody with regard to the found: "In t h i s case the c h a i n of custody f o r the v a g i n a l swab a n d t h e b l o o d s a m p l e t a k e n f r o m H.F. i s t o t a l l y l a c k i n g . I n r e g a r d t o t h e v a g i n a l swab, t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t Dr. B u r c h f i e l d t o o k a s a m p l e , p u t it i n a t u b e , and s e n t i t t o Quest D i a g n o s t i c s . T h e r e i s no t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e m e t h o d u s e d t o s a f e g u a r d t h e s a m p l e a f t e r i t was c o l l e c t e d a n d s e n t t o t h e l a b . N e i t h e r i s t h e r e a n y t e s t i m o n y as t o how t h e s a m p l e s were t r a n s p o r t e d f r o m Dr. B u r c h f i e l d ' s office to the lab for testing. Indeed, no i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e c h a i n o f c u s t o d y , o t h e r t h a n Dr. Burchfield, are identified. We do not know the i n d i v i d u a l who a c c e p t e d t h e s a m p l e a t t h e l a b o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l who c o n d u c t e d t h e t e s t s on t h e samples. We do n o t know w h e t h e r t h e s a m p l e s w e r e r e c e i v e d a t t h e l a b i n t h e same c o n d i t i o n a s when t h e y w e r e s e a l e d a n d t r a n s p o r t e d . The r e c o r d i s t o t a l l y d e v o i d of the r e q u i s i t e c h a i n of custody f o r these samples. We have no means of determining whether the i n t e g r i t y o f t h e s a m p l e s was p r o t e c t e d f r o m t h e t i m e t h e y were c o l l e c t e d u n t i l t h e y were t e s t e d a t the l a b . T h e r e i s e v e n l e s s t e s t i m o n y on t h e c h a i n o f c u s t o d y f o r t h e b l o o d s a m p l e . T h e r e a r e many m i s s i n g l i n k s i n the c h a i n of custody f o r both the v a g i n a l swab a n d t h e b l o o d s a m p l e . " 33 So. 2d We 1272. then determined testimony harmless at t h a t the e r r o r r e g a r d i n g the under the facts test of results the case. i n the admission on We the samples of was reasoned: " [ T ] h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e P h i l l i p s , 962 So. 2 d 159 ( A l a . 2006), addressed whether the e r r o n e o u s a d m i s s i o n o f t e s t r e s u l t s b a s e d on m i s s i n g l i n k s i n the c h a i n of custody f o r the samples used 131 the not CR-07-0443 f o r t h e t e s t was h a r m l e s s e r r o r , g i v e n t h e v i c t i m ' s testimony that the defendant had sexually abused her. The Phillips Court, reversing this Court's h o l d i n g t h a t t h e e r r o r was harmless, noted that 'overwhelming evidence of g u i l t does not render p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r h a r m l e s s . ' 962 So. 2d a t 1 6 5 . The Supreme C o u r t t h e n w r o t e : "'Had the evidence of the c h l a m y d i a l i n f e c t i o n s been e x c l u d e d , the j u r y would have been p r o v i d e d e s s e n t i a l l y w i t h the o p p o s i n g v e r s i o n s o f D.M. and P h i l l i p s , and if i t h a d f o u n d h i s v e r s i o n t o be m o r e c r e d i b l e , or even i f i t found i t s e l f unable i n t h e f i n a l a n a l y s i s t o d e t e r m i n e who was telling the t r u t h , i t might have found i t s e l f unable to agree t h a t P h i l l i p s was g u i l t y beyond a reasonable doubt; i t then c o u l d have r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t of not g u i l t y or perhaps have been deadlocked, n e c e s s i t a t i n g a m i s t r i a l . A c c o r d i n g l y , we c a n n o t i g n o r e t h e p r o b a b l e e f f e c t on t h e j u r y of the i n a d m i s s i b l e evidence of the c h l a m y d i a l i n f e c t i o n s o f b o t h D.M. and h e r mother.' "962 So. 2d at 165. "As the Alabama Supreme C o u r t cautioned i n P h i l l i p s , we c a n n o t ' i g n o r e t h e p r o b a b l e e f f e c t ' on the j u r y of the erroneous a d m i s s i o n of the e x t r e m e l y p r e j u d i c i a l test results. This i s e s p e c i a l l y true i n t h i s case g i v e n t h a t Brooks's f i r s t t r i a l ended i n a m i s t r i a l , a f t e r t h i s same e v i d e n c e was admitted, because the j u r o r s were u n a b l e t o r e a c h a unanimous v e r d i c t on t h e s o d o m y c h a r g e s . " 33 So. 3d at Unlike to the 1276-77. the defendant admission of the i n Brooks, Reynolds testimony regarding 132 d i d not the DNA object test CR-07-0443 results or evidence i n light in contrast sufficient protected tested [Ms. the footprint to the s i t u a t i o n evidence from that the time no they 3, plain reviewed the a b o v e , a n d we f i n d that i n Brooks, have the State d i d present "the i n t e g r i t y at the l a b . " Brooks, (finding We 1 8 of the law s e t f o r t h 1080350 , September 2010) analysis. of the samples were collected until supra. See a l s o , Ex p a r t e Mills, , (Ala. 2010] error So. 3d i n the admission they was were of several t a n g i b l e i t e m s o f e v i d e n c e as w e l l as f o r e n s i c - t e s t i n g results r e g a r d i n g t h o s e i t e m s b e c a u s e t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e items had been "'showing tampered of i l l will, with or a l t e r e d bad f a i t h , evil and M i l l s motivation, or e v i d e n c e o f t a m p e r i n g , ' " q u o t i n g Lee v. S t a t e , 847-48 collected, s e a l e d , and m a i n t a i n e d . September App. 2007), some was r e g a r d i n g how t h e v a r i o u s t e s t s a m p l e s w e r e to p r o v i d e a textbook CR-05-0 935, no 898 S o . 2 d 7 9 0 , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ) . As s e t f o r t h above, t h e r e testimony e l i c i t e d Crim. made we "Even chain of custody," 28, find 2007] t h e r e was So. i f the State failed F l o y d v. S t a t e 3d sufficient , [Ms. (Ala. evidence that B r o o k s ' s i n s u f f i c i e n t " c h a i n o f p r e d i c a t e " o b j e c t i o n was d e t e r m i n e d t o be s u f f i c i e n t t o p r e s e r v e h i s c h a l l e n g e t o t h e c h a i n o f c u s t o d y . 33 S o . 3 d a t 1 2 7 1 n. 2. 1 8 133 CR-07-0443 t h e i t e m s w e r e p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e d b y p r o o f o f an chain of adequate custody. XII. Reynolds sustain III, argues that his convictions and V, the evidence was f o r robbery-murder because, he contends, insufficient under Adrian to counts West II, was an a c c o m p l i c e t o t h e r o b b e r y and h e r t e s t i m o n y i m p l i c a t i n g him i n the § robbery was not s u f f i c i e n t l y c o r r o b o r a t e d as 1 2 - 2 1 - 2 2 2 , A l a . Code 79-83.) West's the Specifically, testimony, items 80.) alleged In a court charge addressing refusal to erred ground in he that no his X, at "without Ms. connection between to give his at that the requested jury corroborating brief, did to jury and brief, alleges of (Reynolds's object [him] (Reynolds's also necessity requested Issue that Reynolds refusing the Reynolds corroboration, the vein, testimony. give was brief, maintains to have been s t o l e n . " related Although (Reynolds's Reynolds there circuit accomplice's 1975. r e q u i r e d by a t pp. an 82-83.) the circuit charge on court's accomplice d i d n o t move f o r a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l the accomplice's 134 testimony had not on been CR-07-0443 sufficiently corroborated. challenge to the for plain e r r o r only. Rule 45A, State, So. (Ala. Crim. 20 Section 3d 1 9 Accordingly, sufficiency 166, 172 of the evidence A l a . R. 1 2 - 2 1 - 2 2 2 , A l a . Code we 1975, Crim. App. will on P. review this See his ground Marks v. 2008). provides: "A c o n v i c t i o n o f a f e l o n y c a n n o t be had on the testimony o f an a c c o m p l i c e unless corroborated by other evidence t e n d i n g to connect the defendant w i t h the commission of the offense, and such corroborative evidence, i f i t merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances t h e r e o f , i s not s u f f i c i e n t . " We have held: " F o r t h i s s e c t i o n [ 1 2 - 2 1 - 2 2 2 , A l a . Code 1975,] t o a p p l y , i t must c l e a r l y a p p e a r t h a t t h e w i t n e s s i n q u e s t i o n i s an a c c o m p l i c e . S t e e l e v . S t a t e , 512 So. 2 d 142 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 512 So. 2 d 142 (Ala.1987). The defendant bears the burden of s h o w i n g t h a t t h e w i t n e s s was an a c c o m p l i c e b e f o r e § 1 2 - 2 2 - 2 2 2 c a n be i n v o k e d . M i l l e r v . S t a t e , 518 So. 2 d 801 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 518 So. 2 d 801 (Ala. 1988). "An a c c o m p l i c e i s d e f i n e d a s 'an a s s o c i a t e i n c r i m e ; a p a r t n e r or p a r t a k e r i n g u i l t . ' Darden v. State, 12 A l a . A p p . 1 65, 1 67 , 68 So. 550, 551 ( 1 9 1 5 ) . 'The t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a w i t n e s s i s an a c c o m p l i c e i s w h e t h e r he o r s h e c o u l d h a v e b e e n i n d i c t e d and c o n v i c t e d f o r t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d , A t t h e c l o s e o f t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e , R e y n o l d s moved f o r a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o p r o v e a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e b e c a u s e , he a l l e g e d , t h e State's evidence d i d not e s t a b l i s h the o f f e n s e of i n t e n t i o n a l murder. ( V o l . X I , R. 1 4 7 0 , 1473.) 1 9 135 CR-07-0443 e i t h e r as p r i n c i p a l o r a c c e s s o r y . ' R u s s e l l v. S t a t e , 365 S o . 2 d 3 4 3 , 346 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 7 8 ) . W h e r e a person's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a crime or cooperation w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t i s m o t i v a t e d b y f e a r , he i s n o t an a c c o m p l i c e . C u r r y v . S t a t e , 502 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 842 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 502 S o . 2 d 836 (Ala. 1987)." Gordon v. S t a t e , (Emphasis The 611 S o . 2 d 4 5 3 , 455 State maintains that therefore, h e r t e s t i m o n y be c o r r o b o r a t e d . a g r e e . As a d d r e s s e d her Although West's she drove him to Reynolds in testified that Reynolds to the their i n the facts that was not portion an that case, of this she t o o k M e l i n d a M a r t i n ' s because testimony w h e t h e r s h e knew t h a t R e y n o l d s West Under the f a c t s of t h i s 2 0 and t h e M a r t i n s ' t e l e p h o n e life. Adrian t h e r e was no r e q u i r e m e n t in detail o p i n i o n , A d r i a n West t e s t i f i e d purse 1992). added.) a c c o m p l i c e and t h a t , we ( A l a . C r i m . App. was s h e was i n fear f o r conflicting as to p l a n n e d t o r o b t h e M a r t i n s when house, commission of she d i d not the robbery. " a i d or abet" Indeed, West s t a b b e d h e r i n t h e a r m when she tried i n t e r v e n e . See § 1 3 A - 2 - 2 3 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . Even accomplice, 2 0 (Vol. assuming, we find without deciding, no error plain that West i n the c i r c u i t was an court's A d r i a n W e s t was c h a r g e d w i t h h i n d e r i n g t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . V I I I , R. 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 . ) 136 CR-07-0443 denial of because West's t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g the Reynolds's motion r o b b e r y was s u f f i c i e n t l y for a 2010), regarding f o r a thorough the s u f f i c i e n c y Reynolds's So. 3d Martin's purse discussion of corroborating and then to "get out." Fearing She put the automobile, night. Neither Martins' that Reynolds to cordless the purse she and R e y n o l d s in telephone, West complied. Sandra had borrowed Roberts's earlier arrived back at West t o l d Reynolds's that i n the the p o l i c e father's house, g o t money o u t o f M e l i n d a M a r t i n s ' s p u r s e t o p u r c h a s e Roberts confirmed that after to the Reynolds's residence, purchase later ordered her to take t h e t e l e p h o n e n o r t h e p u r s e were f o u n d they Sandra returned and law evidence. f o r her l i f e , house d u r i n g t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . when drugs. which of (Ala. Crim. of the applicable and t h e M a r t i n s ' telephone acquittal commission , As d i s c u s s e d , West s a i d t h a t R e y n o l d s Melinda of c o r r o b o r a t e d . See G r e e n v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 8 - 0 3 5 2 , May 28 , 2 0 1 0 ] App. judgment drugs. discovered Sandra Roberts the cordless Reynolds Reynolds also and West g a v e h e r money testified that she telephone i n her automobile. West t e s t i f i e d t h a t she and D o n a l d H a r v e y disposed of the base f o r t h e t e l e p h o n e i n a wooded a r e a n e a r where t h e y 137 burned CR-07-0443 the c l o t h e s and burn pile described Martin's recovered and by purse. the West. Both the the bedroom floor investigators telephone telephone r e c e i v e r w e r e t h e same b r a n d across The base base where the the the in and as t h e t e l e p h o n e found area the cordless cord found bodies of lying Melinda and Savannah M a r t i n were d i s c o v e r e d . Accordingly, we find corroborating evidence that to connect there Reynolds was sufficient to the s t o l e n and t o c o r r o b o r a t e West's t e s t i m o n y t h a t R e y n o l d s victims in d u r i n g a r o b b e r y . A c c o r d i n g l y , we the c i r c u i t acquittal on testimony the regarding t e s t i m o n y was 30 cert. refusal the the to G a v i n v. App. 2003), denied, 543 cert. U.S. XIII. 138 of accomplice's sufficiently not that testimony occurred Reynolds's denied, 891 (2005). So. 2d So. was in requested corroborating S t a t e , 891 1123 error f o r a judgment West's error give no p l a i n the was because any murdered purported robbery n e c e s s i t y of harmless. (Ala. Crim. 2004), the corroborated, court's of the motion that Furthermore, sufficiently charge ground regarding corroborated. circuit court's denial find items the jury accomplice 907, 2d 998 975 n. (Ala. CR-07-0443 Reynolds asserts that the c i r c u i t a reasonable misconduct. alleged inquiry of instance of juror instances Issue failed to conduct of p o s s i b l e I X , a t 7 5 - 7 9 . ) The misconduct involved juror first purported b e t w e e n o n e o r m o r e j u r o r s a n d members o f t h e family during improper two (Reynolds's b r i e f , improper contact victims' into court contact the t r i a l . occurred The s e c o n d a l l e g e d when defense witness instance L t . Faye G a r y s u p p o s e d l y w i n k e d a t a j u r o r a s L t . G a r y was l e a v i n g t h e witness stand. Before will addressing set forth each allegation separately below, the a p p l i c a b l e law. "'"Whether t h e r e has been a communication w i t h a j u r o r and whether i t has caused p r e j u d i c e a r e questions o f f a c t t o be d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e t r i a l court i n the exercise of sound d i s c r e t i o n . " ' Burgess v. S t a t e , 827 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 , 157 ( A l a . C r . App. 1998), quoting G a f f n e y v . S t a t e , 342 S o . 2 d 4 0 3 , 404 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 7 6 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 342 S o . 2d 404 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) . In discussing claims i n v o l v i n g a l l e g e d j u r o r m i s c o n d u c t , we s a i d t h e f o l l o w i n g i n S i s t r u n k v . S t a t e , 596 S o . 2 d 644 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1992): "'"In the absence o f any s h o w i n g t o t h e c o n t r a r y , we m u s t a s s u m e t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e was s a t i s f i e d as t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n which passed between the w i t n e s s and t h e j u r o r , and upon t h i s b a s i s d e c i d e d t h a t t h e appellant was not prejudiced 139 we CR-07-0443 t h e r e b y . Whether t h e r e has been a communication w i t h a j u r o r and whether i t has caused p r e j u d i c e are questions of fact 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 i n the e x e r c i s e o f sound d i s c r e t i o n . G a f f n e y v. S t a t e , A l a . C r . App., 342 So. 2d 403, [ 1 9 7 6 ] , cert. denied, A l a . , 342 S o . 2 d 404 (197[7] ). T h i s r u l i n g w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a showing o f abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . " "'Cox (Ala. v. S t a t e , 394 S o . C r . App. 1981). 2d 103, 105-06 " ' I n H o l l a n d v . S t a t e , 588 S o . 2 d 543 (Ala. C r . App. 1991), a case involving alleged juror contamination, this court r e v e r s e d because the t r i a l court undertook no i n q u i r y i n t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e a l l e g e d i m p r o p e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n . We o b s e r v e d that "'"... In cases involving juror misconduct, a t r i a l court generally will n o t be h e l d t o h a v e a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n 'where the t r i a l c o u r t i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e circumstances under which the r e m a r k was made, i t s s u b s t a n c e , and d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e r i g h t s o f the a p p e l l a n t were n o t p r e j u d i c e d by t h e remark.' Bascom v. S t a t e , 344 S o . 2 d 2 1 8 , 222 (Ala. Cr. App. 1977). However, t h e t r i a l judge has a d u t y t o conduct a 'reasonable investigation of irregularities c l a i m e d t o have been committed' before he concludes that the rights of the accused have not been 140 CR-07-0443 compromised. Phillips 4 62 S o . 2 d 981 , 990 App. 1 9 8 4 ) . " v. S t a t e , ( A l a .Cr. " ' H o l l a n d [ v . S t a t e ] , 588 S o . 2 d [ 5 4 3 , ] 546 [ ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) ] . What c o n s t i t u t e s a "reasonable i n v e s t i g a t i o n of i r r e g u l a r i t i e s claimed t o have been committed" will necessarily differ in each case. A s i g n i f i c a n t part of the d i s c r e t i o n enjoyed by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s a r e a l i e s i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e scope of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h a t s h o u l d be c o n d u c t e d . "'"... A full evidentiary hearing at which witnesses and j u r o r s c a n be e x a m i n e d a n d c r o s s examined i s not r e q u i r e d . T i l l m a n [v. United States], 406 F.2d [ 9 3 0 ] [ a t ] 938 [ ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) , vacated on o t h e r grounds, 395 U.S. 830, 89 S.Ct. 2143, 23 L . E d . 2 d 742 (1969)]. The trial judge need n o t examine t h e j u r o r to d e t e r m i n e i f t h a t j u r o r a d m i t s to being prejudiced before granting a mistrial." "'Woods v . S t a t e , 367 S o . 2 d 9 7 4 , 980 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , r e v e r s e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 367 So. 2 d 982 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) , p a r t i a l l y q u o t e d i n Cox v . S t a t e , 394 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 , 105 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 1 ) . As l o n g as t h e c o u r t makes an inquiry that i s reasonable under the circumstances, an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t should not r e v e r s e s i m p l y because i t might have c o n d u c t e d a d i f f e r e n t o r a more e x t e n s i v e i n q u i r y . G e n e r a l l y , where t h e judge p o l l s the jury and each j u r o r indicates that t h e r e h a s b e e n no i m p r o p e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n , t h a t i s s u f f i c i e n t . S e e Ham v . S t a t e , 540 So. 2 d 8 0 5 , 810 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) ; E x 141 CR-07-0443 p a r t e W e e k s , 456 So. 2d 404, 407 (Ala. 1 9 8 4 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 471 U.S. 1030, 105 S . C t . 2 0 5 1 , 85 L . E d . 2 d 324 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . T h e r e i s no absolute requirement that a juror alleged to have received an improper communication be e x a m i n e d a p a r t f r o m t h e o t h e r j u r o r s . See S m i t h v . S t a t e , 432 So. 2 d 550 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) , a n d H o p k i n s v . S t a t e , 42 9 So. 2d 1 1 4 6 , 1152 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1983) (wherein the jury was questioned t o g e t h e r as a g r o u p ) . "'"[W]hen the trial judge acts promptly to i n v e s t i g a t e the circumstances surrounding the making of an inherently prejudicial remark [to] a veniremember, determining s p e c i f i c a l l y whether the remark was made a n d w h e t h e r t h e r e m a r k h a d a p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t on t h o s e who, u l t i m a t e l y s e l e c t e d t o s e r v e a s j u r o r s , h e a r d i t , t h e r e i s no e r r o r i n the d e n i a l of a motion for mistrial based on jury contamination." Holland v. S t a t e , 588 So. 2d a t 5 4 8 . ' "596 So. 2d Gamble v. State, 2000). See also, (Ala. Crim. App. cert. denied, at 648-49." 791 So. T a y l o r v. 2000), T a y l o r v. 2d 40 9, State, aff'd, Alabama, 142 432-33 (Ala. Crim. 808 So. 2d So. 2d 1215 808 534 U.S. 1086 1148, App. 1173-74 (Ala. (2002). 2001), CR-07-0443 On O c t o b e r of the jury 25, 2007, trial three concluded, defense motion with the c i r c u i t court a into "reasonable the inquiry" j u r o r s might family (Vol. members on contact and t h e l a s t Defense counsel a written to conduct one o r more o f with the v i c t i m s ' day o f t h e attached affidavits from of h i s defense counsel the improper October f a m i l y m e m b e r s , who 31, who had spoken w i t h his relatives contact. 2007, the circuit court conducted to i n v e s t i g a t e the a l l e g a t i o n s i n Reynolds's XIII, other 10 jurors to attend questioned a motion. R. 2 0 0 9 - 4 7 . ) The 2 j u r o r s who w e r e t h e s u b j e c t o f R e y n o l d s ' s m o t i o n were p r e s e n t jurors During trial. t h e i m p r o p e r c o n t a c t , as w e l l as a f f i d a v i t s two (Vol. filed they witnessed hearing counsel phase stated that had On the penalty allegations that the f i r s t of Reynolds's regarding after requesting the court have had i m p r o p e r I - I I , C. 1 9 8 - 2 1 3 . ) from three days the -- the court the hearing hearing, family. Defense jurors. (Vol. XIII, R. had requested as w e l l as t h e the o u t o f an a b u n d a n c e the t h e t w o j u r o r s who victims' at the hearing, circuit court of caution. individually a l l e g e d l y had c o n t a c t counsel 2013-17; 143 also questioned 2021-23.) remaining Both with the the two jurors CR-07-0443 testified family that they had not contact with the victims' members. After the 2 j u r o r s were examined, the questioned each of the jurors in fact followed there had had had victims' jurors b e e n no family remaining members. and that contact the victims' allow Reynolds's those j u r o r s were not the had they counsel conclusion XIII, they instructions At court's (Vol. that did to the between the R. members. of of the h e a r i n g , the that A l l and 10 the in court's any improper The court 10 jurors Reynolds's the the jurors 2026-2047.) engage question subject i n s t r u c t i o n s and followed not family individually j u r o r s to ensure that inappropriate contact indicated with the 10 court did not because motion. following occurred: "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I t h i n k Your Honor has conducted a reasonable i n v e s t i g a t i o n and a s k e d t h e jurors. And at this point I cannot point to anything from these j u r o r s t h a t would support j u r o r misconduct at t h i s p o i n t . "THE COURT: B a s e d on v a r i o u s p a r t i e s , the Court i m p r o p e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n has (Vol. XIII, As circuit R. 2047.) evidenced court the testimony of these m a k e s a f i n d i n g t h a t no occurred." had from the conducted above, a 144 Reynolds reasonable agreed that investigation the and CR-07-0443 that there was allegation Rule of 45A, of no error plain into the conclusion juror that We alleged misconduct. plain-error reviewed in juror evidence Thus, misconduct. i n Gamble, otherwise, the juror have addressed or inquiry of i s s u b j e c t to Ala.R.App.P. the p r i n c i p l e s error, evidence the the did Reynolds record extent not review s u p r a , and misconduct of light find no the court's court's support no only. in we his i n the or i s due Thus, a finding relief on of this allegation. B. During trial, one the defense's of Reynolds's case at defense the guilt-phase of counsel informed the the circuit c o u r t t h a t an a t t o r n e y , who p r a c t i c e d b e f o r e t h e c o u r t and who was told he had left the in the observed witness (Vol. had audience, L t . Faye Gary had wink at defense counsel a juror as that L t . Gary stand f o l l o w i n g her testimony i n the defense's X I , R. seen, 1 5 4 1 . ) When t h e c o u r t a s k e d the attorney stated that he case. t h e a t t o r n e y what saw L t . Gary wink 2 1 he at Reynolds's counsel i n i t i a l l y t o l d the court that two a t t o r n e y s who w e r e i n t h e a u d i e n c e t o l d h i m t h a t t h e y h a d witnessed the o c c u r r e n c e ; however, the remainder of the d i s c u s s i o n f o c u s e d on o n l y one o f t h e a t t o r n e y s . T h e r e was no f u r t h e r m e n t i o n o f t h e o t h e r a t t o r n e y or any o t h e r a u d i e n c e member who m i g h t h a v e w i t n e s s e d t h e o c c u r r e n c e . 2 1 145 CR-07-0443 either "the court's juror on the investigator. end right there" ( X I , R. 2 2 then investigator. conducted (Vol. XI, a hearing on t o was R. the During the hearing, the left the witness direction of the the up like heads 1546.) In last she response to saw the and questions gesturing to her co-worker Detective inference i n the record, (Vol. XI, The R. Court i t was Gary did not she wink The court that -- that as Lt. in the gave her over she 'Hey.'" possible sitting then conducted that countered (Vol. XI, the State, Lt. R o g e r D a l e who, n e a r t h a t end R. the Gary was from of the the jury 1546-47.) Gary supposedly winked a t . testified juror p r o p o u n d e d by admitted was 1472.) "winked said attorney box. that R. testified Gary and her the Roger Dale, a Gadsden 1543; attorney juror, State was matter. stand, Gary " P J , " who 1 5 4 1 - 4 2 . ) The t h a t the person L t . Gary g e s t u r e d police or did at not her. an examination ( V o l . X I , R. know Lt. (Vol. XI, of the 1548-1449.) Faye R. Gary and 1548-49.) juror The that The Lt. juror Lt. juror T h e p e r s o n r e f e r r e d t o a s " P J " was s u b s e q u e n t l y r e f e r r e d to as Mr. Pruitt, who was introduced as the court's i n v e s t i g a t o r a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e t r i a l . ( V o l . 5, R. 453.) 2 2 146 CR-07-0443 stated that "somebody over After juror, there the Gary object matter, Lt. behind" examinations found no to the of of extent winked the and pertinent conduct 1549.) R e y n o l d s d i d court's discussed inquiry into the supra, to findings. i n Gamble, i s s u e , we f i n d no e r r o r , p l a i n of the at 1548-49.) of inappropriate to the court's the p r i n c i p l e s i n the have attorney ( V o l . X I , R. facts pertaining to this otherwise, might the evidence manner n o r d i d he o b j e c t Gary h e r . ( V o l . X I , R. and t h e j u r o r . Applying the thought the court between not she court's inquiry into or the a l l e g e d j u r o r misconduct or i n the court's c o n c l u s i o n that the evidence Reynolds d i d not support i s d u e no r e l i e f a finding on t h i s of juror misconduct. allegation. XIV. Reynolds contends that h i s capital-murder convictions m u s t be r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e , he c l a i m s , t h e p r o s e c u t o r impeached h i s t r i a l in violation its of testimony Doyle v. Ohio, progeny. (Reynolds's reply brief, 2 3 with h i s post-Miranda Issue brief, I , a t pp. M i r a n d a v. A r i z o n a , 426 U.S. Issue 610 147 436 2 3 silence, ( A l a .1976), I , a t 7-17, 1-12.) 384 U.S. improperly (1966) . and Reynolds's CR-07-0443 The prosecutor's considered i n the questions abstract and but must comments be cannot considered be i n the c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e y o c c u r r e d . B r o w n v . S t a t e , 11 S o . 3 d 8 6 6 , 909 ( A l a . Crim. cert. App. 2007), a f f ' d , denied, U.S. 11 S o . 3 d 993 , 129 S.Ct. ( A l a . 2008), 2864 (2009). Accordingly, before addressing Reynolds's address i n which the questions/comments occurred. the context During Scott the Lumpkin investigation. Lumpkin, State's case, testified During regarding defense the following Gadsden c o n t e n t i o n , we Police Investigator h i s involvement counsel's i n the cross-examination occurred: "Q. [DEFENSE COUNSEL] : A n d y o u p i c k e d u p M i c h a e l R e y n o l d s [ o n ] S u n d a y , i s t h a t r i g h t , May 2 5 t h [ t h e day t h e murders were d i s c o v e r e d ] ? "A. [LUMPKIN]: wasn't present. He was "Q: [DEFENSE C O U N S E L ] : "A. picked Oh, up Sunday. I you d i d n ' t p i c k him [ L U M P K I N ] : No s i r . up? "Q. Sunday? "A. (Vol. I X , R. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: [ L U M P K I N ] : No, s i r . " 1230.) 148 Did you talk will to him of CR-07-0443 There regarding As was no other the circumstances addressed Reynolds claimed nothing t o do w i t h Although Reynolds the crimes, cover up any evidence direct took examination, whether he Charles Martin lying XI, 1572.) Reynolds R. police; contacted admitted inside that where he d i s c o v e r e d M e l i n d a determined bedroom. that he only to was asked Reynolds his friend on t h e f l o o r . ( V o l . he and walked Reynolds could residence there found d i d not c a l l t h e house, house, the Martin he of blood body i n this victims. his girlfriend counsel after bloody heap of the he w e n t that of t h a t he h a d at the Martin defense i n a pool of Charles portion place. the police i n s t e a d , he w e n t case arrest. and murders indicating State's examination t e s t i f i e d that when t h e c r i m e s On on d i r e c t the robbery he the i n the facts d i d n o t deny b e i n g after in of Reynolds's i n detail opinion, present testimony Martin stepped t o the back lying testified not thoroughly over wipe bloody after down the of the i n a that the he a l l the s u r f a c e s i n t h e h o u s e , he d e c i d e d t o d o u s e C h a r l e s a n d M e l i n d a Martin's bodies and the interior gasoline, l i g h t t h e g a s o l i n e , and then 149 of their leave the house scene. with CR-07-0443 During prosecutor hours the Sandra cross-examination of probed Reynolds's version before questioned State's the Reynolds murder. about Roberts had l e f t exchange h i s claim the Reynolds's that the "A. Adrian West of questioning, the f o l l o w i n g you p u t M a r c i e [Adrian Sandra [Roberts] i n i t [REYNOLDS]: Y e s . "A. [ R E Y N O L D S ] : the drugs. That's where I told [Donald them t o go "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : So D i n o [ D o n a l d H a r v e y ] i s i n the p i c t u r e and Sandra i s i n t h e p i c t u r e . Right a f t e r t h i s happened you were i n t e r v i e w e d by t h e p o l i c e , weren't you? "A. [REYNOLDS]: T h a t m o r n i n g , "Q. [PROSECUTOR]: them, d i d you n o t ? And the next [PROSECUTOR]: You a n s w e r e d 150 morning. y o u made a s t a t e m e n t "A. [REYNOLDS]: Yes. I don't s t a t e m e n t . T h e y t a l k e d t o me and q u e s t i o n s , and I answered a few. "Q. right? and h o u s e t o g e t h e r t o go "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : A n d y o u a l s o p u t D i n o Harvey] i n your s t o r y ; i s t h a t r i g h t ? get prosecutor occurred: "Q. [PROSECUTOR]: So West] i n i t and you p u t together; i s that right? the o f what happened i n t h e Specifically, g e t more d r u g s . D u r i n g t h i s l i n e Reynolds, know asked those to about a me some questions, CR-07-0443 "A. [REYNOLDS]: I a n s w e r e d some, y e s . "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : A n d y o u t o l d t h e m t h a t M a r c i e [ A d r i a n W e s t ] h a d l e f t a n d come b a c k a n d s a i d t h a t [ C h a r l e s M a r t i n ] was d e a d ? "A. [ R E Y N O L D S ] : No, I d i d n ' t tell them that. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : Oh, y o u d i d n ' t t e l l t h e m t h a t . A n d y o u t o l d them t h a t y o u saw M e l i n d a ' s b o d y on t h e f l o o r and you f e l l across i t ? "A. [REYNOLDS]: No. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : W e l l , y o u t o l d t h e m t h a t y o u t o o k some g a s o l i n e a n d d o u s e d t h e s e f o l k s ' bodies and t r i e d t o s e t them on f i r e t h a t n i g h t , didn't you? "A. you [REYNOLDS]: You wish No. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : N o . Y o u h a d t o w a i t u n t i l y o u a l l t h e p i e c e s o f y o u r p u z z l e t o make y o u r s t o r y d i d n ' t you? "A. [REYNOLDS]: "Q. told I did. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : Y o u w i s h y o u h a d . h a d made u p t h i s s t o r y t h e n , right? "A. had up, [ R E Y N O L D S ] : No. B u t I w i s h [PROSECUTOR]: anybody anybody e l s e You w a i t e d has anybody, your have lawyers you ever o r you o r -¬ "[DEFENSE "Q. No. COUNSEL]: [PROSECUTOR]: "[DEFENSE I object, COUNSEL]: ever I 151 told object. Your Honor. this story -¬ CR-07-0443 "THE COURT: One a t a t i m e . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: He attorney-client privilege. "Q. [PROSECUTOR]: privilege. I wasn't information. cannot reveal the I'm not talking about asking about privileged "THE COURT: S u s t a i n e d a s t o t h e i s s u e o f w h a t h e t o l d h i s lawyer. Rephrase your q u e s t i o n . "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : I w a s n ' t a s k i n g y o u w h a t t o l d your lawyer. I was a s k i n g y o u w h a t y o u the p o l i c e o r anybody e l s e a b o u t what h a p p e n e d night. You h a d t o have a l l t h e p i e c e s o f p u z z l e t o g e t h e r f i r s t , d i d n ' t you? "A. [REYNOLDS]: I d o n ' t understand. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : H a v e y o u e v e r d i r e c t e d or have you p e r s o n a l l y heard i n this to ever t o l d c o u r t r o o m Tuesday, anybody e l s e you told that your that story anybody that f o r the f i r s t we time, a n y t i m e -¬ [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Y o u r H o n o r , I o b j e c t t o t h a t question. He h a s g o t t h e r i g h t [PROSECUTOR]: "A. Not t o your [REYNOLDS]: A f t e r t o remain silent. lawyer. I was incarcerated. " [ D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ] : E x c u s e me, M i c h a e l . Your H o n o r , I a s k f o r a r u l i n g o n my o b j e c t i o n . I think t h a t q u e s t i o n he a s k e d i s o b j e c t i o n a b l e , b e c a u s e Mr. R e y n o l d s h a s a r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t . He d o e s n ' t have t o t e l l t h i s C o u r t o r anybody-¬ " [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : He d o e s n ' t h a v e a r i g h t t o r e m a i n silent. He i s o n t h e s t a n d . "THE COURT: A s k y o u r next 152 question. CR-07-0443 whole "Q. [PROSECUTOR]: You crime, c o u l d n ' t you? could "A [ R E Y N O L D S ] : I s h o u l d h a v e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s what happened." (Vol. X I , 1589-92.)(Emphasis The cross-examination have solved told them this at the added.) continued, and the following occurred: "Q. and used mixed that on t h a t "A. was [PROSECUTOR]: "Q. night until got Savannah's up blood -¬ I did fall on t h e b e d t h a t she said. [PROSECUTOR]: t h a t you f i l l e d "A. that's handle [REYNOLDS]: on, t h e y The g a s c a n t h a t y o u p i c k e d Another i n f o r us, s i r . piece We of the appreciate puzzle that. [REYNOLDS]: Y o u ' r e welcome. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : A n d y o u d i d n ' t h a v e t h a t p i e c e a l l t h e e v i d e n c e came i n , d i d y o u ? D i d you? "A. [ R E Y N O L D S ] : I t ' s t h e t r u t h . "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : L e t me a s k y o u s o m e t h i n g . f i r s t time t h e p o l i c e t a l k e d t o you about t h i s , d i d n ' t know a n y t h i n g a b o u t i t ; i s t h a t r i g h t ? "A. [REYNOLDS]: That's The you right. "Q. [PROSECUTOR]: Then you f i n d out, well, [ A d r i a n W e s t ] h a s t o l d w h a t h a p p e n e d . So d i d n ' t y o u c o n c l u d e t h e n t h a t I have g o t t o p u t [West] i n i t some k i n d o f way, r i g h t ? T h a t ' s what you t h o u g h t , d i d n ' t you? "A. [REYNOLDS]: No. 153 CR-07-0443 "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : I h a v e g o t t o b r i n g West] i n t h e p i c t u r e b e c a u s e h e r b l o o d there? "A. [REYNOLDS]: [Adrian i s over No "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : A n d t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y h a s a l r e a d y t o l d my l a w y e r s t h a t t h e y h a v e g o t h e r b l o o d on t h e s c e n e . So y o u know [ A d r i a n West] i s t h e r e , right, right? Y o u knew t h a t , d i d n ' t y o u ? "A. [ R E Y N O L D S ] : I knew s h e was s a y i n g t h i s a n d t e l l i n g me t h i s t o b e g i n w i t h , w h a t t h e y t o l d me a f t e r I a s k e d f o r a n a t t o r n e y . T h e y n e v e r come b a c k a n d t a l k e d t o me a g a i n a b o u t i t . "Q. lawyer. "A. [PROSECUTOR]: L i s t e n t o me. [REYNOLDS]: I'm not asking about your Okay. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : Y o u knew t h a t [ A d r i a n W e s t ] c o u l d h a v e b e e n p r o v e n t o b e o n t h a t s c e n e ; am I r i g h t about t h a t ? "A. [REYNOLDS]: Y e s , t h a t ' s correct. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : A n d y o u knew, d i d n ' t y o u once you f o u n d o u t about what Sandra [Roberts] had t o s a y , y o u knew y o u h a d t o p u t h e r i n t h e p i c t u r e some k i n d o f way t o t r y t o d i r t y h e r up t o o , d i d n ' t you? was "A. [ R E Y N O L D S ] : She was my d a d ' s g i r l f r i e n d . a t my d a d ' s h o u s e . She "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : A n d y o u know w h a t s h e was s a y i n g about what happened t h a t n i g h t . So s h e h a d t o be i n t h e p i c t u r e . She h a d t o b e g u i l t y o f s o m e t h i n g . So s h e l e a v e s w i t h [ A d r i a n W e s t ] ; i s n ' t that right? That's the other p a r t of your l i e , right. Your s t o r y . I'm s o r r y . 154 CR-07-0443 (R. V o l . X I , R. 1595-97.)(Emphasis added.) The p r o s e c u t o r c o n t i n u e d t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e R e y n o l d s a s t o how h i s version evidence, o f what happened d o v e t a i l e d w i t h during which the following the State's transpired: "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : D o n ' t y o u h a v e a n y p i t y , a n y sense o f l o s s f o r t h i s so c a l l e d good f r i e n d o f y o u r s , C h u c k , l y i n g on t h e f l o o r b l e e d i n g o u t h i s l i f e when y o u w a l k e d t h r o u g h t h e r e ? "A. [Reynolds]: Yes. That's why I don't u n d e r s t a n d why I'm o n t r i a l h e r e a n d n o t t h e p e o p l e who d i d i t . "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : A n d who "A. [REYNOLDS] : n o t h i n g about t h a t . I don't was that believe again? I can say "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : Y o u d o n ' t know you s a i d that [ A d r i a n W e s t ] came b a c k a n d t o l d y o u s h e was trying to help somebody when she g o t s t a b b e d , a c c o r d i n g t o you. "A. [REYNOLDS]: Y e s . "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : So s h e h a d n ' t e v e n c o m m i t t e d a crime, right? A l l s h e d i d was t r y t o h e l p somebody. "A. [REYNOLDS]: T h a t ' s what she said. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : A n d a l l s h e h a s t o l d y o u i s s h e was t r y i n g t o h e l p s o m e b o d y a n d y o u ' r e g o i n g o v e r t h e r e t r y i n g t o b u r n up a h o u s e ? "A. [ R E Y N O L D S ] : I was "Q. [PROSECUTOR]: going to protect her. Protect 155 h e r from what? CR-07-0443 "A. [REYNOLDS]: She was "Q. [PROSECUTOR]: according t o you." (Vol. X I , R. A short prosecutor and She 1597-98.)(Emphasis time i n the house. in done anything added.) cross-examination, the showed R e y n o l d s a p i c t u r e o f C h a r l e s M a r t i n ' s body the following later hadn't exchange took the place: "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : I s t h a t t h e way h e l o o k e d t h e l a s t t i m e y o u saw h i m ? "A. [REYNOLDS]: I b e l i e v e so. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : d i d n ' t you. And you d i d t h a t t o him t o o , "A. [ R E Y N O L D S ] : No, "Q. [PROSECUTOR]: I didn't Why don't you f e e l sorry? "A. [ R E Y N O L D S ] : I d o . I have been i n j a i l f o u r and a h a l f y e a r s , s i t t i n g i n j a i l c e l l . And i t ' s been i t ' s weighed heavy. I s h o u l d n ' t have never -- h e was my f r i e n d , a n d I t r i e d t o c o v e r i t u p . I d o n e l o s t my s o n a n d my f a m i l y a n d t h e m . " (Vol. X I , R. The 1603.) following colloquy occurred toward the end of the cross-examination: "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : M r . R e y n o l d s , y o u a r e a s k i n g this jury to believe this s t o r y today; i s that right? "A. [REYNOLDS]: I t ' sthe 156 truth. CR-07-0443 "Q. [PROSECUTOR]: You a r e a right? You t e l l t h e t r u t h ? "A. truthful person, [REYNOLDS]: I do. II "Q. [PROSECUTOR]: ... You are saying that [ A d r i a n West] t o l d you t h a t somebody e l s e d i d i t b u t s h e n e v e r d i d t e l l y o u who, r i g h t ? "A. [ R E Y N O L D S ] : S h e s a i d s h e was t r y i n g to stop them. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : are? they "A. you Trying t o s t o p them, whoever [REYNOLDS]: Y e s . "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : A n d y o u n e v e r g o t h e r t o who i t w a s ? tell "A. R E Y N O L D S ] : No. S h e was d i s t r a u g h t o u t t h e r e . S h e t o l d me s h e d i d n ' t e v e n w a n t t o t h i n k a b o u t i t . any "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : U h - h u h . And you d i d n ' t f e e l need t o t e l l the p o l i c e t h a t i n your i n t e r v i e w ? far "A. [ R E Y N O L D S ] : I was p r o t e c t i n g h e r . I w e n t a s a s t r y i n g t o b u r n i t down. I mean -" "Q. would [PROSECUTOR]: j u s t burn "A. That's t h e house what you thought; I down? [REYNOLDS]: Y e s . "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : R a t h e r t h a n t r y i n g t o f i n d t h e ones t h a t r e a l l y d i d i t ? 157 CR-07-0443 "A. [REYNOLDS]: Instead of tying t o wipe i t down. " "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : told the truth? "A. than [REYNOLDS]: You s a y you j u s t w i s h you h a d I should have. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : once, r i g h t ? "A. You've t h o u g h t a b o u t t h a t more [REYNOLDS]: A lot. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : How many t i m e s o v e r f o u r years have you thought about t h a t ? "A. it [REYNOLDS]: A w h o l e lot. "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : T h e f i r s t t i m e y o u h a v e i s i n t h i s courtroom; i s that r i g h t ? "A. [ R E Y N O L D S ] : about i t . I have "Q. [PROSECUTOR]: I attorneys. The f i r s t time a u t h o r i t i e s s i n c e -¬ "A. [ R E Y N O L D S ] : Y e s , s i n c e t h i s happened, s i n c e that the d i s t r i c t attorney has e v e r a s k e d me. "[PROSECUTOR]: (Vol. the last That's X I , 1605-09.)(Emphasis Defense argument counsel that the argued jury's talked t o my done attorney don't mean with your y o u h a v e come t o a n y This i s the f i r s t time I a s k e d f o r an a t t o r n e y o r t h e p o l i c e o r anybody a l l . " added.) during a portion decision 158 turned of the closing solely on a CR-07-0443 credibility question Specifically, defense as between counsel Adrian West and Reynolds. argued: "[N]one of the o t h e r t e s t i m o n y or the e v i d e n c e they p u t on d i s p u t e s w h a t Mr. Reynolds has t o l d you. None o f i t . None o f i t p o i n t s t o h i m and s a y s t h a t c a n ' t be t r u e . You're a l i a r because of t h i s and t h i s and t h i s , because of t h i s d o c t o r or t h i s DNA e x p e r t o r b e c a u s e o f t h i s f i n g e r p r i n t guy. None o f it. None o f i t . You w o u l d t h i n k a d a y and a h a l f of t h a t e v i d e n c e w o u l d show s o m e t h i n g . " (Vol. X I I , R. During 1665-66.) the State's rebuttal, the p r o s e c u t o r argued: " [ A d r i a n West] t o l d you what happened out t h e r e . A n d w h a t t h a t man d i d : He s a t o v e r t h e r e i n j a i l . He came up w i t h a s t o r y t h a t y o u a n d I h e a r d f o r t h e f i r s t time Tuesday. "The e v i d e n c e d r i b b l e s i n a s i t a l w a y s d o e s i n an i n v e s t i g a t i o n l i k e t h i s . Y o u know y o u h a v e g o t a k i l l i n g . He i s q u e s t i o n e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e a b o u t these k i l l i n g s . He d i d n ' t know n o t h i n g a b o u t i t . He i s q u e s t i o n e d a s e c o n d t i m e . D i d n ' t know n o t h i n g a b o u t i t . W e l l , o f c o u r s e , he i s n o t q u e s t i o n e d again. He i s c h a r g e d . But a l l t h e y would have had t o do was s o m e b o d y h a d t o c a l l [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] R o g e r D a l e t h e r e o r c a l l us up, ' [ H ] e y , l i s t e n , we h a v e got a l l the f a c t s . We c a n t e l l y o u e x a c t l y w h a t happened. J u s t l i k e [ A d r i a n West] d i d . A c o u p l e o f d a y s a f t e r t h e k i l l i n g s h e came i n a n d t o l d u s w h a t happened.' We d i d n ' t h e a r f r o m t h i s man e x c e p t f o r h i m t o s a y ' [ N ] o , I w a s n ' t t h e r e [ ; ] I d o n ' t know n o t h i n g about i t . ' " (Vol. X I I , R. 1674.) (Emphasis 159 added.) CR-07-0443 After closing arguments, the circuit court charged the j u r y on t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w a n d s u b m i t t e d t h e c a s e to the jury for submitted deliberation. written question During deliberations, to the court, the jury a and t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n occurred: "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t , gentlemen Question: ' D i d M i c h a e l R e y n o l d s make a s t a t e m e n t t o t h e p o l i c e after being questioned a n d was i t s u b m i t t e d a s evidence and a v a i l a b l e f o r our review?' "I h a v e no i d e a . "[PROSECUTOR]: J u d g e , t h a t was a h e made a statement, a n d I q u e s t i o n e d h i m a b o u t i t , a n d he responded that he made a statement i s my understanding." ( V o l . 1 2 , R. 1 8 0 6 - 0 7 . ) and The d i s c u s s i o n c o n t i n u e d , the respective parties ultimately j u r o r s ' q u e s t i o n as f o l l o w s : defendant the jury. The actually t o answer t h e "No w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t was o f f e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e ; testimony." decided and t h e c o u r t made b y t h e y o u have t o remember t h e ( V o l 1 2 , R. 1 8 0 7 - 1 2 . ) T h i s a n s w e r w a s p r o v i d e d t o 2 4 "statement" to which a set of hand-written the parties i n t e r v i e w notes referred made i n v e s t i g a t o r s during t h e i r q u e s t i o n i n g of Reynolds. 2 4 Second Supplemental Record, 160 V o l . 3, C. 4 1 4 . was by the The first CR-07-0443 notes are dated May 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 , advised of h i srights. During that and i n d i c a t e i n t e r v i e w Reynolds apparently said telephone said residence a n d t h a t he d i d n o t k i l l Reynolds found that previous that he Martin occasions and t h a t Charles Reynolds t o l d the i n v e s t i g a t o r s drugs, he was conversation, slow and Reynolds detail stove. how could be described Charles from. Charles Martin "taken." the black Martin In other i n t e r v i e w notes, the Uniden the crimes or being crimes. (First on Martin used this same In bag where Charles h i s drugs Reynolds admitted Supplement also and Reynolds d e s c r i b e d i n "cooked" at the Martin He about i t . residence Record, on t h e t h a t he h a d u s e d d r u g s w i t h C h a r l e s M a r t i n , a n d he a g a i n d e n i e d the brand Martin knew t h a t when C h a r l e s M a r t i n kept h i s p r e s c r i p t i o n drugs, some from of the o r know who d i d . c a r came drugs investigators on t h e n i g h t where Roberts's stole told the Martins d i d n o t know i n Sandra Chad was ( F i r s t S u p p l e m e n t a l R e c o r d , C. 1 7 4 - 7 6 . ) t h a t h e was n o t a t t h e M a r t i n s ' crimes that Reynolds committing on t h e n i g h t C. 179, of 155, respectively.) Reynolds occasions argues during on a p p e a l that cross-examination 161 "on t w e n t y - o n e different and c l o s i n g arguments, t h e CR-07-0443 prosecutor drawing . .. commented [his] post-Miranda attention to the fact subsequent exculpatory trial," and on i n violation i t s progeny. that [trial] of Doyle (Reynolds's silence by [he] d i d n o t d i s c l o s e h i s explanation to the State v. Ohio, reply 426 U.S. brief, before 610 a t 2.) (1976), The State c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e was no D o y l e v i o l a t i o n b e c a u s e , i t a r g u e s , the prosecutor testimony with First, prosecutor Miranda will, existing note we despite that improperly Although nevertheless, makes on a p p e a l . 507 U.S. In 924 from against S o . 2 d 372 claims only once improper to object reviewing any c l a i m v. S t a t e , statements. that on R e y n o l d s ' s objected failure trial the post- on this line at of trial the issue, i t of prejudice 600 S o . 2 d 3 4 3 ( A l a . 1992), he (Ala. Crim. cert. denied, (1993). Doyle, certiorari 600 21 t i m e s the purportedly Court weigh See D i l l aff'd, Reynolds's Reynolds's this Reynolds's inconsistent counsel during not preclude App.1991), commented defense ground questioning. impeached his prior silence, particular will permissibly the t o address United States Supreme Court granted the question: " [ W ] h e t h e r a s t a t e p r o s e c u t o r may s e e k t o i m p e a c h a defendant's exculpatory story, t o l d f o r the f i r s t 162 CR-07-0443 time a t t r i a l , by c r o s s - e x a m i n i n g t h e defendant about his failure t o have t o l d t h e s t o r y after receiving M i r a n d a [ v . A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. 4 3 6 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ] warnings a t the time of h i s a r r e s t ? " 426 held U.S a t 611 that silence, a t the time violated Amendment." of arrest t h e Due Doyle, 426 and a f t e r Process U.S. t h e Supreme of the defendant's purposes added). at Court petitioners' receiving Clause 619-20 of The Miranda of the Fourteenth (footnote omitted; added). Although use o m i t t e d ; emphasis " t h e use f o r impeachment purposes warnings, emphasis (footnote violated importance of due Court found post-Miranda process, impeachment that silence the Court the prosecutor's f o r impeachment acknowledged cross-examination to prosecution: "We recognize, of course, that unless p r o s e c u t o r s a r e a l l o w e d wide leeway i n t h e scope of i m p e a c h m e n t c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n some d e f e n d a n t s w o u l d be a b l e t o f r u s t r a t e t h e t r u t h - s e e k i n g f u n c t i o n o f a t r i a l by p r e s e n t i n g t a i l o r e d defense insulated f r o m e f f e c t i v e c h a l l e n g e . See g e n e r a l l y F i t z p a t r i c k v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 178 U.S. 3 0 4 , 3 1 5 , 20 S . C t . 9 5 4 4 , 9 4 8 , 444 L . E d . 1 0 7 8 ( 1 9 0 0 ) . II " I t goes a l m o s t w i t h o u t s a y i n g t h a t t h e f a c t o f p o s t - a r r e s t s i l e n c e c o u l d be u s e d b y t h e p r o s e c u t i o n to contradict a defendant who testifies t o an e x c u l p a t o r y v e r s i o n o f e v e n t s and c l a i m s t o have 163 the the CR-07-0443 t o l d t h e p o l i c e t h e same v e r s i o n u p o n a r r e s t . In that s i t u a t i o n the f a c t of e a r l i e r s i l e n c e would not be u s e d t o i m p e a c h t h e e x c u l p a t o r y s t o r y , b u t r a t h e r to c h a l l e n g e t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y as t o h i s behavior following arrest. C f . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. F a i r c h i l d , 5 0 5 F. 2 d 1 3 7 8 , 1 3 8 3 (CA5 1 9 7 5 ) . " 426 U.S. In 404 a t 6 1 9 , 6 2 0 , n . 7 a n d n. 1 1 . the post-Doyle case (1980), Anderson of Anderson was a r r e s t e d w h i l e v. C h a r l e s , driving 447 U.S. a stolen car t h a t b e l o n g e d t o a m u r d e r v i c t i m . A n d e r s o n was a p p r i s e d o f h i s Miranda In rights a n d was i n t e r v i e w e d the interview, Anderson told possess t h e murder v i c t i m ' s in h i s defense and t o l d possess asked credibility same s t o r y The Court a series based that Court car. At t r i a l , found h i s arrest. how h e came t o Anderson testified o f how h e come t o cross-examination, the prosecutor of questions challenging on h i s f a i l u r e he t o l d after the detective a different version the car. During Anderson shortly at that to tell Anderson's the detective the trial. no Doyle violation occurred. reasoned: "Doyle bars the use a g a i n s t a c r i m i n a l defendant of s i l e n c e m a i n t a i n e d a f t e r r e c e i p t o f g o v e r n m e n t a l assurances. But Doyle does not apply to cross-examination that merely inquires into prior i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s . Such q u e s t i o n i n g makes no unfair use of s i l e n c e because a defendant who v o l u n t a r i l y speaks a f t e r r e c e i v i n g Miranda warnings 164 The CR-07-0443 has n o t b e e n i n d u c e d t o r e m a i n s i l e n t . As t o t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f h i s s t a t e m e n t s , t h e d e f e n d a n t has n o t r e m a i n e d s i l e n t a t a l l . See U n i t e d S t a t e s v . A g e e , 597 F. 2 d 3 5 0 , 3 5 4 - 3 5 6 (CA3) (en b a n c ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 442 U.S. 9 4 4 , 99 S. C t . 2 8 8 9 , 61 L. E d . 2 d 315 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M i r e l e s , 570 F . 2 d 1287, 1 2 9 1 - 1 2 9 3 (CA5 1 9 7 8 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . G o l d m a n , 563 F . 2 d 5 0 1 , 5 0 3 - 5 0 4 (CA1 1 9 7 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 434 U.S. 1 0 6 7 , 98 S. C t . 1 2 4 5 , 55 L. E d . 2 d 768 (1978). "In t h i s case, the Court of Appeals r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t c o u l d be q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t p r i o r statements i n c o n s i s t e n t with h i s t r i a l testimony. The c o u r t t h e r e f o r e a p p r o v e d t h e ' l a t t e r p o r t i o n o f the above quoted c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n ' 610 F.2d, at 421. B u t t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o u n d t h a t 'the earlier portion of the exchange' concerned the 'separate i s s u [ e ] ' of the respondent's ' f a i l u r e t o t e l l a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s t h e same s t o r y he t o l d t h e j u r y . ' I b i d . In the c o u r t ' s view, these q u e s t i o n s were u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l inquiries about postarrest silence. Thus, t h e C o u r t of A p p e a l s divided the c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i n t o two p a r t s . I t t h e n a p p l i e d Doyle to bar questions that concerned the r e s p o n d e n t ' s f a i l u r e t o t e l l t h e p o l i c e t h e s t o r y he recounted at t r i a l . "We do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e c a n b e b i f u r c a t e d s o n e a t l y . The quoted c o l l o q u y , t a k e n as a w h o l e , does 'not r e f e [ r ] t o t h e [respondent's] exercise of h i s r i g h t to remain s i l e n t ; r a t h e r [ i t a s k s ] t h e [ r e s p o n d e n t ] why, i f [his t r i a l t e s t i m o n y ] w e r e t r u e , he d i d n ' t t e l l t h e o f f i c e r t h a t he s t o l e t h e d e c e d e n t ' s c a r f r o m t h e t i r e s t o r e p a r k i n g l o t i n s t e a d of t e l l i n g him t h a t he t o o k i t f r o m t h e s t r e e t . ' 58 M i c h . A p p . , a t 3 8 1 , 227 N.W. 2d, at 354. Any ambiguity in the prosecutor's initial questioning was quickly resolved by explicit reference to Detective L e V a n s e l e r ' s t e s t i m o n y , which the j u r y had heard o n l y a f e w h o u r s b e f o r e . The q u e s t i o n s were not 165 CR-07-0443 d e s i g n e d t o draw meaning from s i l e n c e , but t o e l i c i t an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a p r i o r i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t . "We conclude t h a t Doyle does not a p p l y t o the facts of this case. Each of two inconsistent descriptions of events may be said to involve ' s i l e n c e ' i n s o f a r as i t o m i t s f a c t s i n c l u d e d i n t h e o t h e r v e r s i o n . But D o y l e does n o t r e q u i r e any s u c h f o r m a l i s t i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f ' s i l e n c e , ' a n d we f i n d no r e a s o n t o a d o p t s u c h a v i e w i n t h i s c a s e . " 447 U.S. a t 408-09 With present that the above case. intent testimony the to police impeach contrasting inconsistent statements that statements" record, his So. because and 2d mind, our we his trial to he the admitted those turn review his arrest, credibility that because of of to the record r e g a r d i n g what the prosecutor's Reynolds's trial testimony with his investigators. to the making statements Reynolds only are prior not a "few i n the the p r o s e c u t o r ' s q u e s t i o n s were a k i n t o commenting post-Miranda supra. the after the by contends from in prosecutor questioned Reynolds told was added). principles I t i s clear when t h e Reynolds (emphasis He 846 relies silence on (Ala. and Doyle, Crim. t h u s do n o t supra, App. assertion. 166 and 1986), fall under Edwards v. in on Anderson, State, support of 502 his CR-07-0443 We d i s a g r e e . both Doyle silent to and Edwards. after why crazy" he 623-24. a r r e s t and t h e other defendant, Doyle, responded was arrested, he this a l l about?" responded, "[Y]ou know w h a t y o u a r e t a l k i n g a n d when g o t t o be about. T h a t r e s p o n s e was c o n s t r u e d t o b e s i l e n c e of analysis, presumably because 42 6 U.S. for the i t d i dnot actually t e s t i m o n y . See A n d e r s o n , 447 U.S. a t n . 2. In Edwards, after evidence invoked h i s right Miranda warnings, regarding a authorities. appeal, the "What's one from remained c o n t r a d i c t Doyle's t r i a l had distinguishable defendant or " I don't purposes 408 In Doyle, a q u e s t i o n by saying, told at This case i s f a c t u a l l y Edwards following prosecutor Edwards denied making such comments c o n s t i t u t e d Edwards h i s arrest cross-examined a made and Edwards to the statement. On court erred i n allowing t o question him regarding t o remain s i l e n t . that had purportedly Edwards argued t h a t t h e t r i a l State right to silence the statement was i n t r o d u c e d the invocation of h i s This Court held that the prosecutor's reversible error. We reasoned: "In t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e r e i s an i n d i c a t i o n i n the record that t h e p r o s e c u t o r may have been attempting t o use a p r i o r i n c o n s i s t e n t statement made b y t h e a p p e l l a n t t o t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r a f t e r 167 CR-07-0443 he h a d c l a i m e d h i s r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t ; those f a c t s would have brought t h i s case under the h o l d i n g of Anderson v . C h a r l e s , 447 U.S. 404, 100 S.Ct. 2 1 8 0 , 65 L . E d . 2 d 222 (1980). II "Any i n d i c a t i o n ... t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r i n t e n d e d t o impeach the a p p e l l a n t by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of a p r i o r i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t , i s not u p h e l d by the r e c o r d . S u c h a s t a t e m e n t was n e v e r i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , n o r was t h e r e a n y t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g s u c h a s t a t e m e n t by S e r g e a n t Boone, t h e a p p e l l a n t , o r any other witness. Thus, the Anderson holding i s inapplicable to this case. See also Bradley v. S t a t e , 494 S o . 2 d 750 (Ala. Cr. App.1985), a f f ' d , 494 S o . 2 d 772 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . " Edwards, 502 So. 2d at 851-52. In t h i s case, although the statements admitted Reynolds into evidence, t h a t he made t w o there was situation direct i n Edwards and trial Doyle. were evidence s t a t e m e n t s and t h a t t h o s e were i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h R e y n o l d s ' s fact themselves not t h i s harmed Reynolds. require inconsistent the admission from statements testimony, unlike the Further, although the w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t s w e r e n o t a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , we s e e how not fail to The A l a b a m a R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e do into evidence of written statements: "The h i s t o r i c r u l e was t h a t t h e w i t n e s s m u s t b e alerted as to the p a r t i c u l a r s (time, p l a c e and person) o f an i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t b e f o r e b e i n g a s k e d on c r o s s a b o u t the statement itself. Much 168 prior CR-07-0443 c r i t i c i s m arose as t o t h i s p r e d i c a t e requirement's constituting a needless impediment to effective c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . T h i s r e s u l t e d i n i t s abandonment under t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n o f t h e Alabama Rules of Evidence: "'Rule Witnesses 613. Prior Statement of "'(a) Examining witness concerning p r i o r statement. In examining a witness c o n c e r n i n g a p r i o r s t a t e m e n t made b y t h e witness, whether written or not, the statement need n o t be shown nor i t s contents disclosed t o the witness at that t i m e , b u t o n r e q u e s t t h e same s h a l l b e shown o r d i s c l o s e d t o o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l . ' 4- ¢ ^ T^n "The p a r t y who c a l l e d t h e w i t n e s s s h a l l , o f course, b e made p r i v y t o the contents of the statement upon request f o r the purpose of r e h a b i l i t a t i n g t h e w i t n e s s on r e d i r e c t . " McElroy's Alabama Evidence Here, the defense statements. Furthermore, objection, murders were questions answers testimony were evidentiary d i d not request t h a t Reynolds by (footnotes omitted). the prosecutor discovered, propounded testimony. § 157.01(a) that upon to Moreover, defense f o u n d a t i o n was with shown didelicit, the without was a r r e s t e d t h e d a y t h e h i s arrest the investigators, inconsistent be his he answered and t h a t exculpatory those trial counsel d i d not assert that insufficient. 169 this CR-07-0443 Perhaps evidence which most of the Reynolds actual no e r r o r , plain exculpatory trial testimony. no been his a Doyle unfair voluntarily use specks induced crimes would to statements The 447 in have Reynolds's remain because because receiving Miranda silent. As U.S. 404, CR-05-0225, F e b r u a r y 408. 5, See to the 2010] also So. of his do "[s]uch questioning silence after impeach prosecution's questions violation of to a who has subject matter Gobble 2d defendant warnings s t a t e m e n t s , the d e f e n d a n t has not remained Anderson, App. investigators or o t h e r w i s e , i n the p r o s e c u t o r ' s use inconsistent constitute into h i s p r e v i o u s s t a t e m e n t s . A c c o r d i n g l y , we prior makes the knowledge of the Reynolds's not to introduction f o r the j u r y the d i s p a r i t y between t e s t i m o n y and find the statements d e n i e d any only s o l i d i f i e d trial significantly, not of s i l e n t at a l l . " v. , State, [Ms. (Ala. Crim. 2010). Likewise, we find no q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g why e x c u l p a t o r y s t o r y a t any although the Court Miranda silence to error Reynolds i n the prosecutor's line d i d n o t come f o r w a r d w i t h h i s time before t r i a l . did find impeach that a 170 of In Doyle, a p r o s e c u t o r ' s use defendant's trial of supra, post- testimony CR-07-0443 violated the defendant's due process prosecutor's exculpatory 616 n. In 231 Court of the i n q u i r y a s t o why n e i t h e r d e f e n d a n t h a d t o l d h i s s t o r y a t any time before trial. S e e , 426 U.S. at 6. the post-Doyle (1980), prosecutor's the the the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y s p e c i f i c a l l y d e c l i n e d t o address rights, the case United of States use of defendant's defendant's trial J e n k i n s v. A n d e r s o n , Supreme held prearrest silence testimony d i d not v i o l a t e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . reasoning i n reaching that result the of this facts Court that the F i f t h "'Q. And I suppose you w a i t e d f o r the P o l i c e t o t e l l them what happened? I didn't. "'Q. You didn't? "'A. No. "'Q. I see. " ' A n d how l o n g was i t a f t e r t h i s d a y t h a t you were a r r e s t e d , o r t h a t you were t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y ? ' I d . , a t 33. 171 or relevant to "During the cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned the p e t i t i o n e r about h i s a c t i o n s a f t e r the stabbing: No, a Court's case: "'A. U.S. t o impeach The S u p r e m e i s particularly 447 CR-07-0443 " A f t e r some d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e d a t e o n w h i c h p e t i t i o n e r surrendered, the prosecutor continued: "'Q. When w a s t h e f i r s t time t h a t you r e p o r t e d t h e t h i n g s t h a t you have t o l d us i n Court today t o anybody? "'A. Two d a y s a f t e r i t happened. "'Q. A n d who d i d y o u r e p o r t "'A. To my p r o b a t i o n "'Q. W e l l , apart officer. from "'A. Who? "'A. him? No o n e . "'Q. i t to? No o n e b u t my- "'Q. ( I n t e r p o s i n g ) D i d y o u e v e r g o t o a P o l i c e O f f i c e r o r t o anyone e l s e ? "'A. No, I d i d n ' t . "'Q. A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , l a t e r , wasn't i t ? "'A. i t was t w o weeks Y e s . ' I d . , a t 34. "In c l o s i n g argument t o t h e j u r y , t h e p r o s e c u t o r again referred to the petitioner's prearrest s i l e n c e . The p r o s e c u t o r n o t e d t h a t p e t i t i o n e r h a d 'waited two weeks, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t e s t i m o n y - - a t least two weeks before he d i d a n y t h i n g about surrendering himself or r e p o r t i n g [the stabbing] t o a n y b o d y . ' I d . , a t 4 3 . The p r o s e c u t o r c o n t e n d e d t h a t the p e t i t i o n e r had committed murder i n r e t a l i a t i o n for the robbery the night before. 172 CR-07-0443 "At t r i a l t h e p r o s e c u t o r attempted t o impeach the p e t i t i o n e r ' s c r e d i b i l i t y by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r w o u l d h a v e s p o k e n o u t i f he h a d k i l l e d i n self-defense. The p e t i t i o n e r contends that the p r o s e c u t o r ' s a c t i o n s v i o l a t e d t h e F i f t h Amendment a s applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. The F i f t h Amendment g u a r a n t e e s a n a c c u s e d the r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t d u r i n g h i s c r i m i n a l trial and p r e v e n t s t h e p r o s e c u t i o n f o r c o m m e n t i n g on t h e silence of a defendant who asserts the right. G r i f f i n v . C a l i f o r n i a , 380 U.S. 6 0 9 , 614 ( 1 9 6 5 ) . I n t h i s case, of course, the p e t i t i o n e r d i d not remain s i l e n t throughout the criminal proceedings. Instead, he v o l u n t a r i l y t o o k t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d i n h i s own defense. "This Court's decision i n Raffel v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 2 7 1 U.S. 494 ( 1 9 2 6 ) , r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e F i f t h A m e n d m e n t i s n o t v i o l a t e d w h e n a d e f e n d a n t who t e s t i f i e s i n h i s own d e f e n s e i s i m p e a c h e d w i t h h i s p r i o r s i l e n c e . The d e f e n d a n t i n R a f f e l was tried twice. At the f i r s t trial, a Government agent testified that Raffel earlier had made an inculpatory statement. The defendant d i d not t e s t i f y . A f t e r t h e f i r s t t r i a l ended i n deadlock t h e agent repeated h i s t e s t i m o n y a t t h e second trial, and R a f f e l t o o k t h e s t a n d t o deny making such a statement. Cross-examination revealed that Raffel had n o t t e s t i f i e d a t t h e f i r s t t r i a l . I d . , a t 495, n. [ 1 ] . The C o u r t h e l d t h a t inquiry into prior silence was p r o p e r b e c a u s e '[t]he immunity from giving t e s t i m o n y i s one w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t may waive by o f f e r i n g h i m s e l f as a w i t n e s s When h e t a k e s t h e s t a n d i n h i s own b e h a l f , h e d o e s s o a s a n y other witness, and w i t h i n the limits of the a p p r o p r i a t e r u l e s h e may b e c r o s s - e x a m i n e d ' I d . , a t 496-497. Thus, t h e R a f f e l C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was ' s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n impeaching his credibility just like any o t h e r w i t n e s s . ' G r u n e w a l d v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 5 3 U.S. 3 9 1 , 420 (1957). 173 CR-07-0443 " I t c a n be a r g u e d t h a t a p e r s o n f a c i n g a r r e s t w i l l not remain s i l e n t i f h i s f a i l u r e t o speak l a t e r c a n be u s e d t o i m p e a c h h i m . But the C o n s t i t u t i o n does not f o r b i d 'every government-imposed c h o i c e i n the c r i m i n a l process that has the effect of d i s c o u r a g i n g the e x e r c i s e of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . ' C h a f f i n v . S t y n c h c o m b e , 412 U.S. 17, 30 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . See C o r b i t t v . New J e r s e y , 439 U.S. 2 1 2 , 2 1 8 , a n d n. 8 (1978). The '"threshold question is whether c o m p e l l i n g t h e e l e c t i o n i m p a i r s t o an appreciable extent any of the policies behind the rights i n v o l v e d . " ' C h a f f i n v . S t y n c h c o m b e , s u p r a , 412 U.S., at 32 quoting Crampton v. Ohio, decided with M c G a u t h a v . C a l i f o r n i a , 402 U.S. 183, 213 (1971). The R a f f e l C o u r t e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of impeachment by p r i o r s i l e n c e i s an impermissible burden upon the e x e r c i s e of F i f t h A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s . 'We a r e u n a b l e t o see t h a t t h e r u l e t h a t [ a n a c c u s e d who] t e s t i f i e d ... must t e s t i f y f u l l y , adds i n any s u b s t a n t i a l manner t o t h e inescapable embarrassment which the a c c u s e d must experience i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r he s h a l l t e s t i f y or not.' 271 U.S., at 499. "This C o u r t s i m i l a r l y d e f i n e d the scope of the F i f t h A m e n d m e n t p r o t e c t i o n i n H a r r i s v . New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971). There the Court h e l d t h a t a s t a t e m e n t t a k e n i n v i o l a t i o n o f M i r a n d a v. A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. 436 (1966), may be used to impeach a defendant's c r e d i b i l i t y . R e j e c t i n g the contention t h a t s u c h i m p e a c h m e n t v i o l a t e s t h e F i f t h Amendment, the Court s a i d : "'Every c r i m i n a l defendant i s p r i v i l e g e d to t e s t i f y i n h i s own d e f e n s e , o r t o r e f u s e t o do so. But that privilege cannot be c o n s t r u e d t o i n c l u d e the r i g h t t o commit p e r j u r y . . . . Having v o l u n t a r i l y taken the s t a n d , p e t i t i o n e r was u n d e r a n o b l i g a t i o n t o speak t r u t h f u l l y and a c c u r a t e l y , and t h e p r o s e c u t i o n h e r e d i d no m o r e t h a n u t i l i z e 174 CR-07-0443 the the t r a d i t i o n a l truth-testing devices of a d v e r s a r y p r o c e s s . ' 401 U.S., a t 225. "See a l s o O r e g o n v . H a s s , 420 U.S. 714, ( 1 9 7 5 ) ; W a l d e r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 347 U.S. (1954) . 721-723 62, 65 "In determining whether a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t has been burdened impermissibly, i t also is appropriate to consider the l e g i t i m a c y of the challenged governmental p r a c t i c e . See C h a f f i n v. Stynchcombe, supra, 412 U.S., a t 32, a n d n. 20. Attempted impeachment on cross-examination of a defendant, t h e p r a c t i c e a t i s s u e h e r e , may enhance t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e s s . Use o f s u c h i m p e a c h m e n t on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n a l l o w s p r o s e c u t o r s t o t e s t the c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s by a s k i n g them t o e x p l a i n p r i o r i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s and a c t s . A d e f e n d a n t may d e c i d e n o t t o t a k e t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d because of the r i s k of c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . But t h i s i s a c h o i c e o f l i t i g a t i o n t a c t i c s . Once a d e f e n d a n t decides to t e s t i f y , ' [ t ] h e i n t e r e s t s of the other p a r t y and regard f o r the f u n c t i o n of c o u r t s of j u s t i c e t o a s c e r t a i n t h e t r u t h become r e l e v a n t , and p r e v a i l i n the balance of c o n s i d e r a t i o n s determining the scope and limits of the privilege against self-incrimination.' Brown v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 356 U.S. 148 (1958). "Thus, impeachment f o l l o w s the d e f e n d a n t ' s own d e c i s i o n to c a s t aside h i s c l o a k of s i l e n c e and advances the t r u t h - f i n d i n g f u n c t i o n of the c r i m i n a l t r i a l . We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e F i f t h A m e n d m e n t i s n o t v i o l a t e d by the use of p r e a r r e s t s i l e n c e t o impeach a c r i m i n a l defendant's credibility." 447 U.S. 233-38. In a footnote i n Jenkins, the Court noted: " I n C r a m p t o n v . O h i o , [402 U.S. 183 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , ] t h e Court c o n s i d e r e d a c l a i m t h a t a murder defendant's 175 CR-07-0443 right to remain silent was burdened u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y b e c a u s e he c o u l d n o t a r g u e f o r mitigation of punishment without risking i n c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e q u e s t i o n o f g u i l t . The C o u r t recognized t h a t a d e f e n d a n t who s p e a k s i n h i s own defense cannot avoid t e s t i f y i n g fully. " ' I t has long been h e l d t h a t a defendant who t a k e s the stand i n h i s own behalf cannot then c l a i m the p r i v i l e g e against cross-examination on m a t t e r s reasonably related t o the subject matter of his d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n . See, e.g., Brown v. W a l k e r , 161 U.S. 5 9 1 , 5 9 7 - 5 9 8 ( 1 8 9 6 ) ; F i t z p a t r i c k v. U n i t e d States, 178 U.S. 3 0 4 , 3 1 4 - 3 1 6 ( 1 9 0 0 ) ; B r o w n v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 5 6 U.S. 148 (1958) . I t i s n o t t h o u g h t o v e r l y h a r s h in such s i t u a t i o n s t o r e q u i r e that the determination whether to waive the p r i v i l e g e take i n t o account the matters which may be brought out on cross-examination. I t i s also generally r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t who t a k e s t h e s t a n d i n h i s own b e h a l f may b e i m p e a c h e d b y p r o o f o f p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s o r t h e l i k e . See S p e n c e r v . T e x a s , 3 8 5 U.S. [554, 561,] ( 1 9 6 7 ) ; c f . M i c h e l s o n v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 335 U.S. 4 6 9 ( 1 9 4 8 ) ; b u t c f . L u c k v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 1 2 1 U.S.App.D.C. 1 5 1 , 348 F . 2 d 7 6 3 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . P a l u m b o , 401 F . 2 d 270 (CA2 1 9 6 8 ) . ' 402 U.S., a t 2 1 5 , 91 S.Ct., 447 a t 1471. U.S. a t 237 n . 3. In Jenkins, "Our court to prearrest formulate in which t h e Supreme C o u r t concluded by noting: d e c i s i o n today does n o t f o r c e any s t a t e allow impeachment through the use of s i l e n c e . Each j u r i s d i c t i o n remains f r e e t o evidentiary rules defining the situations s i l e n c e i s v i e w e d as more p r o b a t i v e then 176 CR-07-0443 prejudicial. We m e r e l y c o n c l u d e t h a t the use of prearrest silence to impeach a defendant's c r e d i b i l i t y does not v i o l a t e the C o n s t i t u t i o n . " 447 U.S. at 240-41. In Alabama, Rule 611(b), Ala.R.Evid., provides: "The right to cross-examine extends matter relevant to any issue and to a f f e c t i n g the c r e d i b i l i t y of the witness to any matters " Accordingly, "Pursuant to Rule 611(b) cross-examination g e n e r a l l y i s not l i m i t e d i n scope t o the matters b r o u g h t out on the witness' direct examination. R a t h e r , t h e c r o s s - e x a m i n e r may ask q u e s t i o n s that a r e r e l e v a n t t o : (1) a n y m a t e r i a l i s s u e i n t h e c a s e , a n d (2) t h e w i t n e s s ' s c r e d i b i l i t y . I n a d d i t i o n , e v e n i f the cross-examiner propounds a q u e s t i o n t h a t i s not otherwise r e l e v a n t t o e i t h e r a m a t e r i a l i s s u e i n the case or the w i t n e s s ' c r e d i b i l i t y , the question may be p e r m i s s i b l e i f i t i s r e l e v a n t t o a m a t t e r brought out by the adverse party during direct e x a m i n a t i o n of the witness." McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 136.01(1) (footnotes omitted). Furthermore, "Adverse p a r t i e s i n both c i v i l and criminal c a s e s a r e e n t i t l e d t o c o n d u c t a t h o r o u g h and s i f t i n g cross-examination which i n c l u d e s wide l a t i t u d e f o r testing a witness' c r e d i b i l i t y . I t i s equally well e s t a b l i s h e d , however, t h a t t h i s e n t i t l e m e n t i s not a b s o l u t e , and t h a t the l a t i t u d e and e x t e n t of s u c h cross-examination r e s t s l a r g e l y w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t which i s r e v e r s i b l e only i f abused to the p r e j u d i c e of the complaining p a r t y . On a p p e a l t h e p a r t y c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e trial 177 CR-07-0443 j u d g e has a b u s e d d i s c r e t i o n i n t h i s burden of p e r s u a s i o n . " McElroy's Alabama Evidence §136.01(2) regard bears (footnotes "'As t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t D a v i s v . A l a s k a , 415 U.S. 308, 94 S . C t . L . E d . 2 d 347 (1974): the omitted). stated in 1105, 39 "'"Cross-examination i s the principal means by which the believability of a w i t n e s s and the t r u t h of h i s testimony are tested. Subject always to the broad d i s c r e t i o n of a t r i a l judge to p r e c l u d e r e p e t i t i v e and u n d u l y harassing interrogation, the cross-examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness' story to test the w i t n e s s ' p e r c e p t i o n s a n d memory, but the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness." "'415 U.S. a t 316, 94 S . C t . 1105. "'The l a t i t u d e and e x t e n t of c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , of n e c e s s i t y , i s a matter w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and, i n t h e absence of p r e j u d i c i a l abuse, i t i s not r e v i e w a b l e on a p p e a l . ' T u r n e r v . S t a t e , 289 Ala. 97, 100, 265 So. 2d 883 (1972)." A s h u r s t v . S t a t e , 462 So. 2 d 9 9 9 , 1008-09 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1984).' " M a r s h a l l v . S t a t e , 20 So. 3 d 8 3 0 , 835 (Ala. Crim. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) . 'Where a w i t n e s s ' t e s t i m o n y i s o f m a j o r importance and i s s t r o n g l y adverse to the party a g a i n s t whom he h a s t e s t i f i e d , t h e u s u a l d i s c r e t i o n of a trial court has a narrow range, and i t generally is required to allow proof of any 178 CR-07-0443 important fact indicating bias of the witness.' P r o c t o r v . S t a t e , 331 So. 2 d 8 2 8 , 830 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976). "'In the discharge of i t s f a c t f i n d i n g f u n c t i o n s the j u r y ' s search f o r the t r u t h i n c l u d e s the paramount r i g h t to c o n s i d e r a witness's motivation, and any evidence t e s t i n g " h i s i n t e r e s t , b i a s or p r e j u d i c e " so as to "illustrate or impeach the accuracy of h i s testimony" i s a competent, material and relevant subject of cross-examination, and t h e j u r y ' s r i g h t t o be g i v e n s u c h e v i d e n c e i s , o f i t s e l f , p a r t of the fact finding process. Green v. State, [254 Ala. 471, 64 So. 2d 84 (1953)].' "Ex parte 1980). Brooks, 393 So. 2d 486, 487-88 (Ala. "'"[W]hen the a c c u s e d t a k e s the s t a n d to t e s t i f y i n h i s own b e h a l f , he d o e s s o i n a d u a l c a p a c i t y - - ( 1 ) as t h e a c c u s e d and (2) as a w i t n e s s . I n h i s c a p a c i t y as a w i t n e s s his c r e d i b i l i t y may be impeached i n the same way o r w a y s i n w h i c h t h e credibility o f any other witness may be impeached. S t o n e v . S t a t e , 208 A l a . 5 0 , 93 So. 706 [ ( 1 9 2 2 ) ] ; P i t t s v . S t a t e , 261 A l a . 3 1 4 , 74 So. 2d 232 [(1954)]. 'A d e f e n d a n t , who t e s t i f i e s f o r h i m s e l f a s a w i t n e s s , may be impeached i n the same m a n n e r a s other witnesses, by s h o w i n g t h a t he has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, or that he has made c o n t r a d i c t o r y s t a t e m e n t s , o r t h a t he i s a p e r s o n of bad character.'"' " F i s h e r v. 317 (Ala. S t a t e , 264 S t a t e , 57 A l a . A p p . 3 1 0 , 328 So. 2 d 311, C r i m . App. 1976), quoting Chambers v. A l a . 8, 10, 84 So. 3 4 2 , 3 4 3 - 4 4 (1935)." 179 CR-07-0443 Gobble, So. 3d a t As discussed examination and that that . above, Reynolds h e was n o t p r e s e n t he h a d n o t h i n g claimed, although the crimes. to protect present, Reynolds further testified calling the p o l i c e a f t e r discovering he t r i e d to burn He occurred testified hisgirlfriend on d i r e c t t h a t rather persons than had been and t h e house undisclosed who, i n the that the Martins the bodies t o c o v e r c r i m e s t h a t some o t h e r direct d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e crimes. murdered, during when t h e c r i m e s t o do w i t h t h a t he went t o t h e s c e n e o n l y he testified i n order supposedly committed. On cross-examination, arrest he crimes but that first he who he told talked was b e i n g knew declined prosecutor testified that the p o l i c e he w i s h e d admitted h a d no k n o w l e d g e that he he h a d t o l d t o t h e p o l i c e . He e x p r e s s e d prosecuted supposedly even Reynolds committed who to reveal during that f o r the crimes the crimes. committed their identity he h a d b e e n incarcerated 180 confusion instead of the a s t o why of the people intimated and murders, when a s k e d cross-examination. after his t h e t r u t h when he Reynolds the robbery that that b u t he t o do s o b y t h e Finally, f o r over Reynolds four years CR-07-0443 before trial telling his version Given and the that during of that what had time particular facts of this case, r e g r e t t e d not earlier version basis his exculpatory for reversal examination questions in regretted not happened. R e y n o l d s ' s a d m i s s i o n t h a t he with he either of the together with c o m i n g f o r w a r d much the f a c t s , we prosecutor's or h i s comments d u r i n g find no cross- c l o s i n g argument. XV. Reynolds undermined guilty of the argues capital murder Issue Before addressing law alleged reliability (Reynolds's b r i e f , applicable that and of prosecutorial jury's the X I I I , at verdicts finding r e s u l t i n g death 92-98). appellate him sentence. 2 5 his i n d i v i d u a l claims, regarding misconduct review we of set f o r t h the prosecutorial comments. " I n B e l i s l e v . S t a t e , 11 So. 3 d 256 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007), t h i s court r e i t e r a t e d the p r i n c i p l e s applied when reviewing a prosecutor's alleged i m p r o p e r comment a s f o l l o w s : F o r t h e s a k e of c l a r i t y , t h i s C o u r t has g r o u p e d a l l t h e g u i l t - p h a s e i s s u e s t o g e t h e r and a l l t h e p e n a l t y - p h a s e i s s u e s together; however, b e c a u s e of the manner i n w h i c h R e y n o l d s i n t e r t w i n e d t h e two p h a s e s i n t h i s a r g u m e n t , t h i s p o r t i o n o f t h e o p i n i o n d o e s i n c l u d e some d i s c u s s i o n o f penalty-phase matters. 2 5 181 CR-07-0443 "'"'In reviewing allegedly improper p r o s e c u t o r i a l argument, we must f i r s t d e t e r m i n e i f the a r g u m e n t was, in fact, improper. I f we d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e a r g u m e n t was i m p r o p e r , t h e t e s t f o r r e v i e w is not whether the comments i n f l u e n c e d the j u r y , but whether they might have i n f l u e n c e d the jury i n a r r i v i n g at i t s verdict.' S m i t h v . S t a t e , 698 So. 2 d 189, 202-03 (Ala. Cr. App. 1996), a f f ' d , 698 So. 2 d 219 (Ala.1997), c e r t . d e n i e d , 522 U.S. 957, 118 S.Ct. 385, 139 L.Ed. 2d 300 (1997) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ; B u s h v. State, 695 So. 2d 70, 131 ( A l a . C r . App. 1995), a f f ' d , 695 So. 2d 138 ( A l a . 1997), cert. d e n i e d , 522 U.S. 969, 118 S.Ct. 418, 139 L.Ed. 2d 320 (1997) (citations omitted). 'The r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n i s whether the prosecutor's comments "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the r e s u l t i n g c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l of due process."' Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S . C t . 2 4 6 4 , 2 4 7 1 , 91 L . E d . 2 d 144 (1986), q u o t i n g D o n n e l l y v. D e C h r i s t o f o r o , 416 U.S. 637, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). Comments made by the p r o s e c u t o r m u s t be e v a l u a t e d i n the context of the whole trial. D u r e n v . S t a t e , 590 So. 2 d 360, 364 ( A l a . C r . App. 1990), a f f ' d , 590 So. 2 d 369 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 503 U.S. 974, 112 S.Ct. 182 CR-07-0443 1594, 118 L . E d . 2 d 310 (1992). 'Prosecutorial misconduct i s subject to a harmless error a n a l y s i s . ' B u s h v . S t a t e , 695 S o . 2d a t 131 (citations omitted); S m i t h v . S t a t e , 698 S o . 2 d a t 2 0 3 "'Simmons v. State, 797 So. 2d 1134, 1161-62 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) ( o p i n i o n on return t o remand). We must view the c h a l l e n g e d arguments i n t h e context of t h e e n t i r e t r i a l a n d n o t i n t h e a b s t r a c t . See D u r e n v . S t a t e , 590 S o . 2 d 3 6 0 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) ; W h i t l o w v . S t a t e , 509 So. 2 d 252 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1987). I t i s p r o p e r for a prosecutor t o argue any l e g i t i m a t e inference that may be drawn from the e v i d e n c e . See S n y d e r v . S t a t e , 893 So. 2 d 488 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003).' "11 So. 3d a t 302. "'"'While t h i s f a i l u r e t o object does n o t p r e c l u d e review in a capital case, i t does weigh a g a i n s t any c l a i m o f p r e j u d i c e . ' Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So. 2d [1106,] a t 1111 [ ( A l a . 1985) ] (emphasis i n original). 'This court has concluded that the failure to object t o improper prosecutorial arguments ... s h o u l d be w e i g h e d as p a r t o f o u r evaluation o f t h e c l a i m on t h e merits because of i t s suggestion that the defense d i d not consider the comments i n q u e s t i o n t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y h a r m f u l . ' Johnson v. W a i n w r i g h t , 778 F. 2 d 6 2 3 , 629 n . 183 CR-07-0443 6 (11th C i r . 1985), c e r t . denied, 484 U.S. 8 7 2 , 108 S. C t . 2 0 1 , 98 L . E d . 2 d 152 (1987)."' "Ex p a r t e W i n d s o r , 683 So. 2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1061 ( A l a . 1996) ( q u o t i n g K u e n z e l v . S t a t e , 577 So. 2 d 4 7 4 , 489 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1990)). " Vanpelt 3d v. State , [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 1 5 3 9 , D e c e m b e r 18, ( A l a . C r i m . App. With the Reynolds's 2009] So. 2009). aforementioned principles i n mind, we turn to specific allegations. A. Reynolds contends that the "prosecutor encouraged j u r y t o r e l y on i m p r o p e r e v i d e n c e i n c o n s i d e r i n g C h a d testimony." addressed lack (Reynolds's in Part VII brief, of at this 92-93.) T h i s Court's opinion the Martin's assertion and found was to merit. B. Reynolds for claims the strength closing argument (Reynolds's Reynolds of brief, quotes that the during at three the prosecutor State's the 93-94.) case improperly in the guilt-phase In a footnote a l l e g e d l y improper record. 184 of vouched prosecutor's the to his comments trial. argument, from the CR-07-0443 First, vouched State's "We Reynolds for rebuttal feel conclude very (Vol. -- R. of a and the the a we prosecutor State's feel reasonable reasonably case improperly during case doubt undisputed of that capital you that based evidence murder a l l and on in this nothing the stated: we also clear, case -¬ else." 1670.) Reynolds comment, a n d that c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t when t h e p r o s e c u t o r strongly, is clearly 12, strength beyond undisputed this the argues did we not f i n d no object plain to this purportedly e r r o r i n the improper comment. R u l e 45A, Ala.R.App.P. "'"'[I]t is not improper for [the prosecuting attorney] to argue or to express h i s o p i n i o n t h a t [the] a c c u s e d i s g u i l t y , w h e r e he s t a t e s , o r i t i s a p p a r e n t , t h a t s u c h o p i n i o n i s b a s e d s o l e l y on the e v i d e n c e . ' 23A C . J . S . C r i m i n a l Law § 1104, pp. 194-95 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . " G a l l o w a y v. S t a t e , 484 So. 2 d 1 1 9 9 , 1201 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . I n G a l l o w a y , a number o f c a s e s a r e c i t e d i n which the prosecuting attorney made comments stating his opinion that the a p p e l l a n t was guilty.'" " H e n d e r s o n v . S t a t e , 584 App. 1 9 8 8 ) , r e m a n d e d on 862 (Ala.1991)." B r o a d n a x v. State, 825 So. 2d So. 2 d 8 4 1 , 857 (Ala. Cr. o t h e r g r o u n d s , 584 So. 2d 134, 185 183 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000). CR-07-0443 Second, vouched Reynolds f o r the prosecutor argues strength argued that of the prosecutor the i n his rebuttal State's argument, improperly case when "because anybody w i t h any k i n d o f s e n s e w o u l d know t h a t y o u ' r e n o t g o i n g that c o c k and b u l l tried to s e l l Reynolds plain error. s t o r y t h e g u y g o t on t h e w i t n e s s t o you.'" ( V o l . X I I , R. d i d not object Rule to this the t o buy s t a n d and 1670-71.) c o m m e n t , a n d we find no 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . "The p r o s e c u t i o n i s e n t i t l e d t o ' s p o t l i g h t t h e defense's s t r a t e g y , ' and a p r o s e c u t o r ' s remarks d u r i n g c l o s i n g argument p o i n t i n g out t h e f l a w s i n t h e d e f e n s e ' s t h e o r y o f t h e c a s e do n o t c o n s t i t u t e improper argument. 'During closing argument, t h e p r o s e c u t o r , as w e l l as d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , has a r i g h t to present h i s impressions from the evidence, i f reasonable, and may argue every legitimate i n f e r e n c e . ' R u t l e d g e v . S t a t e , 523 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 7 , 1 1 0 0 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 523 S o . 2 d 1118 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . The remarks c o m p l a i n e d o f by t h e a p p e l l a n t were p a r t o f the prosecutor's l e g i t i m a t e argument that the evidence d i d not support the defense's theory that t h e r o b b e r y o f J o h n s o n was a 'mere a f t e r t h o u g h t . ' We f i n d no e r r o r h e r e , p l a i n o r o t h e r w i s e . " Reeves v. S t a t e , cert. denied, 807 S o . 2 d 1 8 , 4 5 - 4 6 534 U.S. We h a v e c a r e f u l l y which i t occurred. 1026 App. 2000), (2001). reviewed Contrary (Ala. Crim. t h e comment i n t h e c o n t e x t i n to Reynolds's 186 allegation, we do CR-07-0443 not of the believe that the prosecutor the State's case prosecutor was closing argument b y t h e comment. merely that the presence f o r the strength Rather, replying to i t appears defense evidence to help at the scene only cover of that counsel's established of the crimes R e y n o l d s was a t t h e s c e n e girlfriend's was v o u c h i n g the that up h i s triple- murder/robbery. 3. Likewise, comment: we find "The o n l y murder. Not a n y t h i n g of capital no plain appropriate less. error verdict i n the i s guilty I f you a r e n o t g o i n g murder, j u s t l e t him go." prosecutor's of capital t o c o n v i c t him ( V o l . X I I , R. 1685.) "'"Generally, the prosecutor is i n error by e x h o r t i n g t h e j u r y t o 'do w h a t ' s r i g h t , ' o r t o 'do i t s j o b , ' i f that exhortation 'impl[ies] that, i n o r d e r t o do s o , i t c a n o n l y r e a c h a c e r t a i n v e r d i c t , r e g a r d l e s s o f i t s d u t y t o weigh t h e e v i d e n c e and f o l l o w t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e l a w . ' " M c N a i r v . S t a t e , 653 S o . 2 d 3 2 0 , 3 3 9 - 4 0 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) , a f f ' d , 653 S o . 2 d 353 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , quoting A r t h u r v . S t a t e , 575 So. 2d 1 1 6 5 , 1185 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1990 ) . H o w e v e r , i t i s not improper for a p r o s e c u t o r to argue t o the j u r y that a defendant i s g u i l t y or t o urge the j u r y to f i n d the defendant g u i l t y o f t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d so l o n g as t h a t argument i s b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e ; i n fact, that i s exactly what a p r o s e c u t o r i s s u p p o s e d t o do d u r i n g c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t . S e e G a l l o w a y v . S t a t e , 484 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 9 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986), and t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . S e e a l s o B r o a d n a x v . S t a t e , 825 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 , 187 CR-07-0443 183 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) , a f f ' d , 825 S o . 2 d 233 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , a n d M e l s o n v . S t a t e , 775 So. 2 d 8 5 7 , 8 8 9 - 9 0 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 775 So. 2 d 904 (Ala. 2000)." M o r r i s v. S t a t e , , So. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 372, The the [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 1 9 9 7 , F e b r u a r y 5, 2 0 1 0 ] 420 2010), quoting Minor ( A l a . C r i m . App. v. State, 3d 914 2004). prosecutor's exhortation evidence presented during So. to the j u r y the was based upon trial. 4 In refers a fourth this argument. 43.) We context of Court have reviewed of the opening State's the at alleged argument, vouching, outlining Reynolds of the p r o s e c u t o r ' s opening 94, citing V o l . V I I , R. improper and we find comments no in the error. credibility the p r o s e c u t o r was w h a t he e x p e c t e d t h e e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e . See 906 So. 2 d 2 1 0 , other grounds, Ex Instead, plain 841¬ interpretation, not i m p r o p e r l y v o u c h i n g f o r the w i t n e s s , A d r i a n West. B a k e r v. S t a t e , r e v ' d on 2004). improper Ala.R.App.P. C o n t r a r y to Reynolds's p r o s e c u t o r was simply of to t h r e e pages (Reynolds's b r i e f R u l e 45A, the allegation 266-67 ( A l a . C r i m . App. parte Baker, 188 906 So. 2d 277 2001), (Ala. CR-07-0443 Reynolds opening as cites and c l o s i n g support several portions of arguments a t t h e g u i l t f o rh i s allegation that the prosecutor's phase o f t h e t r i a l "throughout the t r i a l the p r o s e c u t o r sought t o i n f l a m e the j u r y ' s p a s s i o n s . " brief, at 94-95.) (Reynolds's 2 6 "We h a v e c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w e d the prosecutor's e n t i r e c l o s i n g argument d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y phase o f Floyd's t r i a l , paying p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n to the context of the prosecutor's remarks quoted i n F l o y d ' s b r i e f . B a s e d on t h a t r e v i e w , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s remarks a t t h e p e n a l t y phase o f F l o y d ' s t r i a l w e r e made i n t h e h e a t o f d e b a t e , w e r e p r o p e r c o m m e n t s on f a c t s i n e v i d e n c e , w e r e i n reply to various remarks made during defense c o u n s e l ' s c l o s i n g argument, and were n o t i m p r o p e r l y designed to inflame the passions of the jury. T h e r e f o r e , no b a s i s f o r r e v e r s a l e x i s t s . " Floyd v. S t a t e , 3d , in [Ms. C R - 0 5 - 0 9 3 5 , (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). F l o y d , we f i n d no p l a i n Reynolds belittled contends him during September 28, 2007] Based upon t h e r a t i o n a l e error i n the prosecutor's that the So. prosecutor cross-examination comments. improperly of him at the g u i l t I n support of h i s contention, Reynolds c i t e s p o r t i o n s of the p r o s e c u t o r ' s argument from pages 830, 831, 838, and 1219¬ 20 o f t h e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l ; h o w e v e r , o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e l a s t p u r p o r t e d l y i m p r o p e r q u o t e was f o u n d on pages 1619-20, n o t on pages 1219-20 as s e t o u t i n Reynolds's brief. 2 6 189 CR-07-0443 phase of the prosecutor's part XIV trial. (Reynolds's c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n of of t h i s opinion and brief, Reynolds found at to lack The addressed was 95.) in merit. E. Reynolds various argues points that the p r o s e c u t o r m i s s t a t e d i n the t r i a l . (Reynolds's b r i e f , the law at at 95-97.) 1 First, Reynolds alleges d e f i n e d r e a s o n a b l e doubt dire of the reasonable you have venire doubt, a (Reynolds's b r i e f , the p r o s e c u t o r incorrectly to the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s d u r i n g panels i n part, reason, that is a when the as follows: fair doubt, a t 9 5 - 9 6 , c i t i n g R. prosecutor "'[A] a doubt substantial 495, 496, 564, basis at trial, voir defined to which doubt'" 656, and 747.) Reynolds d i d not f i n d no p l a i n e r r o r . "fair doubt," explain Lee v. on this The u s e o f t h e t e r m s "doubt the concept G r e e n h i l l v. 1999); and object State, State, f o r which you of r e a s o n a b l e doubt 746 898 So. So. 2d 1064, 2d 190 790, "substantial have i s not a and we doubt," reason," improper. to See 1069-71 (Ala. Crim. App. 841-42 (Ala. Crim. App. CR-07-0443 2003), cert. U.S. 924 denied, (2004). 898 S o . 2 d 874 ( A l a . ) , cert. d e n i e d , 543 Furthermore: "Our r e v i e w o f t h e s t a t e ' s v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n l e a d s us t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r p r o v i d e d his ' d e f i n i t i o n ' of r e a s o n a b l e doubt t o a s s i s t him in learning the veniremembers' opinions on t h e s t a t e ' s b u r d e n o f p r o o f . We do n o t f i n d a n y p l a i n e r r o r i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n . Moreover, the t r i a l court r e p e a t e d l y i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y t h a t t h e comments a n d arguments o f c o u n s e l were n o t t h e l a w and t h a t t h e y should follow only h i s instructions on t h e l a w . T h u s , we f i n d no p l a i n e r r o r . " Broadnax v. S t a t e , 825 S o . 2 d a t 1 8 0 . 2 Second, "improperly Reynolds directed maintains the jury aggravating factors." the prosecutor venire panels during at the g u i l t (Reynolds's R. to vote for life the voir phase brief, at 96.) c i t e s two s t a t e m e n t s dire of the of the t r i a l made d u r i n g t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s c l o s i n g phase o f t h e t r i a l . prosecutor f a c t o r s would have t o outweigh support of t h i s a l l e g a t i o n , Reynolds by the that i n order [imprisonment], the m i t i g a t i n g the that argument In made individual a n d a comment at the penalty ( V o l . V I , R. 4 9 0 , V I I , R. 7 4 2 ; V o l . XIII, 1969.) Reynolds d i d not object to these allegedly improper c o m m e n t s ; t h u s , we r e v i e w t h e m f o r p l a i n e r r o r o n l y . R u l e 4 5 A , 191 CR-07-0443 Ala.R.App.P. regarding Whatever the misstatements with unfairness as t o make t h e r e s u l t i n g c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f d u e process.'" d i d not "'so i n f e c t [ ] Vanpelt, So. 3d a t the penalty evidence. court ( V o l . X I I I , R. 1 9 8 4 - 8 5 , 8 8 - 9 2 . ) correctly charged (Vol. XIII, R. trial court's 352 the 1995), occurred, jury Jurors instructions. denied, a n d no basis v. (citing of the circumstances. to follow the State, Taylor 940 S o . 2 d v. S t a t e , on r e t u r n t o remand, 1994), 516 U.S. the c i r c u i t the weighing See I r v i n App. 2005) App. on s a i d was n o t Further, a r e presumed ( A l a .Crim. App.), ( A l a . Crim. cert. charged the j u r y and t h e m i t i g a t i n g 1998-99.) ( A l a . Crim. S o . 2 d 3 6 , 70 71 court phase t h a t what t h e a t t o r n e y s circumstances 2d the t r i a l . The c i r c u i t aggravating 331, aggravating made mitigating at the of prosecutor and circumstances weighing the aff'd, 1120 666 So. (1996)). for reversal 2d No exists 666 666 S o . 73 ( A l a . plain regarding error this claim. 3 Reynolds closing avers argument prosecutor that at misstated the during guilt t h e l a w on 192 the prosecutor's phase of the the concept of rebuttal trial, the "voluntary CR-07-0443 intoxication" intoxication citing this Vol. when i s never XII, comment; only. Rule As that, "'voluntary (Reynolds's b r i e f , a t 96, R. 1 6 7 2 . ) R e y n o l d s d i d n o t o b j e c t we review t h e comment above, t h e c i r c u i t what t h e a t t o r n e y s court voluntary a defense.'" citing thus, stated for plain to error 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . stated circuit the prosecutor court charged s t a t e d was n o t e v i d e n c e . correctly intoxication charged i s never the a the jury that Furthermore, the jury that to defense "[w]hile criminal a c h a r g e , i t may n e g a t e t h e s p e c i f i c intent that i s essential to an i tto other charges." ( V o l . intentional killing XII, R. 1 7 1 6 . ) S e e § 1 3 A - 3 - 2 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 . S e e a l s o v. State, cert. to 922 follow of "'so So. 2d 938, 953-54 (Ala. Crim. App. Flowers 2005.), d e n i e d , 546 U.S. 1177 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . A g a i n , j u r o r s a r e p r e s u m e d the t r i a l After the entire infected 3d reversal court's reviewing resulting So. and reduce at the prosecutor's trial, we the trial conviction . No instructions. are not persuaded with a denial plain comment unfairness that as o f due p r o c e s s . ' " error exists. 193 occurred, i n the context t h e comment to make the Vanpelt, a n d no basis for CR-07-0443 4 Reynolds defense alleges that witness i n the during the cross-examination penalty and phase of improperly the trial, the "prosecutor incorrectly [Reynolds's] u p b r i n g i n g was n o t m i t i g a t i n g b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t d i r e c t l y cause h i m t o commit t h e c r i m e . " p. 96, c i t i n g During Vol. XIII, R. father, Harold the the following trial, (Reynolds's that brief, at 1862.) the prosecutor's Reynolds's insinuated of a cross-examination Reynolds, exchange of at the penalty Michael phase o f occurred: "Q. [ P R O S E C U T O R ] : A s f a r a s y o u h a v i n g t o t e l l this jury this morning that i f this crime got c o m m i t t e d b y h i m , t h a t i t was b e c a u s e o f t h e way y o u r a i s e d h i m , y o u d o n ' t f e e l t h a t w a y , do y o u ? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Y o u r Honor, I o b j e c t t o t h a t q u e s t i o n . E x c u s e me, M r . R e y n o l d s . We a r e n o t s a y i n g b e c a u s e o f t h e way he was r a i s e d h e c o m m i t t e d t h i s c r i m e . We a r e o f f e r i n g i t f o r m i t i g a t i o n t o w e i g h the punishment. There i s a d i s t i n c t i o n . "THE COURT: Sustained. "THE PROSECUTOR: (Vol. XIII, As before sustained That's along. all." 1862-63.) evidenced objected court R. Move by the above the question defense was counsel's 194 excerpt, defense counsel answered, and t h e circuit objection. Even s o , as CR-07-0443 addressed above, t h e c i r c u i t on t h e c o n c e p t the context as the jury question a r g u m e n t , we do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e "so i n f e c t e d t o make t h e r e s u l t i n g Vanpelt, charged o f a g g r a v a t i n g and m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . In of the entire prosecutor's court correctly the t r i a l with unfairness c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f due p r o c e s s . " So. 3d a t . F In a one-paragraph convictions imposed a r e due t o be leading questions brief, a t 97.) He t h e n record where Reynolds the this three prosecutor counsel instance, this purportedly not to lead the the Court (Reynolds's t o 21 p l a c e s supposedly 3 o f t h e 21 c i t e d circuit court to strike the Court d i d not rule on On two o f instructed (R. 9 1 5 , 9 5 1 . ) the answers. 2 7 instances of questions. d i d n o t move i nthe occurred. leading the witness. that h i s "prosecutor the t r i a l . " conduct to only suggests because throughout refers instances, Reynolds reversed "egregious" objected prosecutor's those argument, On the defense the Defense the third counsel's R e y n o l d s c i t e s t h e f o l l o w i n g pages f r o m t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l : 915, 951, 1078, 1493-94, 1256, 1260, 1262, 1266, 1270, 1273, 1275, 1281-84, 1289, 1304, 1352, 1354, 1357-58, 1367, 1384-85, 1394, 1412. 2 7 195 CR-07-0443 objection; appeal. As we t h u s , t h e r e was (R. in presented r e m a i n i n g 18 Broadnax, His in his brief string allegedly "[b]ecause [Reynolds's] s i n c e r i t y 170. from the Court to 1078.) to the said no a d v e r s e r u l i n g to this to the C o u r t , we i n making citation of improper way questions, this Reynolds does question t h i s a r g u m e n t . " 825 So. 2 d a t numerous allegedly improper, o r how questions. We will Egbuonu v. S t a t e , Nevertheless, the in pages not 993 not specify he was create pages from our p l a i n - e r r o r r e f e r e n c e d by ( A l a . C r i m . App. prejudiced 38-39 Reynolds, Lee and v. the record Ala.R.App.P. questions by the argument we find State, no 898 were improper for ( A l a . C r i m . App. review necessarily the p r o s e c u t o r ' s q u e s t i o n s . 827 which Reynolds's So. 2 d 3 5 , is seriously does n o t meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , Likewise, issue as him. 2007). encompassed plain So. error 2d 790, "the p r o s e c u t o r i m p l i e d to the jury 2001) G. Reynolds alleges that that [he] was trial would citing guilty require V o l . V I , R. of c a p i t a l two murder by phases." 570-71, (Reynolds's V o l V I I , R. 196 telling 662.) i t that brief, at the 97, CR-07-0443 There the i s no record merit cited explaining the proceedings as no plain by in object error. could determining comments Rule to not Lee, of Alabama 13A-5-43, ... as impose So. 2d was Ala. of simply Code 1975. comments, and we prosecutor's questions regarding the p e n a l t y and whether or explained t o them in i t was the death penalty" [Reynolds's] at portion capital-murder A l a . R . A p p . P . The destroy 898 the prosecutor about the death law In prosecutor's 45A, f o l l o w the "did § r e l e v a n t to the whether innocence." the to the veniremember's b e l i e f s they contention. Reynolds, codified " e x p l a n a t i o n was not this b i f u r c a t e d nature Reynolds d i d not find to and the presumption of 834. XVI. Reynolds argues victim-impact the Ex denied, addressed State improperly evidence to the jury during brief, Issue XIV, parte 516 U.S. Rieber, 663 995 (1995), So. 2d the 999 this the at introduced guilt phase 1995), cert. Supreme Court improperly injected d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l . c l a i m , the Supreme C o u r t 197 of 98-101.) (Ala. Alabama a c l a i m t h a t the p r o s e c u t i o n had victim-impact evidence rejecting the (Reynolds's trial. In that reasoned: In CR-07-0443 "We a g r e e w i t h R i e b e r t h a t Mr. C r a i g ' s t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g Ms. C r a i g ' s c h i l d r e n , t h e i r a g e s , a n d t h e s t a t u s of t h e i r custody a f t e r t h e m u r d e r was not r e l e v a n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o the q u e s t i o n of h i s g u i l t or innocence and, therefore, that i t was i n a d m i s s i b l e i n the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l . The only i s s u e before the j u r y d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of t h e t r i a l was w h e t h e r R i e b e r h a d r o b b e d a n d killed Ms. C r a i g . H o w e v e r , i n E x p a r t e C r y m e s , 630 So. 2d 125 (Ala. 1993), a p l u r a l i t y of t h i s Court h e l d i n a c a p i t a l murder case i n which the defendant was sentenced to life-imprisonment without parole that a j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n c a n be u p h e l d i f t h e r e c o r d c o n c l u s i v e l y shows t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e v i c t i m impact e v i d e n c e d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l d i d not a f f e c t the outcome of the t r i a l or o t h e r w i s e p r e j u d i c e a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t . See, a l s o , G i l e s v . S t a t e , 632 So. 2 d 568 (Ala. Crim. A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) , a f f ' d , 632 So. 2 d 577 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 512 U.S. 1 2 1 3 , 114 S. C t . 2 6 9 4 , 129 L . E d . 2d 825 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; E x p a r t e P a r k e r , 610 So. 2 d 1181 (Ala. 1 9 9 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 509 U.S. 9 2 9 , 113 S . C t . 3053, 125 L . E d . 2 d 737 (1993); Lawhorn v. S t a t e , supra; H o o k s v . S t a t e , 534 So. 2 d 329 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987), a f f ' d , 534 So. 2 d 371 (Ala. 1988), cert. d e n i e d , 488 U.S. 1050, 109 S. C t . 8 8 3 , 102 L . E d . 2d 1005 (1989); and Ex parte Whisenhant, supra, applying a harmless e r r o r a n a l y s i s i n death penalty cases. Our review of the record indicates that Rieber's a t t o r n e y s d i d n o t o b j e c t t o Mr. Craig's b r i e f r e f e r e n c e s t o Ms. C r a i g ' s c h i l d r e n o r a s k him a n y q u e s t i o n s on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . The t r i a l c o u r t clearly instructed the jury that i t had to d e t e r m i n e , b a s e d on a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e , whether R i e b e r h a d r o b b e d a n d k i l l e d Ms. C r a i g . The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i t c o u l d not f i n d Rieber guilty unless the prosecutor had established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was also i n s t r u c t e d not t o l e t sympathy or p r e j u d i c e a f f e c t its verdict. We caution prosecutors that the i n t r o d u c t i o n of v i c t i m impact evidence d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of a c a p i t a l murder t r i a l can r e s u l t i n 198 CR-07-0443 r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i f the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t probably d i s t r a c t e d the jury and kept i t from performing i t s duty of d e t e r m i n i n g the g u i l t or i n n o c e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t b a s e d on t h e a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e and the a p p l i c a b l e law. However, after e x a m i n i n g t h e r e c o r d i n i t s e n t i r e t y , we conclude that the aforementioned portions o f Mr. Craig's testimony, although they should not have been p e r m i t t e d , d i d not operate t o deny R i e b e r a fair t r i a l . I t i s p r e s u m e d t h a t j u r o r s do n o t l e a v e t h e i r common s e n s e at the courthouse door. It would e l e v a t e f o r m o v e r s u b s t a n c e f o r u s t o h o l d , b a s e d on the r e c o r d b e f o r e us, t h a t R i e b e r d i d not r e c e i v e a f a i r t r i a l s i m p l y because the j u r o r s were t o l d what they p r o b a b l y had a l r e a d y s u s p e c t e d - t h a t Ms. Craig was n o t a 'human i s l a n d , ' b u t a u n i q u e i n d i v i d u a l w h o s e m u r d e r h a d i n e v i t a b l y h a d a p r o f o u n d i m p a c t on her children, spouse, parents, friends, or dependents (paraphrasing a portion of Justice S o u t e r ' s o p i n i o n c o n c u r r i n g i n the judgment i n Payne v . T e n n e s s e e , 501 U.S. 808, 838, 111 S. C t . 2 5 9 7 , 2615, 115 L . E d . 2 d 720 (1991))." 663 So. 2d at Mindful applicable discussed 1005-06. of the to in above allegedly issue XV, and the previously improper we turn discussed prosecutorial to Reynolds's law comments specific allegations. In a two-sentence "prosecution families was were falsely argument, i n d i c a t e d to p a r t i e s to representing them this Reynolds the case against 199 and [him]. asserts jury that that the the (Reynolds's that the victims' prosecution brief, at CR-07-0443 98.) In support instances We of h i s argument, i n the record have reviewed R e y n o l d s . One where the statement he this refers this Court to supposedly occurred. portions of the record of the by o c c u r r e d d u r i n g opening argument; the error. j u r y panels. Reynolds allegedly Rule improper 45A, 2 8 cited r e m a i n i n g comments o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s v o i r of the i n d i v i d u a l 10 comments, Ala.R.App.P. d i d not object and we In the c i t e d find t o any no portions dire plain of the r e c o r d , t h e p r o s e c u t o r was e x p l a i n i n g t o t h e v e n i r e m e m b e r s t h e importance family, of the t r i a l and the State. 276, 287 ( A l a . Crim. 583 So. 2d 305 (1992)(finding at the g u i l t family, the proceedings to Reynolds, See App. Henderson 1990), ( A l a . 1991), no p l a i n error aff'd, cert. State, Ex parte denied, 583 So. 2d Henderson, 503 U.S. 908 i n the prosecutor's mentioning phase "the importance of the case to the v i c t i m ' s the s u f f e r i n g of the f a m i l y , family v. the v i c t i m s ' [ a n d ] t h a t he r e p r e s e n t e d " ) . B. L i k e w i s e , we f i n d no p l a i n e r r o r i n R e y n o l d s ' s that during voir dire, opening and a question Reynolds c i t e s the f o l l o w i n g pages from the r e c o r d : 557-58, 575-76, 585, 648, 665, 673, 732, 829. 2 8 556, statement, allegation 200 483, CR-07-0443 propounded focused crime 99, to a State's the jury's witness a t t e n t i o n i n the g u i l t a f f e c t e d the victims' citing "the prosecutor V o l . V I , R. families." phase errantly on how (Reynolds's the brief, 647 ; V o l . V I I , 830 ; V o l . I X , R. at 901, respectively.) R e y n o l d s d i d n o t o b j e c t t o any o f t h e a l l e g e d l y comments. We which they infected have reviewed occurred, the t r i a l conviction t h e comments a n d we do n o t f i n d with unfairness i n the context and closing argument regarding R. (Reynolds's 1 6 1 9 ; V o l . X I I , R. object to these we find been no the j u r y . "We So. 3d a t old in voir the victim of the t r i a l were a t 9 9 , c i t i n g V o l V I I , R. 7 3 2 ; X I , 1669, r e s p e c t i v e l y . ) R e y n o l d s d i d not a l l e g e d r e f e r e n c e s on t h i s b a s i s a t t r i a l , plain a teenager brief resulting references how Savannah M a r t i n would have been a t t h e time improper. the Vanpelt, Reynolds argues that the prosecutor's dire in t h a t t h e comments "so a s t o make a d e n i a l o f due p r o c e s s . " improper error. The at the time fact that of t r i a l cannot reasonably 201 Savannah was conclude would an o b v i o u s and have fact to that the prosecutor's CR-07-0443 comments context into in of this the entire question Rieber, 663 particular the So. case, trial, were correctness 2d at when so of considered prejudicial the in as verdict." the to Ex call parte 1014. D. In a one-paragraph portions of because the sympathy, Vol. XI, many the R. other prosecutor's argument not the 1616, issues, portions specify which of context merely closing of the of the j u r y . " brief, he We does State, citing Court not even the argument and to So. so to reviewed "improperly designed F l o y d v. upon done w i t h have closing improper 99, this He that based at has argument. entire were verdict refers egregious. f i n d t h a t t h e a r g u m e n t was the p a s s i o n s guilty 1 6 2 5 . ) As Reynolds comments were comments i n t h e a contends argument (Reynolds's 1619, the Reynolds closing solicited evidence. 1615, various not argument, do inflame 3d a t . E Reynolds also introduced autopsy crime scene, contained and dried argues that the prosecutor photographs of the v i c t i m s , a fitted blood. sheet from (Reynolds's 202 the improperly a video victims' brief, at bed of the that 100-01.) He CR-07-0443 maintains that cumulative the evidence and because was inadmissible i t constituted because improper i t was victim-impact evidence. We find admission no abuse evidence, evidence as t h a t e v i d e n c e was "relevant the victims "neither unduly did not to depict suffered prejudicial [Ms. C R - 0 5 - 1 7 6 7 , (Ala. Contrary term i s normally injuries So. discretion of the evidence. aforementioned State, of 2d 1128, 1151-1152 to Reynolds's constitute and t h e c r i m e nor See a l s o ( A l a .Crim. claim, Further, and e x t e n t scene[]" inflammatory." 13, court's 2009] the of the and was Billups v. So. 3d S t a l l w o r t h v. S t a t e , App. the victim-impact interpreted. the nature November C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . i n the c i r c u i t , 868 2001.) XVII. Reynolds several the errors trial. object 2 9 contends that the circuit court committed i n i t sjury i n s t r u c t i o n s i n the g u i l t (Reynolds's b r i e f , t o any o f t h e a l l e g e d Issue XII.) Reynolds errors at t r i a l . phase of d i d not Accordingly, we Reynolds a l s o a l l e g e s that the c i r c u i t court committed several errors i n i t s penalty-phase i n s t r u c t i o n s . These a l l e g a t i o n s are addressed i n the p o r t i o n of t h i s opinion addressing the penalty-phase issues. 2 9 203 CR-07-0443 will review h i s assertions forplain error only. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. "'When r e v i e w i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s , we m u s t v i e w t h e m a s a w h o l e , not i n b i t s and p i e c e s , and as a r e a s o n a b l e j u r o r w o u l d have i n t e r p r e t e d them.' J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 820 S o . 2 d 8 4 2 , 874 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 20 0 0 ) . "'A t r i a l c o u r t h a s b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n when f o r m u l a t i n g i t s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s . S e e W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 611 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 9 , 1 1 2 3 (Ala. C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) . When r e v i e w i n g a t r i a l court's i n s t r u c t i o n s , "'the court's c h a r g e must be t a k e n as a w h o l e , a n d t h e p o r t i o n s c h a l l e n g e d a r e n o t t o be i s o l a t e d therefrom or taken out of context, but rather considered together.'" Self v. S t a t e , 620 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 , 113 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1992) ( q u o t i n g P o r t e r v . S t a t e , 520 S o . 2 d 2 3 5 , 237 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ) ; s e e a l s o B e a r d v . S t a t e , 612 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 5 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ; A l e x a n d e r v . S t a t e , 601 S o . 2 d 1130 ( A l a . C r . App. 1992).' "Williams v. State, App. 1999)." Vanpelt, With specific 7 9 5 S o . 2 d 7 5 3 , 780 ( A l a . C r i m . So. 3d a t these . principles i n mind, we turn to Reynolds's a l l e g a t i o n s of error. A. Reynolds reversal when contends i t charged that the the jury 204 circuit during court the g u i l t erred to phase o f CR-07-0443 the trial that every element' the jury " ' d i d n o t h a v e t o go t h r o u g h e a c h a n d f o r each count because t h e r e s u l t s w o u l d be t h e same f o r c o u n t s t w o , t h r e e a n d f i v e . " (Reynolds's b r i e f , Issue XII(A), that a t 87-88.) Reynolds argues i m p r o p e r l y reduced the State's burden the elements of the robbery/murder Contrary to Reynolds's are the c i r c u i t State of i t s burden offenses Those charged counts 40(a)(2), by i n counts contention, A l a . Code Reynolds, instructions when t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s charge, i ti s clear d i d not r e l i e v e element the of the c a p i t a l I I , I I I , and V o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t . Reynolds during regard to charges. of p r o v i n g each charged murder committed cited court's instructions of proof with reviewed i n the context of the e n t i r e that these with the c a p i t a l offense of t h e c o u r s e o f a r o b b e r y . See § 13A-5- 1975. D u r i n g the c i r c u i t the portion court was of the simply charge explaining t h a t t h e r o b b e r y c o m p o n e n t o f t h e c h a r g e was t h e same f o r e a c h count; of the difference b e t w e e n t h e t h r e e c o u n t s was t h e v i c t i m t h e m u r d e r . The C o u r t was n o t i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y t h a t t h e State d i d n o t have robbery/homicide to prove charged the robbery i n counts indictment. 205 component of the I I , I I I , and V of the CR-07-0443 Reynolds told maintains the jury that defendant a circuit i s a 'doubt (Reynolds's asserts the a r e a s o n a b l e doubt t o an a c q u i t t a l reason." Reynolds that that brief, this court would that "improperly e n t i t l e the to which Issue instruction you can XII(B), at assign 88-89.) improperly permitted a c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d u p o n i n s u f f i c i e n t p r o o f . A s we h e l d i n L e e v . State, 8 98 So. 2d 790, denied, 8 98 So. 2d 874 842 ( A l a . Crim. (Ala.), cert. App. denied, 2001), 543 cert. U.S. 924 (2004): "Taken as a whole, the trial court's instructions i n this case p r o p e r l y conveyed the c o n c e p t o f r e a s o n a b l e doubt t o t h e j u r y and d i d n o t l e s s e n the S t a t e ' s burden of p r o o f . There i s not a reasonable l i k e l i h o o d that the jury applied the instructions i n a manner t h a t w o u l d v i o l a t e the a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . T h e r e f o r e , we do n o t f i n d t h a t t h e r e was a n y p l a i n e r r o r i n t h i s regard." Reynolds during the argues guilt that phase the circuit "unduly court's emphasized interest i n t h e outcome o f t h e case invaded the province of the jury." XII(C), a t 89.) R e y n o l d s defendant's ... a n d a s s u c h i m p r o p e r l y (Reynolds's b r i e f , i s d u e no r e l i e f 206 the instructions on t h i s Issue claim. CR-07-0443 The circuit pertinent court appropriately charged the jury, in part: " L a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , t h e d e f e n d a n t may t e s t i f y a s a w i t n e s s on h i s own b e h a l f , w h i c h he d i d i n t h i s case. A n d when he d o e s s o , y o u may c o n s i d e r t h e testimony of the defendant along with a l l the other evidence in light of the f a c t s t h a t he i s t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d t h e i n t e r e s t he h a s i n y o u r v e r d i c t . T h i s i s t o be t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o g e t h e r w i t h a l l of the other evidence or lack of evidence." (Vol. X I I , R. 1793-94.) ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d . ) The c i r c u i t i n s t r u c t i o n s d i d n o t mandate t h a t t h e j u r y c o n s i d e r interest in the outcome of i n s t r u c t i o n s d i d not invade v. State, the case; thus, Reynolds's the the province of the jury. 606 S o . 2 d 1 7 0 , 1 7 0 - 7 1 ( A l a .Crim. App. court's Court's Phillips 1991). D Reynolds failed alleges that to charge the j u r y lesser-included 89-90.) the jury the jury offense. Reynolds an argues intoxication on manslaughter." the the circuit on t h e o f f e n s e (Reynolds's that corresponding (Reynolds's incorrectly o f m a n s l a u g h t e r as a brief, "although instruction, court Issue the t r i a l i t failed XII(D), at court to instruct lesser-included offense brief, at 89.) "A d e f e n d a n t i s entitled to a charge on a lesser-included offense only i f there i s any reasonable theory from the evidence to support the 207 gave of CR-07-0443 c h a r g e . E x p a r t e S m i t h , 756 So. 2 d 957 , 963 ( A l a . 2000). '[I]nstructions on intoxication and m a n s l a u g h t e r a r e n o t r e q u i r e d when t h e y w o u l d be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e d e f e n s e s t r a t e g y . ' Maples v. S t a t e , 758 So. 2 d a t 2 3 . " Pilley v. State, 930 So. 2d 550, R e y n o l d s ' s d e f e n s e was murders the that his There attempt girlfriend was simply recklessly the to caused victims while to may no that he help have been any to the evidence involved in indicating the death of the 2005). not p r e s e n t d u r i n g o n l y went hide evidence acting ( A l a . C r i m . App. t h a t he was o r t h e r o b b e r y and crimes 562 scene the of indicating the that crimes. Reynolds victims o r t h a t he killed i n a "sudden heat of p a s s i o n caused by p r o v o c a t i o n r e c o g n i z e d by law and, b e f o r e a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e for the p a s s i o n to cool 13A-6-3(a)(1) and error circuit in offense the and f o r reason to reassert ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. court's of manslaughter as not T h u s , we Penalty-Phase find c h a r g i n g the a lesser-included itself." § no jury plain on the offense. Issues XVIII. Reynolds instructed the contends jury that during the the circuit penalty court phase of improperly the B e c a u s e R e y n o l d s d i d n o t o b j e c t t o any o f t h e a l l e g e d 208 trial. improper CR-07-0443 instructions, Rule 45A, we r e v i e w Ala.R.Crim.P. forth i n Vanpelt, review his allegations forplain error each Mindful of So. 3d a t the applicable , i n Part XVII, of Reynolds's purported instances only. law s e t we w i l l now of error. A. Reynolds instructed have to alleges that determine court improperly the p e n a l t y phase t h a t the jury during i td i d not circumstances e x i s t e d b e c a u s e t h e c o u r t h a d a l r e a d y made t h a t determination. Brief, Issue the circuit aggravating (Reynolds's whether the X I I ( A ) , a t p. 88.) The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t t h e b e g i n n i n g phase of the t r i a l , of the penalty the p a r t i e s agreed t h a t by v i r t u e j u r y ' s g u i l t y v e r d i c t s , t h e f o l l o w i n g two a g g r a v a t i n g had been proven capital offense robbery, see § beyond a reasonable was c o m m i t t e d w h i l e 13A-5-49(4), doubt: (1) of the factors that the R e y n o l d s was e n g a g e d i n a A l a . Code 1975; and (2) that R e y n o l d s i n t e n t i o n a l l y c a u s e d t h e d e a t h o f two o r more p e r s o n s by one a c t o r p u r s u a n t t o one scheme o r c o u r s e § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 9 ) , A l a . Code of conduct, see 1 9 7 5 . See a l s o , § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975. I t f u r t h e r a p p e a r s t h a t f o r s t r a t e g i c defense s t i p u l a t e d that a t h i r d aggravating 209 reasons, f a c t o r was the proven CR-07-0443 beyond a reasonable doubt by the t h a t " [ t ] h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was or c r u e l compared other Ala. Code 1975. statutory The significant prior 1975. State of the t r i a l offenses, agreed to circumstance 1820-24, introduced The verdicts purposes for circuit trial: atrocious, 13A-5-49(8), of had Reynolds the no § 13A-5-51, A l a . Code 1830-31.) into evidence at penalty phase d u r i n g the g u i l t phase court adopted the of § at existence that a l l the evidence presented of the t r i a l . see the c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y , see ( V o l X I I , R. The e s p e c i a l l y heinous, capital State mitigating evidence presented the penalty the jury's five phase. (Vol. guilty XII, R. 1841-44.) During that i t s charge, the the aggravating circuit circumstance committed during a robbery murdered by act conduct had jury's phase one been guilty of the provides: convicting or and beyond verdicts for "[A]ny the those Section aggravating defendant § to a i n s t r u c t e d the that murder was o r more p e r s o n s were one scheme reasonable offenses establishes was or course doubt by of the during 13A-5-45(e), circumstance 210 the jury two that pursuant proven trial. court the guilt Ala. Code 1975, which the proven verdict beyond a CR-07-0443 reasonable doubt at t r i a l a reasonable circuit 74 of instructions law. (Ala. Crim. As c o n s i d e r e d as p r o v e n b e y o n d doubt f o r purposes of the court's statement s h a l l be See App. in sentence this C a l h o u n v. regard S t a t e , 932 hearing." were So. a 2d The correct 923, 973¬ 2005). p r e v i o u s l y noted, for strategic reasons, the defense a l s o s t i p u l a t e d t o the e x i s t e n c e of the s t a t u t o r y a g g r a v a t i n g factor t h a t the cruel when defense o f f e n s e was compared counsel's to especially other suggestion, the atrocious or offenses. capital heinous, Pursuant to circuit court s p e c i f i c a l l y inform the j u r y t h a t the defense had instructed testimony and and factual the the j u r y t h a t by v i r t u e evidence basis exists (Vol. X I I I , R. consistent with that in this r a t h e r , the of "the v e r d i c t , the case an e v i d e n t i a r y for that aggravating circumstance." 1 9 6 0 - 6 1 ; 1 9 8 9 - 9 1 . ) The i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y on a s t i p u l a t i o n b y t h e p a r t i e s a s t o the (Ala. o f an a g g r a v a t i n g Court. See Stewart Crim. App. v. agreement. circumstance State, 1996). 211 730 has So. The was of this parties' court's instruction practice existence the not "stipulated" to the e x i s t e n c e of t h i s a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance; Court did been approved 2d 1203, by 1227-29 CR-07-0443 Accordingly, error. Rule 45A, in light of these facts, we find no plain Ala.R.App.P. B. Reynolds words contends that "you" and "your" phase of the trial the circuit during i t s jury implied to the c o u r t ' s use charge jury of the i n the penalty that the jury's f i n d i n g s as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e had t o be unanimous considered. before the mitigating (Reynolds's b r i e f , evidence Issue XII(E), C o u r t a d d r e s s e d a n d r e j e c t e d an i d e n t i c a l State, we 979 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 , 1 6 5 - 6 7 have reviewed principles the Court's addressed Hall could a t 90-91.) the existence before Hall, find impression, of m i t i g a t i n g those mitigating 979 S o . 2 d a t 165 no e r r o r , plain that This argument i n H a l l v. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . F u r t h e r , entire and charge find i n light "'"nothing i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t would have suggested t o t h e j u r o r s , them be their findings in c o u l d be the or given concerning c i r c u m s t a n c e s h a d t o be circumstances of the the unanimous"'" considered. ( q u o t i n g o t h e r c a s e s ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we or otherwise, i n t h i s 212 regard. CR-07-0443 Last, jury the Reynolds argues that in asserts, the not consider The Court the penalty phase charge "allowed mercy." the the circuit was incorrect jury, charge because, to he jury to believe that i t could (Reynolds's b r i e f , charged the court's Issue i n relevant X I I ( F ) , at 91.) part: "Now, i n y o u r d e l i b e r a t i o n , ... do n o t l e t p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n s outweigh the law. Weigh the a g g r a v a t i n g and mitigating circumstances carefully and d i s p a s s i o n a t e l y . Do n o t b e s w a y e d b y a n g e r , s y m p a t h y o r p r e j u d i c e or any t y p e o f p a s s i o n or e m o t i o n . The w e i g h i n g and c o m p a r i n g of a g g r a v a t i n g and m i t i g a t i n g circumstances requires the exercise of sound judgment on your part. I t i s not a matter of unbridled d i s c r e t i o n . A human l i f e hangs i n the [balance] . I t i s a matter of calm r e f l e c t i o n , not f o r the i n d u l g e n c e of emotion." (Vol. X I I I , R. In 2007), U.S. Brown 2000-01.) v. aff'd, 11 , 129 S.Ct "the circuit that i t could State, So. 2864 court's not phase v e r d i c t . " 3d 11 933 3d (Ala. (2009), the 866, 921 2008), (Ala. Crim. cert. appellant i n s t r u c t i o n allowed consider We So. the denied, also argued jury to mercy i n d e t e r m i n i n g its held: "'Contrary to Perkins's contention, i t is well s e t t l e d i n Alabama that "[a] capital defendant is not automatically e n t i t l e d t o a m e r c y i n s t r u c t i o n . " B o y d v. S t a t e , 715 So. 2 d 8 2 5 , 846 (Ala. Cr. App. 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 715 So. 2 d 852 (Ala.), cert. 213 App. that believe penalty- CR-07-0443 denied, 525 U.S. 9 6 8 , 119 S . C t . 4 1 6 , 142 L . E d . 2 d 338 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . S e e a l s o , T a y l o r v . S t a t e , 666 S o . 2 d 36 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , aff'd, 666 S o . 2 d 73 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , cert. d e n i e d , 5 1 6 U.S. 1 1 2 0 , 116 S . C t . 9 2 8 , 133 L . E d . 2 d 856 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; R i e b e r v . S t a t e , 663 S o . 2 d 985 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , a f f ' d , 663 S o . 2 d 999 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 1 6 U.S. 995, 116 S.Ct. 531, 133 L.Ed. 2d 437 ( 1 9 9 5 ) . I n K u e n z e l v . S t a t e , 577 S o . 2 d 4 7 4 , 495 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f ' d , 577 S o . 2 d 531 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 502 U.S. 886, 112 S.Ct. 242, 116 L.Ed. 2d 197 (1991), this court stated that "[t]he Alabama p r o v i s i o n s f o r the i m p o s i t i o n of c a p i t a l p u n i s h m e n t nowhere m e n t i o n mercy." Here, the t r i a l court i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y t h a t i t s v e r d i c t s h o u l d be b a s e d o n l y on the evidence presented and t h e law as instructed by the court. The jury was instructed that i t "must avoid any influence of passion, prejudice or any o t h e r a r b i t r a r y f a c t o r . " (R. 3 0 0 7 - 0 8 . ) I n C a l i f o r n i a v . B r o w n , 479 U.S. 5 3 8 , 5 3 9 , 107 S . C t . 8 3 7 , 8 3 8 , 93 L . E d . 2 d 934 ( 1 9 8 7 ) , 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 t h a t "an instruction informing jurors that they 'must n o t b e s w a y e d b y m e r e sentiment, c o n j e c t u r e , sympathy, p a s s i o n , p r e j u d i c e , p u b l i c opinion or p u b l i c f e e l i n g ' during the p e n a l t y phase of a c a p i t a l murder t r i a l [does not violate] the Eighth and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Constitution.' " P e r k i n s v . S t a t e , 808 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 1 , 1 1 3 4 - 3 5 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , v a c a t e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , P e r k i n s v . A l a b a m a , 5 3 6 U.S. 9 5 3 , 122 S . C t . 2 6 5 3 , 153 L . E d . 2 d 830 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . F o r t h e a b o v e r e a s o n s , we f i n d n o plain error." 11 S o . 3d a t 47-48. See a l s o , V a n p e l t , 214 So. 3d a t . CR-07-0443 Accordingly, plain error with f o r the regard reasons to the set forth court's a b o v e , we find no instruction. XIX. Reynolds argues t h a t the improperly their diminished sentencing verdict in (Reynolds's object review the court determination" by penalty phase was XVII, at brief, and the prosecutor the j u r o r s ' "sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y Issue to these a l l e g e d l y his circuit argument stating an that the advisory 104.) plain error Reynolds only. jury's verdict. i m p r o p e r comments a t t r i a l . for did Thus, Rule Ala.R.App.P. "'We have r e p e a t e d l y stated that a t r i a l c o u r t does not d i m i n i s h the jury's r o l e by s t a t i n g that i t s verdict i n the p e n a l t y phase i s a recommendation or an a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t . T a y l o r v . S t a t e , 666 So. 2d 36 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , on r e m a n d , 666 So. 2d 71 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1994), a f f ' d , 666 So. 2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120, 116 S . C t . 928, 133 L . E d . 2d 856 (1996); B u r t o n v . S t a t e , 651 So. 2d 641 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) , a f f ' d , 651 So. 2d 659 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 514 U.S. 1115, 115 S . C t . 1973, 131 L . E d . 2d 862 (1995); W h i t e v . S t a t e , 587 So. 2d 1218 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f ' d , 587 So. 2d 1236 (Ala. 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 502 U.S. 1076, 112 S. C t . 979, 117 L . E d . 2d 142 ((992).' " S m i t h v. S t a t e , App. 2 00 0)." 795 So. 215 2d 788 , 837 (Ala. for Crim. not we 45A, CR-07-0443 Doster v. State , [Ms. CR-0 6 - 0 3 2 3 , (Ala. Crim. this July 30, App. 2 0 1 0 ) . R e y n o l d s 2010] So. 3d i s d u e no r e l i e f on claim. XX. Reynolds use argues that because of the evidence on t h e d a y o f t h e m u r d e r s , refused, without following capital any explanation, statutory offense was the c i r c u i t mitigating committed court to consider "[t]he criminality requirements 51(2) and brief, Issue The relevant capacity of of h i s conduct o f l a w was while circuit at defendant find that the "[t]he was under d i s t u r b a n c e " ; and to or to conform 1975, and the defendant substantially ( 6 ) , A l a . Code XVI(B), the erroneously circumstances: the i n f l u e n c e of extreme mental or emotional that of h i s drug appreciate h i s conduct impaired." the to the See § 1 3 A - 5 - respectively. (Reynolds's 102-04). court's sentencing order provided, part: "The Court i n determining, considering and weighing m i t i g a t i n g circumstances i n this case r e v i e w e d a l l s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s and also considered a l l of the m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s charged t o the j u r y i n the p e n a l t y phase of the t r i a l , and t h e a d d i t i o n a l m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f f e r e d b y t h e D e f e n d a n t on O c t o b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 a n d D e c e m b e r 6, 2 0 0 7 , a n d t h o s e o f f e r e d a t t r i a l . The 216 in CR-07-0443 Court also considered the contents of the 'Defendant's Motion f o r Court to Consider A t t a c h e d E x h i b i t s As A d d i t i o n a l M i t i g a t i o n E v i d e n c e a t t h e Sentencing Docket on December 6, 2007' and a l l e x h i b i t s a t t a c h e d t h e r e t o as s u b s t a n t i v e s u b m i s s i o n s i n support of the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances presented by t h e Defendant. "The C o u r t f i n d s no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t was a c t i n g u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f e x t r e m e m e n t a l o r e m o t i o n a l d i s t u r b a n c e o r t h a t he l a c k e d t h e c a p a c i t y to a p p r e c i a t e the c r i m i n a l i t y of h i s conduct or to conform h i s conduct to the requirements of the law." (Vol. I I , C. Pursuant all the to § forth particular 345, 13A-5-47(d), evidence 352.) the 3 0 circuit presented, but statutory i n § 13A-5-51(2) and court considered the mitigating ( 6 ) , A l a . Code Court did not circumstances 1975. Section A l a . Code, does not r e q u i r e t h e c o u r t t o e n t e r "explanation" as to statutory Furthermore, 490 338, e x i s t e n c e of the 13A-5-47(d), 2d 331, the m i t i g a t i n g find set 324, as (Ala. Crim. why i t d i d not mitigating we App. wrote find e x i s t e n c e of a circumstance. i n Beckworth 2005), the an cert. v. denied, State, 549 946 U.S. So. 1120 (2007): Crim. "In S i m m o n s [ v . S t a t e , 797 App. 2 0 0 0 ) ] , we a d d r e s s e d So. 2d 1134 whether the (Ala. trial As p r e v i o u s l y noted, the c i r c u i t c o u r t prepared w r i t t e n s e n t e n c i n g orders f o r each of the f i v e c o n v i c t i o n s . Reynolds r e c e i v e d o n l y one s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h f o r t h e f i v e c o n v i c t i o n s . 3 0 217 CR-07-0443 c o u r t h a d e r r e d when i t f o u n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f l a w was not s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p a i r e d and t h a t t h e § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 1 ( 6 ) m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e d i d n o t e x i s t . We stated: "'Conflicting e v i d e n c e was presented on Simmons's m e n t a l h e a l t h and h i s a b i l i t y t o a p p r e c i a t e the c r i m i n a l i t y of h i s c o n d u c t . Consequently, the determination of the existence of t h i s m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r was w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court. B a s e d on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , we cannot c o n c l u d e t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n not f i n d i n g the e x i s t e n c e of t h i s m i t i g a t i n g circumstance.' "797 So. 2d at 1183. "We further noted in Simmons the well-established p r i n c i p l e that a t r i a l court is required to consider a l l evidence offered in m i t i g a t i o n , but t h a t whether the e v i d e n c e i s found to be mitigating is within the trial judge's d i s c r e t i o n . 797 So. 2d a t 1 1 8 1 - 8 2 . See a l s o W a l d r o p v . S t a t e , 859 So. 2d 1138 , 1149 (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 0 0 ) , a f f ' d , 859 So. 2d 1181 (Ala. 2002). 946 So. 2d at We find 529. no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's f i n d i n g t h a t n e i t h e r of the m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s set in § 13A-5-51(2) and (6), A l a . Code 1975, existed. court improperly forth XXI. Reynolds argues t h a t the the aggravating circuit circumstances 218 and the weighed mitigating CR-07-0443 circumstances; should In be r e v e r s e d . support circuit is therefore, of he c o n t e n d s , h i s sentence of death (Reynolds's b r i e f , Issue XVI(A) at 102.) his assertion, he cites the portion of the c o u r t ' s sentencing order i n which the court wrote: " I t the opinion of t h i s Court that the m i t i g a t i n g heretofore enumerated are aggravating insufficient circumstances." ( V o l . I I , C. to circumstances outweigh the 325, 333, 340, 347, 354.) Section relevant 13A-5-47(e), Ala. Code 1975, provides, in part: "In d e c i d i n g upon t h e s e n t e n c e , t h e t r i a l court shall determine whether the aggravating circumstances i t finds to exist outweigh the mitigating circumstances i t finds to exist " (Emphasis In 1999), U.S. added.) Melson aff'd, 907 v. 775 (2001), that the c i r c u i t similar language State, So. this 2d 775 904 Court So. 2d 857 ( A l a . 2000), addressed c o u r t committed ( A l a . Crim. cert. and denied, rejected a 532 claim r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r when i t u s e d i n i t s s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r . We wrote: "Melson argues that the t r i a l court's statement ' i m p r o p e r l y c r e a t e d and a p p l i e d a p r e s u m p t i o n o f death' to h i s case. (Melson's brief, p. 10.) I n i t i a l l y we n o t e t h a t M e l s o n i s p r e s e n t i n g t h i s 219 App. CR-07-0443 c l a i m f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l ; t h u s , o u r i s f o r p l a i n e r r o r . R u l e 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . review " M e l s o n ' s c l a i m has been a d d r e s s e d and r e j e c t e d b y t h i s c o u r t i n W e a v e r v . S t a t e , 678 So. 2 d 260 (Ala. C r . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 678 So. 2d 284 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; T a y l o r v . S t a t e , 666 So. 2 d 36 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , a f f ' d , 666 So. 2d 73 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 516 U.S. 1 1 2 0 , 116 S. C t . 928, 133 L . E d . 2 d 856 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; and F o r t e n b e r r y v. S t a t e , 545 So. 2 d 129 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f ' d , 545 So. 2 d 145 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 495 U.S. 911, 110 S. C t . 1 9 3 7 , 109 L. E d . 2 d 300 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . As we s t a t e d i n Weaver: "'The appellant contends that a statement made in the trial court's s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r was e r r o r . I n t h e o r d e r , the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d , " I t i s the o p i n i o n of the Court that the mitigating circumstances heretofore enumerated are i n s u f f i c i e n t to outweigh the aggravating circumstances." (R. 121.) While this portion of the trial court's order is technically defective, this court in 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 i m . App. 1 988 ) , a f f ' d , 545 So. 2d 145 (1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911, 110 S.Ct. 1937, 109 L . E d . 2 d 300 (1990), h e l d t h a t t h i s e r r o r was " n o t so e g r e g i o u s or s u b s t a n t i a l as t o r e q u i r e a new sentencing order." "'As long as the trial judge p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e s h i s d i s c r e t i o n and the f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y a r e "so clear and convincing that v i r t u a l l y no reasonable person could d i f f e r , " a harmless e r r o r a n a l y s i s c a n be u s e d . ' B a l d w i n v. S t a t e , 456 So. 2d 1 1 7 , 126 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1 9 8 3 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e B a l d w i n , 456 So. 2 d 1 2 9 , 140 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 469 220 CR-07-0443 U.S. 1 0 8 5 , 105 S . C t . 5 8 9 , 83 L . E d . 2 d 699 (1984 ) , a f f ' d , 472 U.S. 372 , 105 S.Ct. 2 7 2 7 , 86 L . E d . 2 d 300 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . " F o r t e n b e r r y . " ' H e r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d two a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s and f o u n d t h a t they were sufficient to support the sentence of death. I t i s c l e a r that the t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t f a i l t o c o n s i d e r any statutory or nonstatutory mitigating circumstances and p r o p e r l y engaged i n a weighing and balancing process of the a g g r a v a t i n g and m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n this case. We find that the facts i n d i c a t i n g the death p e n a l t y i n t h i s case are clear and c o n v i n c i n g and that no reasonable person would d i f f e r in their o p i n i o n . The e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l court's s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r was e r r o r w i t h o u t i n j u r y . F o r t e n b e r r y , T a y l o r v . S t a t e , 666 S o . 2 d 36 [,70-71] ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) . ' "678 So. 2d a t 283. "In t h i s case, the t r i a l court considered only one a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e , t h a t t h e m u r d e r was c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f a r o b b e r y , and f o u n d t h a t t h i s a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e was s u f f i c i e n t t o support a death sentence. I t i s c l e a r i n t h i s case, as i n Weaver, s u p r a , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' d i d n o t fail t o c o n s i d e r any statutory or n o n s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s and p r o p e r l y engaged i n a w e i g h i n g and b a l a n c i n g p r o c e s s o f t h e a g g r a v a t i n g and m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h i s c a s e . ' I d . a t 283. We h a v e no d i f f i c u l t y c o n c l u d i n g t h a t 'the f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g the death p e n a l t y i n t h i s case are c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g a n d t h a t no r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n would differ in their o p i n i o n . ' I d . Thus, the ' t e c h n i c a l ' e r r o r i n the t r i a l court's sentencing o r d e r was e r r o r w i t h o u t i n j u r y . 221 CR-07-0443 "We p o i n t o u t t h a t d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e o f the t r i a l b e f o r e the j u r y , the t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y on t h e p r o p e r m e t h o d o f w e i g h i n g the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Throughout its instructions, the trial court r e p e a t e d l y informed the j u r y t h a t the aggravating circumstance must outweigh the mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n o r d e r f o r t h e j u r y t o recommend t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . (R. 2 1 3 4 , 2 1 4 0 , 2 1 4 1 . ) ' T r i a l judges a r e p r e s u m e d t o f o l l o w t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n s , and t h e y a r e p r e s u m e d t o know t h e l a w a n d t o f o l l o w i t i n m a k i n g t h e i r d e c i s i o n s . E x p a r t e S l a t o n , 680 So. 2 d 9 0 9 , 924 ( A l a . 1996) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e H a r r e l l , 470 So. 2 d 1 3 0 9 , 1318 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' S t e w a r t v. S t a t e , 730 So. 2 d 1 2 0 3 , 1212 ( A l a . C r . App. 1997), a f f ' d , 730 So. 2 d 1246 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . We f i n d t h a t t h e t r i a l court properly considered and weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in sentencing Melson to death." 775 So. 2d We have and, 901-02. carefully b a s e d upon the claim that aggravating the at the and reviewed rationale circuit sentence sentencing i n M e l s o n , we court mitigating appropriate the reject improperly Reynolds's weighed the in determining circumstances was proceedings, that death. XXII. Reynolds vacated in light (Reynolds's States also of brief, Supreme argues Ring that v. Issue XXI, Court held his Arizona "death [536 sentence U.S. 584 a t 110-12.) In R i n g , that 222 its earlier must be (2002).]" the United decision in CR-07-0443 A p p r e n d i v . New J e r s e y , 530 U.S. 466 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , a p p l i e d t o d e a t h penalty cases; t h u s , any f a c t t h a t c o u l d i n c r e a s e t h e maximum p e n a l t y t o d e a t h must be p r e s e n t e d t o a j u r y a n d must be by the jury First, be to exist Reynolds beyond a reasonable maintains that h i s death i t unanimously found the existence circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, finding that mitigating contends make the aggravating cannot findings jury regarding n o r d i d t h e j u r y make outweighed actually Reynolds alleges because the recommendation. Initially, circumstances that jury there unanimously circumstance a note brief, that the Reynolds two aggravating to v e r i f y that be imposed robbery, and that 223 two was a X X I , a t 110-12.) the three aggravating -- i . e . , t h a t t h e m u r d e r s w e r e c o m m i t t e d first-degree an Third, i t s sentence Issue of of doubt. cannot and whether existence reasonable sentence informed (Reynolds's we found beyond of i s no way h i s death was the l a w does n o t r e q u i r e j u r i e s t o the existence circumstances, finding of the aggravating circumstances t h a t because Alabama aggravating a sentence c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Second, i n a r e l a t e d v e i n , mitigating the doubt. i m p o s e d b e c a u s e t h e j u r y d i d n o t make t h e s p e c i f i c that found o r more people during were CR-07-0443 killed exist pursuant beyond a reasonable verdicts counts -- t o a common s c h e m e o r p l a n cruel the murders when stipulated object murder. were compared to by to These arguments same adversely review 30, 2010] been See D o s t e r So. 3d S t a t e , 993 S o . 2 d 9 0 7 , 9 4 0 - 4 1 U.S. 24 S o . 3 d 4 8 0 , 5 3 3 - 3 6 A l a . 2009), cert. atrocious, -- on grounds. these error and [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 0 3 2 3 , App. 2010; (2008); ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006), only. decided Sharifi ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2008), U.S. was d i d not v. S t a t e denied, or Reynolds addressed , 129 S. C t . 491 five circumstance for plain (Ala. Crim. of offenses Moreover, his allegations have to Reynolds. denied, 540 capital to the i m p o s i t i o n of h i s sentence we v. heinous, to unanimous guilty aggravating especially the parties. Accordingly, July Reynolds The t h i r d other found on t h e j u r y ' s i n the guilt-phase finding of c a p i t a l that doubt based -- w e r e cert. Lewis v. S t a t e , aff'd, 24 S o . 3 d , 130 S . C t . 796 (2009). Because the e x i s t e n c e of the a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s was found stipulation claims. either by the jury's of the p a r t i e s , guilt-phase verdicts Reynolds i s d u e no r e l i e f o r by on t h e s e 3 1 Reynolds also challenges the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n E x p a r t e W a l d r o p , 859 So. 3 1 224 CR-07-0443 XXIII. Reynolds argues that counting the aggravating trial. he circuit circumstances (Reynolds's Specifically, the brief, court "erred the penalty in Issue XXII, in at double- phase" of 112-13.) argues: " [ T ] h e u s e o f t h e s e c h a r g e s b o t h as a g g r a v a t i o n i n t h e f i r s t p h a s e a n d as a g g r a v a t o r s i n the penalty phase f a i l e d to narrow the c l a s s of cases e l i g i b l e for the death p e n a l t y , r e s u l t i n g i n the arbitrary i m p o s i t i o n o f t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y ... a n d subjected [him] to two punishments as a result of being c o n v i c t e d of a s i n g l e c r i m i n a l charge." (Reynolds's brief, Issue Reynolds d i d not trial, and These same we find XXII, object no assertions plain have at the 112-13.) proceedings error. been Rule on 45A, previously this basis at Ala.R.App.P. considered and 2d 1881 (Ala. 2002). He claims that the decision " i m p e r m i s s i b l y eased the S t a t e ' s burden of p r o v i n g t h a t the death p e n a l t y i s a p p r o p r i a t e by e n s u r i n g t h a t the j u r y was unaware t h a t i t s g u i l t - i n n o c e n c e phase f i n d i n g a u t h o r i z e d the t r i a l judge t o impose the death p e n a l t y w i t h o u t a d d i t i o n a l process," and that the Waldrop d e c i s i o n "undermines the r e l i a b i l i t y of the c a p i t a l s e n t e n c i n g process and unfairly skews s e n t e n c i n g t o w a r d the i m p o s i t i o n of the d e a t h p e n a l t y . " ( R e y n o l d s ' s b r i e f , a t 111-12.) "However, t h i s C o u r t i s bound by t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t and has no a u t h o r i t y t o r e v e r s e o r m o d i f y t h o s e d e c i s i o n s . See § 1 2 - 3 - 1 6 , Ala. Code 1975." D o s t e r , s u p r a , So. 3 d a t n. 13. 225 CR-07-0443 r e j e c t e d by this February 2010] 5, C o u r t . See So. M o r r i s v. 3d State, (Ala. Crim. [Ms. CR-07-1997, App. 2010). XXIV. In a "evolving one-paragraph argument, standards of decency Reynolds have r e n d e r e d maintains lethal u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l " as c r u e l and u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t . Brief, Issue XXIII, In V a n p e l t v. at that injection (Reynolds's 113-14.) State, So. 3d at , we wrote: "Vanpelt next argues that e v o l v i n g standards of decency have r e n d e r e d Alabama's method of e x e c u t i o n -- 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 . ( V a n p e l t ' s B r i e f at 119.) "This c o u r t notes t h a t V a n p e l t ' s e n t i r e argument c o n s i s t s o f one p a r a g r a p h a n d c o m p l e t e l y f a i l s to o f f e r any argument r e g a r d i n g c u r r e n t s t a n d a r d s o f decency. In f a c t , the o n l y sentence c o n t a i n e d i n V a n p e l t ' s argument t h a t appears to r e l a t e to l e t h a l injection is his conclusory allegation that '[e]volving standards of decency have rendered l e t h a l i n j e c t i o n unconstitutional.' (Vanpelt's Brief a t 119.) A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s c o u r t , i n Saunders v. State, held that 'lethal injection does not c o n s t i t u t e p e r se c r u e l and u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t . See e . g . , M c N a b b v . S t a t e , 991 S o . 2 d 313 (Ala. Crim. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) , a n d c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . ' 10 So. 3d 5 3 , 111 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ; see a l s o Baze v. R e e s , 553 U.S. 3 5 , 128 S . C t . 1 5 2 0 , 170 L. E d . 2 d 420 ( 2 0 0 8 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t l e t h a l i n j e c t i o n does not v i o l a t e the E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t ) ; Ex p a r t e B e l i s l e , 11 So. 3d 3 2 3 , 339 ( A l a . 2008) ( h o l d i n g t h a t l e t h a l i n j e c t i o n i s not u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ) . 226 CR-07-0443 " B e c a u s e V a n p e l t has f a i l e d t o o f f e r t h i s c o u r t any b a s i s u p o n w h i c h t o h o l d t h a t l e t h a l i n j e c t i o n i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and b e c a u s e V a n p e l t ' s c l a i m has b e e n r e j e c t e d by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , t h e A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t , a n d t h i s c o u r t , he i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o any relief." For relief the on reasons this set forth above, Reynolds is due no of the a new allegation. XXV. Reynolds contends his that the substantial cumulative errors affected rights trial. (Reynolds's b r i e f , Issue X I I I , at and effect warrants 97-98; I s s u e XXIV, 114.) "'The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has set f o r t h t h e c u m u l a t i v e - e r r o r r u l e as f o l l o w s : "[W]hile, under the f a c t s of a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , no s i n g l e e r r o r among m u l t i p l e e r r o r s may be s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o require r e v e r s a l u n d e r R u l e 45, i f t h e a c c u m u l a t e d e r r o r s have ' p r o b a b l y i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s , ' then the c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t of the errors may r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l . " Ex p a r t e W o o d s , 789 So. 2d 941, 9 4 2 - 4 3 n. 1 (Ala.2001) (quoting Rule 45, Ala.R.App.P.). Applying this standard to Lewis's allegation of cumulative error, we have scrupulously r e v i e w e d the r e c o r d and f i n d no evidence t h a t t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t o f any of the individually nonreversible errors in this case a f f e c t e d Lewis's s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s at trial.' 227 at CR-07-0443 " L e w i s v . S t a t e , [ 2 4 S o . 3 d 4 8 0 , 538 2 00 6)]." Sharifi v. 2 0 0 8 ) . We State, find nonreversible 993 that So. 2d 907 , ( A l a .Crim. 946-47 the cumulative e f f e c t errors d i d not App. ( A l a . Crim. App. individually Reynolds's affect of the substantial rights. XXVI. As required address by the p r o p r i e t y R e y n o l d s was (1) to the murder one scheme Ala. Code the course Ala. Code course § c o n v i c t e d of f i v e or course 1975; than 14 years 40(a)(15), old counts of c a p i t a l when A l a . Code murder: a c t or see 13A-5-40(a)(10), § see of Melinda robbery, pursuant was and § 13A-5-40(a)(2), M a r t i n during the see § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Savannah she 1975; Martin, murdered, (5) the who see murder of was § less 13A-5- Savannah M a r t i n d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of a f i r s t - d e g r e e r o b b e r y , see § 5-40(a)(2), A l a . Code recommended that 1 975. R e y n o l d s be now b y one robbery, of will of Charles M a r t i n I I I , d u r i n g (3) t h e m u r d e r (4) t h e m u r d e r we sentence. conduct, (2) t h e m u r d e r of a f i r s t - d e g r e e Code of 1975, death o r more p e r s o n s of a f i r s t - d e g r e e 1975; A l a . Code of Reynolds's o f two 1975; 13A-5-53, The jury, sentenced 228 by to a vote death. of 13A12-0, CR-07-0443 Pursuant reviewed to the adversely § 13A-5-53(a), sentencing affecting A l a . Code proceedings, Reynolds's circuit court circumstances: while see Reynolds § was compared 3 2 o f two scheme 1975. was or and engaged The c i r c u i t capital (3) t h a t of Reynolds by conduct, court found have error occurred (2) see was committed that § or § degree, the capital cruel when 13A-5-49(8), Ala. intentionally one see aggravating i n the f i r s t atrocious, offense, persons no rights offense 1975; heinous, capital find of three i n a robbery A l a . Code o r more course the we In i t s sentencing orders, the existence that especially to other 1975; death (1) 13A-5-49(4), offense Code found we substantial during the sentencing proceedings. the and 1975, caused act or pursuant 13A-5-49(9), t h e e x i s t e n c e o f one the t o one A l a . Code statutory Although the p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d to the e x i s t e n c e of the heinous, atrocious, or c r u e l aggravating circumstance, the circuit c o u r t n e v e r t h e l e s s made s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t e x p l a i n i n g why t h i s a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e was a p p l i c a b l e , a s r e q u i r e d b y E x p a r t e K y z e r , 399 S o . 2 d 3 3 0 , 334 ( A l a . 1981). T h i s Court has approved the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e when t h e t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the v i c t i m s were stabbed m u l t i p l e times and t h a t they had s u f f e r e d b e f o r e t h e i r d e a t h s . S e e P r i c e v . S t a t e , 725 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 6 2 ; B a r b o u r v . S t a t e , 673 S o . 2 d 4 6 1 , 4 7 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , a f f ' d , 673 S o . 2 d 473 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 518 U.S. 1 0 2 0 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; H a l l f o r d v . S t a t e , 548 S o . 2 d 5 2 6 , 5 4 6 (Ala. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f ' d , 548 S o . 2 d 547 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 4 9 3 U.S. 945 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . 3 2 229 CR-07-0443 mitigating circumstance: that history prior activity, Code of criminal Reynolds had see § no significant 13A-5-51(1), Ala. 1975. We note pertinent written t h a t § 13A-5-47(d), part, that findings "the A l a . Code 1975, trial concerning the court shall provides, in enter specific e x i s t e n c e or nonexistence of each aggravating circumstance enumerated i n S e c t i o n 13A-5-49, each mitigating enumerated and to any additional Section We circumstance mitigating in Section circumstances The findings court's order concerning aggravating offered pursuant 13A-5-52." have c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w e d the c i r c u i t order. 13A-5-51, the does not court's sentencing contain specific existence and circumstance or mitigating each written nonexistence of each circumstance. I n s t e a d , the c o u r t ' s o r d e r s e t s out o n l y the t h r e e a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances aggravating the specific and parties. findings mitigating to circumstances phase v e r d i c t s by i t found apply to Reynolds's established by the case: jury's the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance Further, although the circumstances set forth 230 court of the i n § 13A-5-51 two guilt- stipulated circuit r e g a r d i n g the nonexistence the to made statutory (2),(3),(5), CR-07-0443 and ( 6 ) , A l a . Code address the mitigating 1975, t h e c i r c u i t existence factors or court nonexistence set forth neglected to of the i n § 13A-5-51(4) statutory and ( 7 ) , 3 3 Ala. Code 1 9 7 5 . Although the c i r c u i t court's findings with regard to the a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s and t h e m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e technically Indeed, order i n several made aggravating court's remand i s not necessary i n t h i s c a s e s where specific the c i r c u i t written to make only to exist, specific as to exist findings constituted to we h e l d the that the as c i r c u m s t a n c e enumerated i n § 13A-5-49, i t d i d not f i n d case. court's sentencing findings circumstance i t found failure aggravating 1975, deficient, to the A l a . Code harmless error. See, e.g., P i l l e y v. S t a t e , 930 S o . 2 d 5 5 0 , 568 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2005); Gavin v. S t a t e , 891 S o . 2 d 9 0 7 , 995 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2003), cert. d e n i e d , 891 S o . 2 d 998 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ; v. S t a t e , 730 730 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 1 9 9 A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) , So. 2d 1246 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ; F o r t e n b e r r y v. S t a t e , Stewart aff'd, 545 S o . 2 d 1 3 A - 5 - 4 1 ( 4 ) p r o v i d e s : " T h e d e f e n d a n t was a n a c c o m p l i c e i n t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e committed by another person and h i s participation was r e l a t i v e l y minor." Section 13A-5-41(7) p r o v i d e s : "The a g e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c r i m e . " 3 3 231 CR-07-0443 129 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1988), cert. denied, 495 U.S. Nothing aff'd, 911 545 S o . 2 d 145 ( A l a . 1989), (1990). i n the record indicates that the c i r c u i t refused or f a i l e d Indeed, as n o t e d a b o v e , t h e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s f o u n d t o apply i n this t o c o n s i d e r any a g g r a v a t i n g court case were established by the Reynolds's trial aggravating circumstance the two aggravating verdicts jury's and circumstances. i n the the heinous, to which circumstances guilt atrocious, the parties phase or of cruel stipulated. Because the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances i t found for t o c a r r y out i t s a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w , a remand f o r the this Court entry of a new to exist sentencing in this order Slaton v . S t a t e , 680 S o . 2 d 8 9 7 , 907 aff'd, 680 S o . 2 d 909 ( A l a . 1996), case are sufficient i s unnecessary. ( A l a .Crim. cert. denied, See App. 1995), 519 U.S. 1079 (1997). Likewise, technical specific a remand is not warranted d e f i c i e n c y with regard to the t r i a l findings based 232 the court's lack of as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o r n o n e x i s t e n c e statutory mitigating circumstances. on o f two A s we s t a t e d i n B e c k w o r t h CR-07-0443 v. S t a t e , 946 S o . 2 d 490 549 U.S. 1120 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , cert. denied, (2007): "In a recent case presenting similar c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we h e l d t h a t , a l t h o u g h technically d e f i c i e n t , the sentencing order d i d not r e q u i r e a r e m a n d . P i l l e y v . S t a t e , 930 S o . 2 d 550 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . The t r i a l court i n P i l l e y f a i l e d to mention two statutory mitigating circumstances. A l t h o u g h t h i s C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a r e m a n d was n o t p o s s i b l e b e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t j u d g e who t r i e d t h e c a s e was no l o n g e r on t h e b e n c h , we f u r t h e r s t a t e d : " ' G i v e n t h e s e u n i q u e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we do not find i t t o be i n t h e i n t e r e s t s of j u d i c i a l economy t o remand t h i s c a s e f o r a new s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r , i n l i g h t o f t h e f a c t t h a t the t r i a l judge found the e x i s t e n c e of no m i t i g a t i n g circumstances at Pilley's f i r s t t r i a l a n d b e c a u s e P i l l e y p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t 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 circumstances enumerated i n § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 1 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . M o r e o v e r , g i v e n t h a t no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t s t h e existence of the two mitigating circumstances the c i r c u i t court f a i l e d to a d d r e s s , we f i n d t h e c o u r t ' s o m i s s i o n o f t h e s e two m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o be harmless.' "930 So. 2d a t 569. "In t h i s c a s e , a l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l j u d g e has n o t r e t i r e d f r o m t h e b e n c h , we f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s technical defect in failing to mention the § 13A-5-51(1) mitigating circumstance constitutes h a r m l e s s e r r o r and does n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f p l a i n e r r o r r e q u i r i n g a remand. P l a i n e r r o r i s e r r o r that 'has o r p r o b a b l y h a s a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t . ' R u l e 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P. B e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d a l l o f 233 CR-07-0443 t h e p r o f f e r e d m i t i g a t i o n , b e c a u s e i t f o u n d as an a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t B e c k w o r t h was u n d e r a sentence of imprisonment when he committed this crime, and b e c a u s e t h e r e was no support i n the r e c o r d f o r t h i s m i t i g a t i n g circumstance, i t cannot r e a s o n a b l y be a r g u e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e to state t h a t i t d i d not find this mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e t o e x i s t 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 h i s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s . W h i l e we do not w i s h t o be u n d e r s t o o d as c o n d o n i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e to comply s t r i c t l y w i t h the requirements of § 13A-5-47, A l a . C o d e 1975, we h o l d h e r e t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o do so d o e s n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f p l a i n error." 946 So. 2d at 534. Here, the c i r c u i t c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t had the m i t i g a t i n g evidence proceedings. existence evidence in existence the the of circumstances. these two rise to the The existence two record either Reynolds mitigating does of level circuit support the court assert a circuit court's from Rule the nonstatutory mitigating and finding omitted error. found not two circumstances of p l a i n did circumstances, not A c c o r d i n g l y , the mitigating of p r e s e n t e d at the v a r i o u s stages of Furthermore, of considered a l l omission does the the of not Ala.R.App.P. following regarding circumstances: " [ T ] h e C o u r t f i n d s and c o n s i d e r s as m i t i g a t i n g circumstances i n the Defendant's b e h a l f evidence p r e s e n t e d of the Defendant's environment, education, 234 the mitigating i t s order 45A, of the the CR-07-0443 l i f e , background, f a m i l y , and s c h o o l h i s t o r y ; t h e love of the Defendant's f a m i l y f o r the Defendant, the love of the Defendant's friends f o r the Defendant and t h e Defendant's l o v e f o r h i s f a m i l y a n d f r i e n d s . The C o u r t a l s o f i n d a n d c o n s i d e r s a s a mitigating circumstance that the Defendant experienced n e g l e c t and abuse as a c h i l d and had a h i s t o r y o f drug abuse and a d d i c t i o n . The C o u r t h a s c o n s i d e r e d as a m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e the poverty experienced by t h e D e f e n d a n t as a c h i l d ; t h e f a c t that h i s f a t h e r was a t t i m e s a brutal abusive a l c o h o l i c ; t h e f a c t t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s m o t h e r was not 'maternal,' apparently d i d not bond w i t h o r n u r t u r e h e r c h i l d r e n , and had h e a l t h problems; t h e f a c t t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t was r e a r e d i n a f i l t h y home w i t h h y g i e n e and h e a l t h i s s u e s ; t h e f a c t t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t was h o m e l e s s f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d o f time d u r i n g h i s c h i l d h o o d and has e s s e n t i a l l y been 'on h i s own' s i n c e a b o u t a g e t h i r t e e n ( 1 3 ) ; t h e f a c t t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t was p h y s i c a l l y a b u s e d b y h i s f a t h e r as a s m a l l c h i l d and had l i t t l e , i f any, s t r u c t u r e i n h i s home; t h e f a c t t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t d r o p p e d o u t o f s c h o o l when he was i n t h e 7 t h g r a d e and h a s r e c e i v e d l i t t l e , i f any, f o r m a l education since that time; the fact that the Defendant apparently witnessed h i s father p h y s i c a l l y abusing h i s m o t h e r a n d p o s s i b l y o t h e r f a m i l y m e m b e r s when he was a c h i l d ; a s w e l l a s t h e f a c t t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t a l l e g e d l y b e g a n a b u s i n g d r u g s and a l c o h o l a t age thirteen (13) a n d l a t e r d e v e l o p e d a s e r i o u s drug dependency t o c r y s t a l methamphetamine and c o c a i n e and t h a t t h e s e a d d i c t i o n s l e d t o t h e l o s s o f c u s t o d y of his child, the loss of jobs and i n e v i t a b l e emotional i s s u e s that r e s u l t from drug a d d i c t i o n s a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f d r u g a d d i c t i o n s . The C o u r t has also seriously considered, as mitigating f a c t o r s , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t does have a c h i l d a n d f a m i l y m e m b e r s who l o v e h i m , t h a t he h a s been described as 'the glue' that holds his d i s j o i n e d f a m i l y t o g e t h e r and t h a t t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f the death penalty i n this case would have a d e v a s t a t i n g e f f e c t o n many m e m b e r s o f t h i s f a m i l y . 235 CR-07-0443 The C o u r t h a s a l s o c o n s i d e r e d t h e f a c t D e f e n d a n t was a g o o d f a t h e r a n d s t e p f a t h e r in h i s l i f e . " (Vol. I I , R. 324-25.) Pursuant record, to § a n d we regarding that the at points 13A-5-53(a), determine this that the aggravating Court has the c i r c u i t and mitigating reviewed court's the findings circumstances are s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . Because rights was circuit we find made no e r r o r i n the court's circumstances adversely affecting sentence findings concerning and t h e m i t i g a t i n g by t h e e v i d e n c e , we of the decision shall that death proceedings was and the circumstances now p r o c e e d Reynolds's that the aggravating are supported to review the p r o p r i e t y the proper sentence. In d e t e r m i n i n g whether death i s the a p p r o p r i a t e sentence, this Court enumerated The imposed will specifically i n § 13A-5-53(b), record under other a r b i t r a r y reflects the each of the factors A l a . Code 1975: that influence factor. address of Reynolds's passion, sentence prejudice, See § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) , 236 was not or any A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . CR-07-0443 After an mitigating sentence. 13A-5-53(b)(3), determine disproportionate counts of murder d u r i n g the murdering one scheme who was (10), than the Alabama State, 1975, Reynolds was requires death when c o m p a r e d persons years fact, to of of b y one this sentence is to the penalties convicted of three act or pursuant and t h e murder age. See the So. cases 2d F o r t e n b e r r y v. S t a t e , committed death two-thirds involve 868 the crime sentence disproportionate "'"In i s the proper §§ of a of to person 13A-5-40(a)(2), ( 1 5 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . Considering that death and A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . of conduct, 14 aggravating t h e c o u r s e o f a r o b b e r y , one c o u n t o r more or course less and two that Reynolds's or excessive cases. the A l a . Code whether i n similar of agree See § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) , to imposed weighing c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we Section Court independent penalty of of the is and imposed death 1188 nor sentences cases. imposed in Stallworth v. App. 2001); (murder o f two o r more 914 S o . 2 d 3 7 2 , 446 237 find in similar ( A l a . Crim. 545 S o . 2 d a t 145 we excessive neither robbery/murder."'" 1128, p e r s o n s ) ; Minor v. S t a t e , Reynolds, ( A l a . C r i m . App. CR-07-0443 2004), less cert. than denied, years of 14 548 age). Finally, thoroughly as U.S. required examined the by 925 Rule record (2 0 0 6 ) ( m u r d e r 45A, of a child we have may have Ala.R.App.P, f o r any error that adversely affected Reynolds's s u b s t a n t i a l rights with respect to and Reynolds's death, whether attention defect capital-murder convictions of or the not brought circuit court. to our We h i s sentence attention find no or plain to of the error or i n the proceedings. Based convictions upon and the foregoing, h i s sentence Reynolds's of death are capital-murder affirmed. AFFIRMED. Wise, P.J., and Welch, Windom, and 238 Main, J J . , concur.

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.