James Beauford Lamb, Jr. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL06/25/2010Lamb 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-08-1682 James B e a u f o r d Lamb v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal PER Tallapoosa Circuit (CC-03-0125.60) Court CURIAM. The court's relief Lamb from appellant, summary James Beauford Lamb, a p p e a l s dismissal of his petition f i l e d pursuant was c o n v i c t e d t o Rule o f rape for postconviction 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . i n the f i r s t the circuit degree P. I n 2004, and sexual CR-08-1682 abuse i n the f i r s t imprisonment on imprisonment convictions the rape conviction (No. C R - 0 4 - 0 6 6 5 ) , conviction. 1 20 to years 10 years We a f f i r m e d h i s 945 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 8 ( A l a . Crim. 31, 2005. attacking h i sconvictions. dismiss Rules and to a n d i s s u e d t h e c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t on I n J u n e 2 0 0 8 , Lamb f i l e d to sentenced o n A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , b y a n u n p u b l i s h e d memorandum, 2005) ( t a b l e ) , August a n d was on t h e s e x u a l - a b u s e Lamb v . S t a t e App. degree that 32.2(a)(3), the underlying The S t a t e 2 Lamb's p e t i t i o n (a)(5), and was Rule asserted 32 i n i t s motion procedurally ( b ) , A l a . R. petition barred by P. The Crim. c i r c u i t c o u r t s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s e d Lamb's p e t i t i o n ; t h i s appeal followed. The unanimous only argument "not guilty" sexual-abuse Lamb raises on appeal v e r d i c t on t h e v e r d i c t conviction, count I I of i s that form the for his the indictment, was Lamb was a l s o c o n v i c t e d o f i n c e s t a n d was s e n t e n c e d t o 10 y e a r s o n t h a t c o n v i c t i o n ; h o w e v e r , h e d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e t h a t c o n v i c t i o n o r s e n t e n c e i n t h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . 1 T h i s w a s L a m b ' s s e c o n d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n a t t a c k i n g h i s convictions. I n 2007, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i s m i s s e d Lamb's first petition. On M a r c h 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 , we a f f i r m e d t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l . S e e Lamb v . S t a t e (No. C R - 0 6 - 1 7 7 2 ) So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2008) (table). 2 2 CR-08-1682 erroneously jury had been therefore, impose changed discharged lacked sentence Lamb charged was Lamb by seven and jurisdiction on t h a t charged with members o f t h e j u r y count i n a that the to render court; a judgment or to of the indictment. IV c h a r g e d Lamb w i t h charged When Lamb w i t h the j u r y incest with respect t h e second-degree retired, 3 four-count indictment: t h e f i r s t - d e g r e e rape the c i r c u i t o f J.M.; Count count I I 4 t o J.M.; a n d c o u n t abuse sent o f K.M. four verdict f o r m s w i t h t h e m -- o n e f o r e a c h c o u n t o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t . verdict form indictment h a d two options or not g u i l t y -- guilty as charged I o f J.M.; c o u n t sexual court the circuit c h a r g e d Lamb w i t h t h e f i r s t - d e g r e e s e x u a l a b u s e III after as charged Each i n the i n the indictment, and u n d e r e a c h o p t i o n was a s i g n a t u r e l i n e f o r t h e j u r y f o r e m a n t o sign designating the verdict. Although the verdict i n c l u d e d t h e charge and t h e count i n t h e indictment, not include forms they d i d t h e name o f t h e v i c t i m . This i s s u e was n o t r a i s e d i n Lamb's f i r s t R u l e 32 petition. We h a v e t a k e n j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f o u r r e c o r d s f o r L a m b ' s f i r s t R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . S e e N e t t l e s v . S t a t e , 7 3 1 S o . 2 d 626 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) . 3 4 their To p r o t e c t initials. t h e a n o n y m i t y o f t h e v i c t i m s , we S e e R u l e 5 2 , A l a . R. A p p . P. 3 are using CR-08-1682 When orally the jury announced this stated verdict return on form. 5 on c o u n t s f o ra verdict he h a d s i g n e d The c i r c u i t I, II, foreman and I I I . on c o u n t I V , t h e t h e wrong court room t o c o r r e c t The c i r c u i t 6 of the counts juror I, that asked the jury designation instructed this error. affirmed that I I , and I I I . court on w h i c h then polled i t had found on the jury to When t h e j u r y t h e foreman o r a l l y announced a " n o t - g u i l t y " count I V . each court to the jury returned, i t s verdicts, guilty verdicts When t h e c i r c u i t foreman returned verdict the jury Lamb g u i l t y . as t o Each h e o r s h e h a d f o u n d Lamb g u i l t y o n c o u n t s The j u r y was t h e n discharged. We n o t e t h a t , i n i t s b r i e f o n a p p e a l , t h e S t a t e a r g u e s that t h e i n i t i a l v e r d i c t form f o r count I I r e f l e c t e d a g u i l t y v e r d i c t , and that t h ej u r y e r r o n e o u s l y changed t h a t v e r d i c t t o n o t g u i l t y when i t was s e n t b a c k t o t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n room t o c o r r e c t t h e v e r d i c t f o r m f o r c o u n t I V . We h a v e t h o r o u g h l y r e v i e w e d t h e r e c o r d f r o m Lamb's d i r e c t a p p e a l r e l a t i n g t o t h i s i s s u e , a n d we d o n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e S t a t e ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the sequence o f events. I t i s clear that the i n i t i a l verdict form f o r count I I submitted by t h e j u r y r e f l e c t e d a n o t - g u i l t y v e r d i c t , i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e j u r y ' s o r a l pronouncement o f i t s v e r d i c t on t h a t c o u n t . 5 As a r e s u l t o f t h e e r r o r , t h e v e r d i c t form f o r count I V r e f l e c t s t h e foreman's s i g n a t u r e under both t h e g u i l t y and n o t - g u i l t y options, w i t h t h e signature under t h e g u i l t y option b e i n g c r o s s e d o u t and t h e foreman's i n i t i a l s appearing next t o the c r o s s e d - o u t signature. 6 4 CR-08-1682 When t h e c i r c u i t guilt, i t noticed first-degree foreman that sexual proceeded the v e r d i c t abuse o f J.M. a s " n o t g u i l t y " -- orally locate trial court form -- verdict court reassembled for count discussion, the asked I I the of foreman was adjudicate f o r count I I -- the the jury s i g n e d by t o what the foreman had -- " g u i l t y . " the seven the but was able o f whom was o n l y 7 o f t h e 12 m e m b e r s , o n e circuit to formally as o p p o s e d announced i n open c o u r t The The court jury the foreman. jurors to correct indictment. indicated that the After jury's the some verdicts were g u i l t y as t o c o u n t s I , I I , and I I I , and n o t g u i l t y as Count IV. changed At the the v e r d i c t circuit form court's direction, to the to foreman f o r count I I to read " g u i l t y . " (R. 400.) The dispositive issue on appeal i s whether c o u r t had the a u t h o r i t y to d i r e c t the the out the v e r d i c t mistake i n f i l l i n g "Alabama amend cases i t s verdict separation." Smith dating at v. any back time State, circuit to correct j u r y foreman form 1841 before 54 5 to the f o r count I I . hold their A l a . App. the jury may discharge and 722, 312 So. 2d CR-08-1682 414, 416-17 allows 29, (1975). a court However, 7 Rule tocorrect a clerical A l a . R. C r i m . 2 9 , A l a . R. Crim. e r r o r a t any time. P., s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t P., Rule part: "Clerical mistakes i n judgments, orders, or other parts o f the record, and errors a r i s i n g from o v e r s i g h t o r o m i s s i o n may b e c o r r e c t e d b y t h e c o u r t a t a n y t i m e o f i t s own i n i t i a t i v e o r o n t h e m o t i o n o f any p a r t y a n d a f t e r such n o t i c e , i f any, as t h e court orders." The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s e x p l a i n e d Crim. P, w a s " t a k e n P.[; therefore,] directly cases examined t o determine Rule 29." (citing 29.1, H. Rule 60(a) should Maddox, Rules Alabama 3 6 , F e d R. Rule Civ. be t h e p r o p e r c o n s t r u c t i o n t o be p l a c e d on of Criminal See a l s o Crim. P. Rule i n transcription. I t can also 1996) Procedure, 60(a), "'The t e r m 60(a)] i s notlimited such as a j u r y foreman, c o u n s e l , himself." A l a . R. 687 S o . 2 d 2 0 9 , 2 1 0 ( A l a . errors" [under others, 60(a), D o l l a r v. S t a t e , P.; R u l e clerk Rule construing p . 919 ( 2 d e d . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . Civ. the from t h a t R u l e 2 9 , A l a . R. § F e d . R. "clerical solely t o errors by include a party, D o l l a r , 687 S o . 2 d a t 2 1 0 ( q u o t i n g errors by o r the judge Continental O i l S e e a l s o T.D.M. v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 8 - 0 3 5 5 , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 1 0 ] So. 3 d ( A l a . Crim. App. 2010). I n T.D.M., t h e j u r o r s had been discharged b u t h a d n o t y e t s e p a r a t e d when t h e y c o r r e c t e d t h e v e r d i c t form. 7 6 CR-08-1682 Co. v. W i l l i a m s , 370 So. 2d 9 5 3 , 954 ( A l a . 197 9 ) ) ( e m p h a s i s omitted). "The object of a Rule R u l e 2 9 , A l a . R. C r i m . or t h e r e c o r d speak 1081303, January Accordingly, 6 0 ( a ) [ , A l a . R. P.,] m o t i o n Rule BMJA, LLC v. Murphy, So. 3 d ___ , ___ 2 9 , A l a . R. C r i m . P., (Ala. and Rule (citation omitted however, the rendered, 292, P., a to emphasis accurately 295 ( A l a . 2006) summary judge a judgment summary reflect (holding Hearing). correcting a that different rules a clerical the judgment do, error i n that was See Deramus H e a r i n g A i d Rule I n c . , 950 S o . 2 d 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . court to alter f o r Deramus judgment had o r i g i n a l l y American These Hearing A i d Assocs., authorized the c i r c u i t enter added). i . e . , t o speak t h e t r u t h . I n c . v. A m e r i c a n 2010). 5 2 1 S o . 2 d 9 4 2 , 945 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) authorize the court to correct record Ctr., and [Ms. 60(a), A l a . R. C i v . P., d o " n o t a u t h o r i z e t h e c o u r t t o r e n d e r a judgment." C o r n e l i u s v. Green, [or a ... i s t o make t h e j u d g m e n t the truth." 15, 2010] ___ C i v . P.,] i t s order and t o change f o r American Hearing entering the order because to the i n t e n d e d t o e n t e r a summary j u d g m e n t f o r Consequently, clerical mistake 7 or the distinction error and between rendering a CR-08-1682 different judgment circuit court foreman's The mistake or is here critical had to determining jurisdiction to whether correct the Supreme C o u r t has explained that a clerical or e r r o r i s "[a]n e r r o r r e s u l t i n g from a minor inadvertence, and esp. in writing from not Deramus H e a r i n g Black's jury mistake. Alabama record, the judicial copying reasoning Aid C t r . , Inc., Dictionary Law or 582 950 (8th So. ed. mistake something on the or determination." 2d at 294 2004)) . (quoting Rendering d i f f e r e n t j u d g m e n t , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , i n v o l v e s r e w e i g h i n g evidence, exercising different result. at 295. circuit That Tea Co. v. action passed Sealy, H o o d v . Ham, 342 Fin., Inc., (holding that Rule intended at the So. 2 d 1317 Gen. ministerial upon by 374 60(a) nature time in judgment "extend[s] So. American a reasoning, and to a jury." 2d 877, Great 883 So. 2d "allows the order to 8 212, the substance Atlantic See & Pac. (citing a l s o P i e r c e v. 216 what a 2d (Ala. 2008) c o r r e c t i o n of e r r o r s reflect of e n t r y of the of So. when ( A l a . 1979) (Ala. 1977)). 991 950 i s rendered matters the reaching Deramus H e a r i n g A i d C t r . , I n c . , i s , a different court's r e q u i r e d t o be judicial a was of actually o r d e r " ; however, i t does CR-08-1682 not permit "[c]orrections discretion," or a legal decision). different judgment correcting a clerical reflect involving involves accurately error a past decision. error i s within In court this case, corrected different relating that the c i r c u i t a different indictment. every juror affirmed count II. After 8 court noticed the verdict that form correcting authority a and to a clerical under R u l e 29, c l e a r l y shows t h a t At t r i a l , Lamb was p o l l e d that as opposed i t corrected found The j u r y decision, a l t e r i n g the record While error, when II. had rendering See Deramus H e a r i n g A i d court's the record judgment, the jury new judicial judgment i s n o t . I d . a clerical t o count a involves I n c . , 950 S o . 2 d a t 2 9 5 . of Accordingly, making Ctr., rendering an e x e r c i s e guilty on before to rendering the the jury the c i r c u i t verdict foreman count being form announced I I of the d i s m i s s e d and h e o r s h e h a d f o u n d Lamb g u i l t y the jury had been a dismissed, the on circuit t h e j u r y foreman h a d marked " n o t g u i l t y " on f o r count II. Seven jurors, including the T h e f a c t s t h a t t h e j u r y was p o l l e d a n d t h a t e v e r y j u r o r a f f i r m e d t h e v e r d i c t o f g u i l t on c o u n t I I i s i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e this fact distinguishes c a s e s i n w h i c h o n l y a few j u r o r s presented evidence of the jury's actual verdict. 8 9 CR-08-1682 f o r e m a n , w e r e summoned b a c k t o t h e c o u r t r o o m . the foreman informed unanimously explained two found that and four Lamb no exercised, court court on o f Count IV. point He forms marked The c i r c u i t the jury I I . the verdict point, had further f o r counts "not g u i l t y " court then on allowed h i s mistake. was the evidence o r a new d e c i s i o n nor the jurors that count and had i n a d v e r t e n t l y foreman t o c o r r e c t At guilty he h a d c o n f u s e d count I I i n s t e a d the the c i r c u i t At that rendered. reconsidered been d e c i d e d by t h e j u r y . reweighed, Neither the circuit that had a question Instead, discretion already the c i r c u i t court accepted e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e j u r y ' s p a s t v e r d i c t on c o u n t I I a n d corrected i.e., F.2d Crim. P.), the v e r d i c t form t o a c c u r a t e l y t o speak t h e t r u t h . 5 0 8 , 514 P. (9thCir. (the f e d e r a l authorized the jury court d i d not alter intent"); the 1990) counterpart had been form to v. S t a u f f e r , that t o Rule Rule 2 9 , A l a . R. because verdict reflect "[t]he itself; the 922 3 6 , F e d R. Crim. to correct the verdict dismissed the jury's verdict States (holding the d i s t r i c t court after corrected See U n i t e d r e f l e c t that verdict, form district i t simply jury's true S e e C o m m i t t e e C o m m e n t s t o R u l e 2 9 , A l a . R. C r i m . 10 P. CR-08-1682 ("While t h e r u l e i s i n t e n d e d t o d e a l clerical errors judgments and received alter not orders, judicial evidence and c o n s i d e r e d . " ) . the verdict jury's form intent, Crim. and to i t s a c t i o n was outside itself the jury's authorized United States of record simply past ... court may d i d not corrected decision be and the true p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 9 , A l a . R. Court of Appeals reached the i d e n t i c a l conclusion s u p r a , when c o n s i d e r i n g counterpart to foreman Stauffer was Rule guilty the j u r y had found him corrected On finding 29, guilty on i n United A l a . R. Crim. marked count dismissed, on I I and count the v e r d i c t forms IV. States Crim. P. the not postverdict actually acquitted on f o r the Ninth R u l e 3 6 , F e d . R. inadvertently A f t e r t h e j u r y was that rendition i n the the but of P. The jury errors correction Because the c i r c u i t verdict reflect solely with P., In Stauffer, the federal Stauffer, verdict guilty forms on count interviews Stauffer The v. Circuit on II court to r e f l e c t the j u r y ' s true therefore, not guilty he a r g u e d , on count IV constituted an IV. and then intent. appeal, S t a u f f e r argued that the o r i g i n a l v e r d i c t him that revealed count district the form acquittal; c o r r e c t i n g the v e r d i c t form v i o l a t e d the 11 CR-08-1682 Double 513. Jeopardy The Clause Ninth of Circuit the Fifth rejected Amendment. e r r o n e o u s v e r d i c t f o r m c o n s t i t u t e d an F.2d at argument t h a t Stauffer's the acquittal 922 and reasoned: "The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t a l t e r t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t itself; i t simply corrected the v e r d i c t form to reflect the jury's true intent. ... Despite Stauffer's admirable e f f o r t to persuade t h i s Court t h a t h i s r i g h t t o be f r e e f r o m d o u b l e j e o p a r d y has b e e n v i o l a t e d , t h e f a c t s do n o t s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e d o u b l e j e o p a r d y c l a u s e has been c o m p r o m i s e d in t h i s case." 922 F.2d at inadvertent count 514. mistake I I d i d not clerical error 29, R. Ala. that Crim. Lamb g u i l t y "not on was reconsider count Hearing Aid circuit court jury the foreman's verdict form Instead, acquittal. i t was corrected II established of the marked pursuant learning court Ctr., Inc., "alter the the verdict of did 950 that indictment the case, or e x e r c i s e corrected out properly Upon circuit the an evidence guilty." the filling the to for a Rule P. inadvertently mistake, simply when Stauffer, constitute Overwhelming foreman Like the not 2d at jurors and that form for foreman's reweigh judicial So. 12 the form to 12 the jury count II clerical evidence, reasoning. Deramus 294. did Nor jury's verdict i t s e l f ; verdict found reflect the [instead,] jury's the i t true CR-08-1682 intent." court Stauffer, merely circuit corrected court's Crim. P, enter a and the Consequently, F.2d 514. Because foreman's was authorized circuit court based Lamb's because at the action judgment dismissed 922 clerical d i d not on the Rule lack circuit mistake, 29, the Ala. jurisdiction corrected postconviction i t was by the claim verdict was n o n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l and R. to form. correctly procedurally b a r r e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 5 ) a n d 3 2 . 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. Crim. P. For court the foregoing correctly reasons, summarily we conclude dismissed that Lamb's R u l e the 32 circuit petition. AFFIRMED. Windom and M a i n , J J . , c o n c u r . W i s e , P . J . , r e s u l t , with opinion. Kellum, J . , dissents, j o i n e d by Welch, J . WISE, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , I agree circuit with the conclusions court merely that the circuit Rule 29, Ala. jurisdiction form. concurring to enter However, I do result. i n the main o p i n i o n c o r r e c t e d the foreman's c l e r i c a l court's R. i n the concurs i n the with opinion, o] action Crim. P.; was and judgment based not agree with 13 authorized that on the i t that mistake; pursuant did the not to lack corrected verdict the m a j o r i t y ' s conclusion CR-08-1682 that the claim pursuant to Rather, I i s n o n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l and Rules 32.2(a)(5) believe that jurisdictional. the and 32.2(b), I Ala. barred R. Crim. P. i f meritorious, claim, Therefore, procedurally would be respectfully concur circuit in d i d not the result. KELLUM, J u d g e , Because correct to a change "guilty" dissenting. I believe "clerical the that error" when v e r d i c t form after the the jury the i t directed f o r count had majority's court been the I I from dissent from decision to court's summary d i s m i s s a l o f Lamb's R u l e jury "not discharged, merely foreman guilty" to I respectfully affirm the 3 2 , A l a . R. circuit Crim. P., petition. "Generally, a j u r y has t h e r i g h t t o c o r r e c t , amend, o r c h a n g e i t s v e r d i c t a t any time before r e n d e r i n g i t s d e c i s i o n t o t h e c o u r t , and t h e c o u r t has t h e power and d u t y t o r e t u r n t h e j u r y t o c o r r e c t a mistake before accepting the verdict and d i s c h a r g i n g the j u r y . " Annot., Amend, Criminal Correct, law: Clarify, Propriety or Otherwise J u r y has been D i s c h a r g e d , o r has and Separated, 14 A.L.R.5th of 89 14 Reassembling Change Jury Verdict to After Reached or Sealed i t s V e r d i c t (1993) . See Cunningham v. CR-08-1682 State, on 14 A l a . A p p . 1, 8-9, 69 S o . 9 8 2 , 985 other grounds, 2d 109(1948) v. S t a t e , t o be verdict after completed the jury, although by the jury read by the c l e r k , d i s c h a r g e d , was as their when i t a p p e a r s back by the of completing the verdict before leaving t h e c o u r t r o o m . " ) ; Cook v. S t a t e , called 60 A l a . 39 ( 1 8 7 7 ) ("The jury, t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , w e r e d i s c h a r g e d , a n d h a d d i s p e r s e d among the audience be 33 A l a . A p p . 5 3 4 , 36 S o . and v e r i f i e d i t had been court f o rthe purpose in reversed ("Nor was t h e r e e r r o r i n t h e c o u r t ' s a l l o w i n g t h e verdict that McIntosh (1915), a i n the court-house dangerous precedent, and person to hold outside. that, after I t would this, the p e r s o n s who c o m p o s e d t h a t j u r y c o u l d b e r e a s s e m b l e d as such t o render been a verdict i n a case of which they had thus discharged."). In on this case, before a verdict t h e r e c o r d , t h e foreman brought form t o t h e c i r c u i t allowed the jury f o r count the mistake court's attention, to retire I V was on t h e v e r d i c t and t h e c o u r t to the jury room entered correctly to correct error. "When t h e j u r y r e t u r n i n t o c o u r t w i t h a v e r d i c t , i t i s not a matter of course t o r e c e i v e i t i n t h e form i n which i t i s rendered. I t i s the duty of the c o u r t , and of the p r o s e c u t i n g o f f i c e r , t o l o o k a f t e r 15 this CR-08-1682 its f o r m a n d s u b s t a n c e , s o f a r as t o p r e v e n t an u n i n t e l l i g i b l e , o r a d o u b t f u l , o r an i n s u f f i c i e n t v e r d i c t from p a s s i n g i n t o the records of the court, to create embarrassments a f t e r w a r d and perhaps t h e n e c e s s i t y o f a new t r i a l . " Allen v. State, State, 52 count i n attempting I I , the court been discharged back t o 1841 h o l d time before Bentley v. to correct the discrepancy as reconvened, by the c i r c u i t their 54 A l a . A p p . State (1875). 20 A l a . A p p . 6 3 5 , 104 S o . 679 Nonetheless, to A l a . 391 that discharge 7 2 2 , 7 2 5 , 312 v. Underwood, 2 Ala. i n part, 744 a jury "Alabama that cases had dating amend i t s v e r d i c t a t a n y and s e p a r a t i o n . " So. also (1925). court. t h e j u r y may See Smith v. 2d 414, 416-17 (1841). State, (1975). See However, "[w]hen a j u r y has been d i s c h a r g e d by t h e c o u r t and has l e f t t h e c o u r t r o o m so as t o p l a c e t h e m s e l v e s beyond the immediate, continuous control of the court, t h e i r connection w i t h the case ceases t o e x i s t and t h e r e a f t e r t h a t c a s e i s b e y o n d t h e i r c o n t r o l . " Hayes v. S t a t e , (1968). after placed The 44 A l a . A p p . 4 9 9 , 5 0 1 - 0 2 , circuit court t h e j u r y had been could 214 S o . 2 d 7 0 8 , 710 n o t amend discharged the verdict and a f t e r t h e j u r o r s had themselves beyond the " c o n t r o l of the c o u r t . " 16 form CR-08-1682 Moreover, the in open c o u r t of "not o r a l v e r d i c t of d i d not "guilty" t h a t was take precedence over the announced written verdict guilty." " A l t h o u g h a v e r d i c t may be w r i t t e n or oral, where t h e r e i s b o t h a w r i t t e n and o r a l v e r d i c t , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t h a t e a c h be i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e o t h e r . If any i n c o n s i s t e n c e o r a m b i g u i t y e x i s t s i n t h e v e r d i c t , i t m u s t be c o r r e c t e d p r i o r t o t h e d i s m i s s a l o f the j u r y a n d f a i l u r e t o do s o , a s i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , w i l l r e s u l t i n a r e v e r s a l of the case upon t r i a l . " Hayes, 44 Ala. Petitti v. State, ("The jury of could not and be that While circuit any 711, 2 Okla. 214 Crim. and time, to that correct a beyond the is Rule Ala. R. or Crim. See 1122, 1124 into court (1909) by the the was done in jury this verdict jury, of 29, Ala. form states, the testimony Rule R. Crim. P., allows error in a judgment at from "not guilty" to 29, Ala. in pertinent R. Crim. part: "Clerical mistakes i n judgments, orders, or o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d , and e r r o r s a r i s i n g f r o m o v e r s i g h t o r o m i s s i o n may b e c o r r e c t e d b y t h e court a t a n y t i m e o f i t s own i n i t i a t i v e o r on t h e m o t i o n o f 17 this state."). clerical of as the also by verdict P., P. 502. contradicted Rule scope at returned upon the a 2d 100 discharge conclusive changing "guilty" 29, the I recognize court 131, constituted after So. guilty impeached p e r s o n s who became f i n a l a at w r i t t e n v e r d i c t of not the case, App. P. CR-08-1682 any p a r t y and a f t e r s u c h n o t i c e , i f any, as t h e c o u r t orders. During the pendency o f an appeal or t h e r e a f t e r , s u c h m i s t a k e s may b e s o c o r r e c t e d b y t h e t r i a l court." The scope Alabama of Rule interpreting P. See Dollar, Supreme 29, A l a . R. the c i v i l Dollar v. Court has Crim. counterpart, State, t h e Supreme C o u r t 687 So. liberally P., and Rule 2d relied 60(a), 209 construed on cases A l a . R. C i v . ( A l a . 1996). stated: "The c o m m i t t e e c o m m e n t s t o R u l e 29 s t a t e t h a t R u l e 29 i s t a k e n d i r e c t l y f r o m R u l e 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. Civ. P. B e c a u s e R u l e 29 i s t a k e n d i r e c t l y f r o m R u l e 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., c a s e s c o n s t r u i n g R u l e 6 0 ( a ) should be examined to determine the proper c o n s t r u c t i o n t o b e p l a c e d o n R u l e 2 9 . S e e H. M a d d o x , A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e , § 2 9 . 1 , p . 919 (2d e d . 1 9 9 4 ) . " I n C o o p e r v . C o o p e r , 494 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) , a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t d i v i d e d t h e p a r t i e s ' a s s e t s ; i n t h a t j u d g m e n t t h e h u s b a n d r e c e i v e d a 1977 C h e v r o l e t automobile t h e c o u r t had i n t e n d e d t o award t o t h e w i f e . The w i f e , m o r e t h a n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e entry of the divorce judgment, filed a motion p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a s k i n g t h a t t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t be i n t e r p r e t e d s o as t o g i v e h e r ownership o f t h e 1977 C h e v r o l e t . The t r i a l court thereafter amended the judgment to award the Chevrolet t o t h e w i f e . On a p p e a l o f t h a t a m e n d i n g order, the Court of C i v i l Appeals held that the e r r o r was c o r r e c t a b l e e i t h e r o n a m o t i o n o f a p a r t y o r o n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s own i n i t i a t i v e , u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( a ) . See a l s o , A n t e p e n k o v . A n t e p e n k o , 584 S o . 2 d 836 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991) ( t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n g r a n t i n g a h u s b a n d ' s R u l e 6 0 ( a ) m o t i o n t o amend a divorce judgment to reflect that certain farm 18 the In CR-08-1682 e q u i p m e n t was not intended to be covered in a previous order dividing the parties' personal property). " I n C o n t i n e n t a l O i l Co. v . W i l l i a m s , 370 So. 2d 953 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) , t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t a n a c t i o n o f a trial j u d g e , who s t a t e d i n an o r d e r t h a t he had intended to grant the p l a i n t i f f ' s motion to dismiss i t s c l a i m s , b u t had n o t done so t h r o u g h o v e r s i g h t o r o m i s s i o n , was w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f R u l e 6 0 ( a ) . I n s o holding, t h i s Court stated: "'The term " c l e r i c a l errors" [under Rule 60(a)] i s not l i m i t e d s o l e l y to e r r o r s by the c l e r k i n t r a n s c r i p t i o n . I t can a l s o i n c l u d e e r r o r s by o t h e r s , s u c h as a j u r y foreman, counsel, a party, or the judge himself.' "370 So. 2 d a t 954. ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d . ) See a l s o , W a r d v . U l l e r y , 442 So. 2 d 99, 101 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1983) (a j u d g m e n t , b e c a u s e o f a c l e r i c a l e r r o r , s t a t e d t h a t i t was a g a i n s t ' d e f e n d a n t ' a n d n o t ' d e f e n d a n t s ' ; t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y amended i t s j u d g m e n t u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P, t o s p e c i f y t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t had been e n t e r e d a g a i n s t b o t h defendants)." However, the Supreme C o u r t has 60(a), R. Ala. judgment to the 770 Civ. P.,] also held that authorizes correct a clerical error, a "'[w]hile court to [ i t ] does not [Rule amend a authorize c o u r t t o r e n d e r a d i f f e r e n t j u d g m e n t . ' M u l l i n s v. M u l l i n s , So. State, 2d 624, 3 So. 3d "The 625 941, committee (Ala. 949 Civ. App. 2000)." ( A l a . C r i m . App. comments t o R u l e 19 60(a) 2008). state: Woodward v. CR-08-1682 "'This subdivision deals s o l e l y with the correction of c l e r i c a l errors. Errors of a more s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e a r e t o be c o r r e c t e d by a motion under R u l e s 59(e) o r 6 0 ( b ) . Thus t h e R u l e 6 0 ( a ) m o t i o n c a n o n l y be u s e d t o make t h e j u d g m e n t o r r e c o r d s p e a k t h e t r u t h a n d c a n n o t b e u s e d t o make i t s a y something o t h e r t h a n w h a t was originally pronounced.'" C o r n e l i u s v. Green, court only 521 So. 2 d 9 4 2 , 945 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . has a u t h o r i t y matters o f form matters of substance Great A t l . 1979). of Certainly, 29, F.2d found it does regarding not extend upon or innocence Crim. P. guilty of first-degree In the instant than by a j u r y ( 9 t h C i r . 1 990) jurisdiction. interviews this verdict t o be p a s s e d of g u i l t main o p i n i o n r e l i e s 508 jury by a to jury." i s a matter outside the realm of those e r r o r s contemplated i n o f 7 -- r a t h e r The error; required a finding A l a . R. effectively jury or c l e r i c a l a trial & P a c . T e a C o . v . S e a l y , 374 S o . 2 d 8 7 7 , 8 8 3 ( A l a . substance Rule t o amend "A Notably, of several was d i s c o v e r e d t h a t case, sexual Lamb abuse by a in jurors case relied Stauffer, on during by no 922 other postverdict i n i t i a t e d by S t a u f f e r ' s counsel, t h e j u r y h a d made a c l e r i c a l e r r o r . o p i n i o n does n o t a f f i r m a t i v e l y a o f 12, as t h e l a w r e q u i r e s . on U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S t a u f f e r , -- was The s t a t e whether t h e j u r y had been 20 CR-08-1682 discharged error. at After affidavits the in from Stauffer based time discovering clerical was the implies the disclosure the error, the jurors error." on of that agreement form d i d not r e f l e c t instant unlike being to the courtroom Further, the and, jurisdictional bars contained jurisdiction guilty" count The true only 7 "The verdict that App. i s not of in subject States l e g a l premise the 12 jurors form after this to P. case the Ex p a r t e 2003). o f any charge, Rule court's Court once a j u r y a "not has long returns proceedings against Bishop, So. 883 2 6 . 2 , A l a . R. i s acquitted to that a the 2d 262, Crim. o f any charge, judgment p e r t a i n i n g 21 is procedural A circuit Supreme that a l lcriminal "When a d e f e n d a n t the court. 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . a r e a t an e n d . " form v e r d i c t . In the the v e r d i c t presented United to opinion o v e r a c a s e t e r m i n a t e s when a j u r y r e t u r n s ( A l a . Crim. states: any i n Rule the basic guilty' defendant 264 thus, verdict. recognized 'not issue attested of the jurors to correct d i s c h a r g e d by t h e t r i a l solicited of the v e r d i c t their i n Stauffer, clerical court 922 F . 2 d a t 5 1 1 . signed verdict returned the the jurors the c o r r e c t i o n the unanimous case, the t r i a l and " [ a ] l l Stauffer, of P., or of count or CR-08-1682 to See that charge State ("[t]he v. shall be jury having, not guilty as of another entered 252 McBride, p r o n o u n c e d and 567 by Neb. i t s verdict, charged, although crime, 866, the trial that such sense I n my for two represent "minority" position. ignore to follow more t h a n I h a v e no choice what See not adjudicate for which the Therefore, the could circuit prisoner was best 14 the r e l i a n c e on the guilty to illegal and be main from the court's a ruling in Stauffer characterized 5th 89. opinion appears "not for by to decision. court a could conviction guilty" dismissing a Accordingly, circuit him as Second, majority's the sentence returned Stauffer i s decision A.L.R. Lamb's c o n d u c t , had (1997) jurisdiction of Alabama precedent. to d i s s e n t Lamb g u i l t y jury First, Stauffer, However r e p r e h e n s i b l e no in that direction Annot., a century but the 9 void."). reasons. to electing had o p i n i o n , the main o p i n i o n ' s misplaced appears i t was 136 i t f u r t h e r adjudged him hence i t s attempt in N.W.2d determined court s e n t e n c e him, accordingly." verdict. Lamb's Rule C o m p a r e R u l e 3 2 ( k ) ( 1 ) , F e d . R. C r i m . P., w h i c h s t a t e s , in part: " I f the defendant i s found not guilty or is o t h e r w i s e e n t i t l e d t o be d i s c h a r g e d , t h e c o u r t m u s t so o r d e r . " 9 22 CR-08-1682 32 petition first-degree Welch, i s due t o be reversed s e x u a l abuse vacated. J . , concurs. 23 and Lamb's conviction for

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.