Ex parte State of Alabama (In re: State of Alabama vs. Mary Maxine Neel)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL03/26/2010State v. N e e l 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-08-1048 Ex p a r t e S t a t e o f Alabama PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: S t a t e o f Alabama v . Mary Maxine N e e l ) Lee C i r c u i t Court (CC-06-319) PER C U R I A M . The district attorney f o r the Thirty-Seventh Judicial D i s t r i c t f i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus r e q u e s t i n g t h a t we d i r e c t J u d g e J o h n V . Denson I I . t o v a c a t e h i s order CR-08-1048 setting aside the jury's verdict finding Mary Maxine Neel g u i l t y of murder. I n May Glenn 2 0 0 6 , N e e l was Hall, a violation i n d i c t e d f o r k i l l i n g her of November 6, 2 0 0 8 , t h e j u r y November 18, and of the defense. 13A-6-2, A l a . found Neel Code guilty 1975. On of murder. On 2008, N e e l moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t f o r a judgment guilty § son-in-law of lesser After a acquittal offense hearing or a judgment finding o f m a n s l a u g h t e r b a s e d on on April 9, 2009, her self- Judge Denson i s s u e d a 39-page o r d e r g r a n t i n g N e e l ' s m o t i o n and v a c a t i n g t h e jury's verdict against mandamus p e t i t i o n . Neel. The State then exceptional usurpation (Ala. of 1981). this 1 "Mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy, b u t in filed circumstances power." Mandamus Ex has which parte been i s appropriate amount Nice, 407 used to to So. judicial 2d review 874, a 877 circuit court's r u l i n g s e t t i n g aside a j u r y ' s g u i l t y verdict, i f that r u l i n g i s b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f R u l e 20.3, Ex parte Nice and S t a t e v. Grantland, A l a . R. C r i m . P. 709 So. 2d 1310 See (Ala. T h i s p e t i t i o n , f i l e d w i t h i n seven days of the o r d e r t h a t i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s p e t i t i o n , was t i m e l y . See Ex p a r t e Thomas, 828 So. 2d 952 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . 1 2 CR-08-1048 Crim. App. 1997). "[T]he jury i s the a r b i t e r credibility of witnesses i n Alabama; t h e r e f o r e , supervisory mandamus prevent the t r i a l appropriate." by t h e C o u r t judge from sitting of Criminal of the the grant of Appeals as a ' 1 3 t h j u r o r ' [ i s ] N i c e , 407 So. 2d a t 882. R u l e 2 0 . 3 , A l a . R. C r i m . P., a u t h o r i z e s a t r i a l set aside a jury's g u i l t y v e r d i c t . is not unlimited. 2 However, t h a t court to authority I n d i s c u s s i n g t h e scope o f Rule 20.3, t h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e v. G r a n t l a n d , s u p r a , stated: " A l t h o u g h R u l e 2 0 . 3 , A l a . R. C r i m . P., c l e a r l y a u t h o r i z e s a t r i a l judge t o g r a n t a motion f o r a judgment o f a c q u i t t a l a f t e r t h e j u r y has r e t u r n e d a g u i l t y v e r d i c t , t h a t r u l e does n o t p e r m i t a j u d g e t o e n t e r a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l on g r o u n d s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e p r o v i d e d f o r u n d e r R u l e 20 g e n e r a l l y . [ ] A 3 2 R u l e 2 0 . 3 ( a ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., p r o v i d e s , i n p a r t : " A f t e r a v e r d i c t o r t h e e n t r y o f a judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t may move f o r a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l , o r t h e c o u r t , on i t s own m o t i o n , may g r a n t a judgment o f a c q u i t t a l . " 3 to R u l e 2 0 . 1 ( a ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., states: "The c o u r t , on m o t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s t a t i n g t h e g r o u n d s t h e r e f o r , o r on i t s own m o t i o n , s h a l l d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l as t o a n y charged o f f e n s e , o r as t o any l e s s e r included offense, f o r which the evidence i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support a f i n d i n g o f g u i l t y beyond a reasonable doubt." 3 CR-08-1048 m o t i o n f o r a judgment o f a c q u i t t a l t e s t s t h e l e g a l s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e . S u t t l e s v. S t a t e , 574 So. 2d 1012 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 0 ) ; M e t z g e r v. S t a t e , 565 So. 2d 291 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 0 ) ; s e e , g e n e r a l l y , C o m m i t t e e Comments, R u l e 2 0 . 1 , A l a . R. C r i m . P. When presented w i t h a c h a l l e n g e to the s u f f i c i e n c y of the e v i d e n c e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and any r e v i e w i n g c o u r t , must a c c e p t t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e s t a t e as t r u e , must v i e w t h a t e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e s t a t e , a n d must a c c o r d t h e s t a t e a l l l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e s f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e . Rowe v. S t a t e , 662 So. 2d 1227 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . Where t h e r e i s l e g a l e v i d e n c e f r o m w h i c h a j u r y c o u l d by f a i r inference f i n d a defendant g u i l t y , a t r i a l judge s h o u l d submit the case t o the j u r y . I d . M o r e o v e r , where t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t l e g a l e v i d e n c e t o s u b m i t t h e c a s e t o t h e j u r y and t h e j u r y has c o n s i d e r e d t h a t e v i d e n c e and r e n d e r e d i t s v e r d i c t , i t i s not proper f o r the t r i a l court, or a reviewing c o u r t , t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t o f the j u r y . W i n t e r s v. S t a t e , 673 So. 2d 786 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 5 ) ; Rowe, 662 So. 2d 1227. I t i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n of the court to assess the c r e d i b i l i t y of witnesses, weigh the evidence, or s u b s t i t u t e i t s j u d g m e n t as t o g u i l t o r i n n o c e n c e f o r t h a t o f t h e j u r y . P o r t e r v. S t a t e , 666 So. 2d 106 ( A l a . C r . App. 1995). " 709 So. 2d a t 1311-12. Section 13A-3-23, A l a . Code 1975, defines the law on s e l f - d e f e n s e i n A l a b a m a , and, a t t h e t i m e t h e e v e n t s i n t h i s case o c c u r r e d , s t a t e d , (Emphasis i n part: 4 added.) S e c t i o n 13A-3-23, A l a . Code 1975, was amended e f f e c t i v e J u n e 1, 2006, t o r e w r i t e s e c t i o n (a) and t o a d d a s u b s e c t i o n (4). However, t h e e v e n t s i n t h i s c a s e o c c u r r e d b e f o r e t h e 4 4 CR-08-1048 "(a) A p e r s o n i s j u s t i f i e d i n u s i n g p h y s i c a l f o r c e upon a n o t h e r p e r s o n i n o r d e r t o d e f e n d h i m s e l f o r a t h i r d p e r s o n f r o m what he r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t o be t h e u s e o r i m m i n e n t u s e o f u n l a w f u l p h y s i c a l f o r c e b y t h a t o t h e r p e r s o n , a n d he may u s e a d e g r e e of force which he r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t o be n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e p u r p o s e . A p e r s o n may u s e d e a d l y p h y s i c a l force i f the actor reasonably believes that such o t h e r person i s : "(1) U s i n g o r a b o u t t o u s e u n l a w f u l deadly p h y s i c a l force; or "(2) U s i n g o r a b o u t t o u s e p h y s i c a l f o r c e a g a i n s t an o c c u p a n t o f a d w e l l i n g w h i l e c o m m i t t i n g o r a t t e m p t i n g t o commit a b u r g l a r y o f such d w e l l i n g ; or "(3) C o m m i t t i n g o r a b o u t t o commit a k i d n a p p i n g i n any d e g r e e , a s s a u l t i n t h e f i r s t o r s e c o n d d e g r e e , b u r g l a r y i n any d e g r e e , r o b b e r y i n any d e g r e e , forcible r a p e o r f o r c i b l e sodomy." A t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e Lee C i r c u i t C o u r t , i n c l u d i n g a u d i o t a p e s o f t h e 911 c a l l s , e x h i b i t s t o t h e S t a t e ' s mandamus p e t i t i o n . a r e a t t a c h e d as The r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e v i c t i m was m a r r i e d t o N e e l ' s d a u g h t e r , C h r i s t y but d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s had been i n i t i a t e d . February a.m. 28, 2006, H a l l arrived Hall, On t h e m o r n i n g o f a t N e e l ' s house around 7:00 He t o l d N e e l t h a t he h a d come t o s e e h i s w i f e C h r i s t y . s t a t u t e was amended. T h u s , we l o o k t o t h e p r e v i o u s s t a t u t e . See S t a t e v. M c C a l l , 995 So. 2d 183 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . 5 CR-08-1048 C h r i s t y b r o u g h t h e r c h i l d r e n t o N e e l ' s house e v e r y morning so t h a t t h e y c o u l d c a t c h t h e s c h o o l bus t h e r e . When H a l l a r r i v e d N e e l was i n bed, i n h e r nightgown. and she answered t h e door She i n v i t e d H a l l i n t h e h o u s e w h i l e s h e g o t d r e s s e d . went back to the kitchen a p p r o a c h i n g t h e house. vehicle. she heard Christy's When s h e vehicle N e e l a n d H a l l w a l k e d up t o C h r i s t y ' s H a l l t r i e d t o g e t C h r i s t y t o g e t o u t o f h e r c a r and t a l k t o him. She r e f u s e d . H a l l g o t angry. Christy pulled away f r o m t h e h o u s e i n h e r c a r a n d H a l l l e f t . Neel s a i d that she t e l e p h o n e d C h r i s t y t o t e l l h e r what h a p p e n e d , t h a t s h e g o t h e r gun f r o m h e r bedroom, a n d t h a t s h e p u t t h e gun on t o p o f the r e f r i g e r a t o r near t h e s i d e door t o h e r house. S e v e r a l minutes later went t o t h e s i d e d o o r . and N e e l , Hall returned I n t h e meantime, C h r i s t y h a d r e t u r n e d , h e r husband, C h r i s t y , and h e r grandson N e e l home. were i n t h e The d o o r t o t h e h o u s e was c l o s e d a n d H a l l was i n the c a r p o r t t a l k i n g through t h e door. to H a l l . t o N e e l ' s house and Neel's husband t a l k e d N e e l s a i d t h a t s h e g o t t h e gun o f f t h e r e f r i g e r a t o r and t o l d h e r h u s b a n d t o open t h e d o o r . H a l l was s t a n d i n g i n f r o n t o f t h e d o o r a n d she p o i n t e d t h e gun a t h i m a n d t o l d h i m to leave. He moved a s t e p t o w a r d h e r a n d N e e l f i r e d , 6 hitting CR-08-1048 him i n the chest. hurt not Neel said that leave when he saw h e r w i t h Hall would not believe that H a l l h e r d a u g h t e r a n d she c o u l d she knew t h a t would t h e gun. The f a c t s s e t o u t above a r e b a s e d on N e e l ' s s t a t e m e n t t o p o l i c e . physical evidence confronted i n d i c a t i n g that Hall was T h e r e was no armed when he N e e l t h r o u g h t h e s i d e d o o r o f h e r home. A u d i o t a p e s o f t h e 911 c a l l s reflect that the f i r s t call was r e c e i v e d a t a r o u n d 6:20 a.m. on t h e m o r n i n g o f F e b r u a r y 28 and was from Neel. Neel, who sounds v e r y calm, p o l i c e come t o h e r r e s i d e n c e b e c a u s e h e r s o n - i n - l a w t h a t he h a d b e e n o r d e r e d at her car, and that Christy, t h a t he h a s been o r d e r e d he h a d t h r e a t e n e d her. t o s t a y away f r o m h e r , The t h i r d 911 c a l l , t h a t h e r mother had s h o t H a l l . Neel t o l d the operator away. t h a t h e r h u s b a n d was was made i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r H a l l was s h o t . h e a r h e r s a y : " P u t down t h e g u n . " chest. was t h e r e , The s e c o n d 911 c a l l was C h r i s t y t o l d the operator t o l d the operator that t o s t a y away f r o m h e r d a u g h t e r , a n d t h a t he was t h r e a t e n i n g h e r d a u g h t e r . from C h r i s t y . asks from Christy You c a n a l s o The l a s t c a l l i s f r o m N e e l . t h a t she h a s s h o t h e r s o n - i n - l a w i n the She s a i d : " I t h o u g h t i f he saw t h e gun he w o u l d go I was, I d i d n ' t mean t o s h o o t h i m . " 7 (R. 178.) CR-08-1048 Neel's one statement t o p o l i c e o f h e r 911 c a l l s . differed i n one a s p e c t from I n t h e s t a t e m e n t she s a y s " G l e n n [ t h e v i c t i m ] h a d b e e n c l e a n f o r a w h i l e a n d he d i d n o t l o o k as b a d as I had seen him t h e p a s t . messed up b e c a u s e 297.) I have However, d u r i n g operator: talking So I do n o t t h i n k t h a t he was s e e n h i m messed up b e f o r e . " one o f t h e 911 c a l l s , cocaine." of crazy stuff He's A n d I know he i s on (R. 169.) Captain Van Jackson Department t e s t i f i e d of the Lee He s a i d t h a t H a l l s a i d t o h i m : me... s h o t me i n c o l d b l o o d . " State also presented and N e e l h a d been h a v i n g made s t a t e m e n t s that Sheriff's he was t r a n s p o r t e d t o t h e hospital. just County t h a t he r e s p o n d e d t o a 911 c a l l a t t h e N e e l house a n d s p o k e t o H a l l b e f o r e The Neel t e l l s the "He j u s t came up h e r e a n d he i s s o messed up. a l l kind (R. "[T]hat shot that Hall (R. 322.) evidence indicating a sexual relationship, " I t would bitch be b e t t e r t h a t Neel had i f Hall gone," t h a t N e e l h a d p r e v i o u s l y s h o t a t H a l l t w i c e , was just and t h a t H a l l h a d t o l d a f r i e n d t h a t N e e l was p l o t t i n g t o s e t h i m u p . 5 I n d i s c u s s i n g t h i s testimony the c i r c u i t court, i n i t s o r d e r , s t a t e d : "The C o u r t f o u n d t h e i r t e s t i m o n y i r r e l e v a n t as t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r N e e l was j u s t i f i e d i n h e r a c t i o n s 5 8 CR-08-1048 Evidence threatened was also Christy, presented that police indicating had been that Hall called to had their r e s i d e n c e s e v e r a l t i m e s b e f o r e t h e s h o o t i n g , and t h a t H a l l a severe drug problem. The coroner also t e s t i f i e d that had Hall had c o c a i n e i n h i s system a t the t i m e of h i s d e a t h . Neel did statement not testify at trial. and t h e a u d i o t a p e s o f t h e 911 c l a i m t h a t she a c t e d i n s e l f In the circuit She calls relied on to support her her defense. court's lengthy order s e t t i n g aside the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , the c o u r t w r o t e , i n p a r t : "One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o f why t h e j u r y i n t h i s case r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y i n s p i t e of the l a c k of s u f f i c i e n c y of the e v i d e n c e , i s t h a t t h e y may have b e e n c o n f u s e d a b o u t t h e s e l f - d e f e n s e c h a r g e g i v e n by t h e C o u r t . " "An a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r may have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e j u r y ' s f i n d i n g o f g u i l t y and f a i l u r e t o f i n d t h e D e f e n d a n t n o t g u i l t y b y r e a s o n o f s e l f - d e f e n s e , was the d i f f i c u l t y i n h e a r i n g the audiotapes which c o n t a i n most o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f s e l f - d e f e n s e i n t h i s case. A n o t h e r f a c t o r may have b e e n t h a t t h e j u r y d i d n o t have s u f f i c i e n t k n o w l e d g e o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the complete hospital r e c o r d s from B r a d f o r d [ H e a l t h S e r v i c e s C l i n i c ] w h i c h c l e a r l y show t h e on F e b r u a r y 28, 2006, and e x t r a n e o u s a b o u t t h e m a t t e r s t h e y r e l a t e d to the j u r y . " T h i s t e s t i m o n y was r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e of N e e l ' s s t a t e of mind a t the time of the s h o o t i n g . 9 CR-08-1048 s e r i o u s n e s s o f H a l l ' s d r u g p r o b l e m and t h e t h r e a t s he made t o k i l l C h r i s t y . Furthermore, the State p l a c e d g r e a t e m p h a s i s on t h e f a c t t h a t H a l l was n o t armed, t h o u g h t h a t i s n o t d i s p o s i t i v e o f a q u e s t i o n of s e l f - d e f e n s e . " " I t i s the u n u s u a l case i n which the evidence p r e s e n t s no c o n f l i c t , a n d i t i s l e f t t o t h e c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e q u e s t i o n o f s e l f - d e f e n s e as a m a t t e r of law. The i n s t a n t c a s e falls within this category, f o r t h e r e i s o n l y one v e r s i o n o f t h e e v e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d on F e b r u a r y 28, 2006, a n d t h i s C o u r t must a c c e p t t h a t a c c o u n t as t r u e . T h e r e i s no d i s p u t e as t o what t o o k p l a c e , and t h i s C o u r t i s n o t f a c e d w i t h a q u e s t i o n o f w h i c h w i t n e s s e s were more c r e d i b l e a n d what e v i d e n c e i s more b e l i e v a b l e . The q u a l i t y of the evidence i s not at i s s u e here, but o n l y w h e t h e r t h e r e i s t h e quantum o f e v i d e n c e necessary t o submit the q u e s t i o n t o the j u r y . The e n t i r e t y of the evidence c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e s the Defendant's b e l i e f that there was a real and apparent n e c e s s i t y to s t r i k e i n order t o defend C h r i s t y ' s l i f e a n d h e r own l i f e , a n d t h e r e i s no evidence tending to prove otherwise." (Emphasis added.) T y p i c a l l y , the q u e s t i o n of whether a k i l l i n g i s j u s t i f i e d turns on t h e c r e d i b i l i t y events that of the defendant's version l e d him or her t o a c t i n s e l f - d e f e n s e . C o u r t has o f t e n "'Where, as question of the theory Townsend v. App. 1 9 8 1 ) . of the As stated: h e r e , t h e k i l l i n g was a d m i t t e d , t h e w h e t h e r o r n o t i t was j u s t i f i e d u n d e r of self-defense was f o r t h e j u r y . ' S t a t e , 402 So. 2d 1097, 1098 ( A l a . C r . The i s s u e o f s e l f - d e f e n s e i n v a r i a b l y 10 this CR-08-1048 p r e s e n t s a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y , whose v e r d i c t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l . ' [ E ] v e n i f t h e e v i d e n c e of s e l f - d e f e n s e i s undisputed, the c r e d i b i l i t y of the defendant with respect t o the evidence of s e l f - d e f e n s e i s f o r t h e j u r y , and t h e y may, i n t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n , a c c e p t i t as t r u e o r r e j e c t i t . ' Mack v. S t a t e , 348 So. 2d 524, 529 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 7 7 ) . " T h i s C o u r t ' s o b s e r v a t i o n i n H i l l i a r d v. S t a t e , 610 So. 2d 1 2 0 4 [ , 1205] ( A l a . C r . App. 1992), a recent case w i t h s i m i l a r f a c t s , i s a p p l i c a b l e h e r e : "'The only evidence at trial concerning the appellant's theory of s e l f - d e f e n s e was t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y i n w h i c h he s t a t e d t h a t he s t a b b e d t h e v i c t i m o n l y a f t e r the v i c t i m p u l l e d a k n i f e on him. The j u r y does n o t have t o a c c e p t t h e a c c u s e d ' s v e r s i o n o f what h a p p e n e d . "'"Whether the killing of a n o t h e r was j u s t i f i e d as an a c t of s e l f - d e f e n s e i s a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y , T u r n e r v. S t a t e , 160 A l a . 40, 49 So. 828 [ ( 1 9 0 9 ) ] ; and this i s t r u e even though the d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y as t o how the difficulty occurred is uncontradicted." " " C o l l i e r v. S t a t e , 49 A l a . App. 685, 275 So. 2d 364, 367 (1973) . "The w e i g h t and credence g i v e n the testimony of the accused as t o t h e i s s u e of s e l f - d e f e n s e is a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y . " G a r r a w a y v. S t a t e , 337 So. 2d 1349, 1353 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 7 6 ) . See a l s o A t c h l e y v. S t a t e , 393 So. 2d 1034, 1051 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 1 ) ; W a r r e n v. S t a t e , 380 So. 2d 305, 307 ( A l a . C r . App. 1979), c e r t . q u a s h e d , 380 So. 2d 307 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ; Graham v. S t a t e , 339 So. 2d 110, 113 ( A l a . 11 CR-08-1048 Cr. App.), w r i t (Ala. 1976).'" Quinlivan v. State, 627 denied, So. 2d 339 1082, So. 1087 2d 114 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). " [ T ] h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e a p p e l l a n t was in a c t u a l o r a p p a r e n t i m m e d i a t e p e r i l so as t o j u s t i f y t h e use of p h y s i c a l f o r c e i n s e l f - d e f e n s e i s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t t o be d e c i d e d s o l e l y by t h e j u r y , a f t e r a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n by t h e c o u r t as t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e t e r m . L e m l e y v. S t a t e , 599 So. 2d 64, 74 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . " Moore v. S t a t e , 659 So. 2d 205, 208 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994). "'The l a w o f s e l f - d e f e n s e makes use o f (1) r u l e s , and (2) t h e r e a s o n a b l e - p e r s o n standard. The c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s what t h e r u l e s a r e , b u t i t i s f o r t h e j u r y t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e s t a n d a r d has b e e n met by t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . ' R. P e r k i n s & R. B o y c e , C r i m i n a l Law 1116 (3d ed. 1 9 8 2 ) . ' I t i s t o be n o t e d t h a t r e a s o n a b l e n e s s i s d e t e r m i n e d by a s t a n d a r d -- a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n u n d e r l i k e circumstances -- and t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s made by t h e j u r y . ' P e r k i n s , a t 1117." K i n g v. S t a t e , 478 So. 2d 318, 321-22 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1985). " ' " O n l y when a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i s u n d i s p u t e d and clear should a court dispose of a murder or m a n s l a u g h t e r c h a r g e by a c q u i t t a l w i t h o u t t e n d e r i n g the i s s u e of s e l f - d e f e n s e t o the j u r y (cases c i t e d ) . R a r e l y , t h e n , i s s e l f - d e f e n s e d e c l a r e d by l a w so as to bar the submission of the homicide offense altogether."'" Lockett v. State, 1986), q u o t i n g 505 S t a t e v. So. 2d 1281, Thornton, 12 532 1285 (Ala. Crim. S.W.2d 37, 42-43 App. (Mo. CR-08-1048 C t . App. 1975), q u o t i n g 317, 319 (Mo. C t . App. 1975). Lockett f u r t h e r noted The court i n t u r n S t a t e v. J a c k s o n , the r a r i t y 522 S.W.2d of a trial c o u r t ' s e n t r y o f a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l on t h e i s s u e o f s e l f defense. The c o u r t stated: "On r a r e o c c a s i o n s , t h e A l a b a m a c o u r t s have reversed the t r i a l court f o r i t s f a i l u r e to d i r e c t an acquittal verdict where the prosecution's evidence i n p r e s e n t i n g the evidence of the k i l l i n g a l s o presented undisputed evidence of s e l f - d e f e n s e . See e.g., B i s h o p v. S t a t e , 23 A l a . App. 109, 121 So. 455 ( 1 9 2 9 ) ; Simmons v. S t a t e , 22 A l a . App. 126, 113 So. 466 ( 1 9 2 7 ) . [ ] These two c a s e s have been c i t e d as a u t h o r i t y f o r the f o l l o w i n g general p r i n c i p l e : ' I f the undisputed e v i d e n c e shows c l e a r l y that the a c c u s e d was i n a c t u a l o r a p p a r e n t i m m i n e n t p e r i l and was u n a b l e t o r e t r e a t , and t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e w a r r a n t i n g a f i n d i n g t h a t he was a t f a u l t , he i s e n t i t l e d t o have t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t e d t o r e t u r n a v e r d i c t o f n o t g u i l t y . ' C. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 4 5 7 . 0 2 ( 7 ) (3d e d . 1 9 7 7 ) . See a l s o Hamby v. S t a t e , 254 A l a . 139, 47 So. 2d 218 (1950); Thompson v. S t a t e , 376 So. 2d 761, 764 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 376 So. 2d 766 ( A l a . 1979) ( w h e r e i n t h e c o u r t n o t e d t h a t ' [ w ] h e r e t h e u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y shows t h e v i c t i m t o be a t f a u l t , t h e a c c u s e d may be e n t i t l e d t o a d i r e c t e d verdict'). 6 "More p a r t i c u l a r l y a p r o p o s t o t h e i n s t a n t f a c t s i s P r a t t v. S t a t e , 50 T e x . C r . R . 227, 96 S.W. 8, 10 (1906), where the prosecution, 'to a very O u r r e s e a r c h has r e v e a l e d no c a s e s i n c e 1929 i n w h i c h an Alabama a p p e l l a t e c o u r t r e v e r s e d a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o d i r e c t a v e r d i c t of a c q u i t t a l i n a s e l f - d e f e n s e case. 6 13 CR-08-1048 c o n s i d e r a b l e e x t e n t , r e l i e d upon t h e a d m i s s i o n s o r confessions of a p p e l l a n t ' which e s t a b l i s h e d , not o n l y t h a t he k i l l e d t h e v i c t i m , b u t t h a t he d i d i t i n s e l f - d e f e n s e . T h e r e was no e y e w i t n e s s t o t h e killing. I d . The court held that, where the c r i m i n a t i n g evidence c o n s i s t s almost e n t i r e l y of a p p e l l a n t ' s a d m i s s i o n t h a t he k i l l e d t h e v i c t i m , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n has t h e b u r d e n t o p r o v e t h e f a l s i t y o f the e x c u l p a t o r y p o r t i o n of a p p e l l a n t ' s statement. Id. ( R e l y i n g on J o n e s v. S t a t e , 29 Tex.App. 20, 13 S.W. 990 ( 1 8 9 0 ) ) . "Another court s t a t e d the general principles applicable to the prosecution's use of the defendant's statement, which confirmed the d e f e n d a n t ' s c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e k i l l i n g as w e l l as justification b y s e l f - d e f e n s e , as f o l l o w s : "'The p r o s e c u t i o n , h a v i n g p r e s e n t e d as a part of i t s case the statement of d e f e n d a n t as t o how t h e k i l l i n g o c c u r r e d , i s bound by t h a t e v i d e n c e i n t h e absence o f p r o o f t o t h e c o n t r a r y . P e o p l e v. C o p p l a , 100 C a l . App. 2d 766, 769, 224 P.2d 828 [ ( 1 9 5 0 ) ] . I f t h e r e be any w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d circumstance which may be reasonably r e g a r d e d as i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e k i l l i n g was j u s t i f i a b l e , t h e t r i e r of f a c t , from a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l the evidence, i s warranted i n f i n d i n g that the act amounted t o an u n l a w f u l homicide. P e o p l e v. A c o s t a , 45 C a l . 2d 538, 541, 290 P.2d 1 [ ( 1 9 5 5 ) ] . ' "'People v. C o l l i n s , 189 C a l . App. 2d 575, 11 C a l . R p t r . 504, 515 ( D i s t . C t . App. 1961) . T h a t c o u r t reversed the appellant's voluntary manslaughter c o n v i c t i o n upon i t s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s statement or the other evidence o f f e r e d nothing w h i c h 'may be r e a s o n a b l y r e g a r d e d as i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e k i l l i n g was justifiable.' Id. 14 CR-08-1048 "Thus, f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s use of L o c k e t t ' s admissions presented exculpatory as w e l l as i n c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e does n o t f o l l o w t h e mandate t h a t L o c k e t t was e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t o f acquittal. "'Where the defendant's statements to w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e s t a t e as t o what t o o k p l a c e b e t w e e n t h e d e c e a s e d and h i m s e l f a r e shown, t h e j u r y n e e d n o t c o n s i d e r them t o the e x c l u s i o n of a l l other facts and c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e a r i n g on t h e q u e s t i o n o f s e l f - d e f e n s e . The s t a t e i s n o t p r e c l u d e d by a c o n f e s s i o n of the defendant t h a t he k i l l e d the deceased i n s e l f - d e f e n s e ' "3 W a r r e n on H o m i c i d e § 285, p. 330 (1938) ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . We must l o o k t o t h e r e m a i n d e r o f the prosecution's evidence to determine whether any c o n t r a d i c t i o n o f L o c k e t t ' s a d m i s s i o n s e x i s t e d o r any e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d w h i c h g e n e r a t e d reasonably different inferences. " I n a p p l y i n g t h e e n u n c i a t e d p r i n c i p l e s , we h o l d t h a t t h i s c a s e i s n o t t h e r a r e and u n u s u a l s i t u a t i o n where the proof uncontradictedly and clearly e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t L o c k e t t was forced to k i l l to d e f e n d h i m s e l f o r o t h e r s . Compare K e n t v. S t a t e , 367 So. 2d 508 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 367 So. 2d 518 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . " 505 So. 2d a t Neel did statement Neel's calls. and 1285-86. not to police statement I n one on c o c a i n e . testify was 911 and the not call at trial; audiotapes totally Neel she of relied the consistent s a i d t h a t H a l l was 911 with on calls. her "messed However, i n h e r s t a t e m e n t t o p o l i c e she 15 her 911 up" said CR-08-1048 t h a t she d i d n o t t h i n k H a l l was "messed up b e c a u s e [ s h e ] h a d s e e n h i m messed up b e f o r e . " Hall first Also, b e f o r e t h e s h o o t i n g when came t o h e r r e s i d e n c e , N e e l i n v i t e d H a l l home w h i l e she g o t d r e s s e d person i s i n fear who -- into her an a c t i n c o n s i s t e n t f o r her l i f e or the l i f e with a of another. T h e r e was no p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t H a l l was armed w i t h a d e a d l y weapon, n o r d i d N e e l s a y i n h e r s t a t e m e n t H a l l was armed. she was residence N e e l t o l d h e r h u s b a n d t o open t h e d o o r w h i l e armed confrontation. that with a gun, thereby escalating the N e e l knew t h a t p o l i c e h a d b e e n c a l l e d t o t h e a n d were Jackson that Neel on t h e i r way. Hall also shot him " i n c o l d b l o o d . " told Captain The S t a t e a l s o p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t was r e l e v a n t t o N e e l ' s s t a t e o f m i n d at the time chose events o f t h e s h o o t i n g -- e v i d e n c e to ignore. was pivotal testified. different situation The c r e d i b i l i t y The i n this evidence inferences." where the This proof of Neel's case tended the c i r c u i t to because version no others." of the eyewitness establish "reasonably i s not the "rare and u n u s u a l u n c o n t r a d i c t e d l y and e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t [ N e e l ] was f o r c e d t o k i l l t o d e f e n d or court L o c k e t t , 505 So. 2d a t 1286. 16 clearly [herself] CR-08-1048 By finding Neel guilty o f murder t h e j u r y chose n o t t o b e l i e v e Neel's account o f the events t h a t l e d t o H a l l ' s death. The j u r y was f r e e t o make t h i s d e c i s i o n b a s e d on i t s w e i g h i n g of the evidence. determination The a n d made interpretation of circuit court credibility the evidence. went choices "'Under behind based our have no truth.'" special expertise Ex p a r t e Nice, The t r i a l judge i n determining who 407 So. 2d 874, 879 on i t s system jurisprudence a properly i n s t r u c t e d jury of c i t i z e n s whether w i t n e s s e s a r e c r e d i b l e . that of decides i s deemed t o speaks t h e (Ala. 1981), q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. C r a v e r o , 530 F.2d 666, 670 ( 5 t h C i r . 1976). are within "[C]redibility province 1037 of the jury." questions Frazier ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . the exclusive v. S t a t e , 663 So. 2d 1035, As we s t a t e d i n G r a n t l a n d : " I n Ex p a r t e N i c e , 407 So. 2d 874 ( A l a . 1981) ... the Alabama Supreme Court recognized that e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s may a r i s e i n a c r i m i n a l case t h a t p r e s e n t a c o m p e l l i n g need f o r t h e i s s u a n c e of a w r i t o f mandamus t o c o u n t e r m a n d a j u d i c i a l usurpation o f power and t o p r e v e n t a gross disruption i n the administration of criminal j u s t i c e . I n N i c e , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t u p h e l d this court's issuance of a writ o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g the t r i a l court t o rescind i t s order g r a n t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l a n d t o r e i n s t a t e t h e j u r y ' s g u i l t y v e r d i c t where i t was a p p a r e n t f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t l e g a l evidence t o submit t h e case t o t h e 17 CR-08-1048 j u r y , the t r i a l c o u r t had g r a n t e d the defendant's m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l b a s e d on t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s p e r s o n a l b e l i e f t h a t t h e v i c t i m ' s t e s t i m o n y was ' d u b i o u s . ' N i c e , 407 So. 2d a t 879. B e c a u s e i t was apparent t h a t t h e t r i a l judge had not based i t s g r a n t o f t h e new t r i a l m o t i o n upon a f i n d i n g t h a t the s t a t e h a d f a i l e d t o p r o v e i t s c a s e as a m a t t e r of l a w , b u t r a t h e r t h a t he h a d assumed t h e r o l e o f a ' t h i r t e e n t h j u r o r , ' who w o u l d have r e a c h e d a d i f f e r e n t d e c i s i o n f r o m t h e one r e a c h e d b y t h e o t h e r 12 j u r o r s , N i c e , 407 So. 2d a t 881-82, t h e Supreme Court found t h a t t h e t r i a l judge had exceeded h i s a u t h o r i t y . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t i t was a p p r o p r i a t e t o d i r e c t t h e t r i a l j u d g e t o s e t a s i d e h i s g r a n t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l and t o r e i n s t a t e t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t o f g u i l t . The Supreme Court concluded that i t was 'unimportant' t h a t t h e s t a t e had sought review o f the t r i a l j u d g e ' s r u l i n g t h r o u g h mandamus, i t s o n l y a v a i l a b l e remedy u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a n d n o t b y d i r e c t a p p e a l , w h i c h i s a remedy a v a i l a b l e t o t h e F e d e r a l Government i n s u c h c a s e s , b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e was ' g u i l t y o f a " u s u r p a t i o n o f power," as t h e s e t e r m s a r e u s e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p r o p r i e t y o f a g r a n t o f mandamus.' N i c e , 407 So. 2d a t 879." 709 So. 2d a t 1313-14. Here, the ultimate q u e s t i o n -- w h e t h e r Neel acted i n s e l f - d e f e n s e -- was a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e f i n d e r o f f a c t -- t h e jury. The c i r c u i t court usurped the jury's exclusive fact- f i n d i n g r o l e by s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t i n t h i s case. Judge Denson Crim. P. a c t e d beyond The S t a t e prerequisites t h e scope of Rule h a s met i t s b u r d e n of e s t a b l i s h i n g the f o r the issuance of a w r i t 18 2 0 . 3 , A l a . R. o f mandamus. See CR-08-1048 Grantland, for supra. A c c o r d i n g l y , we g r a n t t h e S t a t e ' s a w r i t o f mandamus a n d d i r e c t J u d g e Denson t o s e t a s i d e h i s order v a c a t i n g the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t f i n d i n g Neel murder and t o s e n t e n c e N e e l petition g u i l t y of i n accordance w i t h her c o n v i c t i o n f o r murder. PETITION GRANTED; WRIT Wise, ISSUED. P . J . , a n d W e l c h , Windom, K e l l u m , concur. 19 and Main, JJ.,

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.