Kaleem Ariff Tariq-Madyun v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 05/28/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-08-1176 Kaleem A r i f f T a r i q - M a d y u n v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WELCH, Court Judge. Kaleem A r i f f of from Morgan C i r c u i t (CC-06-794) s i x counts T a r i q - M a d y u n was c h a r g e d w i t h of f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery, court and c o n v i c t e d see § 13A-8-41, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . The t r i a l sentenced Tariq-Madyun t o serve consecutive terms o f 25 y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t . The t r i a l 6 court CR-08-1176 ordered Tariq-Madyun to pay an a s s e s s m e n t o f $ 3 0 0 t o t h e Victims Compensation and fees, and evidence. The does State's restaurants Decatur the were of restaurants not at and carrying a The a wore costs, attorney the crime scenes. the robberies or dark blue most the r e s t a u r a n t r o b b e r i e s Madyun f o r a t r a f f i c consensual search the When violation of his over were 2 the close wearing his like recovered and that The gloves dark face weapon he robber those of i d e n t i f i e d as a s u s p e c t in near the occurred the one of i n O c t o b e r 2005 was police 12, they at in any on May car to at of when morning or plastic obtained t h a t had area occurred t o o b t a i n t h e money. often DNA. Beltline semiautomatic T a r i q - M a d y u n was his of a two-month p e r i o d covering fingerprints when a s h i r t contain during other gloves, the a s i n g l e b l a c k man or No sufficiency t o open i n the mask wear. the robberies at employees i n order to court near gunpoint 2006. black foodservers a or were c o m m i t t e d by clothing found challenge on were p r e p a r i n g a t n i g h t and typically pay evidence e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t employees located robbed Spring pointed to restitution. Tariq-Madyun six Fund Crime scene of stopped 2 0 0 6 , and located .40 Tariq- conducted caliber CR-08-1176 bullets, plastic clothing found backseat. A vehicle, been .40 c a l i b e r pair of and t h e s o l e s several dating during that damp shoes Slaughter, was the time Two weapon robberies. One they the left Tariq-Madyun had were committed he h a d that of from shoe p r i n t s women them black beneath the recovered the robberies told of o f t h e c a r , and of t h e shoes matched Tariq-Madyun restaurant articles semiautomatic one o f t h e r e s t a u r a n t s . testified the and i n s i d e a backpack i n the trunk a loaded outside gloves, committed the women, Tiffany t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r T a r i q - M a d y u n was a r r e s t e d , s h e t h r e w d a r k c l o t h i n g a n d a w i g he h a d w o r n d u r i n g some o f t h e robberies into a dumpster l o c a t e d at her p l a c e of employment. Slaughter told t h e p o l i c e what and t h e p o l i c e retrieved the items recovered from from the dumpster. the dumpster Madyun's s e c o n d g i r l f r i e n d , wig wig and e x p l a i n e d was used that i n some she had done, was matching Tariq-Madyun's was Slaughter had d i s c a r d e d into of a wig belonging the to items Tariq- W h y k i e a C o h n ; Cohn i d e n t i f i e d t h e i t had been m i s s i n g of One the restaurant detected 3 the time robberies. o n some the dumpster. I. during of those a DNA items CR-08-1176 Tariq-Madyun denied argues h i s motion instead tried a l l appears t o be that to sever the t r i a l the s i x counts o f the cases together. that court erred the consolidated when i t o f robbery and H i s p r i m a r y argument trial o f a l l charges p r e j u d i c e d h i m b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h e j u r y was o v e r l o a d e d w i t h prejudicial evidence from Tariq-Madyun Crim. acts argues P., p r o h i b i t s solely evidence prejudice, Rule the 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. o f evidence outweigh of consolidation o f other bad the admission o f the danger of Tariq-Madyun's P., d o e s o f charges under buti t s unfair discussion not address Rule 13.3, the severance o f j o i n e d charges pursuant t o 1 3 . 4 , A l a . R. sever charges. because also 4 0 3 , A l a . R. E v i d . prejudice from a t r i a l to Rule c r i m e must n o t o n l y be r e l e v a n t , must R. C r i m . P., Rule that 4 0 3 a n d 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . propriety Ala. the admission o f another value Rules at length counts. t o show b a d c h a r a c t e r a n d t h a t probative of the multiple Tariq-Madyun Crim. P., or court's denial See R u l e also the burden of proving o f a defendant's 1 0 ( g ) , A l a . R. A p p . P. argues that the s i x counts motion However, d i d not h a v e e n o u g h i n common t o e s t a b l i s h a p a t t e r n o r common s c h e m e , 4 CR-08-1176 we w i l l the address whether motion The with to State charged to sever Tariq-Madyun o f robbery. the counts w o u l d be p r e j u d i c i a l time. (C. 1 3 9 . ) connection committed trial among by a s i n g l e trial the black court man t h e common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that t h e r o b b e r was a s t o c k y Police was a pretrial gloves; handgun; that pointed with factor, he crime testified warranting at the male w e a r i n g that the robber he t a r g e t e d dark 5 carried Jones hearing were clothes surgical a black restaurants; that the restaurant, person, person, was argued, o f each o f the r o b b e r i e s black that on each Investigator Chris t h e gun a t t h a t the robbery that i t hearing that a signature Department soon as t h e r o b b e r e n t e r e d complete a h i s f a c e ; t h a t t h e r o b b e r wore p l a s t i c food-preparation employee, indictment motion conducted and t h a t together. that semiautomatic filed i n that robberies the Decatur or single Tariq-Madyun argued that the to establish o f a l l the cases concealing in a and argued with and when i t d e n i e d t o t r y t h e m u l t i p l e r o b b e r y c a s e s a t one The was n o t s u f f i c i e n t a erred Tariq-Madyun Tariq-Madyun's motion to sever. only court sever. s i x counts motion the t r i a l he s i n g l e d o u t one and a t t e m p t e d rather than as to pointing CR-08-1176 the gun at first one employee brought a white or off-white restaurants pillowcase foot. and or f o r c e d the bag; and and then a n o t h e r ; the pillowcase or employees to p l a c e the robber left bag to crime had "never on worked gloves." 32.) The evidence e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the M a r c h 5, 2 0 0 6 ; M a r c h 13, April 5, 2 0 0 6 ; and that other Huntsville May similar and Investigator stated 7, Madison Jones 2006. during this Tariq-Madyun business he one restaurants used Investigator Jones officers that she had a wig said, had officers during and he owned a w i g 6 robber some stated but that of in time. Tariq- Whykiea Cohn, that told officers The 2006; occurred them of that she he that the the and was Tariq- identified of on testified period i n D e c a t u r and robbed. 1, spoke w i t h and told Slaughter to a r e s t a u r a n t had general had Madyun d r o v e h e r as 2006; A p r i l robberies Tiffany Slaughter c o m m i t t i n g the r o b b e r i e s . took place I n v e s t i g a t o r Jones t e s t i f i e d that that robberies 2 0 0 6 ; M a r c h 16, restaurant Walker's g i r l f r i e n d s , both the scenes a case where [ t h e p e r p e t r a t o r ] a c t u a l l y wore s u r g i c a l (R. the t h e money i n the I n v e s t i g a t o r J o n e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he robber the Decatur robberies, Cohn had told could not find CR-08-1176 the wig during part of t h e time i n which the robberies occurred. Investigator vehicle Jones further testified T a r i q - M a d y u n was d r i v i n g was s t o p p e d numerous items were f o u n d i n s i d e t h e t r u n k , plastic glove, live r o u n d s o f .40 c a l i b e r green p i l l o w c a s e , and a d a r k b l u e found inside the backpack were: s o c k s ; a damp p a i r a long-sleeved black knit a damp rounds black glove pair of of black tennis of black knit Dickie ammunition. pants; blue jacket; a ammunition, grass pillowcase; a pants; Jones and brand .40 c a l i b e r p i l l o w c a s e ; a n d one Jones recovered from a dumpster behind further t-shirts. 7 caliber testified handgun; wig; white black windbreaker box o f clear testified that additional plastic that Tiffany Slaughter's employment i n c l u d e d : a b r o w n i s h - b l a c k s w e a t p a n t s ; a n d two b l a c k .40 seat o f f i c e r s found Investigator on t h e m ; g l o v e ; a b l a c k toboggan c a p ; brand gloves. light latex gloves; black sweatpants; a black toboggan; a black white a Among t h e i t e m s shoes w i t h Investigator i n c l u d i n g : a Glock the including:a clear t u r t l e n e c k s h i r t ; a beige and a b l u e when on May 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , backpack. two c l e a r beneath the rear passenger-side items, that items place of socks; black CR-08-1176 Finally, Investigator investigation of the Jones testified robberies, he sent enforcement agencies i n the s u r r o u n d i n g t h e y had had that i n v e s t i g a t o r i n Madison a an clear any plastic recovered by interstate DNA a glove and tracking dog obtained during message the to law- i n q u i r i n g whether in their jurisdictions, on black a contacted shirt fence a restaurant testified Jones a area C i t y had a following Investigator that similar robberies that that him robbery about had that line been close in to the shirt matched considering the testimony the Madison. forensic analysis from and revealed Tariq-Madyun's DNA profile. After counsel, sever, the and character, their trial stated that court that they c o m m i s s i o n , and the denied appeared to had (R. no basis to have any The of arguments of were p a r t court the were to a similar as far as o f a common further stated counts from of motion a connection that they arguably sever the Tariq-Madyun's s i x robberies scheme or method o f o p e r a t i o n . it and that one another. in relevant 50.) Rule 13.3(a), Ala. R. Crim. part: 8 P., provides, CR-08-1176 "(a) Offenses. Two o r m o r e o f f e n s e s may be j o i n e d i n an i n d i c t m e n t , i n f o r m a t i o n , o r c o m p l a i n t , i f they: "(1) Are "(2) otherwise of the same o r Are b a s e d on the connected i n t h e i r "(3) Are a l l e g e d t o scheme or p l a n . " (Emphasis if 13.4, order motion of to A l a . R. separate i t appears joinder character; same c o n d u c t or commission; o r have been p a r t of a or are common added.) Rule may similar trials that a offenses. sever Crim. f o r an P., provides that a t r i a l o f o f f e n s e s j o i n e d i n an defendant would We a trial review abuse of be indictment prejudiced court's court by ruling discretion. " T h i s C o u r t n o t e d i n S u m m e r l i n v . S t a t e , 594 So. 2 d 2 3 5 , 236 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) , t h a t ' t h e g r a n t i n g o f a severance r e s t s w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t a n d i t s r e f u s a l t o s e v e r c o u n t s ... w i l l o n l y be r e v e r s e d f o r a c l e a r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' "'The b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s on t h e d e f e n d a n t to demonstrate specific and compelling prejudice which the trial court cannot p r o t e c t a g a i n s t and w h i c h c a u s e s him to r e c e i v e an u n f a i r t r i a l . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Butra, 677 F.2d 1376, 1385 (11th C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 459 U.S. 1 1 0 8 , 102 S. C t . 735, 74 L . E d . 2 d 958 (1983). It is o n l y the most c o m p e l l i n g p r e j u d i c e , a g a i n s t w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l n o t be a b l e t o a f f o r d p r o t e c t i o n , t h a t w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h e c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n 9 the on a CR-08-1176 not g r a n t i n g a severance. U n i t e d S t a t e s v. P e r e z , 48 9 F . 2 d 5 1 , 65 (5th C i r . 1973), c e r t . d e n i e d , 417 U.S. 9 4 5 , 94 S. C t . 3 0 6 7 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 664 (1974). Moreover, a defendant seeking to o v e r t u r n a d e n i a l of severance must demonstrate specific p r e j u d i c e which r e s u l t e d from the d e n i a l . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. W a l k e r , 456 F.2d 1037, 1039 ( 5 t h C i r . 1972 ) . A mere s h o w i n g o f some p r e j u d i c e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t . United S t a t e s v . W i l s o n , 657 F . 2 d 7 5 5 , 765 (5th C i r . 1 9 8 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 455 U.S. 9 5 1 , 102 S. C t . 1 4 5 6 , 71 L . E d . 2 d 667 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S t a l l e r , 616 F . 2 d 1 2 8 4 , 1294 ( 5 t h C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 449 U.S. 8 6 9 , 101 S. C t . 2 0 7 , 66 L . E d . 2 d 89 (1980).' " H i n t o n v . S t a t e , 548 So. 2 d 5 4 7 , 555 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 988 ) , a f f ' d , 548 So. 2d 562 (Ala.), cert. d e n i e d , 449 U.S. 8 6 9 , 101 S. C t . 2 0 7 , 66 L . E d . 2 d 89 (1989)." Minnis v. State, 1996). M o r e o v e r , t h i s C o u r t has w h e r e , as h e r e , the separate 236-37 690 crimes." above, prove prejudice to sever Alabama that he 521, 524-25 law v. Crim. App. prejudice results separate State, the evidence 594 So. 2d of 235, 1991). failed that the (Ala. s t a t e d , "No Summerlin App. T a r i q - M a d y u n has failure 2d the j u r y c o u l d e a s i l y (Ala. Crim. specific So. to demonstrate or even a l l e g e resulted counts places of upon suffered specific 10 the an and from the trial indictment. appellant the compelling any court's As noted burden to prejudice in CR-08-1176 order on to secure the motion 562, to sever. 1988), based former Rule In H i n t o n v. S t a t e , aff'd most improper on t h e t r i a l E . g . , Ex p a r t e 566 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ( u n d e r Temp.). the a reversal court's Hinton, ruling 548 S o . 2 d 1 5 . 3 , A l a . R. C r i m . P. 548 S o . 2 d 547 ( A l a . Crim. App. by Ex p a r t e H i n t o n , s u p r a , t h i s Court e x p l a i n e d common forms of prejudice that might result from joinder: "'With respect to prejudice of the defendant, i ti s[ g e n e r a l l y ] l i k e l y t o f a l l i n t o o n e o f t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s : " ( 1 ) he may become embarrassed or confounded in p r e s e n t i n g s e p a r a t e d e f e n s e s ; (2) t h e j u r y may u s e t h e e v i d e n c e o f o n e o f t h e c r i m e s c h a r g e d t o i n f e r a c r i m i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n on the p a r t of t h e defendant from which i s found h i s g u i l t of the other crime or crimes charged; or (3) t h e j u r y may cumulate the evidence of the v a r i o u s crimes c h a r g e d a n d f i n d g u i l t when, i f c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y i t would n o t so f i n d . " ' "2 L a F a v e a n d I s r a e l , 17.1(c) [(1984)]." 548 that So. 2d a t 555. the him. this Tariq-Madyun t h e S t a t e combined overload the jury ... C r i m i n a l with He c i t e s vague prejudicial fortrial evidence Nothing claim i n order to and t o c o n v i n c e on t h e number o f c h a r g e s a g a i n s t n o t h i n g from the r e c o r d i n t h i s claim. at § h a s made o n l y a b a r e a l l s i x counts j u r y to c o n v i c t him based Procedure from 11 the record case t o support demonstrates that CR-08-1176 t h e j u r y was that its evidence e i t h e r overloaded verdicts presented were as allegation does prejudice" necessary court's not to decision with prejudicial information based each on anything count. e s t a b l i s h the to warrant other than Tariq-Madyun's "specific the and reversal of or the generic compelling the trial here. "His bare a l l e g a t i o n t h a t , i f the j u r y were to b e l i e v e t h a t he was i n v o l v e d i n one b a n k robbery, t h e n i t m i g h t a l s o ( i m p r o p e r l y ) be l e d t o b e l i e v e f r o m t h a t f a c t a l o n e t h a t he was i n v o l v e d i n the o t h e r , i s s i m p l y not enough. T h i s type of s p i l l o v e r i s standard f a r e whenever counts i n v o l v i n g d i s c r e t e i n c i d e n t s are l i n k e d i n a s i n g l e i n d i c t m e n t . We have r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t such a garden v a r i e t y s i d e effect, without more, i s i n s u f f i c i e n t to require severance. See U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B o y l a n , 898 F.2d 230, 246 (1st Cir.) (collecting cases), cert. d e n i e d , 498 U.S. 8 4 9 , 111 S. C t . 1 3 9 , 112 L . E d . 2d 106 (1990). Moreover, the case f o r p r e j u d i c e i s especially weak in this instance because the d i s t r i c t court's jury instructions delineated the separateness o f t h e t h r e e c o u n t s a n d made i t c l e a r t h a t t h e j u r y h a d t o c o n s i d e r e a c h c h a r g e on i t s own merits." United As States was the t h a t the t r i a l v. Taylor, 54 F.3d case i n United 967, S t a t e s v. 974 (1st C i r . T a y l o r , we 1995). note, c o u r t here i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y t h o r o u g h l y 1 too, about Alabama c o u r t s have h e l d t h a t because Alabama's r u l e s regarding consolidation and j o i n d e r a r e v e r y s i m i l a r t o the f e d e r a l r u l e s , c o n s i d e r a t i o n of f e d e r a l cases i s p r o p e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r c o n s o l i d a t i o n was p r o p e r u n d e r A l a b a m a ' s procedural rules. Ex p a r t e H i n t o n , 548 So. 2d a t 566. 1 12 CR-08-1176 its duty whether to c o n s i d e r each the State reasonable doubt. any possible counts. 2002), (1st had case met i t s burden (R. 6 7 4 - 8 0 . ) prejudice' s e p a r a t e l y and United proof "These i n s t r u c t i o n s from the joinder" U n i t e d S t a t e s v. M e l e n d e z , quoting of to S t a t e s v. 301 beyond 'minimized the separate 27, 36 (1st C i r . 938 F.2d 302, 308 C i r . 1991). We find additional Madyun's a s s e r t i o n State, supra. Hinton argued i t c o n s o l i d a t e d two then failed Court to first guidance for of p r e j u d i c e from when grant that this the Court trial that to sever the of Tariq- i n Hinton c o u r t had c a p i t a l - m u r d e r cases h i s motion determined analysis the cases prejudicial held that as to deprive Hinton no p r e j u d i c e r e s u l t e d of a for trial and charges. The were to Hinton. fair The properly was trial, and i t Court stated: "As t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s d e f e n s e t o b o t h c h a r g e s was t h e same, i . e . , m i s t a k e n identity, t h e r e was no c h a n c e t h a t he c o u l d have become e m b a r r a s s e d or confounded by presenting separate defenses. M o r e o v e r , w h e r e , as i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e n a t u r e of t h e o f f e n s e s o r o f t h e e v i d e n c e i s n o t o f s u c h a c h a r a c t e r o r i s n o t so c o m p l i c a t e d t h a t a j u r y c o u l d not reasonably be expected to separate the i n d i c t m e n t s and t o e v a l u a t e t h e e v i d e n c e p r o p e r l y and individually on each separate charge, the 13 v. erred c o n s o l i d a t e d and t h e n c o n s i d e r e d w h e t h e r t h e c o n s o l i d a t i o n so a of F.3d Natanel, determine CR-08-1176 s e v e r a n c e m o t i o n i s due t o be d e n i e d . United States v. H a r r i s , 458 F.2d 670 , 673 (5th C i r . ) , cert. d e n i e d , 409 U.S. 8 8 8 , 93 S. C t . 1 9 5 , 34 L . E d . 2d 145 (1972). N e i t h e r does mere s p e c u l a t i o n t h a t t h e j u r y w i l l not f o l l o w the i n s t r u c t i o n s of the t r i a l c o u r t with respect to compartmentalizing the evidence j u s t i f y a severance. U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B o r i s h , 452 F. S u p p . 5 1 8 , 524 (E.D. P a . 1 9 7 8 ) . Nor i s s e v e r a n c e j u s t i f i e d on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e j u r y w i l l c u m u l a t e e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d on a l l c o u n t s u n l e s s p r e j u d i c e f l o w i n g from c o n s o l i d a t i o n of the i n d i c t m e n t s is c l e a r l y beyond the c u r a t i v e powers of cautionary i n s t r u c t i o n s by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. M o r r o w , 537 F.2d 120 , 136 (5th C i r . 1976), cert. d e n i e d , 430 U.S. 956, 97 S. C t . 1 6 0 2 , 51 L . E d . 2d 806 (1977). " I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e we f i n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e r e q u i s i t e s p e c i f i c and c o m p e l l i n g p r e j u d i c e as a r e s u l t o f t h e j o i n t trial o f t h e two i n d i c t m e n t s , e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t o f t h e f a c t t h a t h a d t h e s e two c a s e s b e e n t r i e d s e p a r a t e l y , in each t r i a l evidence of the other charged crime would have been a d m i s s i b l e under the p l a n , d e s i g n , scheme, or s y s t e m and identity exception to the general exclusionary rule. N i c k s v . S t a t e , 521 So. 2d 1018, 1025-28 ( A l a . C r . App. 1987), a f f ' d , 521 So. 2 d 1035 (Ala. 1988)." 548 his 2d As that So. i n Hinton he argument denied 555-56. v. State, s u f f e r e d any denying that at that the specific and trial court the motion to sever committing he could any have Tariq-Madyun failed compelling abused to prejudice, i t s discretion necessarily fails. embarrassed 14 or and in Tariq-Madyun o f t h e r o b b e r i e s , so t h e r e was become establish no chance confounded by CR-08-1176 presenting presented the jury separate defenses. -- a l t h o u g h extensive could reasonably evidence as individually to each on e a c h that the State tried jury and t o c o n v i n c e number o f c h a r g e s and was 393 -- was robbery and charge. to the jury F.3d 669, 679 evaluate together the evidence allegation him based was s h e e r See United on t h e speculation States ( 6 t h C i r . 20 0 5 ) ( a l t h o u g h v. the appellant alluded to the cumulative the j u r y , "an u n p r o v e n a s s e r t i o n i s n o t c o m p e l l i n g e v i d e n c e o f actual prejudice"). to the establish trial Tariq-Madyun also and c o m p e l l i n g p r e j u d i c e r e s u l t i n g failure to sever the charges. has not e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n trial, of the evidence a n d he i s n o t e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f event." b e c a u s e we find from Therefore, the t r i a l when i t d e c l i n e d t o s e v e r court the cases f o r on h i s c l a i m o f e r r o r . "We n e e d n o t d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e s e c h a r g e s joined, on Tariq-Madyun has not s u s t a i n e d h i s burden specific court's effect and t o overwhelm t h e to convict the record. evidence to separate the Tariq-Madyun's bare the charges by the not complicated, have been e x p e c t e d and n o t t h e e v i d e n c e unsupported Saadey, Moreover, were improperly no c o m p e l l i n g p r e j u d i c e a r o s e i n any U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Dowd, 451 F . 3 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 4 9 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 15 CR-08-1176 2006). Nonetheless, we failure to establish specific result of the t r i a l joinder of the The evidence trial and court's offenses consolidated t r i a l case. note court arguments that that to and c o m p e l l i n g ruling in a on Tariq-Madyun's prejudice the motion single to determined, presented t h e y were after connected i n their o f a common s c h e m e o r p l a n . examined the on We principles v. State, supra, because c o n s o l i d a t e d two c a p i t a l - m u r d e r at restaurants who had been the the Tariq- and agree. regarding c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f c r i m i n a l c a s e s o f a same o r s i m i l a r Hinton of this commission, t h e y were p a r t Court a were o f a s i m i l a r This in and considering at the hearing that the robberies as a sever, indictment were p r o p e r under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s Madyun's m o t i o n t o s e v e r , character, i n addition trial character court had cases i n v o l v i n g n i g h t managers robbed and then murdered. The C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t c o n s o l i d a t i o n was p r o p e r b e c a u s e i n b o t h c r i m e s t h e n i g h t managers o f f a s t - f o o d r e s t a u r a n t s were robbed and then coolers murdered. After of the restaurants t h e managers and shot t w i c e same g u n , t h e r e s t a u r a n t s were Birmingham a major and were near 16 were forced into the i n t h e head w i t h t h e i n generally t h e same p a r t expressway or of interstate, CR-08-1176 both crimes o c c u r r e d when t h e n i g h t m a n a g e r s robber sought victims' l a r g e amounts wallets fingerprints. defendant presented Court had a common a classic agreed that case joinder alone, the o f c a s h i n t h e s a f e -- l e a v i n g t h e untouched, The C o u r t were and stated that plan and the robber i t was o b v i o u s that f o r joinder. the that the had been Supreme proper, stating: "Joinder, and thus c o n s o l i d a t i o n , i s appropriate where t h e c r i m e s a r e o f s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r , meaning n e a r l y c o r r e s p o n d i n g , r e s e m b l i n g i n many r e s p e c t s , or having a general likeness. U n i t e d S t a t e s v. W e r n e r , 620 F . 2 d 9 2 2 , 926 ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) . The C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s h a s r e c e n t l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e most i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r c r i m e s a r e s i m i l a r i s w h e t h e r one o f f e n s e w o u l d h a v e been admissible i n the trial of the other. N i c k e r s o n v . S t a t e , 523 S o . 2 d 504 , 50 6-07 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1987) (relying on Wright, Federal P r a c t i c e a n d P r o c e d u r e , C r i m i n a l 2 d , § 143 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ) . These crimes h a d many common e l e m e n t s and were a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l i n d e t a i l ; e v i d e n c e o f e a c h one would have been a d m i s s i b l e i n t h e t r i a l o f each o f the others to e s t a b l i s h identity. The identity exception to the general collateral crime e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e a p p l i e s where 'the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e c h a r g e d and n o n c h a r g e d c r i m e e x h i b i t s u c h a g r e a t degree o f s i m i l a r i t y t h a t anyone v i e w i n g t h e two o f f e n s e s w o u l d n a t u r a l l y a s s u m e t h e m t o h a v e been committed b y t h e same p e r s o n . ' Brewer v. S t a t e , 440 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 6 1 ( A l a . C r i m . App.), c e r t . d e n i e d , 440 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 5 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . The o n l y r e a l d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two c h a r g e d c r i m e s a n d 17 no circumstances The A l a b a m a o f t h e two c r i m e s left CR-08-1176 [ a t h i r d ] r o b b e r y was t h a t r o b b e r y ] case s u r v i v e d . " Ex parte Hinton, Taylor, 54 548 S o . 2 d a t 5 6 6 . F . 3 d a t 973 properly combined whether the charges they involve operation, for trial, under victims, frame and U n i t e d States Cir. 2006)("Joinder 'are o f t h e same whether we h i s t o r i c a l l y are l a i d similar (1st See a l s o U n i t e d ("In d e t e r m i n i n g and t h e time occurred."), the v i c t i m i n the [ t h i r d have locations, i n which or have construed this [United States 2002)]. Further, we assess v.] rule 301 '"[s]imilar" similarity Edgar, 82 F . 3 d 4 9 9 , 503 Relevant to our of [ 2 7 , ] 35 each offense would have been 18 We joinder. Cir. "identical," the government and saw i t s States v. 1996))."). that the robberies p r o p e r l y c o n s o l i d a t e d i s the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of whether of on t h e [(1st I d . (citing United (1stC i r . conclusion charged or c o n s t i t u t e i n favor F.3d o f how case at the time of indictment.' conduct or are based d o e s n o t mean i n terms of F e d . R. C r i m . P. 8 ( a ) . generously Melendez, modes 444 F . 3 d 7 6 , 87 same a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n , o r a r e c o n n e c t e d w i t h o f a common s c h e m e o r p l a n . ' are whether i f the offenses character, v. considered the charged v. B o u l a n g e r , parts counts t h e same s t a t u t e , i s proper or s i m i l a r States admissible were evidence i n the t r i a l f o r CR-08-1176 the other o f f e n s e s , i f the charges E.g., Lewis v. State, 889 This Court in Lewis set regarding So. 2d forth admission of other "bad had been t r i e d 623 (Ala. Crim. the established separately. App. 2003). principles act" evidence: "'On the trial f o r the a l l e g e d commission of a p a r t i c u l a r crime, evidence of the accused's h a v i n g committed another act or crime i s not a d m i s s i b l e i f the o n l y p r o b a t i v e f u n c t i o n of such evidence i s to prove bad c h a r a c t e r and the accused's conformity therewith. This i s a general exclusionary rule which prevents the i n t r o d u c t i o n of p r i o r acts or crimes f o r the sole purpose of s u g g e s t i n g that the a c c u s e d i s m o r e l i k e l y t o be g u i l t y o f t h e crime i n q u e s t i o n . This rule i s g e n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e whether the other crime or act was c o m m i t t e d b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e one f o r which the defendant i s presently being tried "'The f o r e g o i n g e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e d o e s not work to e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e of a l l c r i m e s o r a c t s , o n l y s u c h a s a r e o f f e r e d t o show the defendant's bad character and c o n f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h on t h e o c c a s i o n o f t h e now-charged crime. I f the defendant's commission of another crime or misdeed i s r e l e v a n t f o r some o t h e r m a t e r i a l p u r p o s e i n t h e c a s e t h e n i t may be a d m i t t e d . ' "C. G a m b l e , M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 6 9 . 0 1 ( 1 ) (5th ed. 1996) (footnotes omitted). The other p u r p o s e s f o r w h i c h c o l l a t e r a l - c r i m e s e v i d e n c e may be a d m i s s i b l e , i . e . , the e x c e p t i o n s to the e x c l u s i o n a r y rule, include: 19 CR-08-1176 "'"(1) Relevancy to prove physical capacity, s k i l l , o r means t o c o m m i t t h e now-charged crime; (2) p a r t o f t h e r e s gestae or part of a continuous t r a n s a c t i o n ; (3) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e s c i e n t e r o r g u i l t y k n o w l e d g e ; (4) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e c r i m i n a l intent; (5) r e l e v a n c y to prove plan, d e s i g n , s c h e m e , o r s y s t e m ; (6) r e l e v a n c y t o prove motive; (7) r e l e v a n c y to prove identity; (8) r e l e v a n c y t o r e b u t special defenses; and (9) r e l e v a n c y i n various p a r t i c u l a r crimes."' " N i c k s v . S t a t e , 521 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 2 6 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) , a f f ' d , 521 So. 2d 1035 ( A l a . ) , cert. d e n i e d , 487 U.S. 1 2 4 1 , 108 S. C t . 2 9 1 6 , 101 L . E d . 2 d 948 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , q u o t i n g N e l s o n v . S t a t e , 511 S o . 2 d 2 2 5 , 233 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) , a f f ' d , 511 S o . 2 d 248 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 4 8 6 U.S. 1 0 1 7 , 108 S. C t . 1 7 5 5 , 100 L . E d . 2 d 2 1 7 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . T h e s e e x c e p t i o n s do not a p p l y u n l e s s ' t h e r e i s a r e a l and open i s s u e as t o one o r more o f t h o s e " o t h e r p u r p o s e s . " ' Bowden v. State, 538 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 6 , 1227 ( A l a . 1988). Furthermore, t h e common p l a n , s c h e m e , o r d e s i g n exception i s 'essentially coextensive with the i d e n t i t y e x c e p t i o n , ' E x p a r t e D a r b y , 516 S o . 2 d 7 8 6 , 789 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , a n d ' a p p l i e s o n l y when i d e n t i t y i s actually at issue.' C a m p b e l l v . S t a t e , 718 S o . 2 d 123, 128-29 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , c e r t . denied, 525 U.S. 1 0 0 6 , 119 S. C t . 5 2 2 , 142 L . E d . 2 d 4 3 3 (1998)." Lewis, 889 S o . 2 d a t 6 6 1 . Clearly, character restaurants the s i x offenses -- they were a l linvolved o f t h e same first-degree l o c a t e d i n t h e same r e g i o n o c c u r r e d w i t h i n a two-month p e r i o d . 20 or robberies of the c i t y , Furthermore, similar and of they the evidence CR-08-1176 indicated that the robberies a common s c h e m e o r modus o p e r a n d i , e m p l o y e d b y t h e r o b b e r i n case were p e c u l i a r l y distinctive robber targeted restaurants opening tasks or c l o s i n g related to time were p r e s e n t . -- a black force a single receipts, and employee he walked f i n g e r p r i n t s were l e f t -- i n e a c h i n that the t h e employees were busy closing, few and The r o b b e r or dark and s i m i l a r i n t h e same a r e a o f D e c a t u r a n d a t when opening customers either and were p a r t o f or plan. The t a c t i c s , each were c o n n e c t e d blue -- to turn away i n each case used semiautomatic over from a n d when with or a crime dark handgun t o the restaurant's each cash scene. a t any o f t h e c r i m e s c e n e s . no No The r o b b e r c a s e d e s c r i b e d b y w i t n e s s e s a s a b l a c k m a l e -- w o r e d a r k c l o t h i n g a n d c o n c e a l e d h i s f a c e w i t h some s o r t o f a m a s k , a hat pulled down t o h i s e y e s , in the five of restaurants or a bandanna. also w e a r i n g g l o v e s -- m o s t o f t e n p l a s t i c brought into took gloves, the robber and t h e y s a i d as he a p i l l o w c a s e o r b a g w i t h h i m a n d t h a t he p u t t h e money t h e b a g b e f o r e he w a l k e d For described The w i t n e s s e s at least place, part away. of the time during Tariq-Madyun lived 21 with which the robberies one o f h i s g i r l f r i e n d s , CR-08-1176 Whykiea Cohn, i n the area where the Testimony at t r i a l established that other Tiffany girlfriend, McDonald's that that he h a d r o b b e d t h e i n Decatur money t h a t he s a i d he h a d t a k e n d u r i n g testified occurred. Tariq-Madyun had t o l d h i s Slaughter, fast-food restaurant robberies a n d he s h o w e d h e r the robbery. Slaughter s h e h a d s e e n h i m p u t on a t u r t l e n e c k s h i r t and a w i g o n t h e d a y o f t h e r o b b e r y ; T a r i q - M a d y u n t o l d h e r t h a t he had worn the wig during turtleneck their up t o h i d e asses the robbery h i s face. i n Decatur," a n d he He t o l d meaning had p u l l e d t h e h e r he was that he was "hitting committing robberies. Items o f e v i d e n c e witnesses, black including was stopped recovered reported clothing, items described semiautomatic weapon, -- i n c l u d i n g v i n y l by t h e pillowcases, or l a t e x gloves i n t h e v e h i c l e T a r i q - M a d y u n was d r i v i n g when by police. The soles of a pair of shoes f r o m t h e c a r m a t c h e d t h e shoe p r i n t s f r o m one o f t h e robberies. after a c l o t h i n g , and g l o v e s -- w e r e r e c o v e r e d he consistent with Other by the gloves, Tiffany items of crime-scene evidence witnesses a n d a w i g -- w e r e Slaughter consistent told police 22 -- found with including inside she had a that black dumpster discarded the CR-08-1176 items T a r i q - M a d y u n h a d worn on t h e d a y o f t h e r o b b e r y McDonald's fast-food Whykiea Cohn that which restaurants. walked gun t o and from during The were restaurant. testified he h a d r o b b e d five that trial restaurants She t e s t i f i e d correctly closing and were he t o l d and t h a t her that he u s e d a he black the robberies o f a common part the restaurant, one plan o r scheme t o i n the B e l t l i n e or other means These kinds of Gagliardi t h e money b y to leave o r scheme. have with a forcing away i n the been found to See, e.g., Hinton v. 695 S o . 2 d 2 0 6 ( A l a . App. 1996)(two robberies were o f a s i m i l a r part o f a common p l a n b e c a u s e o n t w o c o n s e c u t i v e " a l l - n i g h t " businesses opening no f i n g e r p r i n t s and t o walk similarities v. S t a t e , t h e employees obtain of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , area while the associated with t o subdue the receipts, a common p l a n supra; duties to quickly employee t o p r o v i d e entered and t o l d h e r that of restaurants s e m i a u t o m a t i c weapon, State, that her determined employees were d i s t r a c t e d w i t h constitute had t o l d i n Decatur the restaurants court connected dark. Tariq-Madyun the robberies. commit r o b b e r i e s or of the character Crim. and were n i g h t s , a man t h a t were i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o 23 CR-08-1176 one another the c l e r k the at approximately t o o k money, Furthermore, of the other Gagliardi evidence trial slowly the 404(b), 695 identity robbery showed to intimidate away). exception A l a . R. Crim. So. 2d a t 208, t h e C o u r t o f one r o b b e r y w o u l d of the second walked a.m., have been a d m i s s i b l e i n t h e Rule State, t o 5:00 h i s jacket under rule. v. and then each crime would exclusionary that a.m. t h e b u t t o f a gun b e n e a t h clerk, trial 4:30 have been to P. the In concluded admissible i n a and e x p l a i n e d : "This exception to the '"general e x c l u s i o n a r y rule o n l y becomes a p p l i c a b l e when t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e p e r s o n who c o m m i t t e d the now-charged crime i s i n issue."' Thomas v . S t a t e , 409 S o . 2 d 9 5 5 , 957 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) , q u o t i n g C. G a m b l e , M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e , S e c t i o n 69.01(8) ( 4 t h Ed. 1991). During cross-examination of several state witnesses, defense counsel placed the a p p e l l a n t ' s i d e n t i t y i n i s s u e by q u e s t i o n i n g t h o s e w i t n e s s e s as t o p o s s i b l e mistaken identity, specifically regarding the clothes that t h e a p p e l l a n t was w e a r i n g and h i s o v e r a l l appearance. B a s e d on Thomas a n d N i c k e r s o n [v. S t a t e , 523 S o . 2 d 504 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ] , e v i d e n c e o f e a c h o f t h e s e c r i m e s w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e i n t h e t r i a l o f t h e o t h e r ; t h e r e f o r e , we h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n c o n s o l i d a t i n g t h e two robbery charges." The same cross-examined and c a n be said for this case. Defense counsel t h e w i t n e s s e s and c h a l l e n g e d t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n s descriptions of the robber, 24 and Tariq-Madyun's identity CR-08-1176 was a real issue discussion above, p e c u l i a r manner. admissible the the The that were collateral-act noted i n the committed i n a novel e v i d e n c e would have or been under the i d e n t i t y exception to f a i l e d to sustain h i s burden of rule. summary, T a r i q - M a d y u n proving F u r t h e r m o r e , as offenses i n separate t r i a l s exclusionary In i n the case. the t r i a l court's denial of h i s motion to sever r e s u l t e d i n s p e c i f i c and c o m p e l l i n g p r e j u d i c e t h a t r e s u l t e d i n an unfair prove trial. such p r e j u d i c e for t r i a l to Moreover, any because was p r o p e r . relief on he would not have consolidation been of the claim of to robberies Therefore, Tariq-Madyun i s not this able entitled error. II. Tariq-Madyun crime, the Madison, robbery next robbery argues of a Decatur." understand, admissible was not under fast-food a collateral restaurant a d m i t t e d b e c a u s e , he s a y s , similar (Tariq-Madyun's b r i e f , Tariq-Madyun evidence of Hardee's s h o u l d not have been i n Madison that enough a t p. i s arguing that the i d e n t i t y exception 25 15.) to the As in "the crimes i n best we can t h e e v i d e n c e was not to Rule 404(b), A l a . CR-08-1176 R. Crim. P., charged question to court's i t was not sufficiently similar the of admissibility discretion determination of on the of evidence court, question that trial will is and not be Loggins, 1093, 740 Part 2d 623 So. 206 I of of 2d this (Ala. 1115, determined robbery of the admissible as 1130 opinion, of particularly to show scheme. hold We that to the 26 set forth State, 889 So. State, 695 So. stated, we must i t s discretion collateral act general common court plan, did not when -- the -- was exclusionary or v. This restaurant trial discretion. v. Davis fast-food the identity L e w i s v. abused the Hardee's exception principles Briefly evidence an 1998 ) . App. Gagliardi court parte applies See the especially 1996). rule Crim. of trial Madison The Ex evidence. (Ala. 2 0 0 3 ) , and App. the that (Ala. 2000). application Crim. whether 1103 collateral-acts ( A l a . C r i m . App. determine it 2d i s g o v e r n e d by in 2d So. admission State, issue 771 trial reversed showing of abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . " the the generally the e x c e p t upon a c l e a r to to crimes. "The left because rule, design, abuse or its CR-08-1176 The the prosecutor general Madison 2005. manager Boulevard Sharp Interstate a.m. 565. a.m., videotape. i n Madison that when i t was robbed he was in the office Sharp s a i d he h e a r d door restaurant. collar a n d saw a b l a c k up over i n October located near the store's scream, a n d he man wearing a l l - semiautomatic h i s mouth on b e t w e e n 5:00 a n d two e m p l o y e e s The r o b b e r was w e a r i n g zipped Sharp, o p e n e d a t 4:00 changing c l o t h i n g and c a r r y i n g a b l a c k the was He s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e s t a u r a n t on t h e m o r n i n g o f t h e r o b b e r y , the of Kevin fast-food restaurant the restaurant out the o f f i c e looked black the testimony of the Hardee's testified and t h a t 5:30 presented weapon i n a fleece jacket and nose, with a n d he was w e a r i n g a b l a c k t o b o g g a n c a p p u l l e d down s o o n l y h i s e y e s w e r e visible. The preparation gloves. from the safe, of described he said. wearing The r o b b e r The r o b b e r When S h a r p t h e money was a n d he f o l l o w e d the store. walked. put robber into opened latex told surgical Sharp at the front t h e gun a t Sharp the safe, the robber t h e b a g he h a d b r o u g h t food- t o g e t t h e money Sharp t o t h e safe pointed or with as they told him t o him. Sharp t h e b a g a s a c l o t h b a g , b u t i t was n o t a p i l l o w c a s e , Sharp placed t h e money 27 i n the bag and, without CR-08-1176 saying left anything else, the restaurant. f r o n t door the robber Sharp walked testified to the side that he w a l k e d and l o o k e d o u t ; a l l o f h i s employees were at a McDonald's f a s t - f o o d r e s t a u r a n t and they so he r a n o v e r Sharp t o them. M c D o n a l d ' s , he saw t h e r o b b e r toward that to the next-door called a s he w e n t running behind and to him, to the t h e b u i l d i n g and the i n t e r s t a t e . After stated, said door considering i n relevant Sharp's testimony, the trial court part: " I ' v e l i s t e n e d t o w h a t he h a s t e s t i f i e d t o a b o u t t h i s i n c i d e n t i n M a d i s o n , a n d when y o u l o o k a t t h i s in terms of whether or not these look t o be s i g n a t u r e type o f f e n s e s , whether they're p e c u l i a r , t h e y ' r e u n i q u e o r d i f f e r e n t -- I mean o r s i m i l a r i n many w a y s , c o n s i d e r t h i s : E v e r y o n e o f t h e m i n v o l v e d a food service business. Every one o f those b u s i n e s s e s w e r e l o c a t e d -- w e l l , s i x o f t h e m , when you t h i n k o f D e c a t u r , t h e y were a l l l o c a t e d w i t h i n p r o b a b l y f i v e m i l e s max i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e o n e o u t at P r i c e v i l l e . The o n e i n M a d i s o n w o u l d b e l e s s t h a n 20 m i l e s a w a y . E v e r y i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d i n t h e e a r l y m o r n i n g h o u r s a r o u n d when t h e r e s t a u r a n t was opening or i n the l a t e n i g h t hours a f t e r closing. E v e r y o n e o f t h e m i n v o l v e d -- h a s b e e n d e s c r i b e d a s b e i n g p e r p e t r a t e d b y a b l a c k m a l e who was a l o n e w i t h no a c c o m p l i c e o r no s u p p o r t . E v e r y one o f them w e r e directed -- o r t h e r o b b e r was directed -- o r d i r e c t e d t h e e m p l o y e e s t o an o f f i c e o r t o a s a f e , t r y i n g t o g e t money o u t o f t h e s a f e o r a n o f f i c e . A l l b u t i n one i n s t a n c e t h e r o b b e r h a d on a l l b l a c k or a l l dark c l o t h i n g . In every instance the robber b r o u g h t a b a g f o r c a r r y i n g away t h e m o n e y . In every i n s t a n c e i t i n v o l v e d a b l a c k h a n d g u n t h a t was n o t a 28 CR-08-1176 r e v o l v e r . T h e r e may b e o t h e r t h i n g s t h a t I m i s s e d , b u t t h o s e h a v e j u s t come o f f t h e t o p . have " I f t h a t ' s n o t s i g n a t u r e , I d o n ' t know w h a t i s . A n d I'm s a t i s f i e d t h a t u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e t e s t i m o n y a s t o w h a t o c c u r r e d a t t h e -- a l l e g e d l y o c c u r r e d a t t h e H a r d e e ' s i n M a d i s o n w i l l be a d m i t t e d in the t r i a l of t h i s case." (R. 351-52.) "[E]vidence crime surrounding circumstances of a p r i o r the surrounding the presently degree would of prior charged that crime anyone crime quoting 'exhibit viewing Brewer 1983). v. State, The 440 common So. 2d Tariq-Madyun court, unique that he between that left offenses b y t h e same 1985), (Ala. the Crim. Madison of the robberies f o r was b e i n g t r i e d w e r e , a s n o t e d b y t h e t r i a l and exhibited a degree of a d d i t i o n to a l lthe c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s the t r i a l we n o t e of a great (Ala. 1155, 1161 characteristics those such t h e two E x p a r t e A r t h u r , 472 S o . 2 d 6 6 5 , 668 Hardee's r o b b e r y and t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which and n a t u r a l l y assume them t o have been c o m m i t t e d person.'" App. similarity i s a d m i s s i b l e o n l y when t h e i n each each the charged case the robber restaurant crimes on left foot. similarity. court discussed, no f i n g e r p r i n t s The and t h e c o l l a t e r a l 29 In and similarities crime were so CR-08-1176 substantial that they c o u l d be s a i d person could said and scheme. 2005); See I r v i n Bighames similar collateral Hardee's charged crimes Sharp 440 abuse value Irvin State, However, about reasonably So. these additional App. that Crim. admission the robbery of the was n o t s i m i l a r to the We hold 331 not was to crimes. claims that irrelevant, the State's case and i t s effect. that case, or on a p p e a l , they w i l l 2005). that the i t was not that -- o n l y t h a t i t was Tariq-Madyun E.g., App. appeal Because 30 We a r e e v i d e n c e must be ( A l a . Crim. on trial when i t robbery. to the State's argue the discretion its prejudicial 2d does evidence necessary the charged or App. collateral-act u n d u l y and u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c i a l to plan (Ala. the Madison necessary Tariq-Madyun collateral-act claim taken. must o u t w e i g h 940 common (Ala. Crim. 1231 i t s considerable and r e a s o n a b l y v. So. 2d fast-food restaurant to t e s t i f y probative a crimes). a w a r e t h a t , t o be a d m i s s i b l e , relevant of of i d e n t i t y exception to i s not well d i d not part 940 S o . 2 d 331 Tariq-Madyun's Madison allowed State, application Therefore, court t o be v. S t a t e , v. 1983)(upholding of be t o b e t h e w o r k o f t h e same does n o t be i t was dissimilar not raise discussed. CR-08-1176 We note, however, t h a t was r e l e v a n t its to and r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a r y t o t h e S t a t e ' s probative For the evidence of the c o l l a t e r a l value outweighed the foregoing relief on t h i s its prejudicial reasons, claim Tariq-Madyun robbery c a s e , and effect. i s not entitled of error. III. Tariq-Madyun stopped next his vehicle that the items search of the v e h i c l e the poisonous t r e e . fact was a seatbelt that should officers traffic illegally violation. i n the subsequent He consensual h a v e b e e n s u p p r e s s e d as f r u i t Specifically, the shoulder police alleged recovered violation not, therefore, that f o r an claims for argues was he a r g u e s t h a t t r a f f i c illegal because, he of stop says, the s t r a p was t u c k e d u n d e r h i s a r m , a n d he in violation of the s e a t b e l t law. § 32- 5B-4A, A l a . Code 1975. Tariq-Madyun but only including initiated raised this after Officer Chris during defense a traffic stop objection Moffett i n the t r i a l testified cross-examination court, repeatedly -- that he -¬ had o f T a r i q - M a d y u n ' s v e h i c l e b e c a u s e he o b s e r v e d t h a t T a r i q - M a d y u n ' s s e a t b e l t was t u c k e d u n d e r h i s a r m and was, therefore, improperly 31 fastened, and after he CR-08-1176 testified vehicle been that and, T a r i q - M a d y u n had in fact, searched. (R. after 438-39, Madyun's o b j e c t i o n t o untimely and An the to i s given nothing i s untimely. So. 2d 965 So. 2d 201, was i l l e g a l l y o b t a i n e d was -- s e a r c h ) ; Watson v. 1983) as ("To the be ground Because illegal detail (Ala. Crim. for the our found t h a t the v e h i c l e had until after a f t e r he 769 the 32 was v. the State, State, 766 evidence regarding the (Ala. Crim. App. i n t e r p o s e d as soon apparent."). object to officer testified subsequent review. after that the that a search allegedly testified i s s u e r e g a r d i n g the l e g a l i t y i n the stop f o r review because i t testified 2d 7 6 2 , not made 1999)(claim Tariq- review. 2 0 0 6 ) ; Pace v. o b j e c t i o n m u s t be did 450-52.) Gissendanner o b j e c t i o n becomes a b o u t t h e s t o p and evidence App. So. s e a r c h t o o k p l a c e , no or App. S t a t e , 439 stop his is not p r e s e r v e d Tariq-Madyun traffic of illegal traffic that officer f o r the a search for appellate after t i m e l y , an to 446-47, E.g., (Ala. Crim. 202-03 raised 442-43, testimony 949 untimely 956, testified allegedly i t preserved objection testimony he consented was in consensual of the stop preserved CR-08-1176 Even would the i f Tariq-Madyun's n o t have been e n t i t l e d traffic vehicle stop was i l l e g a l were r e s u l t s of that c o m m i t t e d no v i o l a t i o n he says, there was buckle "properly no illegal of on h i s c l a i m the items stop. found he that i n the He a r g u e s t h a t he b e l t was u n d e r n e a t h h i s a r m , indicating the seatbelt fastened" timely, that the belt That i s , Tariq-Madyun c l a i m s , within T a r i q - M a d y u n made t h i s rejected and t h a t been o f § 32-5B-4, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , b e c a u s e , evidence properly. had t o any r e l i e f even though t h e s h o u l d e r "fastened" the objection was clipped, the meaning was as l o n g as the seatbelt of the s t a t u t e . argument t o t h e t r i a l not court, was When the court i t and s t a t e d : "Well, [defense counsel], i f that's the case, t h e n i t ' s o k a y f o r me t o f a s t e n , t o p u l l my h a r n e s s and j u s t f a s t e n i t a n d s i t on i t . I f what y o u ' r e saying i s true, that the only thing that matters i s t h a t an o f f i c e r h a s t o s e e t h a t i t i s a c t u a l l y hooked together down a t t h e w a i s t o r down a t t h e b a s e o f t h e s e a t , t h e n y o u c o u l d do t h a t a l l d a y long. I mean, y o u w o u l d n ' t h a v e t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e law. An o f f i c e r w o u l d n e v e r b e a b l e to charge anybody w i t h not w e a r i n g a seat b e l t . " (R. 464-65.) fastened and trial court also a b o u t t h e b o d y means j u s t fasten worn." The i t around (R. 4 6 7 . ) We t h e body agree w i t h 33 stated "that what i t s a y s . t h e way properly You wear i t i t ' s designed the t r i a l court. t o be CR-08-1176 S e c t i o n 3 2 - 5 B - 4 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , p r o v i d e s : seat occupant of a passenger car manufactured "Each with front safety b e l t s i n compliance w i t h F e d e r a l Motor V e h i c l e S a f e t y Standard No. 208 s h a l l body have a safety belt properly a t a l l t i m e s when t h e v e h i c l e "Properly fastened" fastened about h i s i s i n motion." i s not defined i n the statute. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a s t a t u t e p r e s e n t s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w , a n d we review that 200 9 ) . 2001), i s s u e de novo. I n S o l e s v. S t a t e , this Court E x p a r t e Q u i c k , 23 S o . 3 d 67 820 S o . 2 d 163 (Ala. Crim. stated: "'The first rule of statutory construction i s that the intent of the l e g i s l a t u r e s h o u l d be g i v e n e f f e c t . Ex p a r t e M c C a l l , 596 So. 2d 4 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ; V o l k s w a g e n o f A m e r i c a , I n c . v . D i l l a r d , 57 9 So.2d 1301 ( A l a . 1991). However, when possible, the intent of the l e g i s l a t u r e s h o u l d be g a t h e r e d f r o m t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e statute i t s e l f . Dillard, supra. Thus, where t h e language o f t h e s t a t u t e i s p l a i n , the c o u r t must g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e c l e a r meaning o f t h a t language ' "Beavers v. County of Walker, 645 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 5 , 1376-77 ( A l a . 1994). See a l s o T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y Comm'n v . D e p u t y Sheriffs' Ass'n of Tuscaloosa C o u n t y , 589 S o . 2 d 6 8 7 , 689 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ('Words u s e d in [a] s t a t u t e must be g i v e n t h e i r n a t u r a l , p l a i n , o r d i n a r y , and commonly u n d e r s t o o d meaning, and where p l a i n language i s used a c o u r t i s bound t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y w h a t i t s a y s . I f the language o f t h e s t a t u t e i s c l e a r and unambiguous, 34 (Ala. App. CR-08-1176 t h e n t h e r e i s no r o o m f o r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d the c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n e f f e c t . ' ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ) . " 820 So. 2d at 164-65. Tariq-Madyun Court this argued "properly that a that i s buckled, The trial We on court noted the a buckled agree would not with "properly be placed belt the across placed N.E.2d 151, shoulder to the l a p , and the (Ind. leads fasten strap across us the appears occupant of that the such with the legislature. See the belt Rather, his shoulder statute."). 35 to must belt S t a t e v. that and statute. seatbelt 2008)("The to conclude could p o r t i o n of the shoulder App. one an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n l a p p o r t i o n of the to body. a vehicle Massey, 'about i t intended wear 887 legislature's ' p r o p e r l y ' w i t h the phrase lap argue of t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n compliance by to seatbelt i s simply logic shoulder. Ct. he i t i s worn around the an court the word o c c u p a n t ' s body' be intended across d e c i s i o n t o use occupant trial the 158 faulty and fastened," m u s t be and fastened" rationale, have been be trial r e g a r d l e s s o f how because, under that sit at the for the an seatbelt's to comply w i t h the seatbelt CR-08-1176 B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g preserved this issue to the v a l i d i t y to relief f o r r e v i e w by t i m e l y of the t r a f f i c stop, on t h e c l a i m properly executed. portion of determined a n a l y s i s , even i f Tariq-Madyun had the that of e r r o r seatbelt this Tariq-Madyun was entitled that the h i s arm, and was n o t a " p r o p e r l y trial the t r a f f i c stop admitted under i s not e n t i t l e d at he w o u l d n o t be because Tariq-Madyun objecting fastened" to r e l i e f was shoulder we have seatbelt. on t h i s claim of error. IV. Tariq-Madyun shirt with argues h i s DNA that following a collateral admitted because, necessary he a pair were he s a y s , argues for that i t was the dog accurately circumstances surrounding was evidence; on the because track by failed admission t h e t r a c k i n g dog had been dog located the State that could of l a t e x a and a dog n o t have been to e s t a b l i s h the of the necessary trained to track track gloves tracking robbery i n Madison should foundation Specifically, that humans, evidence. to establish humans, and that that the t h e t r a i l i n g t e n d e d t o show t h a t t h e of the State the accused failed 36 when i t found to establish the any o f t h e CR-08-1176 necessary gloves predicate, found Tariq-Madyun during the contends, tracking should the shirt not have and been admitted. Alabama State 2005 he was Madison, employed and t h a t time. He purpose canine" and Trooper Jason Fox t e s t i f i e d as he was a s s i g n e d explained also in a police that that the C i t y of unit was partner at that "a dual "trained i n locating narcotics which involves (R. 3 7 7 . ) Fox testified t h a t he a n d t h e d o g h a d b e e n t r a i n e d ; he s t a t e d that tracking on explained and a fresh 12-week ground searches." building area completed article tracking, searches, they searches, with to the canine h i s canine had been patrol, officer that i n October training program and a r t i c l e searches. t h a t when a p e r s o n w a l k s a c r o s s particles of grass were kicked up that included He a grassy and then area, dust settle back down a n d t h a t t h a t was w h a t t h e d o g a c t u a l l y t r a c k e d . Fox testified years as o f O c t o b e r comfortable with t h a t he h a d b e e n w o r k i n g w i t h 2005, working with t h e dog a t t h a t that this he was f a m i l i a r 37 Trooper dog f o r f o u r with t h e dog, and e x p e r i e n c e d time. further the dog, i n tracking CR-08-1176 Trooper responded Fox testified the robbery to food restaurant area to the assist officers suspect canine run had at west scene from the dog toward f o l l o w e d the a b l a c k or dark All objection blue search. they had The interstate. j a c k e t or s h i r t foregoing from line; on the the l e d to testified the about discovery Madyun t h e n objected abilities. He to of the the the was robbery dog his picked up and that testified that T r o o p e r Fox top the deployed direction, Fox to of the dog's shirt elicited found fence. Tariq-Madyun. Fox testimony 2 sent fast- l e a r n i n g from Fox tracking Trooper t r a c k to a fence be seen Trooper initially Hardee's After in a southwesterly the After that the canine suspect. that who Madison a Hardee's, area officers the that the the the at requested a track that zigzagged the call in tracking t o c o n d u c t an continued that following on the p r e d i c a t e f o r the a r g u e d t h a t t h e dog without the fence, dog's w e n t t o an a r e a a n d track Tariq- tracking certain T r o o p e r Fox i n i t i a l l y i d e n t i f i e d the a r t i c l e of c l o t h i n g f o u n d on t h e f e n c e -- S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 3 -- as a j a c k e t , b u t he and t h e p r o s e c u t o r l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d t h e i t e m c o n s i s t e n t l y as a shirt. T h e r e i s no a l l e g a t i o n t h a t two a r t i c l e s o f c l o t h i n g w e r e f o u n d on the f e n c e , and T a r i q - M a d y u n has raised no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i t e m was f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d as a jacket. 2 38 CR-08-1176 clothing was could very trial found, well court but have "[a]ll done overruled we this the i t , the dog necessarily tracking a specific " individual, (R. 3 8 1 . ) and following a track that he the s h i r t also t e s t i f i e d that at the scene wearing. shirt a The he found that i t investigators track with I think and t h a t a s he there's he was followed description of what f e n c e where track. the dog would not be Fox searching testified t h e s h i r t was He's not or the scent of a there f o l l o w i n g t h e dog and t h e dog. Fox Trooper from the the robber Exhibit t e s t i f i e d that to stand and officers had 3 been as after by t h e he the that he and f o u n d and t h a t something 39 he shirt notified T r o o p e r Fox t h e n c o n t i n u e d f o r the I had to suspect. the dog crossed t h e dog c o n t i n u e d A p p r o x i m a t e l y 100 f e e t on t h e o t h e r i n d i c a t e d on "[A]s t h e dog disturbed, about the s h i r t . The a distinction State's a n d he dog 380.) track. received identified the fence, t h e dog, Trooper a the stated, individual f o u n d t h e s h i r t , he d i r e c t e d an o f f i c e r so (R. and following he h a d a l r e a d y witness on i s that T r o o p e r Fox then t e s t i f i e d t h a t been found is now a t random." objection understand specific have side of the i n the grass, the to fence, and T r o o p e r Fox CR-08-1176 said that he located two s u r g i c a l gloves indicated. Tariq-Madyun "insufficient predicate," then and where stated the dog had objection of overruled the continued to I t appeared to vehicle. An an trial court the objection. Trooper track Fox then testified to the i n t e r s t a t e but that the person investigator secured Fox Tariq-Madyun's establishing found by because after the his the objection (Ala. dog shirt not to scent. gotten and the that dog into a gloves, there preserved the about 2006); not raised -- after Watson v. State, must have he was the said. no testimony be v. P a c e v. 1999)(claim officer 439 that for interposed 2d as 40 came tracking. An 949 766 review at predicate So. soon as the 965 202-03 illegally i t the be 956, 201, was because ("To is 2d 2d regarding 7 69 i s given So. evidence testified So. of testimony State, State, review its and the evidence appellate lack dog made a f t e r preserved for alleged Gissendanner App. was objection was testimony E.g., Crim. the lost argument testimony to the r e q u i r e m e n t s n e c e s s a r y to admit the C r i m . App. obtained the objection untimely. (Ala. the might that untimely search); timely, ground for an the CR-08-1176 objection becomes apparent."). See a l s o A l l e n v. A l a . A p p . 2 2 8 , 2 3 1 , 62 S o . 9 7 1 , 972 ( 1 9 1 3 ) ( a p p e l l a n t preserve for testimony about dogs' t r a i l i n g the to review objection regarding eliciting of t h e t r a i l i n g " ) . of the appellant's tracks from "failed to e l i c i t to object the evidence B e c a u s e T a r i q - M a d y u n ' s o b j e c t i o n came the State had presented dog's training about i t s tracking and i t s years Madyun's u n t i m e l y failed to for or seeking after from s u b s t a n t i a l testimony o f work the scene with of objection preserved the handler the robbery, nothing the Fox had a l r e a d y fence, and testimony. nothing Tariq-Madyun about d i d not For that a d d i t i o n a l reason, f o rreview t h a t was l a t e r connecting testified with regard Tariq- to strike Tariq-Madyun determined to contain Tariq-Madyun's that preserved DNA, the latex gloves, 41 thus robberies. dog's t r a c k i n g had been t i m e l y and had p r e s e r v e d and/or on t o Fox's d i s c o v e r y o f t h e s h i r t him to the r e s t a u r a n t the s h i r t after the s h i r t Even i fTariq-Madyun's o b j e c t i o n t o t h e p r e d i c a t e to and f o r review. finding move only about the T a r i q - M a d y u n ' s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e p r e d i c a t e a l s o came Trooper 8 predicate scene of the b u r g l a r y because a p p e l l a n t the questions State, f o r the any c l a i m as Tariq-Madyun would not CR-08-1176 be e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f because the State presented a foundation supporting the admission evidence related t o t h e dog sufficient of the testimony and t h e tracking. "In Alabama, '[t]he admissibility of d o g - t r a c k i n g e v i d e n c e upon a p r o p e r p r e d i c a t e has b e e n r e c o g n i z e d ... f o r o v e r a c e n t u r y . See B u r k s v . S t a t e , 240 A l a . 5 8 7 , 200 S o . 418 ( 1 9 4 1 ) ; O r r v . S t a t e , 236 A l a . 4 62 , 183 S o . 445 ( 1 9 3 8 ) ; L o p e r v . S t a t e , 205 A l a . 2 1 6 , 87 S o . 92 ( 1 9 2 0 ) ; G a l l a n t v . S t a t e , 167 A l a . 6 0 , 52 S o . 739 ( 1 9 1 0 ) ; H a r g r o v e v . S t a t e , 147 A l a . 9 7 , 41 S o . 972 ( 1 9 0 6 ) ; R i c h a r d s o n v . S t a t e , 145 A l a . 4 6 , 41 S o . 82 (1 90 6 ) ; L i t t l e v. S t a t e , 145 A l a . 662 , 39 S o . 674 ( 1 9 0 5 ) ; H o d g e v . S t a t e , 98 A l a . 1 0 , 13 S o . 385 (18 9 3 ) ; H o l c o m b e v . S t a t e , 437 S o . 2 d 663 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) ; M o o r e v . S t a t e , 26 A l a . A p p . 6 0 7 , 164 S o . 761 ( 1 9 3 5 ) ; a n d A l l e n v . S t a t e , 8 A l a . A p p . 2 2 8 , 62 S o . 971 ( 1 9 1 3 ) . ' G a v i n v . S t a t e , 891 S o . 2 d 9 0 7 , 971 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2003). In Gavin, t h i s court e s t a b l i s h e d the proper predicate for the admission of dog-tracking evidence. Id. S p e c i f i c a l l y , this court held that dog-tracking evidence i s admissible i f the State establishes 'the t r a i n i n g and r e l i a b i l i t y of the dog, t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the person handling the dog, and t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e t r a c k i n g by t h e dog.' G a v i n , 891 S o . 2 d a t 9 7 1 . See a l s o S t a t e v . M o n t g o m e r y , 968 S o . 2 d 5 4 3 , 550 n. 6 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006) ( r e i t e r a t i n g t h e t h r e e f o u n d a t i o n a l requirements f o r the admission of d o g - t r a c k i n g e v i d e n c e ) ; S t a t e v . N e e l e y , 143 O h i o A p p . 3d 6 0 6 , 6 3 0 - 3 1 , 758 N . E . 2 d 7 4 5 , 764 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e may e s t a b l i s h the p r e d i c a t e f o r dog-tracking e v i d e n c e by showing 'the t r a i n i n g and r e l i a b i l i t y o f the dog, t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the person handling the dog, and t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s surrounding the t r a i l i n g b y t h e d o g . . . . ' ) ; M c D u f f i e v . S t a t e , 482 N.W.2d 234, 237 (Minn. C t . App. 1992) (same r e q u i r e m e n t s ) ; R u l e 7 0 2 , A l a . R. E v i d . ('A w i t n e s s qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, 42 CR-08-1176 e x p e r i e n c e , t r a i n i n g , o r e d u c a t i o n , may t e s t i f y ... i n t h e f o r m o f an o p i n i o n o r o t h e r w i s e . ' ) . This court further explained that '[t]he foundational e v i d e n c e n e e d n o t be o v e r w h e l m i n g o r s p e c i f i c , b u t m u s t be s u f f i c i e n t t o i n d i c a t e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e evidence.' G a v i n , 891 S o . 2 d a t 971 ( c i t i n g B u r k s v . S t a t e , 240 A l a . 587 , 200 S o . 4 1 8 , 419 (1941)). See a l s o M o n t g o m e r y , 968 S o . 2 d a t 550 n. 6 ( s a m e ) . " Vanpelt v. , State, ( A l a . Crim. Trooper a [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 1 5 3 9 , 12-week training patrol, searches, that he article program 2005 comfortable tracking testified and scene with the about based on running. included this he at information dog, that was rate" f o r four familiar and fresh trained deployed provided by 43 as o f the dog, experienced Fox an the o f f i c e r s the suspect humans, in also the t r a c k i n g , to conduct Fox d i d n o t t e s t i f y in tracking testified Trooper surrounding area years with was time. the d i r e c t i o n i n which "success on T r o o p e r Fox dog was the t h e dog Although tracking t h e dog had been (R. 3 7 7 . ) with with dog 3d completed t r a c k i n g , b u i l d i n g searches, the circumstances that regarding previous that working explained search seen and So. and t h e dog had and t h a t involves working he that searches." had been October that searches which 18, 2009] 2009). Fox t e s t i f i e d g r o u n d and a r t i c l e "in App. Dec. about this at the had the area been dog's testimony CR-08-1176 went t o t h e w e i g h t and n o t t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y Gavin, the 891 dog and predicate tracking and this relief circuit about the Therefore, preserved For i t s handler The on recovery even i f this c l a i m of t o be sufficient to establish of the about the dog's shirt and the latex Tariq-Madyun had of the he w o u l d n o t be properly entitled to error. foregoing i s due evidence. and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the testimony issue f o r review, a l l the court training were f o r the admission gloves. any So. 2d a t 972. of the reasons, the judgment of the affirmed. AFFIRMED. W i s e , P . J . , and Windom, K e l l u m , 44 and M a i n , J J . , c o n c u r .

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.