Larry Mitchell v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 03/05/2010 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-08-1676 Larry Mitchell v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WELCH, Court Judge. Larry Mitchell controlled Code from B a l d w i n C i r c u i t (CC-08-464) was c o n v i c t e d substance, 1975. imprisonment The t r i a l a violation court and ordered of unlawful of a of § 13A-12-212(a)(1), A l a . sentenced Mitchell possession Mitchell to pay a fine t o 10 years' o f $500, an CR-08-1676 assessment Fund, Drug an of $250 to the Alabama assessment o f $2,000 were Forensic filed. The Jeremy Science This following Anderson by Officer Fund. t e s t i m o n y was Anderson the Fairhope went assessment No that presented on Police with at t r i a l . June 24, 2007, Department. other On officers county." k n o c k e d on M i t c h e l l ' s officers into first plain bedroom, view d o o r , and M i t c h e l l rooms o f t h e house Officer on paraphernalia the in residence, Anderson dresser. plain Anderson t e s t i f i e d the the (R. view crack Another in that M i t c h e l l "had Police Department. 2 felony Officers the door. the was cocaine officer living room. The walking I n the lying saw in drug Officer t h e p r i m a r y owner o f t h e and t h e o f f i c e r s a r r e s t e d M i t c h e l l Fairhope date, to l o o k f o r Hamric. saw was Mitchell's 109.) opened he that o b t a i n e d c o n s e n t t o e n t e r t h e house and began different the Officer that to warrants of to p o s t - t r i a l motions A n n e t t e H a m r i c , who out Alabama o f $100 r e s i d e n c e t o l o c a t e and a r r e s t f o r her the followed. testified employed an Trust appeal Compensation i n accordance with Demand R e d u c t i o n A c t , a n d Alabama Crime V i c t i m s and t o o k h i m t o CR-08-1676 Sergeant testified L a r r y Sledge with the Fairhope P o l i c e that Mitchell w h e r e he was a r r e s t e d , was was the only Department r e s i d e n t o f t h e home e v e n t h o u g h o f f i c e r s f o u n d a woman, who n o t i d e n t i f i e d as A n n e t t e Hamric, on t h e c o u c h when they arrived. A t t h e c l o s e o f t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e , M i t c h e l l made a m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l i n w h i c h he a r g u e d t h a t t h e S t a t e had n o t p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e v e n u e a n d t h a t the circuit judgment argued court d i d n o t have a n d t o impose sentence. Mitchell's motion, County. he d e c l i n e d t o p r e s e n t case, the t r i a l evidence The t r i a l and, a l t h o u g h M i t c h e l l after any w i t n e s s e s Mitchell court e r r e d i n denying a c q u i t t a l because, argues h i s motion Mitchell that the court denied and r e s t e d h i s motion on a p p e a l fora that the f o r a judgment o f he s a y s , t h e S t a t e d i d n o t p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e of venue a t t r i a l . It i swell a renewed t h e motion court again denied M i t c h e l l ' s judgment o f a c q u i t t a l . t o render Specifically, t h a t the State had not presented offense occurred i n Baldwin trial jurisdiction settled that " [ t ] h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f r e g a r d i n g v e n u e i s on t h e State, a n d t h e S t a t e may e s t a b l i s h venue b y 3 CR-08-1676 c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Ex p a r t e E a s t , 584 So. 2d 496, 498 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; W i l l c u t t v . S t a t e , 284 A l a . 547, 550, 226 So. 2d 328, 330 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . This Court has h e l d t h a t , '"A c o n v i c t i o n i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e c a n n e v e r be h a d e x c e p t upon p r o o f o f t h e v e n u e , a n d t h i s n e e d n o t be p r o v e d b y d i r e c t e v i d e n c e , b u t evidence from which i t may be inferred is s u f f i c i e n t ; b u t t h e venue o f a c r i m e s h o u l d n e v e r be l e f t i n d o u b t , n o r s u p p l i e d b y i n f e r e n c e , when i t may be r e a d i l y p r o v e d . " ' Ex p a r t e J o n e s , 519 So. 2d 589, 590 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , q u o t i n g M a y h a l l v . S t a t e , 22 A l a . App. 223, 225, 114 So. 3 6 1 , 363 ( 1 9 2 7 ) , c i t i n g W a l k e r v. S t a t e , 153 A l a . 3 1 , 45 So. 640 ( 1 9 0 8 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 184 A l a . 26, 63 So. 1010 (1913) (emphasis a d d e d ) . "When t h e r e i s c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e as t o v e n u e , w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e h a s p r o v e n venue i s a q u e s t i o n f o r the j u r y . Ex p a r t e E a s t , s u p r a . However, when no evidence as t o venue h a s b e e n p r e s e n t e d , t h e q u e s t i o n i s one f o r t h e c o u r t . Ex p a r t e Day, 584 So. 2d 493, 496 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; Ex p a r t e E a s t , s u p r a . I n t h a t e v e n t , upon p r o p e r m o t i o n , t h e c o u r t may, and s h o u l d , t a k e t h e i s s u e o f venue f r o m t h e j u r y and e n t e r a d i r e c t e d j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l f o r t h e defendant. F a i l u r e t o p r o v e venue i s g r o u n d f o r reversal. Ex p a r t e J o n e s , 519 So. 2d a t 5 9 0 . " Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l , The Supreme circumstantial 844 So. 2d 536, 538 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . Court evidence of Alabama that the held i n Russell arresting officer that was e m p l o y e d b y t h e M o b i l e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t a n d t h a t R u s s e l l was taken t o the p o l i c e s t a t i o n where t h a t o f f i c e r was e m p l o y e d was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h v e n u e i n M o b i l e County. No a f f i r m a t i v e Russell e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l 4 that CR-08-1676 was arrested i n Mobile County. In R u s s e l l , the p r o s e c u t o r " c o u l d have e l i c i t e d t h e e x a c t l o c a t i o n o f t h e o f f e n s e s i m p l y by asking [an o f f i c e r ] where v e h i c l e " b u t d i d n o t do s o . Here, police the Department employed arrested c o n t r a b a n d was stopped that by the Mitchell at t o the F a i r h o p e P o l i c e Department. the o f f i c e r s l o c a t e H a m r i c , who defendant's] i t presented evidence City his of Fairhope residence f o u n d and t h a t M i t c h e l l was on a p p e a l t h a t [the Id. S t a t e argues officers he The that Police where the subsequently taken State further were a t M i t c h e l l ' s argues residence to had f e l o n y w a r r a n t s f o r h e r a r r e s t " o u t o f t h e c o u n t y , " and t h a t i t i s "commonly known t h a t F a i r h o p e i s l o c a t e d i n B a l d w i n County." ( S t a t e ' s b r i e f , a t 10.) t h i s i s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o prove venue. The However, State d i d not e n t e r M i t c h e l l ' s address i n t o e v i d e n c e , nor d i d the S t a t e q u e s t i o n t h e w i t n e s s e s as t o w h e t h e r M i t c h e l l ' s r e s i d e n c e was located in Baldwin County. admitted as evidence that county i n which the Further, stated r e s i d e n c e was no Mitchell's located. a f f i r m a t i v e e v i d e n c e o f where a c r i m e o c c u r s . the burden documents were address or There must the be The S t a t e b e a r s o f p r o v i n g v e n u e ; i t f a i l e d t o do so i n M i t c h e l l ' s 5 CR-08-1676 case. A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a n d r e n d e r a j u d g m e n t f o r M i t c h e l l as t o h i s c o n v i c t i o n for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. See Ex p a r t e J o n e s , 519 So. 2d 589, 590 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ( " [ P ] e t i t i o n e r i s due t o be d i s c h a r g e d " when venue i s n o t p r o v e n . ) . REVERSED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED. W i s e , P . J . , a n d Windom, K e l l u m , a n d M a i n , J J . , c o n c u r . 6

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.