Keebrey Jackson v. State of Alabama
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 02/05/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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-08-1741 Keebrey Jackson v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from T a l l a p o o s a C i r c u i t Court (CC-09-56) MAIN, J u d g e . Keebrey manslaughter, h i s sentence Jackson appeals a violation from h i s conviction for o f § 13A-6-3, A l a . Code 1975, o f 145 months' imprisonment, which and s e n t e n c e was s p l i t s o t h a t J a c k s o n was o r d e r e d t o s e r v e 3 3 months i n p r i s o n CR-08-1741 f o l l o w e d b y 5 y e a r s on s u p e r v i s e d p r o b a t i o n . He was ordered t o pay r e s t i t u t i o n and a s s o r t e d f e e s and c o u r t c o s t s . The evidence September cousin presented 16, 2 0 0 8 , Anthony Cunningham's year-old showed Jackson, Cunningham, who was 28 y e a r s grandmother's brother house. and another to get liquor drinking. 1 on t h e m o r n i n g o f who was 24 y e a r s There, o l d , and h i s o l d , drove to Cunningham's 17- c o u s i n , who was 18 y e a r s o l d , began t a l k i n g w i t h t h e men. left that, Jackson and Anthony and r e t u r n e d , whereupon Cunningham a l l four began J a c k s o n a n d t h e two y o u n g e r men t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l f o u r o f them were d r u n k . The the four evidence men also indicated that, decided t o go t o J a c k s o n ' s l o c a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y two m i l e s away. l i c e n s e was s u s p e n d e d , was d r i v i n g . road, Jackson backseats, house, which was J a c k s o n , whose d r i v e r ' s A s h o r t d i s t a n c e down t h e f a i l e d t o s t o p a t a s t o p s i g n a n d t h e n came t o a curve i n the road. the later that afternoon, The two y o u n g e r men, who were s e a t e d i n testified that Jackson seemed t o a c c e l e r a t e T h e r e was some i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d , i n c l u d i n g t e s t i m o n y f r o m Cunningham's y o u n g e r b r o t h e r , t h a t J a c k s o n a n d Cunningham had been drinking before they arrived at Cunningham's g r a n d m o t h e r ' s home. 1 2 CR-08-1741 when he approached the b e l i e v e d t h a t he was per h o u r as he curve. Jackson approached the c u r v e and Jackson attempted road, vehicle ran the to o f f the A n t h o n y Cunningham was around testified the brain, that keep t h e r o a d and vehicle a broken neck, first torn d i s p l a c e d l i v e r , which l i f t e d h i s lungs. vessels to his i n t e s t i n e s were t o r n ; h i s h a l f ; h i s p e l v i s was to the tibia and f r a c t u r e d ; and he had the fibula. Cunningham's b l o o d - a l c o h o l Cunningham's b r o t h e r and teeth. Jackson suffered The injured other his breathing The l e v e l was on when hemorrhaging and which a torn aorta was torn head and testified approximately shoulder, problems. A l l three in a compound f r a c t u r e examiner sustained and A d d i t i o n a l l y , blood a head broke of wound, his these that 0.27. s u f f e r e d i n j u r i e s to h i s face, cousin the medical diaphragm, c a u s e d h i s s t o m a c h t o be s h o v e d i n t o h i s c h e s t , was one. The suffered a miles h i t a tree k i l l e d i n the wreck. Cunningham he a d m i t t e d t h a t he rounding a second curve l o c a t e d c l o s e to the examiner that t r a v e l i n g a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 55 t o 60 intoxicated. but testified hip, men leg, and and were t a k e n t o a n e a r b y h o s p i t a l and t h e n a i r l i f t e d t o a h o s p i t a l i n Montgomery. 3 CR-08-1741 A s t a t e t r o o p e r was b u t he was unable unconscious. s e n t t o t h e h o s p i t a l i n Montgomery, t o i n t e r v i e w Jackson, because However, blood and urine Jackson were taken t w i c e , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t J a c k s o n ' s b l o o d a l c o h o l l e v e l was 0.243 ( b a s e d on a u r i n e s a m p l e ) and 0.219 approximately three-and-one-half samples was ( b a s e d on a b l o o d s a m p l e ) hours after the wreck; s e c o n d t e s t a d m i n i s t e r e d two h o u r s l a t e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t he a blood-alcohol level Jackson's THC toxicology of 0.182 reports (based also J a c k s o n was Cunningham assault for vehicle. The and and injuries appeal to the covers of in his f o r the death of and other only sample). Midazolam f o r second-degree had the presence charged w i t h manslaughter Anthony the a blood indicated (found i n marijuana) i n his urine blood. on a third passenger the degree in conviction the for manslaughter. Following the presentation of the evidence, defense c o u n s e l , i n h i s argument t o t h e j u r y , n o t e d t h a t r e c k l e s s n e s s was included as an element v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e as i t was that could homicide qualify statute. of both one then argued 4 and of the t h r e e mental as " u n i n t e n t i o n a l " He manslaughter under the also states vehicular- t h a t the evidence i n t h i s CR-08-1741 case supported conviction because, conduct f o r the he a by objected was a conviction lesser argued, caused prosecutor counsel not the offense death drinking of was and vehicular a result driving and s t a t e d t h a t t h i s misstatement responded t h a t r e c k l e s s n e s s of v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e . was f o r manslaughter, of was the fast. The counsel going t o request a charge t h a t The defense trial not a p a r t of the Defense reckless argument b y law. court definition then s t a t e d that recklessness a homicide, of too but c o u l d be he an element of v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e . F o l l o w i n g a l l the arguments t o t h e j u r y , d e f e n s e r e q u e s t e d a c h a r g e b a s e d on Ex p a r t e (Ala. 2001), stating that the E d w a r d s , 816 element of the counsel So. 2d offense 98 of v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e t h a t t h e c o n d u c t be " u n i n t e n t i o n a l " w o u l d be k n o w i n g , r e c k l e s s or c r i m i n a l l y n e g l i g e n t . objected to the timing objected that prosecutor i t would then vehicular-homicide of the requested charge confuse suggested that the both jury. the counsel prosecutor and further However, the manslaughter and charge c o u l d charge t h a t the u n i n t e n t i o n a l a c t i o n s of the defendant i n e i t h e r offense Defense The indicated that 5 such a c o u l d be r e c k l e s s . charge would be CR-08-1741 satisfactory. The t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t s u c h a c h a r g e w o u l d n o t t r a c k t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e and w o u l d be to the j u r y . charge The would trial make i d e n t i c a l offenses. The t r i a l court further manslaughter and stated confusing that such vehicular-homicide The p r o s e c u t o r a g r e e d . c o u r t determined t h a t i t would charge the j u r y a c c o r d i n g t o t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e and w o u l d t r u s t the jury Defense a knew the counsel meaning then of the complained that word " u n i n t e n t i o n a l " . that the j u r o r s may not understand t h a t r e c k l e s s n e s s c o u l d support a l e s s e r charge of vehicular court homicide unless determined recklessness in that he t h e y were so c h a r g e d . would conjunction charge with the j u r y manslaughter The trial only and on the a s s a u l t s , because i t i s i n c l u d e d i n the s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n s of those offenses. The t r i a l c o u r t c h a r g e d t h e j u r y as t o v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e b u t d i d n o t p r o v i d e t h e j u r y w i t h any d e f i n i t i o n o f " u n l a w f u l " or " u n i n t e n t i o n a l " i n i t s vehicular-homicide jurors were charged as to recklessness charge. only in The the m a n s l a u g h t e r , s e c o n d - d e g r e e - a s s a u l t , and t h i r d - d e g r e e - a s s a u l t instructions. 6 CR-08-1741 At t h e c l o s e of the charges t o the j u r y , defense again jury objected to the t r i a l as t o t h e mens Defense counsel court's rea necessary r e i t e r a t e d that failure to instruct the for vehicular the t r i a l counsel court homicide. should have d e f i n e d " u n i n t e n t i o n a l " by d e f i n i n g " r e c k l e s s " , "knowing", and "criminally negligent". requested charge arguments. was The p r o s e c u t o r untimely, Defense counsel the c h a r g e he h a d r e q u e s t e d an addition necessary for vehicular coming after responded t h a t the c l o s i n g the only part of a f t e r t h e c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s was to h i s original c o n t e n d e d t h a t he r e q u e s t e d again argued t h a t the request. Specifically, t h e charge concerning homicide at that time he t h e mens r e a because t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d i c a t e d , p u r s u a n t t o an o b j e c t i o n d u r i n g c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s , t h a t i t was an i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f t h e l a w . He a r g u e d t h a t he d i d n o t know t h a t the t r i a l court would not i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y as t o t h e mens r e a o f " r e c k l e s s " , " k n o w i n g " , and " c r i m i n a l l y n e g l i g e n t " . had to craft The trial The t r i a l c o u r t r e s p o n d e d t h a t he a vehicular-homicide court decided s t a t u t e and r e f u s e d t o adhere charge the statute. t o the language t o amend i t s o r i g i n a l 7 from charge. of the CR-08-1741 On appeal, Jackson argues that the trial court should have i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y as t o r e c k l e s s n e s s i n t h e v e h i c u l a r homicide charge. was The e r r o r f o r the trial State on c o u r t not appeal has conceded t h a t i t t o have done so and that a reversal i s required. The charge S t a t e notes t h a t because Jackson's request was untimely and not made u n t i l he w o u l d n o t after for c l o s i n g arguments, o r d i n a r i l y be this i t was e n t i t l e d to i t . " R u l e 21.1, A . R . C r i m . P . , c l e a r l y a n t i c i p a t e s t h a t w r i t t e n r e q u e s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n s s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t and s e r v e d on t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y p r i o r t o the c l o s i n g arguments of c o u n s e l t o the jury. 1 " 1 R u l e 21.1, A.R.Crim.P., p r o v i d e s in part: "'At the c l o s e of the e v i d e n c e or a t such o t h e r t i m e d u r i n g t h e t r i a l as t h e c o u r t r e a s o n a b l y d i r e c t s , e i t h e r p a r t y may file and, i n such event, s h a l l s e r v e on the o p p o s i n g p a r t y , w r i t t e n r e q u e s t s t h a t the c o u r t i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e l a w as s e t f o r t h i n t h o s e r e q u e s t s . The c o u r t s h a l l i n f o r m c o u n s e l o f i t s p r o p o s e d a c t i o n upon the r e q u e s t s p r i o r to t h e i r arguments to the j u r y , but the c o u r t s h a l l i n s t r u c t the j u r y a f t e r the arguments are c o m p l e t e d . ' (Emphasis added.)" Hudson v. S t a t e , 628 So. 2d 1063, 1064 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993). However, t h e S t a t e c o n c e d e s t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e u n t i m e l i n e s s 8 of CR-08-1741 Jackson's request for a charge defining "unintentional" in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the o f f e n s e of v e h i c u l a r homicide, the trial c o u r t had p r e v i o u s l y a g r e e d t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e as a l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e and d i d s o . J a c k s o n was and not e n t i t l e d to a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n Therefore, t h a t was complete misleading. " ' [ E ] v e r y a c c u s e d i s e n t i t l e d t o have c h a r g e s g i v e n , w h i c h w o u l d n o t be m i s l e a d i n g , w h i c h c o r r e c t l y s t a t e t h e l a w o f h i s c a s e , and w h i c h a r e s u p p o r t e d by any e v i d e n c e , however weak, i n s u f f i c i e n t , o r d o u b t f u l i n c r e d i b i l i t y . ' Ex p a r t e C h a v e r s , 361 So. 2d 1106, 1107 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . ' " ' I t i s a b a s i c t e n e t o f A l a b a m a l a w t h a t "a p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o have h i s t h e o r y o f the case, made by the pleadings and issues, p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y by p r o p e r i n s t r u c t i o n , ... and the [trial] court's failure to give those instructions i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . " ' " ' Ex parte M c G r i f f , 908 So. 2d 1024, 1035 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , q u o t i n g W i n n e r I n t ' l C o r p . v. Common S e n s e , I n c . , 863 So. 2d 1088, 1091 ( A l a . 2003), q u o t i n g i n turn other cases." Williams v. State, 938 So. 2d 440, 444-45 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). Vehicular 192(a), homicide A l a . Code 1975, i s defined i n Alabama at § 32-5A- as f o l l o w s : "Whoever s h a l l u n l a w f u l l y and u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y cause the d e a t h of a n o t h e r p e r s o n w h i l e engaged i n the violation of any state law or municipal ordinance a p p l y i n g t o t h e o p e r a t i o n o r use o f a v e h i c l e , o r v e s s e l , as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 33-5-3, o r t o t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f t r a f f i c o r b o a t i n g , s h a l l be 9 CR-08-1741 guilty o f h o m i c i d e when t h e p r o x i m a t e cause o f t h e d e a t h . " violation i s the H e r e , J a c k s o n was e n t i t l e d t o a c o m p l e t e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n as t o t h e mens rea necessary v e h i c u l a r homicide. f o r a prima facie case of J u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s as t o t h a t m e n t a l s t a t e have b e e n a d d r e s s e d i n Ex p a r t e E d w a r d s , 816 So. 2d 98 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , as f o l l o w s : "The j u r y i n E d w a r d s ' s c a s e was c h a r g e d on m a n s l a u g h t e r a n d on c r i m i n a l l y n e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e a s a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e as t o m a n s l a u g h t e r , a n d on v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e . The j u r y f o u n d Edwards g u i l t y o f o n l y v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e . We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l court's initial reservations about t y i n g the r e q u i s i t e m e n t a l s t a t e t o t h e w o r d ' u n l a w f u l l y ' were s o u n d . We e n d o r s e t h e 'Use N o t e on Mens Rea E l e m e n t ' that accompanies the Alabama pattern jury i n s t r u c t i o n a p p l i c a b l e t o § 32-5A-192; t h a t n o t e states that ' u n i n t e n t i o n a l ' i s not defined i n the Code b u t t h a t t h e c o m m i t t e e d r a f t i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n assumes t h a t w o r d t o r e f e r t o a l l f o r m s o f mens r e a e x c e p t t h a t d e s c r i b e d b y t h e w o r d ' i n t e n t i o n a l . ' The Use N o t e t h e n r e f e r s t o t h e p r e v i o u s l y r e f e r e n c e d defined terms governing mens r e a elements-¬ 'intentionally,' 'knowingly,' ' r e c k l e s s l y , ' and ' c r i m i n a l n e g l i g e n c e . ' Then, t h e Use N o t e c o r r e c t l y concludes: "'The j u d g e s h o u l d i n s e r t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e mens r e a e l e m e n t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i n d i c t m e n t and t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . "There a r e few, i f a n y , s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y o f f e n s e s i n t h i s C r i m i n a l Code " A l a . Code § 13A-2-3 Commentary. See a l s o § 1 3 A - 2 - 4 ( b ) . ' "Alabama P a t t e r n J u r y I n s t r u c t i o n s : C r i m i n a l , 14-4 t o 14-6 (3d e d . 1 9 9 4 ) . " 10 CR-08-1741 Ex p a r t e E d w a r d s , 816 Moreover, foreclosed the So. 2d a t 107 error (footnote resulting from the charged jury's on finding recklessness conclusion. 2009] the jury's from f i n d i n g Jackson g u i l t y of v e h i c u l a r b a s e d on r e c k l e s s c o n d u c t was n o t h a r m l e s s . and omitted.) of as manslaughter to I n B a r r e t t v. S t a t e , So. 3d that being homicide Both the evidence after offense i t had been support this [Ms. CR-06-0090, O c t o b e r ( A l a . Crim. App. 2009), this Court stated: "Further, the circuit court's refusal to i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e was not harmless because ' [ n ] o t h i n g i n the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t supports the contention t h a t i t c o u l d n o t have returned a v e r d i c t on [ t h e o f f e n s e of v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e ] i n s t e a d o f m a n s l a u g h t e r i f i t had b e e n g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y , o r t h a t any f i n d i n g i m p l i c i t in the jury's verdict necessarily precludes a v e r d i c t on [ v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e ] . ' Ex p a r t e L o n g , 600 So. 2d 982, 987, ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e E d w a r d s , 816 So. 2d 98, 107 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; see a l s o C r a w f o r d v. S t a t e , 886 So. 2d 846, 849 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t c o n v i c t i n g the defendant of manslaughter d i d n o t p r e c l u d e a v e r d i c t on v e h i c u l a r homicide; t h e r e f o r e , the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s erroneous r e f u s a l to i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e was not h a r m l e s s ) . Given the o p p o r t u n i t y , under the f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e , t h e j u r y c o u l d have returned a verdict f o r homicide by vehicle. T h e r e f o r e , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i s due t o be reversed." So. 3d a t . 11 2, CR-08-1741 B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g a u t h o r i t y , a n d b a s e d on t h e f a c t s and circumstances of t h i s presented at t r i a l , r e v e r s e d , and t h i s particular the t r i a l case and t h e e v i d e n c e c o u r t ' s judgment c a u s e i s remanded f o r a new i s due t o be trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. W i s e , P . J . , a n d W e l c h , Windom, a n d K e l l u m , J J . , c o n c u r . 12
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.
