State of Alabama v. Andreas Smith, alias

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-08-1935 S t a t e o f Alabama v. Andreas Appeal WELCH, Smith from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CC-09-1075) Judge. The S t a t e o f A l a b a m a a p p e a l s , R. C r i m . against Court P., f r o m a pretrial Andreas Smith. p u r s u a n t t o Rule 15.7, A l a . order We r e v e r s e dismissing and remand. an indictment CR-08-1935 The County grand Smith. the record jury I n count attempted Hamilton and § i n d i c a t e s t h a t on J u l y returned I charged with I.D. violation of § Affidavits filed that fugitive shots an by s h o o t i n g and Deputy were charged with Marshal States the a t t e m p t e d murder § J.C. of § Marshals 13A-6-2 indictment of Deputy him w i t h 13A-4-2, against Ala. Hamilton members o f t h e U n i t e d United a gun, i n Code and 1975. Richardson States Marshal's t a s k f o r c e a n d t h a t on J u l y 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , S m i t h h a d outstanding warrants a t them w h i l e robbery f o r attempted Montgomery United warrant. On murder were Smith filed He a l l e g e d t h a t he h a d b e e n States District Court Alabama of s i m i l a r charges a r i s i n g September they were arresting July filed 21, fired him 2007, against Smith on two in County. A u g u s t 31, 2009, charges. the they indictment S m i t h was United Montgomery 1975; i n count I I of the 13A-6-2 by a a gun, a v i o l a t i o n Richardson from a handgun On Deputy him w i t h A l a . Code States Marshal stated of by s h o o t i n g S m i t h was two-count of the indictment murder 13A-4-2, a 18, 2008, 2, 2009, the trial to dismiss the a c q u i t t e d by a j u r y i n f o r the Middle District of f r o m t h e same i n c i d e n t . On court 2 a motion held a hearing on the CR-08-1935 motion. At the hearing, been t r i e d Smith on both court attempted At on April 2, 2008, court on and f o r t h e a s s a u l t s f u r t h e r argued of a s s a u l t . murder were the outset this over that he was t r i e d i n the j u r y The i n d i c t m e n t s then filed found Smith happened the t r i a l more t h a n t r y i n g i n federal court that that they weren't to get a c o n v i c t i o n . had occurred, and a f t e r filed i n State offense, just different argued that prosecution the i n both court, wording." 3 Okay?" that enough (R. t h e sequence 2.) of discussed attempted-murder court (R. 12.) dual-sovereignty federal court a case the prosecutor the t r i a l stated: competent court the d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e f e d e r a l charges and t h e charges court f o r court to bootstrap the p a r t i e s explained to the t r i a l events i n State on on J u l y 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 . of the hearing, i s nothing whatever After and o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 1 1 . indicted i n federal f o r two b a n k r o b b e r i e s Smith t h a t Smith had of t h e bank r o b b e r i e s , but had found him not g u i l t y counts "And for violations he h a d b e e n the marshals. guilty or that 15, 2007, federal was i n federal court argued August the State acknowledged stated, The doctrine and s t a t e c o u r t , "Same prosecutor permitted and c i t e d CR-08-1935 Clemons v. S t a t e , trial court then 720 S o . 2 d 961 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). The stated: "The p o i n t i s , i s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h i s i s t r y i n g to b o o t s t r a p an o f f e n s e t h a t h a p p e n e d i n f e d e r a l court. You a l l s a t around and w a i t e d . You had t h e i n d i c t m e n t s had t h e charge i n 2007. Until after t h e man was f o u n d n o t g u i l t y , y o u d i d n ' t t a k e i t t o the grand j u r y t o get the i n d i c t m e n t . " (R. 14-15.) The trial indictment The court granted on S e p t e m b e r State argues 3, the indictment attempted murder attempted murders, acquitted of federal review this of law. So. U.S. 82 even Smith United (1985), erred with the two to prosecute though he was charges based two s t a t e s . counts of him f o r the prosecuted f o r and on t h e same i n c i d e n t . i tpresents a We question [Ms. 1 0 8 1 2 9 6 , D e c . 4, 2 0 0 9 ] 2009). S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , considered i n Heath v. Alabama, the a p p l i c a b i l i t y sovereignty doctrine to successive capital-murder by when i t dual-sovereignty State a r g u m e n t de n o v o , b e c a u s e (Ala. court i t says, E.g., H i l e r v. S t a t e , 3d ___ The the the t r i a l charging because, authorized and d i s m i s s e d t h e 2009. that dismissed doctrine Smith's motion The S u p r e m e Court 4 held that of the 474 dual- prosecutions under the dual- CR-08-1935 sovereignty for t h e same Clause doctrine, conduct of the F i f t h successive was prosecutions not barred by b y two the Double states Jeopardy Amendment: "The d u a l s o v e r e i g n t y d o c t r i n e i s f o u n d e d on t h e common-law c o n c e p t i o n o f c r i m e as an o f f e n s e a g a i n s t t h e s o v e r e i g n t y o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t . When a d e f e n d a n t i n a s i n g l e a c t v i o l a t e s t h e 'peace and d i g n i t y ' o f two s o v e r e i g n s b y b r e a k i n g t h e l a w s o f e a c h , he h a s c o m m i t t e d two d i s t i n c t ' o f f e n c e s . ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. L a n z a , 260 U.S. 377 , 382 (1 9 2 2 ) . As t h e C o u r t explained i n Moore v. I l l i n o i s , 14 How. 1 3 , 19 (1852), '[a]noffence, i n i t s legal signification, means t h e t r a n s g r e s s i o n o f a l a w . ' Consequently, when t h e same a c t t r a n s g r e s s e s t h e l a w s o f two sovereigns, ' i t c a n n o t be t r u l y a v e r r e d t h a t t h e offender has been twice punished f o r t h e same o f f e n c e ; b u t o n l y t h a t b y o n e a c t he h a s c o m m i t t e d two offences, f o r each of which he i s justly punishable.' I d . , a t 20. "In applying the dual sovereignty doctrine, t h e n , t h e c r u c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e two entities that seek successively to prosecute a d e f e n d a n t f o r t h e same c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t c a n be termed separate sovereigns. This determination turns on w h e t h e r t h e two e n t i t i e s draw their authority to punish the offender from distinct sources o f power. See, e.g., U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 3 1 3 , 320 (1978); Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 3 8 7 , 393 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; P u e r t o R i c o v . Shell C o . , 302 U.S. 2 5 3 , 2 6 4 - 2 6 5 (1937); Lanza, s u p r a , 260 U.S., a t 3 8 2 ; G r a f t o n v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 206 U.S. 3 3 3 , 3 5 4 - 3 5 5 ( 1 9 0 7 ) . Thus, t h e Court has uniformly held that the States are separate s o v e r e i g n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e F e d e r a l Government because each S t a t e ' s power t o p r o s e c u t e i s d e r i v e d f r o m i t s own ' i n h e r e n t s o v e r e i g n t y , ' n o t f r o m t h e F e d e r a l Government. W h e e l e r , s u p r a , a t 3 2 0 , n. 14. See A b b a t e v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 359 U.S. 1 8 7 , 1 9 3 - 1 9 4 5 CR-08-1935 (1959) ( c o l l e c t i n g c a s e s ) ; L a n z a , s u p r a . i n L a n z a , s u p r a , 260 U.S., a t 3 8 2 : As stated "'[E]ach government in determining what s h a l l be an o f f e n s e a g a i n s t i t s p e a c e and dignity i s exercising i t s own sovereignty, not that of the other. " ' I t f o l l o w s t h a t an a c t d e n o u n c e d as crime by both national and state a ereignties i s an o f f e n s e against the sov peace and d i g n i t y of both a n d may be p u n i s h e d by each.' "See a l s o B a r t k u s v . I l l i n o i s , 359 U.S. 121 ( 1 9 5 9 ) ; W e s t f a l l v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 274 U.S. 2 5 6 , 258 ( 1 9 2 7 ) (Holmes, J.) ( t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e S t a t e and F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t s may p u n i s h t h e same c o n d u c t ' i s t o o p l a i n t o n e e d more t h a n statement')." 474 U.S. a t 88-89 (emphasis Thus, t h e U n i t e d sovereignty government because permits transgression. (Ala. and a held that court a defendant this Clemons's of c a p i t a l and Court r e l i e d f o r and h i s prosecution 6 dual federal conduct, b y t h e same 720 S o . 2 d 961 on H e a t h v . A l a b a m a of a law-enforcement murder. the were v i o l a t e d prosecution that f o r t h e same i n Clemons v. S t a t e , of duty d i d not preclude charge government sovereign Moreover, o f murder Supreme C o u r t has h e l d state of each C r i m . App. 1996), federal line States to prosecute the laws added). conviction i n officer i n the i n A l a b a m a on a CR-08-1935 Because separate alleged erred the doctrine prosecution shooting when i t by the dual State at the federal dismissed Therefore, the judgment cause remanded is of the sovereignty of Alabama permits a f o r Smith's marshals, the t r i a l court indictment against Smith. of the t r i a l f o r proceedings court i s reversed. consistent with The this opinion. R E V E R S E D AND Wise, REMANDED. P . J . , a n d Windom, K e l l u m , 7 and Main, J J . , concur.

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.