Isaac Williams v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/26/2010 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-08-1994 Isaac Williams v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WISE, P r e s i d i n g from M o b i l e C i r c u i t (CC-09-2206) Court Judge. The a p p e l l a n t , I s a a c W i l l i a m s , was c o n v i c t e d o f m u r d e r , a violation court o f § 13A-6-2(a)(1), sentenced him t o serve A l a . Code a term 1975. of l i f e The t r i a l i n prison. CR-08-1994 Williams d i d not f i l e any p o s t - t r i a l motions. This appeal followed. Williams instructed argues the Specifically, misstated that jury the t r i a l on the court issue he c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l the law regarding erred of when i t self-defense. court's i n s t r u c t i o n the r i g h t t o stand one's g r o u n d p u r s u a n t t o § 1 3 A - 3 - 2 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. When i t i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y on s e l f - d e f e n s e , court the t r i a l stated, i n part: "The D e f e n d a n t i s n o t j u s t i f i e d i n u s i n g d e a d l y physical f o r c e upon a n o t h e r p e r s o n , a n d c a n n o t prevail on t h e i s s u e of self-defense i fi t r e a s o n a b l y a p p e a r s o r t h e D e f e n d a n t knows t h a t he can a v o i d t h e n e c e s s i t y o f u s i n g s u c h f o r c e w i t h complete s a f e t y by r e t r e a t i n g , except t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o r e t r e a t i f he i s i n h i s own d w e l l i n g o r was n o t t h e o r i g i n a l a g g r e s s o r . " (R. 234.) After the t r i a l the following "THE Defense? court completed i t s o r a l charge, occurred: COURT: Okay. Any e x c e p t i o n s from t h e "[DEFENSE COUNSEL] : ... I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e stand-your-ground p r o v i s i o n s of the se1f-defense s t a t u t e would apply. A n d t h e -- my r e q u e s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n Number 2, t h e f i n a l p a r a g r a p h i s what I b e l i e v e t h e C o u r t s h o u l d i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on. 'A p e r s o n [who] i s j u s t i f i e d i n u s i n g p h y s i c a l f o r c e [ , ] i n c l u d i n g d e a d l y p h y s i c a l f o r c e [and] who i s n o t engaged i n any u n l a w f u l a c t i v i t y and i s i n a p l a c e 2 CR-08-1994 where he o r s h e h a s t h e r i g h t t o be h a s no d u t y t o r e t r e a t and has t h e r i g h t t o stand h i s g r o u n d . ' "I believe that w o u l d be t h e i n s t r u c t i o n t o the j u r y i n t h i s case. out "THE COURT: I w i l l here and read t h a t . appropriate be g l a d t o b r i n g them b a c k "[PROSECUTOR]: And, Judge, I thought that was c o v e r e d a b o u t t h e d u t y n o t t o r e t r e a t . "THE COURT: part I just got "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Y o u s a i d i t was a d w e l l i n g . I t h i n k y o u q u a l i f i e d i t a n d s a i d i t was j u s t i n h i s dwelling. "THE COURT: W e l l , l e t me r e a d i t a g a i n . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. "THE COURT: I t h i n k t h e r e were t h r e e areas. Okay. 'Defendant i s not j u s t i f i e d i n u s i n g deadly physical force upon a n o t h e r p e r s o n and cannot prevail on t h e i s s u e of self-defense i fi t r e a s o n a b l y a p p e a r s o r t h e D e f e n d a n t knows he c a n avoid the necessity of using such force with complete s a f e t y by r e t r e a t i n g , except t h a t the D e f e n d a n t i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o r e t r e a t i f he i s i n h i s d w e l l i n g o r was n o t t h e o r i g i n a l a g g r e s s o r . ' " I , y o u know, d o n ' t know -- I c o u l d have s a i d o r he h a d t o s t a n d -- he c o u l d s t a n d h i s g r o u n d . B u t "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I think i f you j u s t s u p p l e m e n t e d what y o u d i d s a y w i t h the t h i r d p a r a g r a p h o f my r e q u e s t e d Number 2 , we w o u l d be s a t i s f i e d with that. "[PROSECUTOR]: A n d , Judge, I would 3 CR-08-1994 "DEFENSE COUNSEL: Well "[PROSECUTOR]: The S t a t e w o u l d c o n t e n d t h a t t h a t h a s a l r e a d y b e e n s u f f i c i e n t l y c o v e r e d i n what you j u s t s t a t e d t o t h e j u r y . "THE COURT: G o s h . I thought I r e a l l y covered self-defense pretty well. I mean, I c o u l d s i t h e r e and r e a d a b o u t s e l f - d e f e n s e a l o t , a l o n g t i m e . "But motion. I am g o i n g t o -- I'm g o i n g t o deny "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: your A l l right. "THE COURT: I t h i n k a l l I w o u l d be d o i n g i s b r i n g i n g them o u t h e r e a n d h i g h l i g h t i n g a c e r t a i n area o f my charge, which I don't think i s appropriate. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. Just note my exception f o r the record." (R. 247-49.) S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 3 - 2 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , a s amended effective June 1, 2 0 0 6 , p r o v i d e s : "A p e r s o n who i s j u s t i f i e d u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n (a) i n using physical force, including deadly physical force, a n d who i s n o t e n g a g e d i n an u n l a w f u l a c t i v i t y a n d i s i n a n y p l a c e where he o r s h e h a s t h e r i g h t t o be h a s no d u t y t o r e t r e a t a n d h a s t h e r i g h t to s t a n d h i s or h e r ground." 1 1 The offense i n this c a s e was c o m m i t t e d 2008. 4 on F e b r u a r y 1, CR-08-1994 The trial court's substantially version of cover § self-defense the language 13A-3-23(b), instruction did s e t f o r t h i n the A l a . Code 1975. not amended Rather, i n s t r u c t i o n was s i m i l a r t o t h e l a n g u a g e r e g a r d i n g the the duty to r e t r e a t as s e t f o r t h i n t h e pre-amendment v e r s i o n o f § 13A-323(b), A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e d , i n pertinent part: "(b) ... [ A ] p e r s o n i s n o t j u s t i f i e d i n u s i n g d e a d l y p h y s i c a l f o r c e upon a n o t h e r p e r s o n i f i t r e a s o n a b l y a p p e a r s o r he knows t h a t he c a n a v o i d t h e n e c e s s i t y o f u s i n g such f o r c e w i t h complete s a f e t y : "(1) actor By r e t r e a t i n g , except that the i s not required to r e t r e a t : "a. I f he i s in his d w e l l i n g o r a t h i s p l a c e o f work and was not the original aggressor " Therefore, and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was an i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f l a w , the t r i a l j u r y regarding court e r r e d when i t r e f u s e d to r e i n s t r u c t the t h e r i g h t t o s t a n d one's g r o u n d p u r s u a n t t o t h e c u r r e n t v e r s i o n o f § 1 3 A - 3 - 2 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. v. S t a t e , 993 So. 2d 45 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007) Cf. Jackson (holding that the t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n c o r r e c t statement o f the law r e g a r d i n g the duty to retreat pursuant t o t h e pre-amendment version of § 1 3 A - 3 - 2 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, a n d i t s f a i l u r e t o i n s t r u c t t h e jury regarding the "free from 5 fault" doctrine constituted CR-08-1994 reversible error). judgment and A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l remand consistent with this this case opinion. f o r proceedings court's that are 2 REVERSED AND REMANDED. W e l c h , Windom, K e l l u m , and Main, J J . , concur. B e c a u s e o f o u r d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h i s c a s e , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n of the remaining claims Williams r a i s e s i n h i s brief to this court. 2 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.