Maxine Williams 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-08-2016 Maxine W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e o f Alabama A p p e a l from H o u s t o n C i r c u i t C o u r t (CC-08-1063; CC-08-1064) MAIN, Judge. Maxine possession Williams was c o n v i c t e d o f one c o u n t of a c o n t r o l l e d substance, Code 1 9 7 5 , a n d one c o u n t o f c h e m i c a l of unlawful see § 13A-12-212, A l a . endangerment o f a c h i l d , CR-08-2016 see § 26-15-3.2, Williams, as A l a . Code a habitual 1975. The offender, trial court to concurrent sentenced terms of 15 y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t on e a c h c o u n t . W i l l i a m s f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a new trial, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed. On J a n u a r y 3 1 , 2008, Officer Jason Adkins of the C i t y of Dothan P o l i c e Department, accompanied by other o f f i c e r s of the Dothan Police warrant at Department, 626 i n f o r m a n t , who informed house As Chickasaw that the Street Adkins that African-American drugs were males approached of t h e men one standing near and two other o f t h e men, who was later a crack pipe containing house, confidential t h a t day, had sold from the they saw two of the i n the Officers identified 2 rear headed fled. cocaine search house. moved t o w a r d t h e s i d e officers i n t h e b a c k y a r d , who being the During a s e a r c h of H a m i l t o n , the p o l i c e be a a there. the O f f i c e r A d k i n s and a n o t h e r o f f i c e r the house, executed because guns were b e i n g k e p t officers of and had been a t the r e s i d e n c e e a r l i e r Officer and obtained door direction apprehended as A n t h o n y H a m i l t o n . f o u n d what a p p e a r e d t o residue. CR-08-2016 While male, Officer presence. movement door. and the other o f f i c e r s pursued Adkins inside infant entered. on t h e d o o r A p p r o x i m a t e l y 15 seconds t h e house, Williams, an knocked were After adult and announced h i s Adkins women, i n the l i v i n g securing and t h e o t h e r a f t e r he k n o c k e d Officer two o t h e r Hamilton everyone, broke and h e a r d through the a 10-year-old room when girl, the o f f i c e r s the o f f i c e r s searched the house. In the rear bedroom o f t h e house, W i l l i a m s ' s purse near t h e n i g h t s t a n d . clothing posted lying about t h e room on t h e m i r r o r . Adkins springs a DVD c a s e containing the kitchen, Officer bottle with cocaine. the another The however, 1 found hidden of Williams the mattress Adkins on t h e g r o u n d found near bedroom, and t h e box two p i e c e s o f c r a c k c o c a i n e . discovered a on i t t h a t Outside t h e back door, which officers found He a l s o n o t i c e d women's and photographs between W i l l i a m s ' s name backyard, Adkins During h i s search of the rear Officer In Officer crack l e d from t h e k i t c h e n t o on a t a b l e a n d t h e two m a l e s h a d been r e c o r d appears t o i d e n t i f y i t w a s i n f a c t a DVD c a s e . 3 prescription c o n t a i n e d more a n o t h e r DVD c a s e where 1 t h e case a s a CD when case; CR-08-2016 the officers contained In first approached. The case on the table crack cocaine. addition to the drug evidence i n the bedroom and in W i l l i a m s ' s p r e s c r i p t i o n b o t t l e , O f f i c e r Adkins found a loaded shotgun under a window near the backdoor. above the s h o t g u n , O f f i c e r A d k i n s substance Officer inside and lodged Adkins a the between also found c a b i n e t i n the wall. Finally, the On f o u n d an o f f - w h i t e window sill more off-white kitchen, wedged the the window officers and between found i n s i d e t h e h o u s e as w e l l as a d d i t i o n a l p i l l s powdered the powdered sill wall. substance the cabinet a second shotgun around the house. Although the p h y s i c a l evidence at the r e s i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d that W i l l i a m s had testified that that lived she he some connection knew t h a t there when O f f i c e r Adkins t e s t i f i e d to i t and Williams lived she spoke with that the u t i l i t i e s r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e name o f M a g g i e J o h n s o n . Officer there, Adkins she Officer denied Adkins. f o r the house were However, n e i t h e r of the two women w i t h W i l l i a m s w e r e i d e n t i f i e d a s M a g g i e Johnson, and there actually lived was there. no evidence indicating W i l l i a m s d i d not 4 that testify. Johnson CR-08-2016 I. Williams first denying her Batson a facie prima State's because case of racial two Specifically, female, established a prima f a c i e During after erred the State exchange voir the on t h e she c l a i m s error Williams dire. to Williams argued, the had an not prosecutor's maintains that she case o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and t h a t t h e to articulate fori t s strikes. selection, struck the defense R.N.J. made a B a t s o n Specifically, motion the following occurred: "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Ms. M a x i n e W i l l i a m s i s a b l a c k female. She i s p a r t o f t h e m i n o r i t y . J u r o r Number 133 i s a l s o a m i n o r i t y c l a s s . The S t a t e s t r u c k h e r as their last strike. I am n o t a w a r e o f a n y negative response with the State i n reference to J u r o r Number 1 3 3 , so I w i l l a s k t h a t t h e y be o r d e r e d to g i v e a r a c e - n e u t r a l r e a s o n f o r s t r i k i n g . 2 in African-American i n not r e q u i r i n g the State reasons jury of responses during race-neutral who, negative questioning court erred s t r u c k p o t e n t i a l j u r o r no. 133, R.N.J, African-American trial court d i s c r i m i n a t i o n based the jury. from any the t r i a l a l l but the State provided that m o t i o n b e c a u s e s h e c o n t e n d s t h a t s h e made 2 striking veniremembers argues Batson v. Kentucky, 4 7 6 U.S. 79 5 (1986). CR-08-2016 "THE COURT: I t i s t h e State's "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: "THE jury COURT: How panel? Yes, "THE COURT: Your many b l a c k "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I'm strike? Honor. j u r o r s are Two. going last Well, to find on three that the actual counting the her. Defense has failed t o make a p r i m a facie case of a Batson violation. So I w i l l n o t r e q u i r e t h e S t a t e t o g i v e any reasons for the strike of this particular juror." (R. 18.) Initially, we note that c o m p l e t e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . venire was composed report for jury State had strikes. the a (C. 36.) Williams or persons. 35 in the court of voir the to provide person the venire. had 11 s t a t e d f o r the d i r e of actual list striking of r e c o r d the by the the actual jury. race Regardless, of any of the nothing other 6 i n the record prospective names State jury. The remained indicates jurors. of include the r e c o r d , h o w e v e r , d o e s show t h a t two A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s on The i s a part venire to peremptory r e c o r d does not the a jury failed jury jury strike were empaneled, the the One s t r i k e s ; Williams trial of failed r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the leaving Although the j u r o r s who The 36 peremptory transcription and duty, 12 r e c o r d and of the of Williams As the we CR-08-2016 stated in Johnson v. State, 823 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001): "Initially, we n o t e t h a t t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t c o n t a i n a n y d o c u m e n t s t h a t show t h e r a c e of the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s on t h e v e n i r e o r o f t h e m e m b e r s of the j u r y i t s e l f . The j u r y s t r i k e l i s t i s n o t i n the r e c o r d , nor i s the s t r i k i n g of the j u r y i n c l u d e d in the t r i a l transcript. ... Other than defense counsel's assertions in support of the Batson m o t i o n , t h e r e i s s i m p l y no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d o f the race of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s on t h e v e n i r e , o f w h i c h p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s were s t r u c k by t h e State and w h i c h were s t r u c k by t h e d e f e n s e , o r even o f t h e i d e n t i t y o r r a c e o f t h e j u r o r s who u l t i m a t e l y s a t on Johnson's j u r y . ' I t i s the a p p e l l a n t ' s duty to provide this Court with a complete record on appeal.' K n i g h t v . S t a t e , 621 So. 2d 3 9 4 , 395 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . '"Where t h e r e c o r d i s s i l e n t on a p p e a l , i t w i l l be p r e s u m e d t h a t w h a t o u g h t t o h a v e b e e n d o n e was not o n l y done, but r i g h t l y done."' Owens v . S t a t e , 597 So. 2 d 7 3 4 , 736 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 992), quoting J o l l y v . S t a t e , 405 So. 2d 7 6 , 77 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 1 ) . ' T h i s c o u r t w i l l n o t presume e r r o r from a s i l e n t r e c o r d . ' F r a z i e r v . S t a t e , 758 So. 2 d 5 7 7 , 600 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , a f f ' d , 758 So. 2 d 611 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 531 U.S. 8 4 3 , 121 S. C t . 1 0 9 , 148 L. E d . 2 d 66 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . See a l s o R o b e r t s v . S t a t e , 627 So. 2 d 1 1 1 4 , 1116 (Ala. Crim. App. 19 9 3 ) . " 823 367, So. 2d 376-77 at the Jackson Batson v. See (Ala. Crim. Moreover, on 18-19. "[w]e State, App. will motion 549 also So. v. State, 8 60 So. 2d 2002). reverse only Finney the i f i t 2d 616 7 circuit is court's 'clearly (Ala. Cr. ruling erroneous.' App. 1989)." CR-08-2016 Cooper v. S t a t e , "'"[A] finding evidence to 611 S o . 2 d 4 6 0 , 463 i s 'clearly support evidence i s l e f t erroneous' So. v. 436 with (Ala. Crim. 2 d 3 0 9 , 312 State, party the d e f i n i t e App. 1997), racially of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . ' " 557, Crim. 572 "'a pure deferential 534 U.S. on the conviction issue use v. S t a t e , fact, of Batson motion discrimination, race-neutral (1991). "'The peremptory and v. S t a t e , 811 S o . 2 d A determination regarding a to discriminate Armstrong to under review v. S t a t e , reason the appellant establishes the burden a shifts f o r each strike 8 case 819 S o . 2 d 6 4 3 , 6 4 8 - 4 9 subject "After 555 Powell Batson under prima a 710 S o . 2 d 5 3 1 , ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g H e r n a n d e z v . New Y o r k , 3 5 2 , 365 a 703 S o . 2 d of e s t a b l i s h i n g a prima f a c i e of i n t e n t standard.'" that ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) ) . quoting Burgess of entire q u o t i n g D a v i s v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1998). moving p a r t y ' s showing is and f i r m discriminatory Rogers App. 2001), 1992). although there i s ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989), q u o t i n g i n t u r n c h a l l e n g e s bears the burden (Ala. App. F l e t c h e r v. S t a t e , 548 S o . 2 d 5 9 0 , 594 alleging when i t , the reviewing court m i s t a k e has been committed."'" 432, (Ala. Crim. makes facie a 500 timely showing of to the State to provide a .... See, e.g., Ex p a r t e CR-08-2016 Bird, 594 S o . 2 d 67 6 ( A l a . 1991)." Cooper, Once t h e p r o s e c u t o r h a s a r t i c u l a t e d the strike, that those Branch, reasons 526 In supra, may be from Williams argued response to v o i r the no showing Ex parte evidence presented s e t o u t i n Ex p a r t e B r a n c h , to establish State. a prima only that that R.N.J. dire facie the with [trial] court "'[I]t was case, not j u s t to a 57 9 So. United S t a t e s v. find 2d 45, Moore, indicates 8 95 that, and composed of that numbers facie F.2d 484, along too adverse few App. 485 with to the asserted minority the defendant case.'" a challenge, further a l o n e , when ( A l a . Crim. 9 this s p e c u l a t e d as R.N.J., prima 48 to requiring h a d n o t p r o v i d e d an i s important facts, State, record jury without respect q u e s t i o n i n g and for striking groups. forward motion With reasons generally The or p r e t e x t . simply W i l l i a m s ' s Batson response ethnic sham evidence ( A l a . 1987). was used offer reasons f o r R e g a r d i n g p o t e n t i a l j u r o r no. 133, R.N.J., t h e t r i a l denied State's there a t h a t any o f t h e f a c t o r s which existed. are merely case, race-neutral can then S o . 2 d 6 0 9 , 624 this indicating court the moving p a r t y 611 S o . 2 d a t 4 6 3 . come asking the Mitchell 1991), v. quoting (8th C i r . 1 990). the rest of the CR-08-2016 v e n i r e m e m b e r s , R . N . J . was a s k e d g e n e r a l court before failed to Because party, or respond arguments evidence any of alone questions. were not the v o i r questions know how of a Batson respect these does not c o n t a i n n o r do we that the t r i a l with to do n o t know w h a t Williams by t h e t r i a l v o i r d i r e by t h e S t a t e and W i l l i a m s , a l t h o u g h the record we questions (R. 9-17.) by either dire were a s k e d by t h e R.N.J. responded. sufficient violation. to prove juror a prima Accordingly, no. State Williams's we facie cannot court erred i n denying Williams's Batson to p o t e n t i a l she say motion 133. II. Williams next denying her motion a of lack warrant confidential At cause yielded the informant contained was false the suppression which testified t h a t he o b t a i n e d 31, 2008 occurred the evidence not trial court erred in that there was She c o n t e n d s f o r the issuance of because, she says, the supporting oral motion reliable and the search the information. hearing suppress, January that to suppress. probable that affidavit argues on W i l l i a m s ' s on t h e d a y o f t r i a l , a search warrant f o r t h e house where 10 Officer Adkins on t h e e v e n i n g Williams was to of residing CR-08-2016 based o n i n f o r m a t i o n he h a d r e c e i v e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y earlier from confidential before that 626 a confidential informant, at least t o be r e l i a b l e , sold from hours Specifically, whom he h a d u s e d a n d who h a d p r o v e n drugs were b e i n g informant. two told five Officer the times Adkins t h e back door o f t h e house a t C h i c k a s a w S t r e e t i n Dothan and t h a t guns were a l s o i n t h e house. Officer Adkins testified that, have a copy o f t h e s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a v i t that the supporting a f f i d a v i t knew that motion Williams to suppress, resided although he d i d not a n d he d i d n o t b e l i e v e s p e c i f i c a l l y l i s t e d W i l l i a m s , he at that the t r i a l court house. In denying the said: "THE COURT: I'm g o i n g t o d e n y t h e suppress. I b e l i e v e t h e r e was a f a c t u a l the informant's knowledge, and I a l s o there i s testimony which I find that r e l i a b l e informant. motion t o basis f o r find that he was a "And a s f a r a s t h e a f f i d a v i t , o r t h e a l l e g a t i o n that the a f f i d a v i t d i d not support the issu[anc]e of the search warrant, of course, I haven't been presented with that a f f i d a v i t so I c a n ' t review that. B u t b a s e d on what I ' v e h e a r d c o n c e r n i n g t h e f a c t u a l b a s i s and t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e i n f o r m a n t , I find that the search warrant would have been p r o p e r , so I deny t h e m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s . " (R. 37-38.) In never this case, presented during the suppression any evidence of either 11 hearing, the contents Williams of the CR-08-2016 affidavit or of any presented to the affidavit and cannot concerning search judge search c o u r t b e l o w and, We other review the evidence 1321 ( A l a . C r i m . App. the m e r i t s insufficiency because trial See below. the of and a l s o J o l l y v. 2002) appeal; (Ala. Crim. accompanying Court] to affidavit v. The the r e c o r d on offer State, trial appeal. allegation supporting the 572 the affidavit So. (holding that "[t]his was of this 858 support admitted So. 2d are not issue 2d Court not consider the made the 12 309 and 1319, cannot on in 794 search a in warrant the part So. record before 2d warrant of appellant's the appeal"). (Ala. Crim. search the warrant evidence properly State, ("Because were 305, not search record included is v. the into i n the affidavit Williams affidavit cannot not "the 2000) to contained State, appeal"); App. presented not been warrant. Williams's did affidavit i s not therefore, on [this the complains Court have of the d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g (providing that appellant] the Andujar 1990) affidavit court of may search of Williams See that a p a r t of the merits because into the were not are not sufficiency warrant review issuing warrant thus, the information the App. [the on this 441, 442 and the record, argument."). CR-08-2016 Thus, because is this not e n t i t l e d issue i s not properly before to a reversal on t h i s us, Williams claim. III. Lastly, evidence Williams on challenges the possession-of-cocaine chemical-endangerment-of-a-child As the to the sufficiency sufficiency of the conviction and t h e conviction. 3 4 of the evidence, "[i]n d e c i d i n g whether there i s sufficient evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t o f t h e j u r y and t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h e e v i d e n c e must be reviewed i n the light most favorable to the prosecution. Cumbo v . S t a t e , 368 S o . 2 d 871 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 7 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 368 S o . 2 d 877 ( A l a . 1979). Conflicting evidence presents a jury q u e s t i o n n o t s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w on a p p e a l , p r o v i d e d the s t a t e ' s evidence e s t a b l i s h e s a prima f a c i e case. Gunn v . S t a t e , 387 S o . 2 d 280 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . denied, 387 S o . 2 d 2 8 3 ( A l a . 1 980 ) . The t r i a l court's denial of a motion f o r a judgment o f a c q u i t t a l must be r e v i e w e d b y d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r there e x i s t e d l e g a l evidence before the j u r y , atthe t i m e t h e m o t i o n was made, f r o m w h i c h t h e j u r y b y fair inference could have found the appellant guilty. Thomas v . S t a t e , 3 6 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 0 ( A l a . C r . App. 1978). In applying this standard, the appellate court will determine only i f legal e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d f r o m w h i c h the jury could have found t h e defendant g u i l t y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. W i l l i s v . S t a t e , 447 S o . 2 d 1 9 9 ( A l a . C r . App. 1983); Thomas v . S t a t e . When t h e e v i d e n c e raises questions of fact f o r the jury and such 3 Claim 4 Claims IV i n W i l l i a m s ' s b r i e f to this III i n Williams's brief 13 Court. to this Court. CR-08-2016 evidence, i f b e l i e v e d , i s s u f f i c i e n t to s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n , the d e n i a l of a m o t i o n f o r a judgment of a c q u i t t a l by t h e t r i a l c o u r t does not constitute error. Y o u n g v . S t a t e , 283 A l a . 676, 220 So. 2d 843 (19 6 9 ) ; W i l l i s v . S t a t e . " B r e c k e n r i d g e v. State, 628 So. 2d 1012, 1018 (Ala. Crim. 1993). "'In determining the s u f f i c i e n c y of the e v i d e n c e to s u s t a i n the c o n v i c t i o n , t h i s C o u r t must a c c e p t as t r u e t h e e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d by t h e S t a t e , accord the State a l l l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e s t h e r e f r o m , and c o n s i d e r the e v i d e n c e i n the l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the p r o s e c u t i o n . ' F a i r c l o t h v . S t a t e , 471 So. 2d 485, 489 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 4 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex parte F a i r c l o t h , [471] So. 2d 493 (Ala. 1985). "'"The r o l e o f a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s i s n o t t o say what the f a c t s a r e . Our r o l e , ... i s to judge whether the evidence i s l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w s u b m i s s i o n o f an i s s u e for decision to the jury." Ex parte Bankston, 358 So. 2d 1040, 1042 (Ala. 1978). An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may interfere with the jury's verdict only where i t reaches "a clear conclusion that the f i n d i n g and j u d g m e n t a r e w r o n g . " K e l l y v. S t a t e , 273 A l a . 240 , 2 4 4 , 139 So. 2d 326 (1962). ... A verdict on conflicting e v i d e n c e i s c o n c l u s i v e on a p p e a l . Roberson v . S t a t e , 162 A l a . 30, 50 So. 345 (1909). " [ W ] h e r e t h e r e i s ample e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d by the s t a t e to support a v e r d i c t , i t should n o t be o v e r t u r n e d e v e n t h o u g h t h e e v i d e n c e offered by the defendant is in sharp conflict therewith and presents a s u b s t a n t i a l d e f e n s e . " F u l l e r v . S t a t e , 269 A l a . 3 1 2 , 3 3 3 , 113 So. 2d 153 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , c e r t . 14 App. CR-08-2016 d e n i e d , F u l l e r v . A l a b a m a , 361 U.S. 9 3 6 , 80 S. C t . 3 8 0 , 4 L. E d . 2 d 358 (1960 ) . ' G r a n g e r [ v . S t a t e ] , 473 S o . 2 d [ 1 1 3 7 , ] 1 1 3 9 [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 5 ) ] . " White v. S t a t e , 546 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 4 , 1017 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989). Also, "'[c]ircumstantial evidence i s not i n f e r i o r e v i d e n c e , a n d i t w i l l be g i v e n t h e same w e i g h t as d i r e c t evidence, i f i t , along with the other evidence, is susceptible of a reasonable inference p o i n t i n g unequivocally to the defendant's guilt. W a r d v . S t a t e , 557 S o . 2 d 848 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1990). In r e v i e w i n g a c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t on c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , t h e t e s t t o be a p p l i e d i s w h e t h e r the j u r y might reasonably f i n d that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but whether a jury might reasonably so conclude. Cumbo v . S t a t e , 368 S o . 2 d 871 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 7 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 368 S o . 2 d 877 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . ' "Ward [v. S t a t e ] , 610 S o . [(Ala.Crim.App. 1992)]." L o c k h a r t v. S t a t e , 2d 715 S o . 2 d 8 9 5 , 899 [1190] at 1191-92 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997). "'"'Whether c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o connect the defendant w i t h the crime excludes, to a moral c e r t a i n t y , every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the defendant's g u i l t i s a question f o r the j u r y and n o t t h e c o u r t . ' [Cumbo v . S t a t e , 368 So. 2 d 871 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 7 8 ) ] ; C a n n o n v . S t a t e , 17 A l a . A p p . 8 2 , 81 S o . 860 ( 1 9 1 9 ) . Our f u n c t i o n i s n o t t o be f a c t f i n d e r s , h o w e v e r t e m p t i n g t h a t may 15 CR-08-2016 sometimes be. We m u s t n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r s e l v e s f o r j u r o r s , nor p l a y t h e i r r o l e i n the c r i m i n a l p r o c e s s . J u r y v e r d i c t s s h o u l d n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s t h e y a r e n o t b a s e d upon e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o meet t h e t e s t s e t out above."'" Gissendanner 200 6 ) , Crim. 260, v. State, quoting App. Parker 1991), 262 Additionally, value v. So. 2d State, 956, 58 9 quoting i n turn (Ala. Crim. probative 949 App. So. Linzy (Ala. Crim. 2d 773, 776 App. (Ala. v. State, 455 So. that "[t]he weight settled given to the evidence, the Smith v. aff'd, t o be State, 698 So. drawn 698 2d 219 from So. 2d (Ala. the 189, evidence 214 are f o r the (Ala. Crim. App. 1996), " I n J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 555 So. 2d 8 1 8 , 8 1 9 - 2 0 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , t h i s c o u r t n o t e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n ' s u f f i c i e n c y ' a n d ' w e i g h t ' as f o l l o w s : "'The weight of the evidence is clearly a different matter from the sufficiency of the evidence. The s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence concerns the q u e s t i o n of whether, " v i e w i n g the evidence in the light most favorable to the p r o s e c u t i o n , [a] r a t i o n a l f a c t f i n d e r c o u l d have found the d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y beyond a reasonable doubt." T i b b s v. F l o r i d a , 457 U.S. 3 1 , 3 7 , 102 S. C t . 2 2 1 1 , 2 2 1 5 , 72 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1982). Accord, Prantl v. and jury." 1997). 16 and credibility of the w i t n e s s e s , the r e s o l u t i o n of c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y , inferences 2d 1984). i t is well t o be 973 CR-08-2016 State, 1984). 462 S o . 2 d 7 8 1 , 784 (Ala. C r . App. "'In c o n t r a s t , " [ t ] h e 'weight of the e v i d e n c e ' r e f e r s t o 'a d e t e r m i n a t i o n [ b y ] t h e t r i e r o f f a c t t h a t a g r e a t e r amount o f c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s one s i d e o f an i s s u e or cause than the o t h e r . ' " Tibbs v. F l o r i d a , 457 U.S. a t 3 7 - 3 8 [ 1 0 2 S. C t . a t 2 2 1 6 ] ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . We h a v e r e p e a t e d l y held that i t i s not the p r o v i n c e of t h i s court to reweigh the evidence presented at trial. E . g . , F r a n k l i n v . S t a t e , 405 S o . 2 d 9 6 3 , 964 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 405 So. 2 d 966 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ; C r u m p t o n v . S t a t e , 402 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 1 , 10 85 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 402 S o . 2 d 1088 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ; N o b i s v . S t a t e , 401 S o . 2 d 1 9 1 , 198 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 401 S o . 2 d 204 (Ala. 1981). "'[T]he credibility of w i t n e s s e s and t h e w e i g h t or p r o b a t i v e f o r c e of t e s t i m o n y i s f o r t h e j u r y t o judge and determine.'" H a r r i s v . S t a t e , 513 S o . 2 d 7 9 , 81 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ( q u o t i n g B y r d v . S t a t e , 24 A l a . A p p . 4 5 1 , 136 S o . 431 (1931)).['] "(Emphasis i n o r i g i n a l . ) See S m i t h v . S t a t e , 604 So. 2 d 434 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ; P e a r s o n v . S t a t e , 601 So. 2d 1119 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1992 ) ; C u r r y v . S t a t e , 601 S o . 2 d 157 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) . " Zumbado v . State, 615 So. 2d 1223, 1240-41 1993). 17 ( A l a .Crim. App. CR-08-2016 A. Williams evidence asserts that the State offered to c o n v i c t her of u n l a w f u l possession insufficient of a controlled substance. To establish controlled one Schedules I 1975. prima facie case of the State must prove substance, possessed through a of the through V, controlled in this 2 0 - 2 - 3 1 , A l a . Code 1975; Pursuant possess, one possession that substances case, cocaine. see 13A-12-212, A l a . § §§ "have physical possession in 20-2-20 Code i n order or a Williams enumerated t o § 1 3 A - 1 - 2 ( 1 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975, must of to otherwise e x e r c i s e dominion or c o n t r o l over t a n g i b l e p r o p e r t y . " Because W i l l i a m s was in case, the not i n actual possession question possession. Supreme C o u r t becomes Regarding has whether of she the was cocaine in constructive possession, constructive the Alabama stated: "'In order to e s t a b l i s h constructive possession, the State must prove "(1) [ a ] c t u a l o r p o t e n t i a l p h y s i c a l c o n t r o l , (2) intention to e x e r c i s e dominion and (3) external manifestations of intent and control."' "Ex parte Fitkin, 781 So. 2d 182, 183 (Ala. 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t i n g B r i g h t v . S t a t e , 673 S o . 2 d 8 5 1 , 852 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) ) . Where c o n t r a b a n d i s s e i z e d 18 this CR-08-2016 i n s i d e a residence, 'constructive possession can o n l y a r i s e "where t h e p r o h i b i t e d m a t e r i a l i s f o u n d on the premises owned or controlled by t h e appellant."' C r a n e v . S t a t e , 401 So. 2 d 148, 149 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1981) ( q u o t i n g W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 340 So. 2 d 1144, 1145 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 6 ) ) . '"When c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n i s r e l i e d o n , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n must a l s o prove beyond a reasonable doubt t h a t t h e accused had knowledge o f t h e presence of t h e c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s . " ' Ex p a r t e T i l l e r , 796 S o . 2 d [ 3 1 0 ] a t 3 1 2 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ] ( q u o t i n g P o s e y v. S t a t e , 7 3 6 S o . 2 d 6 5 6 , 658 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1997)). " ' W h i l e n o n - e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n may r a i s e a s u s p i c i o n that a l l the occupants had knowledge o f t h e contraband found, a mere suspicion i s n o t enough. Some evidence that connects a defendant w i t h the contraband i s required. Generally, the circumstances that provide that connection include: "'"(1) evidence t h a t e x c l u d e s a l l other possible p o s s e s s o r s ; (2) evidence of actual possession; (3) e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r o l over t h e particular place where the contraband was found; (4) admissions of the defendant that provide thenecessary connection, which includes both verbal admissions and conduct that evidences a consciousness of guilt when the defendant i s confronted with the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t i l l i c i t drugs w i l l be found; (5) e v i d e n c e t h a t d e b r i s o f t h e contraband was found on defendant's person or with h i s personal effects; (6) e v i d e n c e 19 CR-08-2016 w h i c h shows t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t , at the time of the a r r e s t , had e i t h e r used the contraband very s h o r t l y b e f o r e , o r was u n d e r i t s influence."' " G r u b b s v . S t a t e , 462 S o . 2 d 9 9 5 , 9 9 7 - 9 8 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1984) ( q u o t i n g T e m p l e v . S t a t e , 366 S o . 2 d 7 4 0 , 743 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 7 8 ) ) . " Ex parte J.C., 882 "Furthermore, So. 2d knowledge is circumstantial evidence." 984 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 830 ( A l a . 1995), App. 1985). substance 274, 277-78 usually M i t c h e l l v. 1997), (Ala. established State, 713 So. c i t i n g R o w e l l v. S t a t e , and Ward v. S t a t e , 484 So. be direct (Ala. Crim. established evidence. Knight App. circumstances 666 2 d 536 v. by State, 1992). which may circumstantial 622 Finally, provide a So. 2d as So. "'[t]he 2d the State, 560 So. 2d State, the 1137, 366 present that 1140 So. 2d case, c o c a i n e was p a r t i c u l a r case.'" ( A l a . C r i m . App. 740, the found 20 743 430-31 of between connection on of each as kinds depend facts well 426, a and the c o n t r a b a n d are u n l i m i t e d and w i l l indicating 981, (Ala. Crim. defendant In 2d by Moreover, c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n of a c o n t r o l l e d may Temple v. 2003). naturally McGruder 1989), v. quoting (Ala.Crim.App.1978). State presented i n a bedroom t h a t evidence appeared CR-08-2016 to be W i l l i a m s ' s purse and other presented bedroom personal evidence bearing items name Thus, g i v e n have c o n c l u d e d knowledge of over i n favorable prescription bottle the the evidence i n this could the existence the cocaine, Court kitchen contained 871, ( A l a . Crim. sufficient that the cocaine, that she had the evidence connection App. between possession, she h a d t h e necessary i n a most "whether t h e j u r y might every Cumbo v . S t a t e , Here, Williams burden and light excluded 1978). t o meet t h e S t a t e ' s constructive so she had except that of g u i l t . " a could that and determine hypothesis established the jury drawn the evidence find 874 case, over the cocaine. consider t o the State be and that dominion must of reasonably submitted also l o c a t e d a t 626 C h i c k a s a w S t r e e t i n inferences to exercise This of a The S t a t e t h a t W i l l i a m s was c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e c o c a i n e reasonable intent room. The e v i d e n c e a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t W i l l i a m s was known Dothan. control that found to reside a t the residence that the a u t h o r i t i e s found her i n that indicating Williams's cocaine. because reasonable 368 S o . 2 d the and the of presenting the t r i a l court evidence cocaine evidence properly t h e case t o t h e j u r y f o r i t t o r e s o l v e any c o n f l i c t s 21 CR-08-2016 i n the evidence. Williams, With and t h i s regard of a c h i l d , that The j u r y r e s o l v e d a n y c o n f l i c t s Court w i l l n o t go b e h i n d that to the c o n v i c t i o n f o r chemical Williams asserts that the State s h e was a "responsible person." We Section 26-15-3.2, A l a . Code 1975, adversely to verdict. endangerment d i d not e s t a b l i s h agree. provides: "(a) A r e s p o n s i b l e p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f chemical endangerment of exposing a c h i l d t o an e n v i r o n m e n t i n w h i c h he o r s h e d o e s a n y o f t h e following: "(1) Knowingly, recklessly, or i n t e n t i o n a l l y causes or permits a c h i l d t o be e x p o s e d t o , t o i n g e s t o r i n h a l e , o r t o have c o n t a c t w i t h a c o n t r o l l e d substance, chemical substance, or drug p a r a p h e r n a l i a as defined i n Section 13A-12-260. A v i o l a t i o n under t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n i s a Class C felony." A "responsible person" i s defined as: "[A] child's natural parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, legal guardian, custodian o r any other p e r s o n who h a s t h e p e r m a n e n t o r t e m p o r a r y c a r e o r custody or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the s u p e r v i s i o n of a child. " § 2 6 - 1 5 - 2 ( 4 ) , A l a . Code In evidence this case, indicating the 1975. State did that Williams 22 was not present sufficient a "responsible person" CR-08-2016 as t h a t t e r m i s d e f i n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e . evidence other a indicating 10-year-old that 2 children, female, were A t most, i t p r e s e n t e d one an i n f a n t i n the front house w i t h W i l l i a m s a n d two o t h e r a d u l t executed the search evidence was responsible for we insufficient person. Thus, to we prove that of a child o n t h e f o r e g o i n g , we a f f i r m vacate this case Williams's endangerment of a conclude to the t r i a l conviction and of the officers that the Williams was a and sentence a r e due t o be r e v e r s e d . unlawful possession of a controlled remand room f e m a l e s when Therefore, her conviction c h e m i c a l endangerment Based for warrant. and the Williams's conviction substance. court f o r that sentence for However, court to chemical child. A F F I R M E D A S TO C O N V I C T I O N FOR UNLAWFUL P O S S E S S I O N OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE; R E V E R S E D AS TO C O N V I C T I O N FOR C H E M I C A L ENDANGERMENT OF A C H I L D ; Wise, AND REMANDED. P . J . , a n d W e l c h , Windom, a n d K e l l u m , 23 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.