Jarvis Maurice Williams v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 12/17/2010 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, 2010-2011 CR-09-0633 Jarvis Maurice Williams v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WELCH, Maurice violation court Court Judge. Jarvis a from M o b i l e C i r c u i t (CC-09-1592) o f § 13A-6-2(a)(3), sentenced On Landrum October was neighborhood W i l l i a m s was c o n v i c t e d o f f e l o n y m u r d e r , him t o l i f e 3, 2 0 0 8 , shot and i nP r i c h a r d . A l a . Code i np r i s o n . 1975. This appeal The follows. a t approximately 1 1 : 4 0 a.m., killed Alabama i n the trial Cory Village T e r r y P a r n e l l a n d C.D., a j u v e n i l e , CR-09-0633 were a r r e s t e d s h o r t l y admitted their involvement, Williams's t r i a l . days before Williams and that t h a t on t h a t he was he t h e day g o i n g t o rob going victim's vehicle. and to through t r y to According the testified at that a couple of came borrow by i t for protection. Parnell The p l a n was waited. marijuana. Landrum, Williams some m a r i j u a n a , and but, someone marijuana. Parnell agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e to the extent take any item to P a r n e l l , People neighborhood of value drugs were w o u l d f l a g down and sell in the regularly individuals them person because, according to W i l l i a m s , white people The Parnell to rob P a r n e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t W i l l i a m s w a n t e d t o s t o p and t o c a r r y weapons. Parnell's pistol. t o buy agreed s o l d i n the neighborhood. driving guilty, individuals Parnell's someone. and was both of the murder W i l l i a m s t o l d to p a r t i c i p a t e , C.D. to needed the V i l l a g e he and Williams asked d r i v i n g through that murder, pleaded murder house claimed testified the P a r n e l l t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l the grandmother's after marijuana. rob a white tended not t h r e e m a l e s s t o o d on D u n l a p S t r e e t and the victim, acted as drove i f he were up and going requested to retrieve i n s t e a d , W i l l i a m s drew P a r n e l l ' s demanded t h a t Landrum g i v e him 2 e v e r y t h i n g he h a d . pistol Landrum CR-09-0633 handed W i l l i a m s a five-dollar a l l the from Williams that Williams h i s empty w a l l e t , and W i l l i a m s abdomen. was bill Williams c e l l u l a r phone. took money the he h i s pocket had. and told Landrum showed shot Landrum i n the five-dollar bill and Landrum's L a n d r u m a t t e m p t e d t o d r i v e away, b u t s h o r t l y a f t e r l e a v i n g t h e s c e n e , he h i t a t e l e p h o n e p o l e a t t h e c o r n e r of Dunlap S t r e e t and Turner S t r e e t . of his injuries. back Landrum d i e d as a Parnell testified from W i l l i a m s and took i t w i t h that he result got h i s p i s t o l him t o a f r i e n d ' s house. When t h e p o l i c e came t o t h e h o u s e t o a r r e s t h i m , t h e y where t h e m u r d e r weapon was, locate t h e gun pistol t o Landrum's C.D. and P a r n e l l t o l d i n the house. testified Forensic them where evidence l i n k e d the that he was with Williams and r o b someone when he a s k e d P a r n e l l f o r t h e p i s t o l . in agreement w i t h threw the plan. C.D. them and t h a t W i l l i a m s that testified robbed P a r n e l l got the victim's i t on t h e g r o u n d . Parnell He r e a l i z e d t h a t W i l l i a m s w a n t e d to testified to shooting. shortly before the shooting. approached asked C.D. picked up that C.D. the C.D. phone the c e l l u l a r b u t when he c o u l d n o t g e t t h e p h o n e t o w o r k , he t h r e w 3 victim and shot him. cellular was and phone, i t back CR-09-0633 down. C.D.'s testimony contradicts Parnell's testimony that P a r n e l l g o t t h e c e l l u l a r phone from W i l l i a m s a f t e r t h e murder. Nicholas driving retrieve they Smalley through testified the Village on some m o n e y a n d k e y s entered that were t h e day o f t h e s h o o t i n g t o from the neighborhood, he a n d a c o w o r k e r the coworker's Smalley house. saw s e v e r a l As males on the c o r n e r o f Dunlap S t r e e t and Marengo S t r e e t . According to Smalley, to sell drugs. t h e men trying t o wave W i l l i a m s was among t h e g r o u p testified, Williams motorists. heard were was As S m a l l e y a gunshot. neighborhood, n o t one arrived he saw t h e men side denying h i s motion truck door. drove and Smalley that people the area. that the t r i a l court erred i n f o ra judgment o f a c q u i t t a l . Specifically, that t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e connecting him t o their testimony was not c o r r o b o r a t e d u n d e r § 12-21-222, A l a . Code 1975. Section he out of the t h e c r i m e o t h e r t h a n P a r n e l l ' s a n d C.D.'s t e s t i m o n y . contends down house, several left him Smalley flagging a t h i s coworker's Landrum's On a p p e a l , W i l l i a m s a r g u e s argues o f men; however, When h e a n d t h e c o w o r k e r standing at the driver's Williams of h i m down 12-21-222, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : 4 Williams sufficiently CR-09-0633 "A c o n v i c t i o n o f f e l o n y c a n n o t b e h a d o n t h e t e s t i m o n y o f an a c c o m p l i c e u n l e s s c o r r o b o r a t e d b y other evidence t e n d i n g t o connect the defendant w i t h the commission of the offense, and such corroborative evidence, i f i t merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof, i s not s u f f i c i e n t . " In addressing corroborate McCullough, "In whether accomplice evidence testimony in was Ex sufficient parte Christopher 21 S o . 3 d 7 5 8 , t h e A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t Ex parte Hardley, 766 So. 2d stated: 154 ( A l a . 1999), t h i s Court addressed the t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g the sufficiency of evidence corroborating an accomplice's testimony: " ' D i s c u s s i n g § 12-21-222, a t § 300.01(5), C. G a m b l e , M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e ed. 1 9 9 6 ) , P r o f e s s o r Gamble n o t e s : ( "'"Nonaccomplice evidence of the defendant's guilt, to be sufficient corroboration of the accomplice's testimony to take the case t o t h e j u r y , must t e n d to connect the defendant w i t h the crime or p o i n t t o the defendant, as distinguished from another p e r s o n , as t h e p e r p e t r a t o r o f t h e crime. Nonaccomplice evidence w h i c h m e r e l y c o n f i r m s t h e way a n d manner i n w h i c h the crime was committed, but which i s c o l o r l e s s and neutral insofar as the defendant's connection with the crime i s concerned, i s not sufficient corroboration to warrant submission of the case t o the j u r y . " ' 5 to 5 t h CR-09-0633 "766 So. 2d a t 157. "This Court "'Under h a s e l a b o r a t e d on t h i s § 12-21-222, test: A l a . Code 1975, a f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n " c a n n o t be h a d on t h e testimony of an accomplice unless c o r r o b o r a t e d by o t h e r evidence t e n d i n g t o connect the defendant w i t h the commission of t h e o f f e n s e , and such corroborative e v i d e n c e , i f i t m e r e l y shows t h e c o m m i s s i o n of the offense or the circumstances thereof, i f not s u f f i c i e n t . " (Emphasis added.) In reviewing a claim of insufficient corroboration, the Alabama a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have s t a t e d t h a t "'"[t]he test f o r determining whether there i s sufficient corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice consists of e l i m i n a t i n g the testimony given by t h e a c c o m p l i c e and examining the remaining evidence to determine i f there i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence tending to connect the defendant w i t h the commission of the o f f e n s e . " " ' A n d r e w s v . S t a t e , 370 S o . 2 d 3 2 0 , 3 2 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , c e r t d e n i e d , 370 S o . 2 d 3 2 3 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) , c i t i n g M i l l e r v S t a t e , 290 Ala. 2 4 8 , 275 S o . 2 d 675 (1973). The evidence corroborating the accomplice's t e s t i m o n y and c o n n e c t i n g t h e defendant t o t h e o f f e n s e c a n be p u r e l y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence. M a t h i s v . S t a t e , 414 S o . 2 d 151 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1982). B u t , ' " [ i ] t must be o f a s u b s t a n t i v e c h a r a c t e r , must be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, a n d must do more t h a n r a i s e a suspicion of g u i l t S o r r e l l v. S t a t e , 6 CR-09-0633 249 A l a . 292, [(1947)]." Ex 106 S . C t . 6 0 7 , "Ex parte 2000). 475 744 Bullock, [ 2 9 3 ] , 31 So. p a r t e B e l l , 475 88 L . E d . 2 d 585 770 So. 2d 2d 82, 83 U.S. 1038, (1985).' 1062, 1067 (Ala. "Furthermore, i n E x p a r t e S t e w a r t , 900 So. 2d ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , t h i s C o u r t , q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e Hunt, So. 2 d 8 5 1 , 8 5 8 - 5 9 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , noted: "'"The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s has ... added the f o l l o w i n g caveats to the rule [regarding corroboration of accomplice testimony]: "'"'"The tendency of the c o r r o b o r a t i v e evidence to connect [the] accused w i t h the crime, or w i t h t h e c o m m i s s i o n t h e r e o f , must be i n d e p e n d e n t , and w i t h o u t the aid of any testimony of the accomplice; the corroborative e v i d e n c e may not depend f o r i t s w e i g h t a n d p r o b a t i v e v a l u e on t h e testimony of the accomplice, and i t i s i n s u f f i c i e n t i f i t tends to connect [the] accused with the o f f e n s e o n l y when g i v e n d i r e c t i o n o r i n t e r p r e t e d by, and r e a d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the testimony of the accomplice." 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law, Section 812 (b)(1961).' "'"Mills 92." v. State, 408 So. 2d [197], [E]vidence which merel y raises a conjecture, surmise, s p e c u l a t i o n , 7 191¬ CR-09-0633 suspicion that [the] accused i s the guilty person not s u f f i c i e n t l y corroborative of the testimony of an accomplice to warrant a conviction.' 23 C . J . S . Criminal Law, Section 12(5)(b)." Staton v. S t a t e , 397 So. 2 d 227, 232 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981).' " ' " S t e e l e v . S t a t e , 512 S o . ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1987)."' 2d So. 2d added). at 761-62. "900 21 So. 2d at 477-78 (emphasis 142, 143-44 A p p l y i n g t h e r u l e t h a t r e q u i r e s t h a t P a r n e l l ' s and t e s t i m o n y m u s t f i r s t be examined, the testimony with Smalley. only crime. testimony which Smalley's Without s u b t r a c t e d and we that are left the remaining references with, accomplices' evidence Williams, i s the the testimony of Williams to t e s t i m o n y does not connect the C.D.'s the testimony, Smalley's t e s t i m o n y d o e s no m o r e t h a n p l a c e W i l l i a m s i n t h e p r o x i m i t y o f the crime. Smalley's w i t h the accomplices. he saw Smalley W i l l i a m s w i t h on Williams was i n the testimony at even p l a c e d i d n o t i d e n t i f y any t h e day area d i d not the 8 of the murder. time of the The Williams of the fact murder, men that without CR-09-0633 more, does n o t " r a i s e parte Bullock, nonaccomplice seen a suspicion of [Williams's] g u i l t . " 770 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 2 , 1 0 6 7 testimony i n the presence shortly would before had been p r e s e n t e d of the accomplices t h e murder, not, that ( A l a . 2000). such and even testimony Even i f t h a t W i l l i a m s was near i f we connected Ex the crime found, scene which Williams we to the m u r d e r , t h e e v i d e n c e w o u l d s t i l l be i n s u f f i c i e n t c o r r o b o r a t i o n of t h e accomplices' testimony because t h i s evidence would o n l y connect Williams interpretation of to the offense when given direction or by, and read i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e testimony the accomplices. Smalley's the murder. 21-222, that Williams to to corroborate had p a r t i c i p a t e d court's judgment the accomplices' i n t h e murder, we and render a judgment o f J J . , concur. Wise, P . J . , f o rWilliams. R E V E R S E D AND Windom, dissents, 1975, Williams the t r i a l acquittal does n o t t e n d t o connect B e c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t u n d e r § 1 2 ¬ A l a . Code testimony reverse testimony JUDGMENT RENDERED. Kellum, and Main, with opinion. 9 CR-09-0633 WISE, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I disagree evidence to was participated Crim. itself 1234 evidence offense 2d 1981), evidence." this sales. the Williams need only had be App. strong M i l e s v. S t a t e , 1985). directly sufficiently connect t o do s o . " App. Also, the by 476 S o . 2 d "[c]orroborative accused with Ware v . S t a t e , 1981). the 409 S o . Finally, "[t]he may b e s h o w n b y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l Id. case, Smalley's testimony placed Williams near t h e scene o f t h e murder w i t h other the murder accomplice Alabama V i l l a g e make n o t be o f an a c c o m p l i c e before corroborated that "Corroboration "need ( A l a . Crim. Alabama V i l l a g e shortly testimony a conviction." not 891 corroboration In and but need o n l y tend 886, that I n g l e v . S t a t e , 400 S o . 2 d 9 3 8 , 940 ( A l a . ( A l a . Crim. need conclusion u n d e r § 12-21-222, A l a . Code 1975, i n t h e murder. to warrant 1228, majority's the accomplices' to s u f f i c e , " App. the insufficient corroborate slight with testimony and about Further, occurred. dealers about 10 drugs testimony being f l a g g i n g down h i s testimony about the gunshot and the v i c t i m His males also sold i n vehicles to corroborated attempting in testimony t o d r i v e away a n d CR-09-0633 wrecking gun Parnell The show his vehicle. helped Finally, officers forensic l o c a t e to the corroborating evidence the commission thereof. Rather, commission of corroborative conviction, Finally, the murder. was not at to the Ware, may required. have tended least, merely circumstances with the Although the supported Miles, to a supra. support portions a of the Accordingly, even testimony t h o u g h i t was not e x t e n s i v e , I b e l i e v e t h a t the c o r r o b o r a t i o n p r e s e n t e d was accomplices' truthful. d i d not Williams See evidence very the supra. not the accomplices' t h a t was were or linked murder. case connect See alone corroborative that, offense i t tended evidence such the conclusion the of in this testing minimally s u f f i c i e n t to corroborate testimony. Therefore, 11 I the respectfully dissent.

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.