Christopher Dewayne Revis v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/13/2011 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 be 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-06-0454 C h r i s t o p h e r Dewayne R e v i s v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal MAIN, from M a r i o n C i r c u i t (CC-2005-142) Court Judge. Christopher convictions (Chris) of c a p i t a l Dewayne murder Revis appeals f o r the intentional from his murder o f CR-06-0454 Jerry Stidham the course drugs. 1 b y s h o o t i n g h i m w i t h a .22 c a l i b e r of committing a first-degree § 13A-5-40(a)(2), t h a t R e v i s be s e n t e n c e d robbery t o death by a v o t e court determined that d u r i n g a r o b b e r y , § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975, outweighed mitigating significant Revis was The evidence following. Stidham, a On history, February Later, by 22, He -- by t h e t r i a l the State 2004, of h i s from pain p i l l s . argued § 13A-5-51(1), to death presented friend prescription Stidham. circumstance criminal sentenced that of 11-1. F o l l o w i n g committed one circumstance recommended t h e m u r d e r was the aggravating during o f money a n d A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 . The j u r y a separate sentencing hearing, the t r i a l the rifle whom arranged he had A l a . Code no 1975. court. tended Revis he that had t o show t h e telephoned often to purchase Jerry purchased pills from R e v i s , accompanied by h i s u n c l e , E d d i e R e v i s , and h i s younger b r o t h e r , Jason R e v i s , t o o k h i s g r e a t aunt the hospital r e t u r n e d t o her house. they a n d t h e men determined Stidham would then to get the p i l l s from n o t g i v e them t h e p i l l s Jerry Stidham on c r e d i t , they to There, and, i f decided T h e v i c t i m ' s name was G e r a l d S t i d h a m , b u t h e was r e f e r r e d to as " J e r r y " t h r o u g h o u t t h e t e s t i m o n y . F o r c o n s i s t e n c y , t h i s o p i n i o n w i l l r e f e r t o him as J e r r y S t i d h a m . 1 2 CR-06-0454 that they would r o b him. Eddie (Chris Revis's great aunt's) a .22-caliber In a later that rifle Revis statement i n Eddie's h o u s e , s o t h e t h r e e men that Eddie 2 lived Revis had hidden g i v e n t o an i n v e s t i g a t o r , aunt's retrieved i n h i s room. Revis admitted to Stidham's home a l o n e and spoke he f o r m u l a t e d t h e p l a n t o r o b S t i d h a m . Jason mobile with Revis Revis home. R e v i s w e n t Stidham. order drove Stidham then to get the p i l l s trunk. He Revis told carried into 3 and E d d i e the mobile walked Revis outside to h i s vehicle i n he i n t e n d e d t o s e l l the p i l l s h i m t h a t he w o u l d into to Revis the mobile home, go o u t t o h i s v e h i c l e from the whereupon to get the money t o p a y f o r t h e p i l l s . He g o t t h e r i f l e the mobile shots, Revis home, firing grabbed shots, into the p i l l s , the mobile times. Eddie home Revis determined as soon c u t Stidham's a n d he a n d E d d i e was a n d , when he r e e n t e r e d shooting Stidham. was h i t f i v e and E d d i e This r i f l e Revis's uncle. 2 he b e g a n and Stidham walked from the v e h i c l e , He fired Revis as eight and Jason Revis began throat. Revis R e v i s p i c k e d up some o f t o have belonged to Eddie In h i s s t a t e m e n t , R e v i s t o l d i n v e s t i g a t o r Mays t h a t b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e p i l l s were L o r c e t s . ( C . 3 0 1 . ) 3 3 he CR-06-0454 the s h e l l walked c a s i n g s . Jason Revis took Stidham's w a l l e t . outside great aunt's money. 5 their house. They gasoline to then over vehicle There, put i t , and drove split they and up Stidham's wallet leave the the in a aunt's house. The and men rented Revis and went Jason to church. visit their call Revis then Afterwards, great poured a room drove and the decided that out motel and can, approximately three hours, the men Revis's pills Days I n n m o t e l . A f t e r of to The burned i t . R e v i s s t a t e d t h a t he b e c a m e n e r v o u s should back 4 aunt, Eddie Revis picked they up to they from h i s mother i n f o r m i n g him house. that Stidham and hospital received a the checked grandmother r e t u r n e d to the whereupon R e v i s at h i s aunt's their they to telephone had been found dead. Eddie Revis, o f f e n s e , asked who was on parole a friend, Burlon Mauldin, at the time of the i f he c o u l d l e a v e h i s A l t h o u g h R e v i s s t a t e d t h a t he was n o t c e r t a i n who had t a k e n t h e w a l l e t , he e x p l a i n e d i n h i s s t a t e m e n t t h a t he d i d not t a k e t h e w a l l e t and t h a t J a s o n R e v i s handed him the w a l l e t when t h e y g o t i n t o t h e v e h i c l e a f t e r l e a v i n g S t i d h a m ' s m o b i l e home. 4 T h e r e was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 1 , 8 0 0 i n t h e w a l l e t , a p p r o x i m a t e l y $600. 5 got 4 so e a c h man CR-06-0454 guns at the Mauldin's 6 with violating house, h i s parole. so t h a t Mauldin g u n s when he l e a r n e d t h a t S t i d h a m caliber two rifle, then friend, Revis took Helen agreed rifle an charged but returned the had been k i l l e d had brought the Cole, guns and t o h i s house. some w i t h a .22- and she agreed h i s body, heard that He ammunition Mauldin and E d d i e to another of Stidham's a n d who t o keep S h a n e S w i n n e y , who h a d b e e n a f r i e n d discovered n o t be w h i c h was t h e same t y p e o f w e a p o n a s o n e o f t h e guns E d d i e Revis he w o u l d them. had been given the t o keep f o r E d d i e R e v i s and r e p o r t e d t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n t o investigator investigator friend's casings rifle, with then house the district c o n t a c t e d M a u l d i n , who and fire the to the i n v e s t i g a t o r and they attorney's were sent rifle. that to he He agreed office. t o go t o h i s brought a c q u i r e d by the Department The two firing shell the of F o r e n s i c S c i e n c e s t o be compared t o t h e c a s i n g s g a t h e r e d f r o m t h e scene of the Stidham's murder. I t was c a s i n g s had been f i r e d from warrant and t h e r i f l e was obtained, determined that a l l the t h e same g u n . T h e r e f o r e , a s e a r c h and t h e ammunition were A s i d e from t h e . 2 2 - c a l i b e r r i f l e t h a t had belonged t o h i s u n c l e , E d d i e R e v i s h a d a n o t h e r gun t h a t he k e p t i n a b o x . 6 5 CR-06-0454 recovered from be the f r i e n d ' s t h e weapon t h a t Revis outstanding was was h o m e . The r i f l e was d e t e r m i n e d t o u s e d i n the murder subsequently warrant arrested of Stidham. pursuant f o r w o r t h l e s s c h e c k s . He was to an questioned c o n c e r n i n g h i s involvement i n the p r e s e n t o f f e n s e and gave statements, to originally denying involvement but then r o b b i n g and k i l l i n g two admitting Stidham. I. Revis argues that the admitting h i s statements trial into court reversibly e v i d e n c e . He t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t s were t h e f r u i t alleges o f an i l l e g a l erred by as g r o u n d s arrest; that a n i n c o m p l e t e v e r s i o n o f o n e o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s was e r r o n e o u s l y admitted; that the State d i d not present independent proof of the c o r p u s d e l i c t i ; t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t s were i n v o l u n t a r y ; t h a t his statements were his statements contained improper not t i m e l y or completely d i s c l o s e d ; hearsay and and prior-bad-acts evidence. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s on N o v e m b e r 7, 2004, thereafter. 4, 2004, followed t h a t R e v i s gave h i s f i r s t and gave by In h i s f i r s t a a second statement third statement statement, Revis 6 statement on November given shortly indicated that he CR-06-0454 did n o t know contacted he that Stidham had been killed b y h i s m o t h e r on t h e d a y a f t e r had n o t had any c o n t a c t with until he h a d b e e n the offense Stidham on and t h a t t h e day o f t h e offense. In his h i s second uncle and statement, brother had pills but that prescription pain that n o t be h u r t . Stidham insisted enter that the rifle, house, his he that Finally, that was rob had been to approach friends Stidham an stated he h a d r e t r i e v e d had a l s o home. gone Revis into also of agreement that he h a d Stidham with from Revis's he a n d or to Stidham and had taken great aunt's indicated that Stidham's mobile home He s t a t e d t h a t he n e v e r h e a r d a n y g u n s h o t s a n d h i s mother admitted he Stidham's mobile with h i suncle. until there to that i d e n t i f y h i m . He s t a t e d t h a t h i s u n c l e younger brother maintained decided required because which into acknowledged Moreover, Revis n o t be the house, Stidham could Revis he d i d n o t know t h a t Stidham had been killed so i n f o r m e d h i m . just after giving he h a d c a l l e d the second the v i c t i m statement, 7 on t h e d a y b e f o r e Revis the T h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e was a n e i g h t - m i n u t e g a p between the conclusion o f the second statement and t h e beginning of Revis's confession. (C. 3 7 5 , 3 7 6 . ) 7 7 CR-06-0454 offense and and a r r a n g e d uncle then afterwards men took to purchase Revis's great to rob Stidham .22-caliber r i f l e admittedly of the p i l l s . entered to allegedly trunk of the v e h i c l e . After where They vehicle also what love seat and walked buy t h e p i l l s . to retrieve the p i l l s was where Stidham from the h e h a d r e e n t e r e d t h e m o b i l e home, to getthe However, R e v i s took t h e r i f l e back he was d o i n g that got a m o b i l e home, into the mobile home. He t h a t a s h e w a l k e d i n t o t h e m o b i l e home w i t h t h e r i f l e , asked and the three S t i d h a m t h a t h e was g o i n g t o h i s v e h i c l e money t o p a y f o r t h e p i l l s . the to the hospital t o Stidham's out to h i s automobile Revis told He, h i s b r o t h e r t h a t R e v i s ' s u n c l e had h i d d e n i n h i s bedroom under h i s m a t t r e s s and drove walked aunt r e t u r n e d t o R e v i s ' s u n c l e ' s home determined Revis the p i l l s . and then positioned appeared close to reach t o the couch from stated Stidham toward on a which S t i d h a m was s e a t e d . R e v i s s t a t e d t h a t S t i d h a m k e p t a g u n u n d e r the love seat. Revis stated times toward pills and r a n from 8 Stidham Stidham. 8 He t h a t he f i r e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y e i g h t stated that the t r a i l e r . suffered five gunshots. 8 he then grabbed the CR-06-0454 He f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t h i s u n c l e the mobile cut home s o o n a f t e r Stidham's screamed throat. at their he b e g a n f i r i n g Revis uncle, entered and t h a t h i s u n c l e indicated demanding Stidham's t h r o a t . According S t i d h a m was s t i l l and h i s b r o t h e r that t o know his brother he had c u t why to Revis, the uncle indicated breathing after he h a d b e e n that shot. A. Revis contends b e c a u s e , he s a y s , that his statement a s i t was t h e f r u i t was of a warrantless He a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e t h e r e was no w a r r a n t no e x i g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s statements in time on pursuant court appeal. to arrest and i s a r g u i n g Therefore, this to the plain-error rule. him and failed to raise this issue this first point issue Rule f o r the i s t o be ^4= 4-1 ' ^ . ^ ' ^ ' ^ - l 435 S o . 2 d 7 6 6 , 7 6 9 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Chaney, 662 F. 2 d 1148 , 1 1 5 2 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 8 1 ) . "To r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f plain error, the claimed error must n o t o n l y s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t a 9 evaluated 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . " ' " P l a i n e r r o r " has been d e f i n e d as e r r o r " ' s o o b v i o u s that the failure to notice i t would seriously affect the fairness or the ._^'4-__ arrest. t o j u s t i f y the a r r e s t , h i s subsequent were i n a d m i s s i b l e . R e v i s the t r i a l inadmissible CR-06-0454 defendant's ' s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s , ' b u t i t m u s t a l s o h a v e an u n f a i r p r e j u d i c i a l i m p a c t on t h e j u r y ' s deliberations." Hyde v. State, 778 S o . 2 d 1 9 9 , 209 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) , a f f ' d , 778 S o . 2 d 237 (Ala. 2000). This Court has recognized that the " ' p l a i n - e r r o r e x c e p t i o n t o t h e c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s - o b j e c t i o n r u l e is i t o be " u s e d s p a r i n g l y , s o l e l y i n i those circumstances i n which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result."'" Burton v. S t a t e , 651 S o . 2 d 6 4 1 , 645 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) , a f f ' d , 651 S o . 2d 659 ( A l a . 1994), quoting U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Y o u n g , 470 U.S. 1, 1 5 , 105 S . C t . 1038 , 84 L . E d . 2d 1 (1985), quoting i n turn U n i t e d S t a t e s v . F r a d y , 456 U.S. 1 5 2 , 163 n. 1 4 , 102 S . C t . 1 5 8 4 , 71 L . E d . 2 d 816 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . ' " ' E g g e r s v . S t a t e , 914 S o . ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . ' " 2d E a t m o n v . S t a t e , 992 S o . 2 d 64, 69-70 cert. denied, However, arrested negotiated testimony the ___ U.S. pursuant to a warrant worthless checks. to the e f f e c t to this testimony, and, was App. 2007), (2008). charging that Revis was him first although originally with the t r i a l , the record i s also 10 Crim. that Revis Throughout warrant 890-91 (Ala. S . C t . 185 the record i n d i c a t e s worthless-checks object ___ , 129 883, having there arrested Revis was as t o d i d not otherwise silent CR-06-0454 as to this evidence matter. Revis to challenge d i d not introduce or p r o f f e r any the a r r e s t . " S p e c u l a t i o n from a s i l e n t r e c o r d w i l l not support a f i n d i n g o f p r e j u d i c e . E x p a r t e W a l k e r , 972 S o . 2 d 737, 755 ( A l a . 2007), cert. denied, Walker v. A l a b a m a , 552 U.S. 1 0 7 7 , 128 S . C t . 8 0 6 , 1 6 9 L . E d . 2 d 608 (2007). A r e v i e w i n g c o u r t c a n n o t presume e r r o r from a s i l e n t r e c o r d . ' " T h i s c o u r t i s bound by t h e r e c o r d and not by a l l e g a t i o n s o r arguments i n b r i e f r e c i t i n g m a t t e r s n o t d i s c l o s e d b y t h e r e c o r d . " Webb v. S t a t e , 565 So. 2 d 1 2 5 9 , 1260 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1990). S e e a l s o A c r e s v . S t a t e , 548 S o . 2 d 4 5 9 (Ala.Cr.App. 1 9 8 7 ) . F u r t h e r , we c a n n o t p r e d i c a t e e r r o r f r o m a silent record. Owens v . S t a t e , 597 S o . 2 d 734 (Ala.Cr.App. 1 9 9 2 ) ; W o o d y a r d v . S t a t e , 428 S o . 2 d 136 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), aff'd, 428 S o . 2 d 138 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 462 U.S. 1 1 3 6 , 1 0 3 S . C t . 3 1 2 0 , 77 L . E d . 2 d 1 3 7 3 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . ' W h i t l e y v . S t a t e , 607 S o . 2d 354, 361 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . " Dotch v. State, , 10 [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 1 9 1 3 , ( A l a .C r i m . App. 2010). S o . 3 d 5 3 , 77 U.S. , 129 successfully ( A l a . Crim. S.Ct. argue 2433 that there i s no i n d i c a t i o n error i s p r e d i c a t e d ever 2d 1 0 7 4 , 1077 Here, arrest April 2, So. 3d See a l s o S a u n d e r s v. App. 2007), (2009)("'The error 2010] i s plain i n the record occurred.' that cert. State, denied, defendant cannot i n the record when t h e a c t upon which Ex p a r t e W a t k i n s , 509 So. ( A l a . 1987)."). there i s no i n d i c a t i o n f o r worthless checks was 11 i n the record warrantless that Revis's o r i n any way CR-06-0454 improper. Moreover, b e f o r e R e v i s was questioned, the department i t s possession the had in Stidham and the Mauldin and subsequently have been (Ala. found at an i n the cert. evidence original 1987), denied, i s the evidence would of and dissipates evidence the the was of illegal taint 1013 those Revis's statement State, denied, 961 517 517 So. So. (1988)("A police 2d 2d the from so illegal a source (Ala. c o u r t may admit conduct i f : (1) the cert. The course challenged attenuated that i t or (3) the independent of the action; [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v. B a i l e y , [(11th C i r . 1982), 638 639 c o n n e c t i o n between is would 631, have been d i s c o v e r e d i n the conduct of obtained v. illegal the constitutional violation. 1009,] warrant, U.S. inevitably (2) t o match writ 485 fruit investigation; evidence determined a d m i s s i b l e . Hornsby App. Revis's uncle's kill by Crim. 1987), to rifle impropriety from used of the o f f e n s e . T h e r e f o r e , even i f t h e r e had been the scene casings f i r e d rifle sheriff's denied, 691 461 F. U.S. 2d 933 (1983)]."). B. Revis argues that the t r i a l incomplete version" court improperly admitted of h i s statement. 12 (Revis's b r i e f at "an 18.) CR-06-0454 Specifically, Revis statement, which before refers statement the w e r e due to gaps to the was in his audio-recorded c a s s e t t e running out of concluded, as well as to inaudible p o r t i o n s . R e v i s f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h a t t h i s e r r o r was because says, the was tape trial an court allowed incomplete and testified State admit what the had he did not transcription have any independent r e c o l l e c t i o n of what had been s a i d d u r i n g the s t a t e m e n t . also notes evidence, that only p a r t of h i s statement was which, the completeness. transcription Revis statement the the Marion He was are object and to at the confusing. that trial, nor did Defense of Revis admitted into doctrine pages of the only part he counsel did, his to object of any however, I n v e s t i g a t o r K e n n e t h Mays Attorney's of 9 fact omissions. District that the cross-examination County violates notes jumbled admitted or submits, also d i d not inaccuracies during he he of that unreliable to compounded r e a d t o t h e j u r y b y a w i t n e s s who r e c o r d i n g s t h a t was previously the tape office, who had of taken R e v i s ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the pages of the transcribed r e c o r d i n g w e r e m i s p l a c e d a n d o u t o f o r d e r i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t . H o w e v e r , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e o r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h i s was t h e c a s e a t t r i a l . T h u s , he h a s made no s h o w i n g o f e r r o r o r p r e j u d i c e on t h i s g r o u n d . 9 13 CR-06-0454 Revis's statement, for certain apparent gaps i n the t r a n s c r i p t i o n . I n v e s t i g a t o r K e n n e t h Mays testified that result these running gaps out of transcription question were the capacity. having the reason of Revis been read the also to microcassette did the not jury object by trial, error this standard. The the 45A, contains g i v e n by R e v i s . transcript inaudible, prejudicial the Rule record statements in i s s u e i s t o be intent there a 1 0 the copy of Although the grounds to the any transcript t h e r e a r e a few i t indicated indication o r t h a t they had of the plain- Ala.R.App.P. wherein i s no analyzed pursuant to investigator M a y s . T h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e R e v i s d i d n o t o b j e c t on t h e s e at tapes that that these b e a r i n g on the of the instances comments were omissions were statements or statements. "'"The fact that a recording is partially inaudible in those portions l i k e l y t o c o n t a i n m a t e r i a l statements does not r e q u i r e i t s e x c l u s i o n from evidence unless the r e c o r d i n g i s the o n l y evidence The m i c r o c a s s e t t e tapes do n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e b e e n admitted at t r i a l . However, R e v i s d i d not o b j e c t t o this omission at trial or p r e t r i a l , nor d o e s he raise this o b j e c t i o n on a p p e a l . T h e r e was t e s t i m o n y , h o w e v e r , d u r i n g t h e p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g i n the proceedings i n v o l v i n g Revis, h i s uncle, and his brother that the State possessed the m i c r o c a s s e t t e t a p e s . (S.R. 41.) 1 0 14 CR-06-0454 o f f e r e d as t o t h e s t a t e m e n t s . " A u s t i n v. State, 354 So. 2d 40, 43 (Ala.Cr.App. 1 9 7 7 ) , 354 S o . 2 d 40 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . S e e a l s o B o u l d e n v . S t a t e , 278 A l a . 4 3 7 , 1 7 9 S o . 2 d 20, 33 (1965) (no r e v e r s i b l e error i n admitting transcriptions of tape r e c o r d i n g s , where t h e t r i a l judge played the tapes o u t s i d e the presence of the j u r y and decided t h a t t h e y were sufficiently a u d i b l e t o be p l a y e d a n d , f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t c o u l d n o t have been h u r t by t h e playing of the tapes in light of the testimony of the officer to whom he confessed.).' " H i l l v . S t a t e , 516 S o . 2 d 8 7 6 , 878 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1987). 'Moreover, t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s argument t h a t the t r a n s c r i p t i o n was n o t a v e r b a t i m r e p r o d u c t i o n o f a partially audible tape does not address the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of the t r a n s c r i p t i o n , but rather the w e i g h t i t w o u l d be g i v e n b y t h e j u r y . ' C l a r k v. S t a t e , 562 S o . 2 d 6 2 0 , 624 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) . "'"Where t h e t a p e - r e c o r d e d statement or conversation i s missing or u n a v a i l a b l e , '[a] typewritten transcript of r e c o r d i n g ] i s a d m i s s i b l e where t h e o f f i c e r who l i s t e n e d to the conversation at the time of the recording t e s t i f i e s that the transcript accurately reflect[s] the c o n v e r s a t i o n . ' H a w k i n s [ v . S t a t e ] , 443 So. 2d [1312,] 1314-15 [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1983)]. We have also permitted the a d m i s s i o n o f a t r a n s c r i p t where t h e tape r e c o r d i n g was i n a u d i b l e i n p l a c e s . T h o r n t o n v. State, 570 So. 2 d 762 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Hill v. State, 516 So. 2d 876 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ; D a w k i n s v . S t a t e , 455 S o . 2 d 220 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) . L ^ ^ ^ ^ "'"Although the tape recording i n the present c a s e was n e i t h e r u n a v a i l a b l e n o r 15 CR-06-0454 i n a u d i b l e , we s e e n o r e a s o n why a d i f f e r e n t r u l e s h o u l d a p p l y . L i e u t e n a n t S c o g i n was i n a p o s i t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h t h e r e l i a b i l i t y and a c c u r a c y o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t , see Gwin v. State, 425 S o . 2 d 5 0 0 , 5 0 5 (Ala.Cr.App. 1 9 8 2 ) , c e r t . q u a s h e d , 425 S o . 2 d 510 ( A l a . 1983) , and d i d so. Furthermore, the t r a n s c r i p t was m e r e l y c u m u l a t i v e e v i d e n c e , the admission of which rests w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . White v. S t a t e , 587 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 8 , 1228 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990) , a f f i r m e d , 587 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 6 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; G a i n e r v . S t a t e , 5 5 3 S o . 2 d 6 7 3 , 684 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989). Consequently, the t r a n s c r i p t was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d f o r t h e limited purposes advanced by the prosecution."' " B a t t l e v . S t a t e , 645 S o . 2 d 3 4 4 , 3 4 6 - 4 7 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , q u o t i n g J a c k s o n v . S t a t e , 594 S o . 2 d 1289, 1297 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1991) (footnote omitted)." Gobble v. S t a t e , , [Ms. C R - 0 5 - 0 2 2 5 , ( A l a .Crim. App. F e b r u a r y 5, 2 0 1 0 ] 2010). The t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s were the capacity, result of the fact that as i n d i c a t e d by s t a t e m e n t s also verifies the tapes 285.) See a l s o S t a t e v . H e s t e r , Super. claim the judge that recordings A.D. that ran gaps out of i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t made b y I n v e s t i g a t o r M a y s w h e n t h e n e x t t a p e was b e g u n . 2006)(N.J. So. 3d (C. 2 5 4 , 2 6 5 , (No. A - 7 1 3 0 - 0 3 T 4 , N o v e m b e r 2006)(not reported improperly allowed 14, i n A.2d)(Hester's into evidence tape t h a t were i n c o m p l e t e , i n a u d i b l e , and i n a c c u r a t e , 16 as CR-06-0454 well as the although transcripts there recordings, 'pertinent In were the 2d Jones, was and included without inaudible merit because, sections "'substantially' in the a l l of the conversations.'"). United 203 gaps tapes States 1 9 8 2 ) , o v e r r u l e d on F. thereof, v. other Nicoll, F.2d tape-recorded Enforcement 1041 (5th C i r . 1988), ("the inadmissible because conversation. The of court 1308 (5th S t a t e s v. between DEA") a gap Nicoll an agent States claimed with 749 v. that the a Drug and his co-conspirator was in the recordings the rejected Nicoll's claim, of stating: " F i n a l l y , we do n o t a g r e e t h a t t h e t r i a l court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n admitting a tape of a c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n H e n r y a n d t h e DEA despite a short gap in the tape. In United States v. G r e e n f i e l d , 574 F. 2 d 305 (5th C i r . ) , c e r t . denied, 439 U.S. 8 6 0 , 99 S . C t . 1 7 8 , 58 L . E d . 2 d 168 (1978), the court h e l d t h a t tapes t h a t contained i n a u d i b l e p o r t i o n s were n e v e r t h e l e s s admissible unless the i n a u d i b l e p o r t i o n s w e r e 'so s u b s t a n t i a l a s t o r e n d e r t h e r e c o r d i n g a s a w h o l e u n t r u s t w o r t h y . ' I d . a t 307 ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v . A v i l a , 443 F. 2 d 7 9 2 , 795 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 944, 92 S.Ct. 2 9 5 , 30 L . E d . 2 d 258 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ) . H e r e DEA a g e n t S m i t h testified that no one had tampered with the r e c o r d i n g o r d e l e t e d any p o r t i o n s o f i t ; r a t h e r , t h e s h o r t g a p o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y one m i n u t e r e s u l t e d f r o m t h e t a p e r e a c h i n g t h e e n d o f one s i d e a n d n e e d i n g t o b e t u r n e d o v e r . The r e s u l t i n g gap h a r d l y rendered 17 Cir. Henry, rejected in turn, United conversation Agency F.2d ground, United (5th C i r . 1984), 839 664 CR-06-0454 t h e t a p e as a w h o l e u n t r u s t w o r t h y , r e s u l t e d from i t s a d m i s s i o n . " Nicoll, 664 Here, F. 2d the at and no error 1314. gaps did not render the transcripts untrustworthy. Moreover, the i n d i c a t i o n i n the t r a n s c r i p t that certain render fragments the of comments transcripts were inaudible also did not inadmissible. "[T]aken i n c o n t e x t , those i n a u d i b l e p a r t s were not so substantial that they render the audiotapes untrustworthy. Rather, they are p r i m a r i l y small portions o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t do n o t a p p e a r to affect the accuracy of the substance of the c o n v e r s a t i o n s or o t h e r w i s e d e t r a c t from the purpose f o r w h i c h t h e a u d i o t a p e s w e r e a d m i t t e d . 'The q u a l i t y of the t a p e [ s ] was a factor for the jury's c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e w e i g h t t o be g i v e n the evidence, rather than a f a c t o r concerning i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y . ' D a v i s v . S t a t e , 529 So. 2d 1070, 1072 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1988)." B l a n t o n v. cert. 878 of denied, (2004). (Ala. 886 886 See So. So. also 2d Ex 2d 850, 886 868 ( A l a . C r i m . App. (Ala.), cert. p a r t e Morrow, 915 2004)("Couch [ t h e v i c t i m ] t e s t i f i e d her portion not State, statement of Couch's a f f e c t the State, was 589 So. not So. 2d that r e c o r d e d ; however, interview denied, not have been a d m i s s i b i l i t y of the recording. 2d 1313, 1315 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 18 543 539, the the may 2003), 544-45 beginning fact that recorded See 1991) U.S. does Avery ('The a v. fact CR-06-0454 that parts of the tape recording were inaudible a f f e c t the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of the recording t h e j u r y p l a c e s on This court recordings recording 3d a t has and was 1994); previously transcripts Crim. App. 1991); Crim. App. 1990); 1987); 1984). In regarding upheld v. 645 Dawkins v. the present the v. admission which v. 455 case, a deemed So. State, State, of tape where the tape G o b b l e v. S t a t e , 2d 344, 594 State, portions See So. State, Thornton Hill the of those recordings inaudible i n places. Jackson but the weight not evidence.').") ; B a t t l e v. S t a t e , App. App. the would 346-47 2d So. 516 So. So. 2 d 220 review 2d of inaudible (Ala. Crim. 1289, 570 1297 (Ala. 762 2d 876 So. (Ala. (Ala. Crim. (Ala. Crim. Revis's reveals App. statements that these o m i s s i o n s do n o t r e n d e r t h e t r a n s c r i p t u n r e l i a b l e o r o t h e r w i s e improper. Revis a d d i t i o n a l l y not have been the j u r y , that he submits allowed to read portions because I n v e s t i g a t o r did statements. not have Revis the p r e l i m i n a r y t h a t I n v e s t i g a t o r Mays s h o u l d any Mays h a d independent refers to Investigator hearing. 19 of h i s statements previously to testified recollection of Mays's t e s t i m o n y the at CR-06-0454 The supplemental record, from the p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g , did state a independent number of aspects of the include his recollection or the v o l u n t a r i n e s s of recall Cf. address Hampshire 1985)(both the inadmissible produce a located and of the the the remembered transcribed; recording recording contained compared 1 1 So. and tape w h a t was the Miranda However, 2d the nor recall did warnings 1 1 did his recording were the State but i t could interrogated not be the because i t had been o f f i c e r d i d not t r a n s c r i b e the i f t r a n s c r i p t to to r e c o l l e c t i o n of h i s i n t e r r o g a t i o n i t never the accurately 384 tape U.S. and 20 recording; 436 tape l i s t e n e d to the (1966). tape correctly s a i d d u r i n g t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n , a n d he v. A r i z o n a , lack statements. had who not App. ordered recording any (Ala. Crim. tape court officer this Miranda 1140 have not of Revis's interrogation only determine testimony not could statements, o f t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n , he to he substance 484 f u r t h e r , the the did administering trial police the he that of Revis's d e f e n d a n t h a d no i n d e p e n d e n t but or transcript of that statements. State, where copy of the b a s i c v. contains i n d i c a t e s t h a t I n v e s t i g a t o r Mays times recollection certain which never further, the CR-06-0454 prosecution d i d not c a l l transcribed the tape testimony Revis's He those of was from those Revis's uncle's that testified district attorney's Mays's concerning not participate who h a d was h e l d were made and h i s other than t r a n s c r i b e d b y an employee Moreover, indicating were h i s lack made of the investigation and thus before statements. recollection parts which office. statements o f any independent questions the person of h i s uncle statements no t h a t were r e c o r d e d a n d l a t e r the did witness r e c o r d i n g . ) Most o f I n v e s t i g a t o r Mays's severed concerned Investigator or a at the preliminary hearing, case brother, as as t o w h i c h some of of r e c a l l i n answer t o i n which he h a d no he direct knowledge. Thereafter, Revis's Mays at t r i a l , statements. could Revis I n v e s t i g a t o r Mays t e s t i f i e d argues that, n o t p r e v i o u s l y remember subsequently gave testimony, been a l l o w e d into as t o because I n v e s t i g a t o r matters the statements as t o which should he n o t have evidence. The p a r t i c u l a r p a r t s o f I n v e s t i g a t o r M a y s ' s t e s t i m o n y t o which R e v i s now o b j e c t s w e r e n o t r a i s e d a s a n i s s u e a t t r i a l . Rule 45A, Ala.R.Crim.P. Moreover, 21 this objection would CR-06-0454 address the testimony. Crim. weight See App. statement rather 1983)(trial although the State, Hammins v . than 439 court the admissibility So. properly officer 2d 809, the 811 ( A l a . admitted d i d not of Hammins's remember i n what m a n n e r Hammins h a d i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e u n d e r s t o o d h i s r i g h t s , this lack of recall went admissibility of the statement). In Alexander v. 1979), w r i t denied, 1979)(footnote only State, Ex p a r t e the So. 370 2 d 330 Alexander, omitted), admissibility to weight because not the ( A l a .Crim. challenged the deputy 'the testified statement' that conversation was' 'recollection' other cases." he itself. could and This 'remember that as opposed court However [The was t o h i s ' h a b i t ' from what based also the on h i s testifying in stated: " T h e r u l e i s t h a t ' a w i t n e s s may t e s t i f y a s t o f a c t s within h i s knowledge, although his recollection t h e r e o f i s v a g u e o r i m p e r f e c t ' . 97 C . J . S . W i t n e s s e s §54 (1957). "'The l a w does n o t r e q u i r e a b s o l u t e o r p o s i t i v e knowledge or p e r f e c t r e c o l l e c t i o n i n a witness. H i s knowledge i s s u f f i c i e n t 22 took remember deputy] basically h i s testimony the who h i s s t a t e m e n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t " t h e o n l y t h i n g he c o u l d was App. 370 S o . 2 d 332 ( A l a . Alexander of h i s confession and as CR-06-0454 if he had an opportunity of personal o b s e r v a t i o n a n d d i d g e t some i m p r e s s i o n s even i f h i s r e c o l l e c t i o n i s f a i n t . ' "'When i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e w i t n e s s h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e t h e f a c t s a b o u t w h i c h he o f f e r s t o t e s t i f y , a n d t h a t h i s testimony signifies only imperfect observation or imperfect recollection, t h e r e i s no v a l i d o b j e c t i o n t o a d m i t t i n g the testimony.' "C. G a m b l e , M c E l r o y ' s (3rd ed. 1977). Alabama Evidence, § 115.01(1) "The f a c t t h a t D e p u t y P e r k i n s c o u l d n o t r e m e m b e r t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s manner o f d r e s s , what t h e a p p e l l a n t s a i d word f o r word ('that's the reason I wrote the s t a t e m e n t ' ) ; t h e w e a t h e r ; and c e r t a i n o t h e r d e t a i l s o f t h e day and t i m e the a p p e l l a n t c o n f e s s e d goes t o t h e w e i g h t and c r e d i b i l i t y t o be g i v e n h i s t e s t i m o n y b u t n o t t o i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y . P o n d v . S t a t e , 55 A l a . 196 ( 1 8 7 6 ) ; B r i s t e r v . S t a t e , 26 A l a . 107 (1855); W a l k e r v. B l a s s i n g a m e , 17 A l a . 810 (1850)." Alexander v. S t a t e , 370 Here, although the circumstances from the So. 2d at I n v e s t i g a t o r M a y s c o u l d n o t r e c a l l some o f surrounding the f i v e statements three accomplices, Any discrepancies admissible. concerned the raised 331. Revis been of the or evidence statements questions f u r t h e r argues t h a t the admitted because, he says, 23 had would transcript this took were have trial. at weight Revis's t h a t he issue been should not have i t contained inaccuracies. CR-06-0454 Specifically, he a r g u e s that one o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s indicated o n May 1 1 , 2 0 0 4 , a n i n a c c u r a t e date, and that i thad occurred that o n e o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s a t t r i b u t e d a comment made b y to Investigator As Tommy M o o r e . to the f i r s t statement o f May alleged error, the proper however, at the date at the beginning conclusion, I n v e s t i g a t o r Mays s t a t e d , the first statement, of the interview; transcript " O k a y . I t ' s 4:06 p.m. (C. 3 3 6 . ) D e f e n s e c o u n s e l concerning t h e May reflects on a n s w e r e d t h a t no i n t e r v i e w at t r i a l (inaudible) took place and asked whether on t h a t d a t e a n d s t a t e d I've never p i c k e d up on (R. 5 9 7 . ) T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t R e v i s gave a n o t h e r on May 1 1 , 2 0 0 4 , n o r d o e s R e v i s of t h e d a t e b y I n v e s t i g a t o r Mays was a n y more t h a n in Chris on t h a t d a t e . I n v e s t i g a t o r Mays " [ t ] h a t j u s t h a d t o be a m i s t a k e . that." that q u e s t i o n e d I n v e s t i g a t o r Mays 11, 2004, d a t e another i n t e r v i e w had occurred the of the 2004. A n d u h , we've b e e n h a v i n g an i n t e r v i e w w i t h Revis." that the t r a n s c r i p t 4, 2 0 0 4 , w h i c h was R e v i s ' s contains 11th, Revis allege that t o n g u e . However, he a l l e g e s t h a t t h i s the statement being unreliable. 24 this misstatement inaccuracy "The statement a slip of resulted appellant's CR-06-0454 interpretation generally (1963) would Dobbins (clerical pervert v. State, and form 274 over ministerial mistakes State, Smith 723 v. State, S o . 2 d 810 other attributed it had do 2d not resulted).") 795 So. 2d 788, 825 furnish Robinson t h i s was a n i n a d v e r t e n t ( A l a . Crim. s l i p of the tongue. n o e r r o r , much l e s s p l a i n e r r o r , h e r e . The 814 So. 577 S o . 2 d 9 2 8 , 930 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) . S e e a l s o 2000)("Clearly, find See 149 A l a . 524, g r o u n d t o q u a s h v e n i r e when no p r e j u d i c e v. substance. (Ala.Cr.App. inaccuracy Baxter concerning Investigator been cited made by h i s whereabouts. by Revis involves Revis This when he mistake State, a Moore, was comment although questioned was brought to counsel Mays's a t t e n t i o n by d e f e n s e at t r i a l as follows: "Q. R i g h t , a n d t h e n he s a i d , (with the Marion County s h e r i f f ' s w h i l e ago where were you?' And t h e n M o o r e : A t my g i r l f r i e n d ' s h o u s e . ' 'Ronny Vickery department): A i t s a y s , 'Tommy "A [ I n v e s t i g a t o r M a y s ] . O b v i o u s l y "Q. W h a t s h o u l d We 1998)."). i n the t r a n s c r i p t to Investigator clearly v. App that have that's been? "A. I t a p p e a r s t o me i t s h o u l d h a v e b e e n R e v i s t h a t s a i d , ' A t my g i r l f r i e n d ' s h o u s e . ' 25 wrong. Chris CR-06-0454 "Q. record. Okay. I j u s t w a n t e d t o c l a r i f y "A. (R. that for the Yes, s i r . " 599.) This mistake i n the typographical allege casts that e r r o r and d i d not i t prejudiced d o u b t on the e r r o r does not transcript. C r i m . App. transcript the Battle 1 9 9 4 ) ( " W e do clearly a clerical prejudice Although trustworthiness affect See him. was Revis, v. State not f i n d the nor does he contends that i t transcript, such an he of the credibility or a d m i s s i b i l i t y of 645 So. 2d 344, transcript 347 the (Ala. objectionable because C h i e f Hudson ' c o r r e c t e d ' the t y p e w r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t that i t more interrogation. the admission accurately In f a c t , of the reflected i n order prosecution had to e s t a b l i s h accurately and reliably the and the that the tape recording, transcript represented the so appellant's to lay a proper predicate transcript or and the actual for the tape event recorded."). Here, Investigator statements given testimony concerning transcript was by not Mays Revis, the "the fully testified apart from basis of very 26 the the existence concerning the transcript. His accuracy the of the of transcript CR-06-0454 itself." the Hampshire transcript was v. State, properly 484 So. 2d at admitted into 1141. Therefore, evidence. C. Revis argues evidence of statements the that the corpus State delicti d i d not p r e s e n t and independent therefore s h o u l d not have been a d m i t t e d a t trial. " ' I t has been t h e r u l e i n Alabama t h a t the S t a t e must o f f e r i n d e p e n d e n t p r o o f of the corpus d e l i c t i of the charged offense to a u t h o r i z e the a d m i s s i o n of a defendant's confession or inculpatory statement. R o b i n s o n v . S t a t e , 560 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 0 , 1 1 3 5 - 3 6 (Ala. Cr. App. 1989); see C. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s Alabama E v i d e n c e , 200.13 ( 5 t h ed. 1996). "'The corpus d e l i c t i c o n s i s t s of two e l e m e n t s : "(1) T h a t a c e r t a i n result has been p r o d u c e d ... a n d (2) t h a t some person i s c r i m i n a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the act."' J o h n s o n [ v . S t a t e , 473 S o . 2 d 6 0 7 , 608 ( A l a . C r . App. 1985),] (quoting 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 § 3 0 4.01 (3d e d . 1 9 7 7 ) ) . " S p e a r v . S t a t e , 508 S o . 2d 306, 308 (Ala. Cr. App. 1987). " ' P o s i t i v e , d i r e c t evidence of the corpus delicti is not indispensable to the admissions of confessions.'" B r a c e w e l l v. S t a t e , 506 S o . 2 d 3 5 4 , 360 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) , q u o t i n g R y a n v . S t a t e , 100 A l a . 94, 14 S o . 868 ( 1 8 9 4 ) . "The c o r p u s d e l i c t i may be e s t a b l i s h e d by c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . " S o c k w e l l v . S t a t e , 675 S o . 2 d 4, 21 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) , a f f ' d , 675 S o . 2 d 38 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 519 U.S. 8 3 8 , 117 S. Ct. 1 1 5 , 136 L. E d . 2 d 67 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . ' 27 that his CR-06-0454 " M a x w e l l v. App. 2 0 0 0 ) . State, 828 So. 2d 347, 357 (Ala. Crim. "'"'Independent evidence of t h e c o r p u s d e l i c t i n e e d n o t be o f s u c h p r o b a t i v e s t r e n g t h as t h a t such e v i d e n c e , s t a n d i n g a l o n e , i n the opinion of the trial or a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , w o u l d , ought t o or p r o b a b l y w o u l d s a t i s f y a j u r y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt of the e x i s t e n c e of the corpus d e l i c t i . Independent evidence of the c o r p u s d e l i c t i may c o n s i s t s o l e l y of circumstantial evidence. Whether the independent e v i d e n c e tending to prove the corpus d e l i c t i i s s u f f i c i e n t to warrant a reasonable inference of the existence thereof depends, of c o u r s e , upon t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s of each c a s e . ' " "'Bush v. State, 695 So. 2d 70, 117 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) , a f f ' d , 695 So. 2d 138 (Ala. 1 9 9 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 522 U.S. 969, 118 S.Ct. 418, 139 L . E d . 2 d 320 (1997), quoting C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama E v i d e n c e § 3 0 4 . 0 1 ( 4 t h e d . 1991) (footnotes o m i t t e d i n B u s h ) ; see a l s o H o w e l l v. S t a t e , 571 So. 2 d 396 (Ala.Cr.App. 1 990). "The p r e s e n t a t i o n of f a c t s , from which the j u r y may r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h a t t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d was c o m m i t t e d , r e q u i r e s t h e s u b m i s s i o n o f the q u e s t i o n to the j u r y . " Watters v. S t a t e , 369 So. 2 d 1 2 6 2 , 1272 (Ala.Cr.App. 1 9 7 8 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 369 So. 2 d 1272 ( A l a . 1979). "'Further, i t i s well 28 settled that CR-06-0454 "'"inconclusive facts and circumstances tending prima f a c i e t o show t h e c o r p u s d e l i c t i may b e aided by the admissions or c o n f e s s i o n o f t h e a c c u s e d so as to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and so to support a conviction, although such facts and circumstances, s t a n d i n g alone, would not thus s a t i s f y the jury of the existence of t h e c o r p u s d e l i c t i . " ' "'Bush, 695 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 7 - 1 8 , quoting B r i d g e s v . S t a t e , 284 A l a . 4 1 2 , 4 1 7 , 225 So. 2 d 8 2 1 , 826 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; s e e a l s o B r a c e w e l l , 506 S o . 2 d a t 360 ; S p e a r , 508 S o . 2 d a t 308. "While a c o n f e s s i o n i s i n a d m i s s i b l e as p r i m a f a c i e p r o o f o f t h e c o r p u s d e l i c t i , i t c a n be u s e d a l o n g w i t h o t h e r e v i d e n c e t o s a t i s f y the j u r y of the e x i s t e n c e of the corpus d e l i c t i . " B r a c e w e l l , s u p r a a t 360; s e e a l s o H o w e l l , 571 S o . 2 d a t 3 9 7 . As P r o f e s s o r Gamble has o b s e r v e d : "'"The p u r p o s e o f r e q u i r i n g p r o o f o f t h e c o r p u s d e l i c t i , as a condition precedent to the admission of a confession, i s to insure i t strustworthiness. For this reason, there is some j u d i c i a l language to the e f f e c t that corroborative evidence independent of the confession need not be sufficient to e s t a b l i s h c o r p u s d e l i c t i b u t must be sufficient independent evidence which would tend to e s t a b l i s h the trustworthiness of the confession." 29 CR-06-0454 " ' M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e , § 2 0 0.13 a t 100 ( 5 t h e d . 1 9 9 6 ) . F i n a l l y , we h a v e h e l d : "'"'Evidence of facts and circumstances, attending the p a r t i c u l a r o f f e n s e , and u s u a l l y attending the commission of s i m i l a r o f f e n s e s -- o r o f f a c t s to the discovery of which the confession has l e d , and which would n o t p r o b a b l y have e x i s t e d if the o f f e n s e had not been c o m m i t t e d -- w o u l d b e a d m i s s i b l e to corroborate the confession. The weight which would be accorded them, when connected with the confession, the jury must determine, under proper i n s t r u c t i o n s from the c o u r t . ' " "'Bush, s u p r a a t 118, q u o t i n g Matthews v. S t a t e , 55 A l a . 1 8 7 , 1 94 ( 1 8 7 6 ) ; s e e a l s o Bracewell, supra.' "828 So. 2d a t 3 5 7 - 5 8 . 'The t e r m c o r p u s delicti means t h e b o d y o r t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e c r i m e a n d connotes the commission o f t h e o f f e n s e by t h e c r i m i n a l agency o f someone.' T a n n e r v . S t a t e , 57 Ala. A p p . 2 5 4 , 2 6 4 , 327 S o . 2 d 74 9, 759 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . 'Proof o f t h e c o r p u s d e l i c t i does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y include evidence connecting [ t h e ] defendant with the crime.' A r n o l d v . S t a t e , 57 A l a . A p p . 1 7 2 , 1 7 3 , 326 So. 2 d 7 0 0 , 701 (1 97 6) . See a l s o C. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e , § 304.01 ( 6 t h e d . 2009) ('the t e r m c o r p u s d e l i c t i d o e s n o t mean o r i n c l u d e the g u i l t y agency o f t h e accused i n t h e commission of t h e c h a r g e d c r i m e ' ) . Independent evidence of the c o r p u s d e l i c t i may b e s o l e l y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , a n d t h e j u r y i s f r e e t o draw r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s from t h a t evidence. H o w e l l v . S t a t e , 571 S o . 2 d 3 9 6 , 397 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1990). F u r t h e r m o r e , even i f t h e corpus d e l i c t i i s not proven before the admission or 30 CR-06-0454 evidence of the c o n f e s s i o n , i t s admission w i l l cure the S t a t e , 568 S o . 2 d 342 ( A l a . a l s o Woods v . S t a t e , 641 S o . A p p . 19 9 3 ) . " then such p r o o f after error. See M a r c u s v . C r i m . App. 1990). See 2 d 3 1 6 , 321 ( A l a . C r i m . S h e f f i e l d v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 9 - 0 3 5 7 , N o v e m b e r 5, 2 0 1 0 ] 3d , (Ala. Crim. In the evidence present App. case, of the corpus p r o p e r l y used, him. "[A]lthough the facts offenses 'they may do t e n d offense].' App. be 1995), 522 U.S. State of c a p i t a l facie without statement, Crim. App. (Ala. d i e d as t h e r e s u l t H i s t h r o a t was 1997), c u t . The testimony rifle of [the (Ala. Crim. cert. denied, (1997)." Floyd So. 3d State proved t o the head used to f i r e was c o n c e a l e d b y R e v i s ' s u n c l e , was w i t h R e v i s a n d h i s b r o t h e r a r o u n d was the o f g u n s h o t wounds also Stidham Here, to convict delicti September 28, 2007] 2007). indicating 31 that the [Revis's] confession, show t h e c o r p u s 695 S o . 2 d 138 which surrounding the S e e B u s h v . S t a t e , 695 S o . 2 d 7 0 , 119 aff'd, sufficient murder, and c i r c u m s t a n c e s inconclusive to prima shots that k i l l e d There presented 9 6 9 , 118 S . C t . 4 1 8 , 139 L . E d . 2 d 320 (Ala. chest. the along with Revis's v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 5 - 0 9 3 5 , Stidham 2010). delicti jury So. , that and the who the time of the o f f e n s e . Stidham regularly kept CR-06-0454 prescription pain function Stidham's on pills r e c e n t l y come i n f r o m Revis's house uncle. i n which although and t h a t telephone a telephone I t was Revis the showed this and h i s u n c l e from that a call had registered to the ex-wife of determined the statements caller-identification telephone were Revis's was staying. brother i n the Moreover, and h i s u n c l e were n o t a d m i t t e d a t t r i a l , t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t by Revis's uncle throat. Stidham's indicated (R. that he 600-01.) had admitted Defense counsel acknowledged i n h i sq u e s t i o n i n g that the statements brother and u n c l e Although implicated Revis t h e money t a k e n nor were t h e p i l l s , kept and and s o l d p i l l s evidence. Crim. App. Stidham of Revis's 1 2 was n e v e r recovered regularly a n d t h a t R e v i s h a d d o n e some w o r k f o r h i m inference See I r v i n i n the murder. also showed t h a t S t i d h a m the evidence had p r e v i o u s l y been reasonable from cutting present of v. i n h i s mobile robbery could State, 2005)(although be home, drawn from and a that 940 S o . 2 d 3 3 1 , 3 5 9 - 6 0 ( A l a . [without Irvin's confession] The following occurred i n the cross-examination of I n v e s t i g a t o r M a y s : "Q. B e s i d e s t h e s t a t e m e n t s you have o f these three people, i s there other c o r r o b o r a t i n g evidence that s h o w s t h a t C h r i s R e v i s was t h e p e r s o n t h a t p e r p e t r a t e d t h i s c r i m e ? " "A. I d o n ' t t h i n k I'm i n a p o s i t i o n t o a n s w e r t h a t . " (R. 6 0 2 . ) 1 2 32 CR-06-0454 evidence of sufficient murder the corpus evidence occurred the victim's b o d y was evidence victim had before he those used Brown's The the was from accomplice, those sought commission the taken). victim and Brown of were were and found found facts State of this support and proved t o Brown casings that the was an [Ms. App. the the house, home were reasonable on consistent a t Brown's at the was of murder where t h e and c o r r o b o r a t e R e v i s ' s sufficiently first-degree (Ala. Crim. h i s accomplice case that the and t h e r e h o u s e on t h e d a y t h e v i c t i m ' s b o d y was facts was See B r o w n v . S t a t e , loan and a robbery delicti a bullets i n the k i l l i n g the of S o . 3d of corpus repayment killed, inferred i n h i s automobile 1 3 , 200 9] proof inconclusive, there i t c o u l d be supporting burned CR-07-1 958, November stolen the t h a t h i s money was 2009)(sufficient was from which during robbery; inference delicti of with items Brown's together at found). inferences confession; corpus day delicti of from thus, the offense. D. Revis suppressed argues because, that he his says, statements they 33 were should have i n v o l u n t a r y . He been also CR-06-0454 raised this ground statements. in a pretrial motion to suppress (C. 3 0 - 3 1 . ) On a p p e a l , he a r g u e s t h a t t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s u s e d tactics, and was s u c h as t a l k i n g referring He a l s o Revis failed to adequately prove waived h i s Miranda his Miranda (Revis's b r i e f a t 30 n. 11.) they accused him of l y i n g , coercive. rights rights coercive to Revis concerning personal matters t o R e v i s as " s o n . " submits that unduly his further that that he k n o w i n g l y a n d because, f o r the contends w h i c h he second after the State voluntarily informing time, says Revis of Investigator Mays a s k e d R e v i s an a l l e g e d l y c o n f u s i n g a n d m i s l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n a n d Revis's Revis r e s p o n s e was t r a n s c r i b e d alleges introduced waived that into because evidence, no the State i s not mandatory that i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d . Compare ( A l a . C r i m . App. portion his copy of h i s waiver failed Finally, form was to prove that he the waiver-of-rights form be his rights. It 931 as b e i n g i n a u d i b l e . 1997) (officer's of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n Miranda rights inadmissible; rather, Smith v. S t a t e , failure 756 S o . 2 d 8 9 2 , to record that when he a d v i s e d t h e a p p e l l a n t o f would not render i t w o u l d be t a k e n i n t o 34 the statement consideration by CR-06-0454 the jury in determining the weight and credibility to assign the o f f i c e r ' s testimony r e g a r d i n g the a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n f e s s i o n ) . Testimony signed e.g. from the form Hodges v. 2005); Ex denied, 1138, 537 937 sign the As 1060, Jackson, 836 So. 2d 1031 following App. Revis signed 1070 983 v. defendant form. See (Ala. Crim. 979, Waldrop a (Ala.), State, 2000); Ex parte Brown, does not argue that 859 11 he App. cert. So. 2d So. 3d did not form. to Revis's rights (2002 ) ; that defendant 2d (Ala. Crim. and that So. U.S. waiver officer S t a t e , 926 ( A l a . 2008). misleading Miranda interrogating i s evidence parte 1157 933, the the contention that confusing for a question second time, I n v e s t i g a t o r Mays a s k e d after the a d v i s i n g him record of indicates transpired: "KM [ I n v e s t i g a t o r Ken Mays] C h r i s , you know the o t h e r e v e n i n g we t a l k e d t o y o u a n d y o u r r i g h t s w e r e r e a d to you. I want t o r e a d your r i g h t s to you a g a i n . Make s u r e y o u r r i g h t s a r e b e i n g p r o t e c t e d . You h a v e t h e r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t . A n y t h i n g you s a y c a n be u s e d a g a i n s t y o u i n a c o u r t o f l a w . You have t h e r i g h t t o t a l k t o a l a w y e r and have him present while you are being questioned. If you c o u l d n ' t a f f o r d o n e , a l a w y e r , one w i l l be a p p o i n t e d to r e p r e s e n t you b e f o r e any q u e s t i o n i n g i f you w i s h . You c a n d e c i d e a t any t i m e t o e x e r c i s e t h e s e r i g h t s a n d n o t a n s w e r a n y q u e s t i o n s o r make a n y s t a t e m e n t s . So I ' v e r e a d y o u r r i g h t s t o y o u now, down h e r e C h r i s i s w h a t we c a l l a w a i v e r o f r i g h t s . 35 a his that CR-06-0454 "CR [Chris Revis]: Uh-huh. "KM: I t s a i d I ' v e r e a d , o r i n t h i s c a s e r e a d a n d h a s been read, t h e above s t a t e m e n t of your r i g h t s . I u n d e r s t a n d e a c h o f them. H a v i n g t h e s e r i g h t s i n m i n d y o u w a i v e t h e m w i l l i n g t o make a s t a t e m e n t . A r e y o u w i l l i n g t o t a l k t o Tommy a n d me? "CR: (Inaudible). "KM: that I'll (C. Okay i f y o u ' l l s i g n t h a t r i g h t t h e r e i n d i c a t i n g y o u ' r e w i l l i n g t o t a l k t o u s . ( I n a u d i b l e ) . And s i g n t h i s as a w i t n e s s . " 338.) As t o R e v i s ' s concerning argument t h a t the waiver r e i t e r a t e d to Revis he was rights to talk was I n v e s t i g a t o r Mays's confusing or statement misleading, t h a t by s i g n i n g t h e w a i v e r - o f - r i g h t s acknowledging that r e a d t o h i m a n d was he had read choosing the context voluntarily choosing and form, or had h i s t o w a i v e t h o s e r i g h t s and to the i n v e s t i g a t o r s . Although inaudible, his rights he response In 2001), Centobie Centobie v. to waive State, alleged because the record his rights, 861 that indicates that was to the i n v e s t i g a t o r s . to talk of the i n t e r v i e w Revis's So. 2d to sign 1111,(Ala. h i s statement was he was the form, Crim. App. inadmissible i n d i c a t e d t h a t he h a d r e q u e s t e d c o u n s e l . 36 He CR-06-0454 cited the recorded following excerpt from "'[Centobie]: Centobie v. 861 of h i s testimony of indicated In signed the 2d at 1119-20. concerning the statement, a that the statement case, intimidation, Based on an and including h i s testimony preponderance of as w e l l the as a evidence was a d m i s s i b l e . I n v e s t i g a t o r Mays the v o l u n t a r i n e s s of R e v i s ' s statement, coercion, answering knowingness a w a i v e r - o f - r i g h t s form, recording, the present to stop response.)'" So. voluntariness of Centobie's Centobie you w i s h lawyer? (Inaudible State, investigator's review transcript statement: "'[Agent B o r g h i n i ] : And q u e s t i o n s and r e q u e s t a that the threats, testified including or promises. as t o the lack of (R. 4 5 . ) His a p p r o a c h - - a s s u m i n g a f r i e n d l y tone and language i n q u e s t i o n i n g Revis--did not r e s u l t confession being 675, 681 U.S. will being , cert. 131 denied, the S.Ct. 414 (2010)("This and bargaining-- do 37 not techniques-- necessarily 18, Court bad cop,' p r o v i d i n g a m o r a l l y a c c e p t a b l e answer, victim, or h i s (No. 0 9 - 1 5 3 9 , O c t o b e r previously held that various interrogation cop, overborne i n v o l u n t a r y . S e e W i l k e s v . S t a t e , 917 N . E . 2 d (Ind. 2009), 2010) i n Revis's has 'good blaming create an CR-06-0454 involuntary (Ind. 13, statement. 2 0 0 2 ) . ) . See 2009)(Mich. officer Pierce State, 761 a l s o P e o p l e v. S p r e s n y , App. also v. 2009)(not feigned attempting to empathize situation, and with portraying the his in defendant, supposed false 830 However, such confession. (1921), Jones, 395 an Delao v. State, Ct.App. in (No. part 236 37 9; 2006)(not friendly, N.W. including effort reported supportive, that the style on 2d likely Mich. 4 61 low of in key, keep to induce 80, N.W. grounds People v. (1 9 7 5 ) . " ) . See S.W.3d)("'the 504, befriend 513 (Tex. fact nonconfrontational that style Delao 'facilitate and gain a may i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s does not questioning Crim. also 2006)(Tex. i s improper or that r e s u l t i n g s t a t e m e n t s a r e i n v o l u n t a r y . ' L a n e v . S t a t e , 933 2d a 185 other 74, to the reputation 10-05-00323-CR , November 15, prove e f f e c t i v e i n e l i c i t i n g mean not P e o p l e v . U t t e r , 217 overruled Mich. are August temptations of i n q u i r y as assurances 824 N.W.2d)("The t h i s m a t t e r i n p e r s p e c t i v e and n o t have d e f e n d a n t ' s ruined. 821, (No. 2 8 4 2 2 2 , reported befriending N.E.2d App. 1996). Rozyskie's trust did his communication by supportive.'"). 38 being nothing attempts more friendly the S.W. to than and CR-06-0454 Moreover, indicating not cross See any that United statements Revis was l y i n g the boundaries States 2010] F. Supp.2d Artis, him confronting of lying crime. support him that a lying conclusion confrontational, a conclusion that they interrogations evidence.')." F.3d[175] at were 185 the law b u t i t does n o t See involve v . Owen, (1996)(the accusing Parsad[v. court pressure, with such questioning as was "good without cop/bad 202 W i s . 2 d 6 2 0 , 642 , found merit cop" that and and s t a t e d , Owen's claim police confrontational "The a d o p t i o n r o l e s by t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s and [the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s ] 39 and incriminating t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t was i n v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e o f i m p r o p e r tactics only [ ( 2 d C i r . 2003)] ( ' a l l suspects State and that coercive. inherently confront See a l s o 2 d 5 0 , 59 September 16, t o them w o u l d be a were routinely threats. of a finding of involuntariness officers custodial N.W. by becoming (D. V t . 2 0 1 0 ) ( " [ T ] h e supports 337 551 him of l y i n g d i d him with evidence of h i s g u i l t Greiner], officers made l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s q u e s t i o n e d Mr. evidence enforcement , after telling This or accusing [No. 5 : 1 0 - c r - 1 5 - 0 1 , i n favor is the fact that three the investigators of impropriety v. A r t i s , evidence that weighs that of accusation CR-06-0454 that Owen victim's] the was lying death fact that and t h a t he was responsible for are not improper p o l i c e procedures. the investigator raised h i s voice [the Further, and invaded Owen's s p a c e b y g e t t i n g c l o s e t o h i m does n o t e s t a b l i s h a c t u a l coercion."). v. S t a t e , Crim. See a l s o E s t r a d a App. 2 0 1 0 ) ( s t a t e m e n t police i n which he member of h i s youth 3 1 3 S.w. by E s t r a d a , admitted group a impregnating was not coerced 3 d 274 ( T e x . youth pastor, and murdering involuntary interrogation techniques: the use of t h e f o l l o w i n g accusing him o f i m p r e g n a t i n g and murdering t h e v i c t i m , telling his girlfriend he had admitted a l l e g a t i o n s and then a l l o w i n g t h e g i r l f r i e n d telling and h i m h e was t h e c e n t r a l accusing Here, Revis's Doster figure falsely to their t o meet w i t h h i m , i n the investigation, him of l y i n g ) . the t r i a l statement v. S t a t e , (Ala. a and despite that to Crim. court as d i dnot e r rby f a i l i n g involuntary. [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 0 3 2 3 , As July this to suppress court stated i n 30, 2010] So. 3d App. 2010): "When r e v i e w i n g a trial court's r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s , we u s e t h e s t a n d a r d a r t i c u l a t e d b y t h e A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t i n M c L e o d v . S t a t e , 718 So. 2 d 727 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) : 40 CR-06-0454 " ' F o r a c o n f e s s i o n , o r an i n c u l p a t o r y s t a t e m e n t , t o be a d m i s s i b l e , t h e S t a t e must p r o v e by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t i t was v o l u n t a r y . E x p a r t e S i n g l e t o n , 4 65 So. 2d 443, 445 ( A l a . 1985). The i n i t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s made b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . S i n g l e t o n , 465 S o . 2 d a t 4 4 5 . The trial court's determination will n o t be disturbed unless i t i s contrary to the great weight of the evidence or is m a n i f e s t l y wrong. M a r s c h k e v. S t a t e , 450 S o . 2 d 177 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) .... "'The Fifth Amendment to the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the United States provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "No p e r s o n ... s h a l l be c o m p e l l e d i n any c r i m i n a l c a s e t o be a witness against himself...." S i m i l a r l y , § 6 of the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n of 1901 provides that "in a l l criminal p r o s e c u t i o n s , t h e a c c u s e d ... s h a l l n o t b e compelled to give evidence against h i m s e l f . " These c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s e n s u r e t h a t no i n v o l u n t a r y c o n f e s s i o n , o r other i n c u l p a t o r y statement, i s admissible to convict the accused of a criminal o f f e n s e . Culombe v. C o n n e c t i c u t , 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S . C t . 18 60 , 6 L . E d . 2 d 1037 (1 9 6 1 ) ; H u b b a r d v . S t a t e , 283 A l a . 1 8 3 , 215 S o . 2 d 261 (1968). "'It has long been held that a c o n f e s s i o n , o r any i n c u l p a t o r y s t a t e m e n t , is involuntary i f i t i s either coerced t h r o u g h f o r c e o r i n d u c e d t h r o u g h an e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d p r o m i s e o f l e n i e n c y . Bram v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 168 U.S. 5 3 2 , 18 S . C t . 1 8 3 , 42 L . E d . 568 ( 1 8 9 7 ) . I n C u l o m b e , 367 U.S. a t 6 0 2 , 81 S . C t . a t 1 8 7 9 , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t of the U n i t e d S t a t e s e x p l a i n e d t h a t f o r a c o n f e s s i o n t o be v o l u n t a r y , t h e d e f e n d a n t m u s t h a v e t h e c a p a c i t y t o e x e r c i s e h i s own 41 CR-06-0454 free w i l l i n choosing to confess. I f h i s c a p a c i t y has been i m p a i r e d , t h a t i s , " i f h i s w i l l has been o v e r b o r n e " by c o e r c i o n o r inducement, then the confession is i n v o l u n t a r y and c a n n o t be admitted into evidence. I d . (emphasis added). "'The Supreme C o u r t has stated that when a court i s determining whether a c o n f e s s i o n was g i v e n v o l u n t a r i l y i t must consider the "totality of the c i r c u m s t a n c e . " B o u l d e n v . H o l m a n , 394 U.S. 4 7 8 , 480 89 S . C t . 1138 1 1 3 9 - 4 0 22 L . E d . 2d 4 33 ( ( 9 6 9 ) ; G r e e n w a l d v. W i s c o n s i n , 390 U.S. 5 1 9 , 521 88 S . C t . 1 1 5 2 , 1 1 5 4 , 20 L.Ed. 2 d 77 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ; s e e B e e c h e r v . A l a b a m a , 389 U.S. 3 5 , 38 , 88 S . C t . 1 8 9 , 1 9 1 , 19 L . E d . 2d 35 (1967). Alabama c o u r t s have a l s o h e l d t h a t a c o u r t must c o n s i d e r t h e t o t a l i t y o f the circumstances to determine i f the d e f e n d a n t ' s w i l l was o v e r b o r n e b y c o e r c i o n o r i n d u c e m e n t . See Ex p a r t e M a t t h e w s , 601 So. 2 d 5 2 , 54 ( A l a . ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t a c o u r t must a n a l y z e a c o n f e s s i o n by l o o k i n g a t t h e totality of the circumstance), cert. d e n i e d , 505 U.S. 1 2 0 6 , 112 S . C t . 2 9 9 6 , 120 L . E d . 2 d 872 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; J a c k s o n v . S t a t e , 562 So. 2 d 1 3 7 3 , 1380 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 990 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t , to admit a c o n f e s s i o n , a c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s w i l l was not o v e r b o r n e by p r e s s u r e s and circumstances s w i r l i n g around him); Eakes v . S t a t e , 387 So. 2 d 8 5 5 , 859 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978) ( s t a t i n g t h a t the t r u e t e s t to be employed i s "whether the defendant's will was overborne at the time he confessed")(emphasis added).' "718 Doster v. So. 2d State, at 729 So. (footnote 3d at 42 omitted)." . CR-06-0454 The totality statements Revis's in of the circumstances supports will the trial o f t h e i n t e r v i e w s and determination as a r e s u l t was n o t o v e r b o r n e court's of p o l i c e that tactics q u e s t i o n i n g him. E. Revis argues disclose one statement. stating the the State of h i s statements, at the preliminary who h a d i n f o r m e d informant, Revis didtestify alleges that the identity preliminary hearing at t r i a l ; record the during failed well as of the police at t r i a l at h i s brother's the State the basis y e t Swinney counsel h i s examination i m p r o p e r l y by the about to timely confidential the .22-caliber and y e t Shane Swinney, trial. preliminary defense that improperly of the confidential on testifying uncles's as hearing w o u l d n o t be t e s t i f y i n g disclose improperly He a l s o a l l e g e s t h a t t h e S t a t e a c t e d informant rifle that that informant he did testify hearing reveals sought the i d e n t i t y o f an i n v e s t i g a t o r failed would at the not at t r i a l . that to be The Revis's of the informant with the d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e . When t h e p r o s e c u t o r o b j e c t e d on t h e g r o u n d s that the defense was not entitled 43 to the name of the CR-06-0454 confidential informant testifying, and t h a t the informant the court sustained the objection would n o t be and s t a t e d the defense's a r g u m e n t s h o u l d b e made b y p r o p e r m o t i o n trial court. No further never raised this issue of p l a i n error. Rule from Brady Maryland, v. and any e r r o r made. i nthe Thus, must r i s e Revis to the level 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . R e v i s has n e i t h e r prejudice o b j e c t i o n s were that alleged Swinney's nor demonstrated testimony 373 U.S. 83 to prove (1963), the necessary a violation or Rule of 16.1, Ala.R.Crim.P. "To prove a Brady [v. Maryland, a defendant suppressed evidence; defendant; a n d (3) t h e e v i d e n c e was m a t e r i a l App. (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 2 ) ) . 83 v. S t a t e , In the Brady was favorable to the to the issues at (Ala. Crim. 612 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 8 , 1 2 9 3 context, "evidence i s only i f there i s a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y proceeding would 473 U.S. have to the defense, been 6 6 7 , 682 different." (1985). 44 (1963),] '"(1) t h e p r o s e c u t i o n 722 S o . 2 d 8 0 6 , 810 ( q u o t i n g Johnson the e v i d e n c e been d i s c l o s e d Bagley, that (2) t h e e v i d e n c e Freeman v. S t a t e , 1998) material show U.S. violation, trial."'" must 373 t h a t , had the result United of the States v. CR-06-0454 As to Rule 16, A l a . R . C r i m . P . , this court has s t a t e d : " R u l e 1 6 . 1 ( e ) , A l a . R . C r i m . P., s t a t e s , i n p a r t , that the defendant i s not e n t i t l e d to the discovery o r i n s p e c t i o n o f ' r e p o r t s , memoranda, w i t n e s s lists, o r o t h e r i n t e r n a l s t a t e / m u n i c i p a l i t y d o c u m e n t s made by ... l a w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n t s , i n connection with the i n v e s t i g a t i o n or prosecution of a case.' Additionally, The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t ' [ r ] e c o r d e d i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d by a p u b l i c officer i n confidence, pending criminal i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , and r e c o r d s t h e d i s c l o s u r e o f which w o u l d be d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p u b l i c ... may n o t b e s u b j e c t t o p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e . ' S t o n e v . C o n s o l i d a t e d P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 404 S o . 2 d 6 7 8 , 681 ( A l a . 1981). The q u e s t i o n of disclosure or nondisclosure of the identity of a confidential police informant i s a matter within t h e sound discretion of the t r i a l court, a n d we w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n a b s e n t an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . See Ex p a r t e P u g h , 493 So. 2 d 3 9 3 , 397 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . " May v . S t a t e , 710 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 2 , 1 3 6 9 ( A l a . C r i m . Here, Revis a result identity h a s n o t shown a n y i m p r o p r i e t y o r p r e j u d i c e as of the State's of the revealed Mauldin had had the r i f l e that retrieve the casings. Mauldin had been r e c e i v e d from Revis's not material alleged confidential hearing that App. 1997). failure to informant. the defense disclose the The counsel was preliminary aware and r e t r i e v e d i t t o f i r e that i t and The p e r s o n who h a d made t h e p o l i c e a w a r e i n possession uncle before to the case. 45 of the r i f l e passing that he h a d i t o f fto Cole was CR-06-0454 Additionally, with his f i r s t Revis contends s t a t e m e n t i n w h i c h he the o f f e n s e or h i s b r o t h e r ' s the motion to motions of suppress, were because trial. The hearing considered, these any the fact not involvement the date that fails to nor d i d he object provided he in filed his any allege on discovery prejudice this ground at Ala.R.App.P. record at was denied He timing, 45A, he statement u n t i l despite granted. this Rule that indicates that, which i t was several at the motions filed a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t he statements. At that time, the close by d i d not trial of a pretrial Revis were have c o p i e s court of stated: "On the first statement I want you to get the statement, and then y o u may want t o augment the r e c o r d i n t h a t r e g a r d a f t e r you've r e v i e w e d i t , and I'm g o i n g t o w i t h h o l d r u l i n g on t h e f i r s t s t a t e m e n t u n t i l y o u ' v e h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o a c t u a l l y s e e t h e statement." (R. 57.) Defense On of copy appeal, the counsel Revis statements agreed. argues until that because the date of he the was not given hearing, he p r e j u d i c e d . However, the t r i a l c o u r t w i t h h e l d h i s r u l i n g defense counsel trial had d i d not could review start his brother's Revis's first statement, f o r a week f o l l o w i n g t h i s h e a r i n g statement to 46 review before trial. was until and so a the Revis CR-06-0454 In T a y l o r this court v. S t a t e , 666 S o . 2 d 36 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994), held: "There is no evidence that the prosecutor deliberately withheld any evidence from the a p p e l l a n t . T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e b e l a t e d discovery of t h i s oral statement prejudiced the a p p e l l a n t . P r e j u d i c e caused by t h e l a t e d i s c l o s u r e i s a ' p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r a r e v e r s a l on t h i s i s s u e . ' P e t t w a y , 607 S o . 2 d a t 3 3 2 . S e e S t e w a r t v . S t a t e , 601 S o . 2 d 4 9 1 , 499 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ; R o b i n s o n v . S t a t e , 577 S o . 2 d 9 2 8 , 930 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) ; B r o w n v . S t a t e , 545 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 , 1 1 4 - 1 5 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f i r m e d , 545 S o . 2 d 122 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 493 U.S. 9 0 0 , 110 S . C t . 2 5 7 , 107 L . E d . 2 d 206 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . See a l s o D e B r u c e v . S t a t e , 651 S o . 2 d 5 9 9 , 622 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) ('"Tardy d i s c l o s u r e of Brady m a t e r i a l i s g e n e r a l l y not r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r unless t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n show t h a t he was d e n i e d a f a i r trial." ... A d e l a y i n d i s c l o s i n g Brady material requires reversal only i f the "lateness of the d i s c l o s u r e so p r e j u d i c e d a p p e l l a n t ' s p r e p a r a t i o n o r p r e s e n t a t i o n o f h i s d e f e n s e t h a t he was p r e v e n t e d from r e c e i v i n g h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y guaranteed f a i r trial."'). T h e r e i s no p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e j u r y would have r e s o l v e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s case d i f f e r e n t l y h a d t h e S t a t e d i s c l o s e d t h e o r a l s t a t e m e n t on a timely basis." Taylor [Ms. v. S t a t e , CR-07-0443, 666 S o . 2 d a t 5 4 . See a l s o R e y n o l d s v . October 1, 2 0 1 0 ] App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; S m i t h v. S t a t e , So. 3d ( A l a . Crim. [Ms. C R - 0 8 - 0 3 6 9 , F e b r u a r y 5, 2 0 1 0 ] So.3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. Moreover, not as t o t h e s t a t e m e n t b y R e v i s ' s b r o t h e r , admitted at his trial State, 2010.) although 47 there was i t was testimony or CR-06-0454 questioning implicated the that Revis statement prejudiced 1999), tapes made involved contended contained McCart that the course the tapes statement had has not a l l e g e d exculpatory of the lateness alleged w o u l d be e x c u l p a t o r y court anything confidential that Revis i n McCart v. S t a t e , during a the brother's i n the offense. as a r e s u l t Similarly, App. indicated that or that h e was of the d i s c l o s u r e . 765 S o . 2 d 21 h e was entitled (Ala. Crim. to certain of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n that informant surely that and p o l i c e contained officers. had He information that t o h i m o r one o f t h e c o d e f e n d a n t s . This stated: " R u l e 1 6 . 1 ( e ) , A l a . R . C r i m . P., s t a t e s , i n p a r t , that the defendant i s not e n t i t l e d to the discovery or i n s p e c t i o n o f ' r e p o r t s , memoranda, w i t n e s s lists, o r o t h e r i n t e r n a l s t a t e / m u n i c i p a l i t y d o c u m e n t s made b y ... l a w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n t s , i n connection with the i n v e s t i g a t i o n or prosecution of a case.' Additionally, The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t ' [ r ] e c o r d e d i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d by a p u b l i c officer i n confidence, pending criminal i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , and r e c o r d s t h e d i s c l o s u r e o f which w o u l d be d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p u b l i c ... may n o t b e s u b j e c t t o p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e . ' Stone v. C o n s o l i d a t e d P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 404 S o . 2 d 678, 681 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . The q u e s t i o n o f d i s c l o s u r e o r nondisclosure of the i d e n t i t y of a confidential police informant i s a matter within t h e sound discretion of the t r i a l court, a n d we w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n a b s e n t an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . See E x p a r t e P u g h , 493 So. 2 d 3 9 3 , 397 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . " 48 CR-06-0454 McCart v. S t a t e , Here, 765 S o . 2 d a t 2 3 . there deliberately was no withheld any p r e j u d i c e evidence indicating the statements that or that the Revis State suffered thereby. F. Revis suppressed hearsay that alleges that because, he and p r e j u d i c i a l certain dialog h i s statements says, they contained prior-bad-acts during should have inadmissible evidence. the interviews been He contained argues in his s t a t e m e n t s r e f e r t o i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s made b y h i s u n c l e and brother t h a t were n o t a d m i t t e d nor h i sbrother testified M o r e o v e r , he a r g u e s at alleges that he s a y s high-school he showed football d i d not attend trial. and other a bad c h a r a c t e r . showed Neither h i s uncle t h a t m e n t i o n was made c o n c e r n i n g f a c t t h a t he u s e d p a i n p i l l s he at t r i a l . a bad character team a f t e r Stidham's 1 3 references to acts The r e f e r e n c e s include arguing with f u n e r a l ; that the that t o acts t h a t he q u i t h i s h i s coach; he lied that tohis Although Revis seeks t o i n c o r p o r a t e h i s p r i o r - b a d - a c t s c l a i m r a i s e d i n Issue V o f h i s b r i e f here, only the references made d u r i n g t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n s w i l l b e a d d r e s s e d h e r e . 1 3 49 CR-06-0454 mother; t h a t he d a t e d he d r o p p e d out of high Revis Rule more t h a n one g i r l at a time; d i d n o t o b j e c t as t o t h e a l l e g e d h e a r s a y prior-bad-acts The statements admitted at t r i a l Ala.R.Evid. 2010] See Revis's by brother were Revis's Hillard to harmless a to interwoven in the a be statements. considered 1 4 On 28, A p p . 2 0 1 0 ) . The r e f e r e n c e s i n statements i f jury cross-examination of error h i s uncle at from These Revis and a l l . The by R e v i s ' s uncle confession the not May confession. by were 801(d)(2)(E), introduced to explain the circumstances could brother Rule t o a statement elicit Revis's and [Ms. C R - 0 9 - 0 2 8 2 , State, error, allusions used a p r e t r i a l motion t o d i d not v i o l a t e v. investigators' tactic uncle (Ala. Crim. interrogation at t r i a l , evidence. and thus So. 3d that school. 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . ; h o w e v e r , h e f i l e d exclude and and references were were were of the c o n f e s s i o n and in of weighing Investigator Revis's Mays, Revis's uncle originally denied involvement i n the m u r d e r a n d u l t i m a t e l y c o n f e s s e d t o t h e same f a c t s a s R e v i s . The c o n t e n t o f R e v i s ' s b r o t h e r ' s s t a t e m e n t i s n o t c l e a r f r o m t h e r e c o r d , a l t h o u g h he a p p a r e n t l y i m p l i c a t e d R e v i s i n t h e offense. 1 4 50 CR-06-0454 defense counsel e l i c i t e d testimony b r o t h e r had uncle and given statements. brother supra,(holding d i d not that The rebut the co-conspirator's reasonable doubt because and during planning the participate statement the testimony in because the of there an outstanding an u n r e l a t e d m i s d e m e a n o r c h a r g e . presented a strong the State's evidence to render the of g u i l t , t h i s improper admission directly identifying harmless beyond a reasonable State, 44 So. So. 43 (Ala. 2009), c e r t . 2010] 3d U.S. 3d 1, H i l l a r d as 25 , of See App. denied,[No. , present but did hiding warrant the cannot from his State say that i n the robbery also Brownfield 2007), as statement v. affirmed, 44 10-1110, November 1, (2010)("According to B r o w n f i e l d , he s h o u l d h a v e b e e n p e r m i t t e d t o i n t r o d u c e 51 not for Shackelford's doubt."). S.Ct. was so o v e r w h e l m i n g a participant (Ala. Crim. Hillard's Although Court o f H i l l a r d ' s g u i l t was a coconspirator's] t h a t he was a r r e s t on case he robbery [the testimony was that of beyond rebutted the Revis's statement harmless effect and Compare H i l l a r d , the "directly Likewise, negated H i l l a r d ' s police of not execution either. g i v e n by M a y s ' s own. was i t to and statements admission Hillard's statement that both Revis's uncle Smith's CR-06-0454 full statements t o law enforcement, constituted exculpatory inculpatory hearsay, during white hearsay i.e., automobile t o rebut the reference the interrogation that Chrysler statements the contends prosecution's by i n v e s t i g a t o r s someone h a d s e e n a t the Wallace he Lane someone in a residence on December 24. However, even a s s u m i n g t h a t B r o w n f i e l d i s c o r r e c t and t h e d e f e n s e s h o u l d have been a l l o w e d t o i n t r o d u c e t h e f u l l text of the officers' notes o n S m i t h ' s s t a t e m e n t s - - a n d we make no s u c h d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t e r r o r a c t u a l l y occurred--Brownfield w o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f b e c a u s e t h e e r r o r , was i f any, harmless."). Here, t h e r e f e r e n c e s t o statements made b y R e v i s ' s uncle and b r o t h e r d u r i n g t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n were h a r m l e s s i n l i g h t o f the evidence verdict. the level and would Moreover, of plain they n o t have were contributed n o t so e g r e g i o u s to the jury's as t o r i s e error. "'The standard of review i n reviewing a c l a i m under t h e p l a i n - e r r o r d o c t r i n e i s stricter than the standard used in r e v i e w i n g a n i s s u e t h a t was p r o p e r l y r a i s e d in the t r i a l c o u r t o r on a p p e a l . As t h e United States Supreme Court stated i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Y o u n g , 470 U.S. 1, 1 0 5 S.Ct. 1 0 3 8 , 84 L . E d . 2 d 1 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , t h e p l a i n - e r r o r doctrine applies only i fthe e r r o r i s " p a r t i c u l a r l y egregious" and i f i t 52 to CR-06-0454 "seriously affect[s] the fairness, i n t e g r i t y or p u b l i c r e p u t a t i o n of j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s . " S e e E x p a r t e P r i c e , 725 So. 2 d 1063 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 526 U.S. 1133, 119 S . C t . 1 8 0 9 , 143 L . E d . 2d 1012 (1999).'" Ex p a r t e Brown, 11 So. 3d 933, 935-36 ( A l a . 2008). Moreover, the r e f e r e n c e [during the interview] drug usage victim and was made to determine as a p o s s i b l e m o t i v e Revis's to Revis's connection to f o r the offense. T h u s , i t was e v i d e n c e o f p a r t o f t h e r e s g e s t a e o f t h e o f f e n s e as R e v i s accused stole of murdering pills from Stidham Stidham, acquisition of the p i l l s statements concerning introduced as an was during and the Revis's the a evidence reason drug robbery i n which indicates f o r the offense. usage were e x c e p t i o n to the e x c l u s i o n a r y "Alabama has long recognized the exceptions to the general e x c l u s i o n a r y c o n t a i n e d i n R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. E v i d . : was he that The therefore rule. following rule now "'"These e x c e p t i o n s f a l l under the f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l d i v i s i o n s : (1) R e l e v a n c y as p a r t o f r e s g e s t a e . (2) R e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e i d e n t i t y o f p e r s o n o r o f c r i m e . (3) Relevancy to prove scienter, or guilty k n o w l e d g e . (4) R e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e i n t e n t . (5) R e l e v a n c y t o s h o w m o t i v e . (6) R e l e v a n c y to prove system. (7) R e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e malice. (8) R e l e v a n c y to rebut special defenses. (9) Relevancy in various particular crimes."' 53 the CR-06-0454 " S c o t t v . S t a t e , 3 5 3 S o . 2 d 3 6 , 38 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1977), q u o t i n g Wharton's C r i m i n a l E v i d e n c e , § 31. "As P r o f e s s o r C h a r l e s G a m b l e e x p l a i n e d : "'Evidence of the accused's commission of another crime o r a c t i s a d m i s s i b l e i f such other incident i s inseparably connected w i t h t h e now-charged crime. Such c o l l a t e r a l misconduct has h i s t o r i c a l l y been a d m i t t e d as f a l l i n g w i t h i n t h e r e s g e s t a e of t h e crime f o r which t h e accused i s b e i n g p r o s e c u t e d . Most modern c o u r t s a v o i d use o f the term "res gestae" because of the d i f f i c u l t y i n m e a s u r i n g i t s b o u n d a r i e s . The b e t t e r d e s c r i p t i v e e x p r e s s i o n i s perhaps found in the requirement that the c o l l a t e r a l a c t be c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s w i t h t h e charged crime. This rule i s o f t e n expressed in terms of the other crime and t h e now-charged crime being parts of one c o n t i n u o u s t r a n s a c t i o n o r one c o n t i n u o u s c r i m i n a l o c c u r r e n c e . T h i s i s b e l i e v e d t o be t h e g r o u n d o f a d m i s s i o n i n t e n d e d when t h e c o u r t s speak i n terms o f a d m i t t i n g other a c t s t o show t h e " c o m p l e t e s t o r y " o f t h e c h a r g e d c r i m e . The c o l l a t e r a l a c t s m u s t b e v i e w e d as an i n t e g r a l and n a t u r a l p a r t o f the circumstances surrounding the commission of the charged crime. "'Two t h e o r i e s h a v e b e e n a d o p t e d f o r justifying the admission of collateral misconduct under the p r e s e n t principle. Some c o u r t s h o l d t h a t s u c h c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s a c t s a r e p a r t o f t h e charged crime and, t h e r e f o r e , do n o t c o n s t i t u t e " o t h e r c r i m e s , wrongs, o r a c t s " as i s g e n e r a l l y e x c l u d e d under Rule 404(b). Other c o u r t s h o l d t h a t Rule 404(b) i s applicable to these c o l l a t e r a l acts but that they are offered 54 CR-06-0454 for a permissible purpose under that rule-i.e., that such acts are merely o f f e r e d , rather than t o prove bad c h a r a c t e r a n d c o n f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h , t o show a l l t h e circumstances surrounding the charged crime.' "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 ( 5 t h e d . 1996) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . § 69.01(3) "'[One such] "special circumstance" where e v i d e n c e of other crimes may be relevant and a d m i s s i b l e i s where such e v i d e n c e was p a r t o f t h e c h a i n o r s e q u e n c e o f e v e n t s w h i c h became p a r t o f t h e h i s t o r y of t h e case and formed p a r t o f t h e n a t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e f a c t s . Commonwealth v. M u r p h y , 3 4 6 P a . S u p e r . 4 3 8 , 4 9 9 A. 2 d 1 0 8 0 , 1082 (1985), quoting Commonwealth v. W i l l i a m s , 307 P a . 1 3 4 , 1 4 8 , 160 A. 6 0 2 , 607 (1932). This special circumstance, sometimes r e f e r r e d t o as t h e " r e s g e s t a e " exception to the general proscription against evidence of other crimes, i s also known as t h e complete story rationale, i.e., evidence of other criminal acts i s a d m i s s i b l e " t o complete the s t o r y of the c r i m e on t r i a l b y p r o v i n g i t s i m m e d i a t e context of happenings near i n time and place."' " C o m m o n w e a l t h v . L a r k , 518 P a . 2 9 0 , 3 0 3 , 5 4 3 A. 2 d 4 9 1 , 497 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . E v i d e n c e o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s c r i m i n a l actions during the course of a crime spree i s a d m i s s i b l e . S e e P h i n i z e e v . S t a t e , 983 S o . 2 d 3 2 2 , 330 ( M i s s . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) ( ' E v i d e n c e o f p r i o r b a d a c t s i s a d m i s s i b l e t o " [ t ] e l l t h e c o m p l e t e s t o r y so as n o t t o c o n f u s e t h e j u r y . " ' ) ; Commonwealth v. R o b i n s o n , 581 P a . 1 5 4 , 2 1 6 , 864 A. 2 d 4 6 0 , 497 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ('The i n i t i a l a s s a u l t on S a m - C a l i t o o k p l a c e a p p r o x i m a t e l y two weeks b e f o r e t h e F o r t n e y h o m i c i d e a n d S a m - C a l i ' s testimony p r o v i d e d the j u r y w i t h a "complete s t o r y " 55 CR-06-0454 of A p p e l l a n t ' s c r i m i n a l spree from the Burghardt h o m i c i d e i n A u g u s t o f 1992 t o A p p e l l a n t ' s c a p t u r e i n J u l y o f 1 9 9 3 . ' ) ; S t . C l a i r v . C o m m o n w e a l t h , 140 S.W. 3d 510, 535 (Ky. 22004 ('Here, t h e trial court properly permitted the Commonwealth t o introduce e v i d e n c e o f A p p e l l a n t ' s p r i o r c r i m e s and bad acts t h a t were p a r t of a c o n t i n u o u s course of conduct i n the form of a "crime spree" that began with A p p e l l a n t ' s e s c a p e f r o m an O k l a h o m a j a i l a n d e n d e d w i t h h i s f l i g h t f r o m T r o o p e r B e n n e t t . ' ) ; P e o p l e v. Sholl, 453 Mich. 730, 556 N.W. 2d 851 (1996) ('"Evidence of other a c t s i s a d m i s s i b l e when so blended or connected with the crime of which d e f e n d a n t i s a c c u s e d t h a t p r o o f o f one incidentally i n v o l v e s the other or e x p l a i n s the circumstances of t h e c r i m e . " ' ) ; S t a t e v . C h a r o , 156 A r i z . 5 6 1 , 565, 754 P. 2 d 2 8 8 , 292 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ('"The ' c o m p l e t e s t o r y ' e x c e p t i o n to the r u l e e x c l u d i n g evidence of p r i o r bad a c t s h o l d s t h a t e v i d e n c e of o t h e r c r i m i n a l a c t s i s a d m i s s i b l e when so c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e c r i m e o f which defendant is accused that proof of one incidentally i n v o l v e s the other or e x p l a i n s the circumstances o f t h e c r i m e . " ' ) ; S t a t e v. L o n g , 195 Or. 81, 112, 244 P. 2 d 1 0 3 3 , 1047 (1952) ( ' I t i s fundamental that the state is entitled to the b e n e f i t o f any e v i d e n c e w h i c h i s r e l e v a n t t o the i s s u e , even though i t concerns the commission of the c o l l a t e r a l crimes. I f evidence of a c o l l a t e r a l crime tends to prove the commission of the crime charged i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t , t h e g e n e r a l r u l e o f e x c l u s i o n has no a p p l i c a t i o n . ' ) ; S t a t e v . S c h o e n , 34 O r . A p p . 105, 109, 578 P. 2d 420, 422 (1978) ('The evidence, t h e r e f o r e , was r e l e v a n t t o c o m p l e t e t h e s t o r y o f t h e crime charged The s t a t e i s not required to "sanitize" i t s evidence by deleting background i n f o r m a t i o n to the p o i n t t h a t the evidence a c t u a l l y p r e s e n t e d seems i m p r o b a b l e o r i n c r e d i b l e . ' ) . " Doster , v. State, [Ms. CR-06-0323, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010). 56 J u l y 30, 2010] So. 3d CR-06-0454 Because R e v i s ' s drug interwoven to the i n the was o f f e n s e , i t was exclusionary rule. showed R e v i s ' s m o t i v e was use p a r t of the res gestae a d m i s s i b l e as Moreover, i n committing because the an exception this evidence capital offense, i t also admissible. "In a d d i t i o n , 'evidence tending to establish m o t i v e i ss a l w a y s a d m i s s i b l e . ' J o r d a n v . S t a t e , 629 S o . 2 d 7 3 8 , 741 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993), c e r t . denied, 511 U.S. 1112, 114 S.Ct. 2112, 128 L.Ed. 2d 671(1994). 1990)]:As this court stated in B r a d l e y [ v . S t a t e , 577 So. 2d 541 (Ala.Crim.App.1990)]: "'"If a crime is clearly shown t o h a v e b e e n c o m m i t t e d by t h e a c c u s e d , as i n t h e c a s e o f one intentionally and without cause s t r i k i n g a d e a d l y blow w i t h an ax, the q u e s t i o n of motive would be of l i t t l e importance. But where the d i r e c t e v i d e n c e i s in conflict as t o w h e t h e r the accused did the act, or is p a r t i a l l y or w h o l l y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l upon t h a t issue, t h e q u e s t i o n o f m o t i v e becomes a leading inquiry." " ' F u l l e r v . S t a t e , 269 A l a . 3 1 2 , 113 S o . 2 d 153, 175 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 361 U.S. 9 3 6 , 80 S . C t . 3 8 0 , 4 L . E d . 2 d 358 (1960) ( q u o t i n g H a r d e n v . S t a t e , 211 A l a . 6 5 6 , 101 S o . 4 4 2 , 444 ( 1 9 2 4 ) ) . " I t i s p e r m i s s i b l e i n e v e r y c r i m i n a l c a s e t o s h o w t h a t t h e r e was an i n f l u e n c e , an i n d u c e m e n t , o p e r a t i n g on t h e a c c u s e d , w h i c h may h a v e l e d o r t e m p t e d him t o commit t h e o f f e n s e . " Bowden v. 57 and CR-06-0454 State, 538 So. 2d 1988)(quoting e a r l i e r Bowden ) . ' "577 Presley affirmed, 770 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 , 110 770 S o . 2 d 114 5 3 1 U.S. Similarly, by Revis he quit football attend 1235 ( A l a . emphasis i n So. 2d a t 5 4 9 . " v. S t a t e , Alabama, 1226, cases, that 881 (2000). t h e s t a t e m e n t s made d u r i n g after arguing the victim's 1999), ( A l a . 2000), c e r t . d e n i e d , P r e s l e y v. r e f e r r e d to the other d a t e d more t h a n one g i r l of high the interview bad acts, including cited that w i t h h i s c o a c h , t h a t he d i d n o t f u n e r a l , t h a t he l i e d he school, ( A l a . C r i m . App. a t a time, were not o v e r l y t o h i s mother, a n d t h a t he d r o p p e d o u t prejudicial. " ' " ' " P r e j u d i c i a l " i s used i n t h i s phrase to l i m i t the i n t r o d u c t i o n of p r o b a t i v e evidence of p r i o r m i s c o n d u c t o n l y when i t i s u n d u l y and unfairly prejudicial.' [ C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . ] 'Of c o u r s e , "prejudice, in this context, means m o r e t h a n s i m p l y damage t o the opponent's cause. A party's case i s always damaged by evidence that the facts are contrary to h i s contention; but that cannot be grounds for e x c l u s i o n . What i s m e a n t h e r e i s an undue t e n d e n c y t o move t h e t r i b u n a l t o d e c i d e on a n i m p r o p e r b a s i s commonly t h o u g h n o t a l w a y s , 58 that CR-06-0454 an e m o t i o n a l o n e . " ' " A v e r e t t e v . S t a t e , s u p r a , a t 1374. " ' " [ R o b i n s o n v . S t a t e , ] 528 S o . 2 d [ 3 4 3 ] a t 347 [ ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) ] . See a l s o H o c k e r v. S t a t e , 840 S o . 2 d 1 9 7 , 2 1 3 - 1 4 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . " ' " M c M i l l a n v. S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 8 - 1 9 5 4 , N o v e m b e r 3d App. ( A l a . Crim. CR-06-1723, December App. 2010), 5, 2 0 1 0 ] q u o t i n g Baker 18 , 200 9] S o . 3d v. So. State, , [Ms. (Ala. Crim. 2009). The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t m o s t o f t h e c o m m e n t s these alleged bad acts were made by Revis concerning in answering q u e s t i o n s p o s e d by I n v e s t i g a t o r Mays c o n c e r n i n g h i s a c t i v i t i e s around the time of m u r d e r . The c o m m e n t s emphasized. 2010] See So. the v. d i d not use t h i s imply weak case evidence facts 7 S o . 3d 3 9 7 , 430 State, [Ms. C R - 9 9 - 1 3 4 9 , statements [Ms. CR-07-1913, App. to confuse which against State, Revis's h i s involvement ( A l a . Crim. the i n f e r e n c e of a State, , State bolster and i n the w e r e s i m p l y o f f h a n d e d a n d w e r e i n no Dotch 3d offense the do October the jury, or " ' t o not e x i s t , ' " or "'to App. 2, 2 0 0 9 ] Blackmon v. Johnson v. 2005).' So. 3d a t were p r o p e r l y a l l o w e d i n t o 59 2, 2 010)("...'The defendant.'" ( A l a .Crim. April way . " ) . evidence. CR-06-0454 II. Revis evidence James argues the testimony Laurdison, admitted at Laurdison hearsay not was not admitted Revis could e x a m i n e r who notes and allowed he could body; into the f o r him had not and have that evidence to rely the done was not contends that Dr. based on notes so i t was and Dr. was that were and; x-rays that the autopsy should of and not x-rays i t to the j u r y the the that because v i c t i m ' s cause based and argues cross-examine Laurdison the although h i s notes Revis conducted autopsy because on and Dr. to that testimony and or p r e s e n t e d actually as Dr. inadmissible confront testify examiner, evidence opinion at t r i a l was and; medical Revis evidence. evidence not on allowing into p a t h o l o g i s t ' s notes, into x-rays to a give not p r e s e n t into State's based to testimony impermissible c o u r t e r r e d by Specifically, from allowed Laurdison's the was allowed evidence trial of that trial. was pathologist were t h a t the medical made have death the been because on the photographs of evidence was improperly allowed not State. 60 disclosed to the defense the by CR-06-0454 A. Revis allowed were not contends to give allowed pathologist], conducted Ex parte that into evidence, and the autopsy. I n Ex parte Laurdison should h i s o p i n i o n , w h i c h was notes Wesley, Dr. 575 1 5 So. Wesley, x-rays based not on have been sources that specifically Dr. made Shores, by Dr. Shores's, He a r g u e s t h a t t h i s t e s t i m o n y 2d the 127 (Ala. Court when [a he violated 1990). stated: " I n N a s h v . C o s b y , 574 So. 2 d 700 ( A l a . 1990), we m o d i f i e d t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l r u l e . I n t h a t c a s e , we adopted a standard which allows a medical expert to g i v e o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y b a s e d i n p a r t on t h e o p i n i o n s o f o t h e r s when t h o s e o t h e r o p i n i o n s a r e f o u n d in medical records admitted into evidence. N e v e r t h e l e s s , our h o l d i n g i n Nash does not c o n t r o l the r e s u l t of t h i s case. "'There is a trend toward the admission of an expert's opinion based partly on medical, psychological, or h o s p i t a l r e p o r t s not i n evidence i f the r e p o r t s are of a type c u s t o m a r i l y r e l i e d upon by t h e e x p e r t i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f h i s profession. Annot., 55 A.L.R. 3d 551 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . However, t h i s t r e n d has not been f o l l o w e d by t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e . T h i s is in accord with the general and traditional rule. [See] 31 Am.Jur. 2d The r e c o r d however i n d i c a t e s t h a t , upon m o t i o n by defense counsel, Dr. Shores's notes were admitted into e v i d e n c e ; however, i t i s u n c l e a r i f t h e y were e v e r submitted to the j u r y or i f they admitted only f o r the r e c o r d on appeal.(R. 410-11. ) 1 5 61 CR-06-0454 E x p e r t and (1967).' Opinion Evidence, Section 86 "Brackin [v. S t a t e , 417 So 2nd 602.], at 60 6 [(Ala.Crim.App.1982)]. (Citations omitted.) See S a l o t t i v . S e a b o a r d C o a s t L i n e R.R., 293 A l a . 1, 299 So. 2 d 695 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . S e e , a l s o , 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 , § 130.01 (3d e d . 1 9 7 7 ) . " T h u s , i n N a s h we m o d i f i e d t h e C o u r t Appeals' testimony of holding i n Brackin of medical as experts i t relates based on o t h e r s ; b u t Nash has not changed t h e rule which f o l l o w e d i n Alabama the expert relies that must of C r i m i n a l the to the opinions traditional t h e i n f o r m a t i o n upon be in evidence.FN 1 "There are r e c o g n i z e d e x c e p t i o n s to t h i s r u l e . The Court of Criminal Appeals has also r e c o g n i z e d an e x c e p t i o n w h e r e t h e e x p e r t i s a d e p u t y c o r o n e r who u s e s a t o x i c o l o g i s t ' s a u t o p s y r e p o r t a s p a r t o f t h e b a s i s f o r h i s t e s t i m o n y . See J a c k s o n v . State, 412 S o . 2 d 302 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1982); W o o d a r d v . S t a t e , 401 S o . 2 d 300 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1981). "'"[Nevertheless, our] cases are consistent i n holding that an expert w i t n e s s may g i v e o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y b a s e d u p o n e i t h e r f a c t s o f w h i c h he h a s p e r s o n a l knowledge or f a c t s which a r e assumed i n a h y p o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n . . . . In e i t h e r event, 'the facts known to the expert or h y p o t h e [ s i z e d ] must be f a c t s i n e v i d e n c e . ' H a g l e r v . G i l l i l a n d , 292 A l a . 2 6 2 , 2 6 5 , 292 So. 2 d 647 (1974)." 62 CR-06-0454 "'"An expert may give his opinion b a s e d u p o n h i s own k n o w l e d g e o f t h e f a c t s , s t a t i n g these f a c t s , then h i s o p i n i o n ; or, he may give an opinion based upon a h y p o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n , b a s e d upon f a c t s i n e v i d e n c e . I n e i t h e r c a s e , t h e f a c t s known to the e x p e r t or [ h y p o t h e s i z e d ] must be facts i n evidence. Blakeney v. Alabama P o w e r Co., 222 A l a . 3 9 4 , 133 So. 16, 18 (19 3 1 ) . " ' " W e l c h v . H o u s t o n C o u n t y H o s p . B d . , 502 So. 2 d 3 4 0 , 345 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , q u o t i n g Thompson v. J a r r e l l , 460 So. 2d 148, 150 ( A l a . 1 984 ) . (Emphasis added i n Welch .) See, a l s o , Romine v. M e d i c e n t e r s o f A m e r i c a , Inc., 476 So. 2 d 51 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . " I n N a s h we r e c o g n i z e d t h a t ' t h e r e c e n t t r e n d h a s been toward a l l o w i n g e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y t h a t i s based upon m e d i c a l or h o s p i t a l or p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e c o r d s , e v e n i n some c a s e s w h e r e t h o s e r e c o r d s a r e n o t i n evidence.' 574 So. 2d a t 704. (Emphasis added.) There, t h e r e c o r d s upon w h i c h the e x p e r t p a r t i a l l y based his testimony were in evidence. Our r e c o g n i t i o n of the r e c e n t t r e n d , however, i s not to be t a k e n as an a d o p t i o n o f t h a t t r e n d , e s p e c i a l l y c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t the f a c t s i n Nash would not support o u r d o i n g s o . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e p h r a s e ' e v e n i n some cases where t h o s e [medical] records are not in e v i d e n c e ' s h o u l d be g i v e n no s i g n i f i c a n c e i n s o f a r a s the law of t h i s s t a t e i s concerned. 1 Ex p a r t e Wesley, This Court and 575 i s s u e was determined [Ms. 1080350, Mills argued So. 2d recently at addressed adversely September 3, that testimony 128-29. 2010] from 63 to by Revis. So. a medical the Alabama In 3d Ex parte (Ala. e x a m i n e r as Supreme Mills, 2010), to the CR-06-0454 victims' on causes the notes o f d e a t h was and findings i n a d m i s s i b l e b e c a u s e i t was of another performed the autopsy and Moreover, the autopsy r e p o r t t h a t was was prepared Mills, that as he by yet (R. 404.) could medical case, present The available not admitted examiner. as to the Alabama the had trial. at trial Ex parte testified of death into autopsy expert's Supreme C o u r t and as i n t h e p r e s e n t that photographs testimony as determined to as the case, had alone cause follows: "In M i l l s ' s case, the S t a t e argues that Dr. Snell's testimony r e g a r d i n g the H i l l s ' causes of d e a t h was n o t i n a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r Ex p a r t e W e s l e y [ 5 7 5 So 2d 127 ( A l a . 1 990),] because, the State s a y s , t h e f a c t s Dr. S n e l l r e l i e d upon i n f o r m i n g h i s o p i n i o n were i n e v i d e n c e . In t h i s r e g a r d , the S t a t e n o t e s t h a t D r . S n e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r e l i e d o n l y on c e r t a i n ' f a c t u a l ' p o r t i o n s o f t h e i t e m s - - s u c h a s t h e a u t o p s y r e p o r t s p r e p a r e d by Dr. James L a u r d i s o n b a s e d on D r . J o h n n y G l e n n ' s notes or the diagram p r e p a r e d by Dr. G l e n n - - t h a t were not i n e v i d e n c e . The S t a t e c o n t e n d s , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n those 'factual' p o r t i o n s of the items not in evidence was in conformity with the autopsy p h o t o g r a p h s t h a t were i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . 64 on evidence. t h a t the t e s t i f y i n g medical examiner f o r the support In cause who for the medical examiner M o r e o v e r , i n Ex p a r t e M i l l s , not death. not of the body t h a t were a d m i t t e d the a p p e l l a n t s argued been was basing his testimony the photographs not another i n the present was who medical examiner based of CR-06-0454 "The State also maintains that Dr. Snell's t e s t i m o n y was a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r t h e e x c e p t i o n noted i n Ex p a r t e W e s l e y 'where t h e e x p e r t i s a deputy c o r o n e r who u s e s a t o x i c o l o g i s t ' s a u t o p s y r e p o r t a s part of the b a s i s f o r h i s testimony.' 575 S o . 2 d a t 129 ( c i t i n g J a c k s o n v . S t a t e , 412 S o . 2 d 302 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ) , a n d W o o d a r d v . S t a t e , 401 S o . 2 d 300 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) ) . In b o t h J a c k s o n and Woodard, t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t a c o r o n e r who h a d p e r s o n a l l y o b s e r v e d t h e b o d i e s c o u l d g i v e an o p i n i o n a b o u t t h e c a u s e o f d e a t h e v e n t h o u g h t h e c o r o n e r ' s o p i n i o n was a l s o b a s e d on i n f o r m a t i o n in autopsy reports that the coroner had not p r e p a r e d . J a c k s o n , 412 S o . 2 d a t 3 0 6 ; W o o d a r d , 401 So. 2 d a t 3 0 3 . "Mills attempts to d i s t i n g u i s h Jackson and Woodard by a r g u i n g that u n l i k e the coroners who t e s t i f i e d i n t h o s e c a s e s , D r . S n e l l was n o t p r e s e n t when the autopsies were p e r f o r m e d and d i d n o t p e r s o n a l l y observe the bodies of Floyd and V e r a H i l l . We f i n d t h a t d i s t i n c t i o n u n a v a i l i n g . I n t h i s c a s e , D r . S n e l l r e l i e d on t h e p h o t o g r a p h s f r o m t h e autopsies, w h i c h were a d m i t t e d into evidence. As n o t e d i n M i l l s I [ M i l l s v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 2 2 4 6 , J u n e 27 , 2 0 0 8 ] - So 3d - ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2008 ) ] , t h e r e was a n a b u n d a n c e o f e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g , among other things, that the photographs accurately d e p i c t e d t h e b o d i e s a t t h e time t h e a u t o p s i e s were p e r f o r m e d and t h a t t h e p h o t o g r a p h s were c o n s i s t e n t with the f a c t u a l information i n the autopsy reports and t h e d i a g r a m . M i l l s a s s e r t s t h a t ' t h e i d e a t h a t a set of photographs could convey a l l of the detailed information, i n c l u d i n g measurements and impressions, contained in a six-page narrative a u t o p s y r e p o r t ... i s u n s u p p o r t a b l e . ' (Mills's reply b r i e f , p . 13.) B u t M i l l s h a s n o t o f f e r e d a n y r e a s o n why D r . S n e l l ' s o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e b o d i e s b y m e a n s o f e x a m i n i n g t h e a u t o p s y p h o t o g r a p h s s h o u l d n o t be considered the functional equivalent of the coroners' personal observation of the bodies i n J a c k s o n and Woodard. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e S t a t e has 65 CR-06-0454 shown t h a t Dr. Snell's t e s t i m o n y was admissible under the l i m i t e d e x c e p t i o n r e c o g n i z e d i n Jackson and Woodard. Ex parte Mills, Because of So. Dr. 3d at (footnotes omitted). L a u r d i s o n based t h e b u l l e t wounds t h a t w o u l d case on properly what he observed admitted into h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o have been f a t a l in the evidence, i n the present photographs, there was each no which error were in his testimony. B. Revis argues not allowed examiner The t h a t h i s r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d because to who confront had conducted record indicates who had p e r f o r m e d of Forensic Sciences trial. His and as testified Dr. the that was not testified cross-examine Dr. William would any left admitted affected 66 medical "Art" Shores, the Alabama at from his the Department at the trial, and c o n c e r n i n g Stidham's a r g u m e n t a s t o how have the A. incapacitated photographs was autopsy. c o n c e r n i n g the photographs to r a i s e Shores and were d e p i c t e d i n the failed to the a u t o p s y , had notes medical examiner and he of time of another cause of death Stidham's autopsy. wounds Revis has a c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n of defense. CR-06-0454 Although was he important which may argued t h a t the medical because have his been uncle the had cause examiner's slit of testimony Stidham's death, Dr. throat, Laurdison testified t h a t t h e c u t was not deep enough t o have r e a c h e d arteries and have Moreover, he thus further gunshot wounds Perkins v. State, the 897 by So. to 2d nothing death. fail added to decision Alabama through how 'fact-finding consistent Dr. to process.' with suggest the that We expert See, Crim. e.g., App. the had of he Embry Wysteria's would note have that our decisions in admission of e x p e r t testimony e m p l o y e d by the which witness Department of a d d r e s s i n g the C o n f r o n t a t i o n Clause H e n d e r s o n v. 1990), App. previous witness Sciences without the fatal. Dr. presence ... of Crim. Embry, cause 397.) been (Ala. Dr. Embry's one t h e r e p o r t o f an u n a v a i l a b l e f o r e n s i c e x p e r t another Forensic (Ala. is see c o u r t s have u p h e l d b a s e d on issue. the to (R. than have 465 cross-examine c h a n g e d h i s o p i n i o n as to more would 457, would have We survivable. that Revis submitted opportunity been determined inflicted 2 0 0 4 ) ( " P e r k i n s has had would the aff'd, S t a t e , 583 583 67 So. 2d So. 305 2d 276, (Ala. 290-91 1991)."). CR-06-0454 Revis rather was not t h a n Dr. incapacitated p r e j u d i c e d by Shores at 3d the , time of Glenn challenge opinion was to the went to at Dr. Dr. testifying Shores's App. So. the 2008 ) , 3d time facts that formed the the weight the jury 2008] affirmed, ( A l a . 2010) of either [Ms. ("Even autopsy, basis was Laurdison's [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 2 2 4 6 , J u n e 2 7 , 2010] incompetent that affect trial (Ala. Crim. 1 0 8 0 3 5 0 , S e p t e m b e r 3, if Laurdison's nor d i d the f a c t t e s t i m o n y . See M i l l s v . S t a t e , So. Dr. for assigned any Snell's to his testimony."). C. Revis argues that the autopsy e v i d e n c e was not disclosed by t h e S t a t e , and t h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e Dr. L a u r d i s o n ' s t e s t i m o n y was into based on t h e s e m a t e r i a l s , e v i d e n c e . He The following examination o f Dr. i t s h o u l d not have been a l l o w e d specifically transpired refers at t o Dr. trial Shores's during the notes. cross- Laurdison: "A. [ D r . L a u r d i s o n ] T h o s e a r e t h e h a n d w r i t t e n n o t e s t h a t Dr. S h o r e s c r e a t e d . I have a partial evidence form here a l s o t h a t i n d i c a t e s the presence of t h e b u l l e t s . "[Defense c o u n s e l ] : Your Honor, a t t h i s time I w o u l d l i k e , i f t h e C o u r t w o u l d p e r m i t me, b e c a u s e o f t h e s e r i o u s n a t u r e o f t h i s c a s e t o h a v e -- a n d t h e 68 CR-06-0454 f a c t t h a t Dr. Shores i s n ' t here, I would l i k e t o h a v e t h o s e h a n d w r i t t e n n o t e s c o p i e d a n d made a p a r t of t h e r e c o r d . "[Prosecutor]: No objection. "THE COURT: C e r t a i n l y t h e y have they r e v i e w e d b y d e f e n s e c o u n s e l b e f o r e t o d a y ? Were made a v a i l a b l e t o y o u , o r w a s t h i s t h e f i r s t you've seen them? been they time "[Defense c o u n s e l ] : That's t h e f i r s t time I've s e e n t h o s e h a n d w r i t t e n n o t e s as f a r a s I know. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : I've never copy o f them, Judge. been p r o v i d e d w i t h a "THE COURT: D u r i n g t h e b r e a k w e ' l l make a c o p y of them, a n d I presume y o u want them as p a r t o f t h e f i l e , b u t not o f f e r e d and admitted i n t o evidence; i s that correct? "[Defense and counsel]: Sir? "THE COURT: A r e y o u a s k i n g t h a t t h e y b e o f f e r e d admitted into evidence? " [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : Y e s , s i r , I am a s k i n g t h a t t h e y be o f f e r e d a n d a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . "THE COURT: O b j e c t i o n s t o t h a t ? "[Prosecutor]: "THE No, s i r . COURT: T h e y ' r e admitted. "[Defense counsel]: I feel f o r future t h a t t h a t needs t o be done a t t h i s p o i n t . review "THE COURT: W e ' l l c o p y w h a t y o u h a v e , a n d t h e y will be a d m i t t e d into evidence as Defendant's E x h i b i t No. 1. W e ' l l d o t h a t d u r i n g t h e b r e a k . " 69 CR-06-0454 (R. 410-11.) Thus, t h e p r o s e c u t o r no evidence that d i dn o t have t h e notes, the prosecutor Further, a c o p y was made See parte Ex 1996)(finding and there i s deliberately withheld them. f o r t h e defense by t h e t r i a l Windsor, 683 So. 2d 1042, "'no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e S t a t e court. 1055 ( A l a . f a i l e d t o make that e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e as soon as p r a c t i c a b l e i n t h i s c a s e ' " ) . See also Taylor v. 1994)("There withheld evidence that prejudiced the disclosure i s a Pettway So. [v. that from the belated 2d 3 6 , 54 the appellant. Prejudice Crim. oral caused by 607 So. 2d the [325] See S t e w a r t v. S t a t e , (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Brown (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), affirmed, denied, U.S. 900, v. S t a t e , 110 (1989)."). 70 no late issue.' at 332 601 So. 2 d 4 9 1 , 577 S o . 2 d 9 2 8 , 930 545 So. 2 d 106, 114-15 545 So. 2 d 122 S.Ct. i s statement ' p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r a r e v e r s a l on t h i s State], App. deliberately There of this (Ala.Cr.App. 1992); R o b i n s o n v. S t a t e , 493 (Ala. the prosecutor discovery appellant. [(Ala.Crim.App.1992)]. 499 666 i s no e v i d e n c e any indication State, 257, 107 (Ala.), L.Ed. cert. 2d 206 CR-06-0454 Moreover, R e v i s has f a i l e d t o show o r a r g u e any prejudice as a r e s u l t of h i s i n a b i l i t y to review the notes u n t i l See Reynolds CR-07-443, 50. 3d v. State, , demonstrated reasonable [Ms. (Ala. Crim. that had he probability App. October 1, that ... 2010] 2010)("Reynolds been p r o v i d e d the notes the r e s u l t has not 'there i s a of the proceeding would have been d i f f e r e n t . ' Giles, 906 also J e n n i n g s v. So. 1112, 1119-26 App. 2006). erred State, 965 2d So. trial. 2d a t 9 7 3 . " ) . See (Ala. Crim. Ill. Revis physical argues that evidence c u s t o d y . He shell keep casings. track of trial court he that specifically evidence c o l l e c t e d the the says lacked refers He the proper admitting chain t o the v i c t i m ' s body, from the body, the r i f l e , contends that evidence" and undermined the r e l i a b i l i t y chain a in "a autopsy the b u l l e t s , complete "sloppy o f the e v i d e n c e and failure police and to work" "destroyed the of custody from the v e r y b e g i n n i n g . " (Revis's b r i e f 51. ) "'In Ex p a r t e S l a t o n , 680 So. 2 d 909 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 1 9 U.S. 1 0 7 9 , 117 S . C t . 742, 136 L . E d . 2 d 680 ( 1 9 9 7 ) , t h e A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t 71 of at CR-06-0454 discussed the requirements chain of custody: for establishing "'"Ex p a r t e H o l t o n , 590 S o . 2 d 918 ( A l a . 1991), s e t s forth t h e l e g a l a n a l y s i s t o be a p p l i e d in determining i f a proper chain of custody has been e s t a b l i s h e d : "'"'The chain of custody i s composed o f "links." A "link" i s a n y o n e who h a n d l e d t h e item. The State must i d e n t i f y each l i n k from the time the item was seized. In order to show a p r o p e r c h a i n o f custody, the record must show e a c h l i n k a n d also the f o l l o w i n g with regard t o each link's possession of the item: "(1) [the] r e c e i p t of the item; (2) [the] ultimate d i s p o s i t i o n of the item, i . e . , transfer, destruction, or r e t e n t i o n ; and (3) [the] s a f e g u a r d i n g and handling of the item between receipt and d i s p o s i t i o n . " Imwinklereid, The I d e n t i f i O r i g i n a Evidence, 145, 159 c a t i o n of l , R e a l 61 M i l . L . R e v . (1973). " ' " ' l f the State or any o t h e r p r o p o n e n t o f demonstrative evidence, 72 the CR-06-0454 fails to identify a link or f a i l s t o show f o r t h e r e c o r d a n y one of the three criteria as t o each link, the result i s a 'missing' link, and t h e item i s inadmissible. I f , however, t h e S t a t e has shown e a c h l i n k a n d h a s shown a l l three criteria as to each link, b u t has done so with circumstantial e v i d e n c e , as opposed t o the d i r e c t testimony of the "link," as t o one o r more c r i t e r i a o r as t o one o r more links, t h e r e s u l t i s a "weak" l i n k . When t h e l i n k i s "weak," question of credibility and weight is presented, n o t one of a d m i s s i b i l i t y . ' "'"590 So. 2d a t 920. W h i l e e a c h l i n k i n t h e c h a i n o f custody must be identified, i t i s not necessary that each l i n k testify in order t o prove a complete chain of custody. Harrison v. S t a t e , 650 S o . 2 d 6 0 3 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 19 9 4 ) . " "'680 So. 2d at 918. " ' l n order to e s t a b l i s h a p r o p e r c h a i n , t h e S t a t e must show t o a " r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e o b j e c t i s i n t h e same c o n d i t i o n a s , a n d n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from, i t s c o n d i t i o n a t t h e commencement o f t h e c h a i n . " ' " I n g r a m v. S t a t e , 779 So. 2 d 1 2 2 5 , 1254 ( A l a . C r i m . 73 CR-06-0454 A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e H o l t o n , 590 So. 2 d a t 919-20 (citation omitted i n H o l t o n ) ) , a f f ' d , 779 So. 2 d 1283 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 3 1 U.S. 1 1 9 3 , 1 2 1 S.Ct. 1194, 149 L.Ed.2d 109 (2001). " [ E ] v i d e n c e t h a t an i t e m has been s e a l e d i s adequate circumstantial evidence to e s t a b l i s h the h a n d l i n g and s a f e g u a r d i n g o f t h e i t e m . " L a n e v . S t a t e , 644 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 8 , 1321 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1994); see a l s o Ingram v. S t a t e , 779 So. 2 d a t 1 2 5 4 . Additionally,"'[c]hain of custody r e q u i r e m e n t s d o n o t a p p l y w i t h t h e same force t o items of evidence which are unique and i d e n t i f i a b l e i n t h e m s e l v e s . ' " Ex p a r t e Scott, 728 S o . 2 d 1 7 2 , 182 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ( q u o t i n g M a g w o o d v . S t a t e , 494 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 , 144 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) , a f f ' d , 494 S o . 2 d 154 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 4 7 9 U.S. 9 9 5 , 107 S . C t . 5 9 9 , 93 L . E d . 2 d 5 9 9 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 528 U.S. 8 3 1 , 120 S . C t . 8 7 , c o o U.S. 8 0 1 0 31 / i n n n \ . 528 T T o (1999) " ' " ' " P h y s i c a l evidence connected w i t h or collected i n the investigation of a crime shall not be e x c l u d e d f r o m consideration by a j u r y or court due to a failure t o prove the chain of custody of the evidence. Whenever a witness in a criminal trial identifies a physical piece of evidence connected with or collected i n the investigation of a 74 CR-06-0454 crime, the evidence shall be submitted to the j u r y or c o u r t for whatever weight the j u r y o r c o u r t may deem p r o p e r . The t r i a l court in i t s charge to the jury shall explain any break i n the chain of custody concerning the physical evidence.' "'§12-21-13, A l a . Code 1975. T h e r e f o r e , any question as to the adequacy of the s a f e g u a r d i n g and h a n d l i n g o f the e v i d e n c e d i d n o t go t o i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y . R a t h e r , i t went t o the w e i g h t the j u r y would a s s i g n t o the evidence.' " M a r t i n v. S t a t e , 931 So. 2d 736, 748-49 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ; a f f ' d i n p a r t , r e v ' d i n p a r t on u n r e l a t e d g r o u n d , 9 3 1 So. 2 d 759 So. ( A l a . 2004.) "'Additionally, "'"'"'The purpose for requiring that the chain of custody be shown i s t o e s t a b l i s h to a reasonable probability that there has b e e n no tampering w i t h the evidence." Ex p a r t e J o n e s , 592 So. 2d 210, 212 (Ala. 1991); Harrell v. State, 60 8 So. 2d 434, 437 (Ala. Cr. App. 19 9 2 ) ; Smith v. State, 583 So. 2d 990 (Ala. Cr. App. 1991), cert. denied, 583 So. 2d 993 (Ala. 75 CR-06-0454 1991). Moreover, the evidence need not negate the remotest p o s s i b i l i t y of substi¬ tution, a l t e r a t i o n , or tampering, but instead must prove to a reasonable probability that the item i s the same a s i t was a t t h e beginning of the chain. Harrell, at 437; Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m s , 548 S o . 2d 518 ( A l a . 1989). Evidence has been h e l d c o r r e c t l y a d m i t t e d even when the chain of c u s t o d y h a s a weak o r m i s s i n g l i n k . Gordon v. S t a t e , 587 S o . 2 d 4 2 7 , 433 (Ala. Cr. App. 1 9 9 0 ) , r e v ' d , 587 S o . 2d 434 (Ala.), on r e m a n d , 587 So. 2 d 435 (Ala. Cr. App.), appeal after remand, 591 So. 2d 149 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1991) ; S h u t e v . S t a t e , 469 So. 2d 670, 674 (Ala. Cr. App. 1984)."'"' "Broadnax v. S t a t e , . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . Reynolds 3d , v. S t a t e , 8 2 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 , 170 [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 0 4 4 3 , O c t o b e r ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010). A. 76 (Ala. Crim. 1, 2 0 1 0 ] So. CR-06-0454 Revis a first proper chain including casings, four were fired recovered dug 320.) transported Tammi F u l g h a m . 1 6 after 5 fired County shell casings. of the offense trailer bullets, because by being Investigator S h e r i f f ' s Department. (R. them t o H u n t s v i l l e t o t h e Alabama Science's l a bwhere t h e y were t e s t e d by (R. 3 2 0 - 2 1 , 4 6 5 - 6 6 . ) I n v e s t i g a t o r Tommy M o o r e of the Marion County D i s t r i c t Attorney's bullets containing the four that of the victim's Department o f F o r e n s i c evidence, t h e v i c t i m , were g a t h e r e d b y of the Marion then to establish 17 s h e l l the scene Ronny V i c k e r y He an e n v e l o p e proved from failed to the b a l l i s t i c s containing to strike out of a wall the State as bullets, the State they had f a i l e d that of custody a n d an e n v e l o p e However, which contends they were tested, Office r e t r i e v e d the and they v a u l t a t the Marion County S h e r i f f ' s were Department. placed 1 7 in a (R. 3 2 2 . ) T a m m i F u l g h a m i s a l s o r e f e r r e d t o a t t r i a l a s Tammi R i c k e t t s because o f a recent marriage. F o r t h e sake o f c o n s i s t e n c y , t h i s o p i n i o n w i l l r e f e r t o h e r a s Tammi F u l g h a m . (R. 4 3 3 . ) 16 The b u l l e t s removed from t h e v i c t i m ' s body were t a k e n by M a t h i s D y a r , who w o r k e d w i t h the Department o f F o r e n s i c Sciences a n d who w i t n e s s e d the autopsy, to the l a b i n B i r m i n g h a m , w h e r e t h e y w e r e t e s t e d b y Tammi F u l g h a m . (R. 4 1 8 ¬ 19, 4 2 0 - 2 1 . ) 1 7 77 CR-06-0454 The Selwyn (R. five shell casings from t h e scene were Jones o f t h e Alabama Department o f F o r e n s i c 339-40, 362.) They were Vickery. then given (R. 3 5 4 . ) T h e y w e r e l a t e r 429, Moore kept 466-67.) She of the d i s t r i c t returned The casings Smith the of the d i s t r i c t residence earlier turned of a concerning over party Ronny Alabama Department o f F o r e n s i c 467, office who from had been Sciences Thus, t h e S t a t e to this to ensure and l a t e r fortesting. were to the (R. 4 2 7 , were n o t f i r e d casings. trial. established a sufficient ballistics that at around They and they d i d n o t match t h e other They were n o t a d m i t t e d Ted investigated (R. 4 2 5 - 2 6 . ) Vickery were (R. 3 2 2 . ) an a r e a 4 7 0 . ) I t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e s e c a s i n g s f r o m t h e same r i f l e as (R. 4 5 5 . ) T h e y department. Stidham's murder. to Investigator Tommy recovered by I n v e s t i g a t o r attorney's third to Investigator office. at the sheriff's were Ronny Sciences l a b i nH u n t s v i l l e . i n the vault 17 s h e l l to Investigator them attorney's Sciences. t e s t e d b y Tammi F u l g h a m a t the Alabama Department o f F o r e n s i c (R. c o l l e c t e d by chain of custody evidence t o ensure i t s a u t h e n t i c i t y and i t was n o t t a m p e r e d w i t h . B. 78 CR-06-0454 As Smith to the chain of custody of the r i f l e , of the district l e a r n e d of the r i f l e discovered the M a u l d i n may testified rifle, had he body. Swinney had o r i g i n a l l y some b u l l e t s became aware that had Burlon k e p t two g u n s , i n c l u d i n g f o r R e v i s ' s u n c l e . However, uncle that to the remove rifle the he guns and the Mauldin bullets keeping was Stidham. Mauldin t h e n t a k e n the guns and b u l l e t s to the Helen house. After Mauldin, being informed Investigator Ted of the Smith location of office a s k e d M a u l d i n t o go to Helen rifle using from casings the c o u l d be scene bullets tested into which he a jug took casings to of of water and Alabama rifle uncle, testified Smith. so shell Investigator Department of fire that evidence t h a t he two by attorney's C o l e ' s house and retrieved 79 the district a g a i n s t the b a l l i s t i c s to Investigator the the Revis's of the murder. M a u l d i n rifle the indicated he was and R e v i s ' s u n c l e had the that t h a t had been used t o k i l l same t y p e o f r i f l e Cole's testified Ted have t h e murder weapon i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n . M a u l d i n contacted Revis's when office t h r o u g h a t i p f r o m S h a n e S w i n n e y , who victim's t h a t he and attorney's Investigator fired the the from the casings, Smith took Forensics Sciences CR-06-0454 lab i n Huntsville the casings where they were tested b y Tammi Fulgham; were d e t e r m i n e d t o match t h o s e r e c o v e r e d from t h e scene. Investigator Sheriff Kevin Moore, Williams, recovered the r i f l e for Revis's stated that He r e c e i v e d took took the r i f l e Moore t e s t i f i e d had appeared testified the r i f l e that Cole State with (R. 4 5 4 . ) (R. 4 5 5 - 5 6 . ) f o r fingerprints by University. (R. 4 5 9 . ) she had i n d i c a t e d t o have been wiped had (R. 4 5 0 . ) i n Huntsville. t o be t e s t e d that and warrant, t o Tammi F u l g h a m i t was t e s t e d . at Wallace search i n her closet. Sciences after a Vickery, who was k e e p i n g t h e r i f l e the r i f l e of Forensic Tia Hall Investigator no Moore t h e n Ronny to (R. 4 5 3 . ) M o o r e the r i f l e He a l s o gun from Helen Cole, uncle. Department professor pursuant she had kept Investigator the Investigator clean, that the and she had found f i n g e r p r i n t s . ( R . 459.) Revis because kept argues Professor the r i f l e Alabama that Hall over Department the chain of custody had missing d i d not t e s t i f y , a weekend b e f o r e of Forensic 80 because transporting Sciences, and an links officer i t to the because a CR-06-0454 civilian test-fired the rifle to retrieve the casings for testing. Although already Professor been matched professor, after Hall to the casings three found fingerprints. because although evidence, each tests, each according link link i n order So. 2d 736, part, reversed (Ala. 2004), c i t i n g 605 ( A l a . Crim. shown each evidence, that a there unrelated App. 1994). "but has done ground, as o p p o s e d t o t h e d i r e c t so So. credibility and weight link is 81 i s 'weak,' presented, 759 sufficiently of the ' l i n k , ' a the 2d circumstantial is When custody. affirmed i n one o r more c r i t e r i a o r as t o one o r more l i n k s , link. from 650 S o . 2 d 6 0 3 , to 'weak' State's of 931 has with testimony link, M a r t i n v. S t a t e , 2003), I f the State weak testimony chain , quoting ( A l a .Crim. on be complete a by t h e i n t u r n H a r r i s o n v. S t a t e , App. link, from I n v e s t i g a t o r Moore, constitutes So. 3d a t i n part The must be i d e n t i f i e d to prove 748-4 9 had t o I n v e s t i g a t o r Moore, and link i t i s not necessary R e y n o l d s v. S t a t e , 931 This the r i f l e at the scene. found r e c e i v i n g the r i f l e conducted no d i d not t e s t i f y , a as the r e s u l t question not one of of CR-06-0454 admissibility." Ex parte Holton, 590 So. 2d 918, 920 ( A l a . 1991.) The portion concerning an of the officer's record keeping the week-end by I n v e s t i g a t o r house attorney's weekend before Monday. Investigator hearing that lab conduct to Tammy W a r d , day from could a Moore most, they of the weekend and not a missing the stored to the at the the l a b on pretrial forensic-sciences investigation had over forensics testified on telephoned that the r i f l e attorney's i n the chain i t ; and him later to the office was was of custody. t h e S t a t e m u s t show t o a the object substantially be that that casings offense. e s t a b l i s h a proper chain, that he had matched t h e r i f l e at the d i s t r i c t link to the r i f l e the i n d i c a t i o n the not also ballistics that to them a lab technician, the scene probability office take he h a d t a k e n to state At he that Ted I n v e s t i g a t o r Moore had t a k e n t h e guns f r o m H e l e n C o l e ' s district stated over alludes that the Smith hearing Revis believed to Investigator which the r i f l e addresses testimony at a p r e t r i a l Smith. to stored over a weak link "In order 'reasonable i s i n t h e same c o n d i t i o n different from, 82 to i t s condition a s , and at the CR-06-0454 commencement o f t h e c h a i n . ' M c C r a y v. 576 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1988)." Ex p a r t e State, 548 Holton, So. 590 2d So. 573, 2d a t 920. Finally, contaminate tampering the with obtained the Mauldin's rifle, the r i f l e were scene used so that r e t r i e v e the r i f l e . lab to determine casings search 689 nor as was he to connect a search The r i f l e warrant. the of the there any d i d so. the r i f l e warrant The rifle did not indication of casings could be search State to forensics Thus, those only to the s e c u r i n g of a had not seized warrant; and therefore, the rifle the before chain had not y e t begun. "As t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n B u r r e l l S o . 2 d 992 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) : v. State, "'Proper analysis of a chain of c u s t o d y q u e s t i o n , however, does not b e g i n at t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e ; t h e c h a i n o f c u s t o d y b e g i n s when [ t h e ] i t e m o f e v i d e n c e i s s e i z e d by t h e S t a t e . S t a t e v. Conrad, 241 M o n t . 1 , 785 P. 2 d 185 (1 9 9 0 ) ; 2 9A A m . J u r . 2 d , E v i d e n c e § 947 (1994 e d . ) ("The c h a i n - o f - c u s t o d y r u l e does not r e q u i r e t h e p r o s e c u t i o n to account f o r the p o s s e s s i o n of e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t comes i n t o their h a n d s . " ) A n y o n e who h a s h a n d l e d e v i d e n c e i n 83 he from obtained w h e t h e r i t was t h e m u r d e r w e a p o n . The that to the casings was t h e n t e s t e d a t t h e o b t a i n e d by M a u l d i n r e l a t e d executing custody test-firing of CR-06-0454 the S t a t e ' s p o s s e s s i o n i s a " l i n k " i n the c h a i n of c u s t o d y ; once t h e e v i d e n c e i s i n the S t a t e ' s p o s s e s s i o n , i t i s the State's d u t y t o account f o r each l i n k . § 12-21-13, Code o f A l a b a m a (1975). See, Ex parte H o l t o n , 590 S o . 2 d 9 1 8 , 920 (Ala.1991).' "689 S o . 2 d a t 9 9 5 - 9 6 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . See a l s o B i r g e v . S t a t e , 973 S o . 2 d 1085 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ; Y e o m a n s v . S t a t e , 898 S o . 2 d 878 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2004 ) ; B a i r d v . S t a t e , 849 S o . 2 d 223 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ; a n d P o w e l l v . S t a t e , 796 S o . 2 d 404 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 796 S o . 2 d 434 (Ala. Lane v. 2001)." State, , [Ms. C R - 0 5 - 1 4 4 3 , ( A l a . Crim. App. February 5, 2010] So. 3d 2010). C. Revis to also argues the v i c t i m ' s body from testing Stidham, was Revis custody as the and body, there that was no therefore including the chain any of custody evidence bullets as gained removed from inadmissible. d i d not to the argue any victim's i s s u e m u s t be a n a l y z e d 45A, that impropriety body at trial; in the chain of therefore, this pursuant to the p l a i n - e r r o r r u l e . Rule Ala.R.App.P. The record indicates that scene by t h e c o r o n e r . a receipt-of-body t h e b o d y was removed (R. 3 4 0 . ) M o r e o v e r , t h e r e c o r d from the contains form from the Alabama Department of F o r e n s i c 84 CR-06-0454 Sciences showing 2004, 10:25 who at conducted that a.m. that he examiner. tested. He took ultimately There plain victim's Crim. App. denied, the i n the 543 bullets tested of Lee cert. 924 v. where been d e n i e d a substantial and of his t r i a l so a death 898 record not he to 85 no has lab 2d 2d 790, (Ala. cert. before the to suggest they the the the that arrived autopsies. bodies failure the the 850 does not that of (Ala.), 874 affected rise be Wheat, from n o t e x p l a i n e d how o r how to indication retrieved performed allege the the Fulgham. So. So. assisted to Michelle and or a l t e r e d right as from Tammi 8 98 of c u s t o d y f o r t h e b o d i e s has integrity 23, examiner Dyar, and evidence Wanger does or a l t e r e d , by of denied, laboratory tampered with Matt tested tampering (2004)("The appellant evidence State, tampered with the February medical autopsy t o be admission See U.S. on the testify, the took were Finally, chain then evidence 2001), the bodies at He t h e y were body. received Although d i d not attended the i s no error 387.) was the Alabama Department of F o r e n s i c S c i e n c e s , medical and (C. body the autopsy investigator with testified the were he t o show a fairness level has of and plain CR-06-0454 error. error Therefore, in this we do not find that there was any plain regard.") IV. Revis evidence argues that the trial court concerning his uncle's r i f l e . erred in admitting S p e c i f i c a l l y , he refers to allegedly unreliable f i r e a r m s - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n testimony and to evidence the without the rifle for presence concerning of the professor lack who of fingerprints had tested the fingerprints. Revis d i d not therefore, error. any Rule o b j e c t to e i t h e r of these a l l e g e d e r r o r must r i s e 45A, to i s s u e s at the level trial; of plain Ala.R.App.P. A. Revis argues toolmarks that the testimony for the Alabama examiner of the Department firearms of and Forensic Sciences, wherein she t e s t i f i e d t h a t her t e s t i n g r e v e a l e d t h a t the bullets the v i c t i m ' s body the scene rifle, from matched was test bullets i n a d m i s s i b l e . He t e s t i f y b e c a u s e , he says, and concerning her testimony fired submits s h e was the from that casings found Revis's she could qualifications, at uncle's not n e v e r q u a l i f i e d a s an her 86 and so expert and her CR-06-0454 testing d i d n o t meet t h e s t a n d a r d f o r the admission of expert testimony. Despite failed to Revis's meet 2 9 3 F. Carmichael, procedures, In 2005), that criteria the Pharmaceuticals, States, argument of I n c . , 509 1013 526 U.S. 137 his reliance v. Barber challenged This State, court Daubert 579 (1999), on t h e s e 952 a So. v. (1993), testimony Merrell Frye v. United Co. v . regarding cases 2d witness's her testing i s misplaced. 393 ( A l a . Crim. App. print-identification stated: "Because this case does not involve DNA e v i d e n c e , t h e Daubert s t a n d a r d does n o t a p p l y . A l s o , because p r i n t identification involves subjective o b s e r v a t i o n s a n d c o m p a r i s o n s b a s e d on t h e e x p e r t ' s t r a i n i n g , s k i l l , o r e x p e r i e n c e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t i t does n o t c o n s t i t u t e s c i e n t i f i c e v i d e n c e and t h a t , therefore, Frye does not apply. Rather, print identification constitutes specialized knowledge t h a t may be h e l p f u l t o t h e j u r y i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o r determining the facts. Therefore, Rule 702, A l a . R . E v i d . , governs t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of Lamont's testimony." 87 Dow a n d Kumho T i r e (D.C. C i r . 1 9 2 3 ) , Barber testimony. U.S. the witness's CR-06-0454 Barber v. State, [Ms. C R - 0 8 - 1 6 4 0 , O c t o b e r Crim. State, App. Barber 952 So. 2d at Court 2d ( A l a . Crim. 1 999),] 952 referred So. [v. S t a t e , to 393 797 Daubert specifically hold admissibility of n o n s c i e n t i f i c [now] r e a d nonscientific at expert that later 1134 Kumho, testimony this be that States, admissibility that 293 1013 (D.C.Cir. of n o n s c i e n t i f i c nonscientific examination F. expert ' s a t i s f i e d the requirements 2005), (Ala.Crim.App. 'we did not governs the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of by and the do Daubert.' specifically 952 noted in Kumho, o r F r y e v . 1923), governed expert testimony, testimony in 'we B a r b e r t h a t R u l e 702 a l o n e , a n d n o t D a u b e r t , United App. Daubert governed Court v. (Ala. clarified expert testimony,' to require Further, 2d and [ i n Simmons] Simmons 415. So. W.R.C. So. 3d State, v. 2d 1, 2 0 1 0 ] also as t h i s Simmons So. See 1 8 2010)("However, although not 417. regarding of Rule a n d we the held fingerprint 7 0 2 ' when (1) Rule 702, Ala.R.Evid., provides:"[I]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge w i l l a s s i s t the t r i e r of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a f a c t i n i s s u e , a w i t n e s s q u a l i f i e d as an e x p e r t b y k n o w l e d g e , s k i l l , e x p e r i e n c e , t r a i n i n g , o r e d u c a t i o n , may t e s t i f y t h e r e t o i n t h e f o r m o f an o p i n i o n o r o t h e r w i s e . " 1 8 88 CR-06-0454 the w i t n e s s was the testimony issue, 702 reliable to assisted i . e . , the contains 'will qualified under assist determine expressly require no defendant's requirement the trier fact rejected a the Daubert; a as an expert jury in guilt. that of in fact 952 So. only and 2d that this any interpretation of reliability determination under and (2) fact a at expected to understand issue,' field determining the i t requires i n the in 417. Rule testimony the the Court Simmons be testimony evidence in that or Barber would Daubert before a d m i s s i o n of n o n s c i e n t i f i c e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y under Rule 702."). "'Identification based upon a comparison of b r e e c h f a c e i m p r i n t s , firing p i n i m p r e s s i o n s , and e x t r a c t o r and e j e c t o r marks, [has] a c h i e v e d r e c o g n i t i o n by t h e courts ' A. Moenssens and F. Inbau, S c i e n t i f i c E v i d e n c e i n C r i m i n a l C a s e s 195 (2d e d . 1978). In Alabama, a properly q u a l i f i e d e x p e r t s h o u l d be p e r m i t t e d t o t e s t i f y whether or not a p a r t i c u l a r shell was f i r e d from a s p e c i f i c f i r e a r m based upon h i s c o m p a r i s o n of the distinctive marks on the shell with the physical f e a t u r e s o f t h e f i r e a r m . See D o u g l a s v. S t a t e , 42 A l a . A p p . 314, 329, 163 So.2d 477 , 492 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 27 6 A l a . 703, 163 So. 2 d 496 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , r e v e r s e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 380 U.S. 4 1 5 , 85 S . C t . 1074, 13 L . E d . 2d 934 (1 9 6 5 ) . See a l s o 2 W i g m o r e , E v i d e n c e § 4 1 7 ( a ) a t 495 (Chadbourn rev. 197 9 ) ; 29 Am.Jur. P.O.F. Firearms I d e n t i f i c a t i o n § 13 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . 89 CR-06-0454 fl "We r e c o g n i z e t h a t 'a w i t n e s s n e e d n o t be an e x p e r t , i n t h e t e c h n i c a l s e n s e , t o g i v e t e s t i m o n y as to things which he knows by study, practice, experience, or observation on that particular s u b j e c t . ' P a r a g o n E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . v. R h o d e s , 451 So. 2d 274, 276 (Ala. 1984). 'Experience and practical knowledge may qualify one to make t e c h n i c a l j u d g m e n t s as r e a d i l y as f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n . ' I n t e r n a t i o n a l T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s S y s t e m s v. S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , 359 So. 2d 3 6 4 , 368 ( A l a . 1978). However, '[i]t i s error for a court t o a l l o w an expert w i t n e s s to t e s t i f y o u t s i d e h i s area of e x p e r t i s e . ' C o o k v . C o o k , 396 So. 2 d 1 0 3 7 , 1041 ( A l a . 1981). "The a d m i s s i b i l i t y of a l l types of expert testimony i s 'subject to the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . ' E x p a r t e W i l l i a m s , 594 So. 2d 1 2 2 5 , 1227 (Ala. 1992). '[T]he trial c o u r t ' s r u l i n g s on the a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f s u c h e v i d e n c e w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l a b s e n t a c l e a r a b u s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . ' Id." Bowden v. State, 610 So. 2d 1256, 1257-58 (Ala. Crim. abuse App. i t s discretion 1992). Here, the determining allowed in to t h a t the testify determining h u l l s was from trial court did f i r e a r m s and concerning that not the rifle the toolmarks tests witness should t h a t were that discharged the scene Stidham's and the bullets body. 90 that were be undertaken test-fired t h e same w e a p o n t h a t d i s c h a r g e d t h e c a s i n g s the in gathered removed from CR-06-0454 The witness background, training, she had six years and Rule 702, been working had Moreover, under Rule v. finds the 702, as she comparison, have aided qualifies such rests witness was and the She over one educational also thousand stated that examiner toolmark for cases. provides: as u n d e r p r e e x i s t i n g l a w , In the p r e s e n t that on her Committee's Notes to t h i s a s an e x p e r t a n d Gregory, 292 rule Ala. 355 262, affirm s h o u l d be So. 2d 691 292 So. 2d case, qualified qualified as the w i t n e s s ' s to testify an of (Ala. 647 (1 9 7 4 ) . state that expert. testimony established as i n i t s understanding 91 the 1978); to the ballistics the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s testimony jury of allowed discretion t h a t the c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y t o be that the d e t e r m i n a t i o n l a r g e l y w i t h i n the v. requirement the credentials. a f i r e a r m s and worked Gilliland, T h e r e i s no it as court. G r i f f i n Hagler and concerning ific, technical, or other specialized will assist the trier of fact to the evidence or to determine a fact in witness qualified as an expert by skill, experience, training, or may t e s t i f y t h e r e t o i n the form of an otherwise." whether a witness to t e s t i f y testified Ala.R.Evid., "If scient knowledge understand issue, a knowledge, education, o p i n i o n or trial fully of the evidence would and CR-06-0454 its determination. discretion Thus, i n allowing the t r i a l court d i d n o t abuse i t s her testimony. B. Revis contends been a l l o w e d that to t e s t i f y from the r i f l e , fingerprints Investigator should testify. 1 9 He refers to Investigator performed three fingerprints on t h e r i f l e the professor opinion the r i f l e rubbed this down t o remove testimony fingerprints and t h a t appeared that there There removed h i s f i n g e r p r i n t s from officer's he was i s no e r r o r , ground. 3 d 1, 19 dusted been of the o f f or rubbed submits or that dusted his o f f the r i f l e . However, So. t o have tests for was any f i n g e r p r i n t s . R e v i s suggests taken who t e s t e d t h e r i f l e f o r Moore's t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e p r o f e s s o r that n o t have concerning f i n g e r p r i n t evidence because the p r o f e s s o r d i d not Moore no testimony (Ala. Crim. search p l a i n or otherwise, to the the r i f l e . effect Woods App. 2 0 0 7 ) ( t e s t i m o n y through c i t y files that on this Revis v. S t a t e , 13 concerning an f o r p r i o r a r r e s t s was n o t Revis again r a i s e s h i s claim that the State f a i l e d to p r e s e n t a p r o p e r c h a i n o f c u s t o d y as t o t h e r i f l e b e c a u s e , he argues, the p r o f e s s o r ' s absence c o n s t i t u t e d a m i s s i n g link. However, this issue has p r e v i o u s l y been d i s c u s s e d and d e t e r m i n e d a d v e r s e l y t o R e v i s . S e e I s s u e I I I . B. 1 9 92 CR-06-0454 improper any because prior although and arrests " d i d not t e s t i f y f o r Woods he d i d t e s t i f y i n the search that he l o c a t e d 'an a d d r e s s i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y a date be. of b i r t h that was c l o s e i n the f i l e s testify that State, affirmed, So. 3d 1, location,' officer's Woods' and w i t h arrest."). 10 contention the person case, (Ala. denied, , he n o r d i d he See Crim. U.S. moreover, the o f f i c e r Brownfield App. 2007), [No. 1 0 - 1 1 0 , S.Ct. o f e r r o r i n t h e a d m i s s i o n o f an the o f f i c e r asked Brownfield told Brownfield residence, and asked automobile jump-started."). Crim. he "did not state that a t t h e W a l l a c e Lane r e s i d e n c e residence, because files, s t a t e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g a n e y e w i t n e s s was h a r m l e s s , i f seen B r o w n f i e l d (Ala. n. 2010] (2010)(Brownfield's Rather, i n this 44 S o . 3 d 43 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , c e r t . 1, the found t o t h e a g e he g u e s s e d Woods t o Woods 25 he 'a N a t h a n i e l to this the person had a p r i o r 44 November error; was that of (R. 5 0 7 . ) H o w e v e r , he d i d n o t t e s t i f y t h a t located v. the o f f i c e r that on D e c e m b e r 2 4 . why he w e n t b a c k some f o l k s Brownfield i f he r e m e m b e r e d g e t t i n g h i s Saunders v. S t a t e , testimony d i d not the r e l a t i v e to 93 to the had seen him a t t h e App. 2 0 0 7 ) ( c o r o n e r ' s testify a witness had was 10 S o . 3 d 53 not improper positions of CR-06-0454 S a u n d e r s and as to was the victim's struck). Crim. App. expert the the v i c t i m at the Johnson v. not testify embedded matched the Instead, he glass F.B.I. samples, State, State 755 So. failed not there to glass four out as not the challenge the (Ala. forensic Johnson's victim's machine testify). and one samples the rifle. the Further, findings Compare administering person he Mester predicate knowledge who was to inspected the rifle 94 may prejudiced been wiped who machine have that the proper on and v. admit officer, concerning not the that 19 9 9 ) ( f i n d i n g t h a t necessary when have f i n g e r p r i n t s were rifle door. case."). professor's the the could I n v e s t i g a t o r M o o r e ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t no the back utilized in this ( A l a . C r i m . App. establish i f 100 have p e r s o n a l did from in 1301 p r o b a b i l i t y that glass the testified, of claim, 96% that of results calibration 1288, he the 66, not a pane testified blood-alcohol-test did was p o s i t i o n when 2d Johnson's f i n g e r p r i n t s on 2d So. b u l l e t removed the same p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s no 612 rather the then were victim's but he and does offense, h i s testimony about p r o b a b i l i t i e s to samples, Revis to that from confined the State, i n the F.B.I. there and 19 9 2 ) ( " C o n t r a r y did glass wounds time of the by found clean. CR-06-0454 Therefore, any concerning of plain the error in Investigator f i n d i n g s d i d not professor's e r r o r . Rule 45A, Moore's rise testimony to the level Ala.R.App.P. V. Revis State to against to argues use him. the evidence He introduce evidence that of prior prior of highly arrests, court bad contends t h a t the evidence of trial erred acts Specifically, he refers previously been on bad-check trial, the intended arrested S t a t e had informed the to i n t r o d u c e . He also p r e v i o u s l y b e e n a r r e s t e d on F r a n k l i n County j a i l ; drugs; that he impermissibly lied the same t i m e ; t h a t he to his mother; had hunted that he that bad and charges that, illegally he had before his aunt's he had dated i t t h a t he had held the in p u r c h a s e d and dark; the bad defense counsel on that account; used he had that he multiple women at victim's funeral; did not attend quit football during the season a f t e r arguing 95 and that c h a r g e s and after Revis irrelevant evidence and the allowed acts, r e f e r s to evidence w r i t t e n a check had court unrelated t h a t he had to by improperly prejudicial character. allowing committed S t a t e was uncharged by with the CR-06-0454 c o a c h ; t h a t he a bad asking as record t o be State The Revis's a not to level of All, allusions to his role guilt any except the by 2 0 had had of Rule of Revis these 45A, The and been charges the the picked was offense and, case. to matters of up he his Revis to statement which must did intent o b j e c t t o any acts State evidence when present as that 404(b), to i n t r o d u c e he did Revis other motion Rule motion, statement the any one, cited Nor of error. phase. in pretrial citing those prosecutor's Therefore, plain for a i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h the present the t h a t he bad-acts evidence because he rise to now the Ala.R.App.P. the bad-acts or were derived from s t a t e m e n t s made d u r i n g R e v i s ' s the filed prior granted arrest t h i s evidence. allusion complains. court concerning i t was or Revis introduce, warrant therefore, introduce to trial s c h o o l ; and the c o u r t t h a t i t i n t e n d e d to object that n o t i c e o f any bad-checks interviewed of h i g h inmate. intended then informed pursuant an reveals given Ala.R.Evid. of dropped out reputation The the had bad-character comments i n t e r v i e w s by t h e p o l i c e other alleged H i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n the mentioned at sentencing. 2 0 96 bad act, that F r a n k l i n County j a i l or during he was had also CR-06-0454 b e h a v e d b a d l y as until the an inmate, s e n t e n c i n g phase evidence included i n the both statement his his introduced d u r i n g the phase as of Franklin concerning guilt not for trial. The concerning County and arrest introduced into the statements incarceration in was at jail, bad which of Revis i n custody was previous was and Investigator adduced testimony checks, testimony t o why prior-arrests his sentencing, writing evidence which Mays when he was at the made h i s statement. The arrest was So. for writing bad concerning Revis's warrants checks was a d m i s s i b l e to and his s h o w why he i n c u s t o d y when he made h i s s t a t e m e n t s . Woods v . S t a t e , 3d argues City State's evidence of 1, that 19 evidence Birmingham's Ala.R.Evid.,] Officer (Ala. Crim. information about Further, concerning the Collins's files not but was was the State correctly search through offered rather, e x p l a n a t i o n of as Rule offered steps he the 404(b)[, as took part to of gain Woods."). State R e v i s ' s bad the p e n a l t y phase 2 0 0 7 ) ("The of O f f i c e r evidence, Collins's App. 13 could and of the violent trial. 97 properly behavior admit as an evidence inmate at CR-06-0454 Section 13A-5-45(d), Ala.Code 1975, s t a t e s : "Any e v i d e n c e w h i c h h a s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e a n d i s relevant to sentence shall be received at the sentence hearing regardless of i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y under the e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e s of evidence, provided that the defendant i s accorded a f a i r opportunity to r e b u t any h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t s . This subsection s h a l l n o t be c o n s t r u e d to authorize the i n t r o d u c t i o n of any evidence secured in violation of the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the United States or the State of Alabama." "In the conduct evidence should 479, (Ala. 495 The be he was the sentencing relaxed hearing, Harris the v. S t a t e , rules 352 of So. d 1977). evidence was p r o p e r l y that of concerning Revis's bad behavior introduced to rebut Revis's a peaceful, helpful, and l o v i n g i n prison m i t i g a t i n g evidence person. "At a p e n a l t y p h a s e i n a c a p i t a l - m u r d e r case, the S t a t e has t h e burden of p r o v i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any applicable aggravating circumstances and t h e b u r d e n o f d i s p r o v i n g t h e f a c t u a l e x i s t e n c e o f any m i t i g a t i n g circumstances t h a t a r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t . The S t a t e h a s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h e aggravating circumstances 'beyond a reasonable d o u b t . ' § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( e ) , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 . A l s o , 'when the factual existence o f an o f f e r e d m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e i s i n d i s p u t e , t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a l l have the burden o f i n t e r j e c t i n g t h e i s s u e , b u t once i t i s interjected the state s h a l l have t h e burden o f disproving the factual existence of that circumstance by a preponderance o f t h e e v i d e n c e . ' See § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( g ) , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 . " 98 CR-06-0454 Smith v. S t a t e , , ( A l a . Crim. reversed i n part 2010] the App. on a n o t h e r So. 3d Finally, and [Ms. C R - 9 7 - 1 2 5 8 , A u g u s t 2007), ground, 31, 2007] affirmed So. 3d in part [Ms. 1 0 8 0 9 7 3 , O c t o b e r and 22, ( A l a . 2010). the evidence bad-acts concerning evidence brief that 2 1 statements were comments interview. See R e a d v . S t a t e , made Revis's was bad character contained i n the course 686 S o . 2 d 5 6 3 , 566 in his of the (Ala. Crim. A s n o t e d , t h e b a d - a c t s e v i d e n c e c i t e d b y R e v i s was t h a t he h a d h u n t e d a f t e r d a r k , t h a t h a d u s e d d r u g s , a n d t h a t h e h a d i m p e r m i s s i b l y w r i t t e n a c h e c k on h i s a u n t ' s a c c o u n t . The b a d c h e c k s a r r e s t was a l r e a d y p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e j u r y t h r o u g h I n v e s t i g a t o r M a y s ' s t e s t i m o n y . S e e M c N a b b v . S t a t e , 887 S o . 2 d 9 2 9 , 971 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) , a f f i r m e d , 887 S o . 2 d 998 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 4 3 U.S. 1 0 0 5 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( " ' " [ T ] e s t i m o n y t h a t may b e i n a d m i s s i b l e may b e r e n d e r e d h a r m l e s s b y p r i o r o r s u b s e q u e n t l a w f u l t e s t i m o n y t o t h e same e f f e c t o r f r o m w h i c h t h e same f a c t s c a n b e i n f e r r e d . " ' S e e a l s o , D a w s o n v . S t a t e , 675 S o . 2 d 8 9 7 , 900 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) , a f f i r m e d , 675 S o . 2 d 905 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ( ' T h e e r r o n e o u s a d m i s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e t h a t i s m e r e l y c u m u l a t i v e i s h a r m l e s s e r r o r . ' ) ; a n d Thompson v . S t a t e , 527 S o . 2 d 7 7 7 , 780 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 198 8 ) ( ' T e s t i m o n y w h i c h may b e a p p a r e n t l y i l l e g a l u p o n a d m i s s i o n may b e r e n d e r e d prejudicially innocuous by subsequent or prior lawful t e s t i m o n y t o t h e same e f f e c t o r f r o m w h i c h t h e same f a c t s c a n be i n f e r r e d . ' ) . " ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) As t o h i s d r u g u s a g e , this opinion has a l r e a d y found that this evidence was a d m i s s i b l e under the motive and r e s gestae e x c e p t i o n s t o the e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e . See I s s u e I . F . 2 1 99 CR-06-0454 App. 1996)(Read's despite her entire claim statement that was "the tape properly was offered evidence of her bad character because i tcontained that on t h e n i g h t b e f o r e the shooting of this comments redacted based these references prior-bad acts. Although any issue at questioning trial, was their not such adversely affecting Revis's to the level of p l a i n Moreover, mention of these Revis's So. v. overruled 2 d 33 contained contact admission rights. So. with statement a r r e s t ) . I t should Revis's admission harmless, [probably was as the rose brief injuriously 45, 4 7 7 , 482 ground, indicating the p o l i c e during 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . Rule 2d to were n o t r e l e v a n t t o mention was as t o a n o t h e r information any r e f e r e n c e s d i d not probably 554 information s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s . ] and thus Rule as d i d n o t move t o h a v e on their (Ala.1990)(introduction incriminating prior State, that error. acts substantial Buchannon 1989), their brief solely she had been a t a poker game a n d h a d a l s o b e e n d r i n k i n g " ) . R e v i s any admitted affect Ala.R.App.P. See ( A l a . Crim. App. Pardue v. S t a t e , of fingerprint card 571 that t h a t Buchannon had had p r i o r harmless error and t h e "unemphasized based on h i s nature" of the be n o t e d t h a t c e r t a i n o f t h e c o n d u c t s 100 CR-06-0454 c i t e d by R e v i s v. State, t h a t a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y " b a d a c t s . " See 791 S o . 2 d 4 0 9 , 429 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ( p a s s a g e s f r o m G a m b l e ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t he a r g u e d c o n t a i n e d references c o l l a t e r a l bad a c t s by h i s a c c o m p l i c e d i d not c o n t a i n evidence of p r i o r bad acts as Gamble intended by the to improper exclusionary rule). Evidence of the p r i o r bad-character defendant a tendency which he (Ala. 2004) So. 2d evidence Deardorff 386 where the frequently evidence in a that parte t o commit Casey, App. of the 114 omitted))." i n possession there had shootings, 4, at evidence that a and 101 So. that the parte Compare 2008] evidence of a f i r e a r m been Ex ( A l a . 2008). April S p e n c e r ' s a c c o m p l i c e Woods a n d p o l i c e day 618 enterprise occurred, 2d with 615, 2008)("Here, drug-dealing i n the the crime 8 8 9 So. or 269 A l a . 5 3 1 , 5 3 3 , (emphasis [Ms. C R - 0 4 - 2 5 7 0 , bad acts " ' t o show 6 S o . 3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1242 shootings seen Ex (1959) ( A l a .Crim. engaged admitted Garner v. S t a t e , v. S t a t e , , not and t h e o t h e r or d i s p o s i t i o n (quoting Spencer v. S t a t e , was was i s charged."' 385, arrests 3d Spencer residence Spencer was at the residence, confrontation involving officers evidence that earlier i n the Spencer had CR-06-0454 outstanding for w a r r a n t s f o r h i s a r r e s t were a l l p r o p e r l y reasons other than simple impeachment of admitted Spencer's credibility."). VI. Revis to argues that the prosecutor consider sentencing Revis in the i n making h i s opening consulted State Stidham's i t s recommendation statement statement with at the penalty i s simply the family, o f Alabama family as to h i s f o r h i s punishment. going and they i s seeking phase of the t o be t h i s , are asking the death penalty trial: i s that we f o r and t h e i n this case." 688.) Revis did therefore, this plain-error This error. App. of told the jury r e f e r s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g a r g u m e n t made b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r "My o p e n i n g (R. opinion improperly not issue rule. Rule this at trial; pursuant to the 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . from recommendation case. argument i s due t o be a n a l y z e d S e e Woods v . S t a t e , sentencing to argument by t h e p r o s e c u t o r 2007)("Testimony capital object d i dnot c o n s t i t u t e p l a i n 13 S o . 3 d 1, 3 5 - 3 6 n . 6 ( A l a . C r i m . a victim's i s generally f a m i l y member not admissible See, e.g., S t a l l w o r t h v. S t a t e , 102 as t o a in a 868 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 8 , CR-06-0454 1176 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). Because Woods testimony at the p e n a l t y phase of h i s t r i a l , t h a t , under the f a c t s of t h i s offered such h o w e v e r , we find c a s e , no p l a i n e r r o r o c c u r r e d a s a r e s u l t of the S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s ' t e s t i m o n y i n r e b u t t a l about a recommended s e n t e n c e . " ) . "Also, evidence trial. we is See S m i t h v. State, , 949 repeatedly a d m i s s i b l e at So.3d State, have So. the [Ms. App. So. 2d 1148 (Ala. Crim. App. 868 So. 2d 1128 (Ala. Crim. App. So. 2d 2d 753 1174 ( A l a . C r i m . App. (Ala. Crim. Moreover, State was App. the seeking adversarial system a of sentence death 113, sentence 143 a v. 2009] Gissendanner Smith W i l l i a m s v. Lee capital 16, Stallworth 2001); State, v. State, v. State, State, State, 44 v. 797 795 So. 3d So. 1145, 2009). prosecutor could the death properly argue that the penalty in this case. "'In our of c r i m i n a l death of 2 0 0 6 ) ; M i l l e r v. 2004); 2000); 1999)." phase 2009); ( A l a . C r i m . App. ( A l a . C r i m . App. victim-impact CR-97-1258, J a n u a r y 913 503 that penalty (Ala. Crim. 2d 956 held may properly i s appropriate. ( A l a . C r i m . App. justice, See argue Hall a prosecutor seeking to v. the State, jury 820 1 9 9 9 ) . ' " M c M i l l a n v. S t a t e , 103 that a So. 2d [Ms. CR- CR-06-0454 08-1954 , App. November 2010), December 5, 2 0 1 0 ] quoting 18, 2009] So. 3d Vanpelt v. So. 3d , State, (Ala. ( A l a . Crim. [Ms. CR-06-1539, C r i m . App. 2009). The p r o s e c u t o r made t h e s t a t e m e n t i n h i s o p e n i n g a r g u m e n t and, as argument, t h e s t a t e m e n t b e e n made i n t h e h e a t 1332, comments, this Court particular in reviewing conduct, trial, So. 3d their i n the heat to become verdict.'"(citations Thus, of witnesses, the task of impact this there was of i n the context of the Court debate; at their factors [Ms. C R - 0 7 - prosecutorial and n o t t o view t h e a l l e g e d l y Moreover, as h a v i n g ( A l a . Crim. App. improper and q u e s t i o n i n g v a l u e d by t h e j u r y expected , has o f c o u n s e l i n argument t o t h e j u r y delivered usually Brown v. S t a t e , allegedly i s to consider the abstract. statements as of debate. September 17, 2010] 2010)("'In s h o u l d be v i e w e d in such true the improper also held must be that viewed statements worth acts are and a r e n o t formation of the omitted)). no plain argument. 104 error i n the prosecutor's CR-06-0454 VII. Revis argues that the e v i d e n c e of n o n s t a t u t o r y penalty phase improperly not his to rented any the that that previously had forward after the that s h u f f l e d b a c k and and used drugs, the erred allowing circumstances during Revis argues room Revis cut to aggravating that the at the Days had a reputation the victim's been a r r e s t e d offense; that Inn and and that he fled from says after for violence that as was heinous; had he quit not come football, and law was that motel throat he the State circumstance: f o r t h between h i s p a r e n t s and in f o l l o w i n g evidence that Revis "Jacuzzi" a prisoner; he trial. statutory Stidham's murder; t h a t court aggravating a d m i t t e d the relevant Revis of trial was grandparents, enforcement after offense. A. During testimony that from Revis, priced that the his room t h a t they stayed penalty two phase, employees uncle, and featured there of his the the a few 105 Days brother a Jacuzzi for prosecutor tub hours Inn had introduced motel rented after before the to a show higher offense checking and out. CR-06-0454 Revis also refers Revis t o t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s comment i n c l o s i n g had r e n t e d the "Jacuzzi" This statement from the evidence t h a t was a r g u e d the course from So. 2d 929, 98 9 defense App. (Ala. 1118 2000), quoting Crim. (2004)("'"[T]he App. ( A l a . 1988) a n d may v. S t a t e , Rutledge 1987), occurred during Revis 2001), cert. as w e l l h i s impressions argue every 807 S o . 2 d 1 8 , 45 as from legitimate ( A l a . Crim. v . S t a t e , 523 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 7 , 1 1 0 0 rev'd (citation App. prosecutor, to present i f reasonable, Reeves circumstance established that ( A l a .Crim. c o u n s e l , has a r i g h t inference."' 1005 inference room f o l l o w i n g t h e o f f e n s e . McNabb v . 5 4 3 U.S. evidence, the aggravating The e v i d e n c e denied, the t h e v i c t i m ' s money. by t h e S t a t e , t h a t t h e murder of a robbery. 887 with t h e p r o s e c u t o r was a p r o p e r and s u p p o r t e d p a i d cash f o r t h i s motel State, room that on other grounds, 523 So. 2d omitted)."). B. The State reputation presented as a v i o l e n t evidence concerning p r i s o n e r w h i l e he was i m p r i s o n e d f o r the present o f f e n s e i n order t o rebut the defense's evidence 703.) Revis's mitigating t h a t R e v i s d i d n o t h a v e " a n y v i o l e n t p r o p e n s i t y . " (R. Evidence concerning p r i o r bad acts or conduct 106 by R e v i s , CR-06-0454 specifically after the between that he offense, his d r u g s , was 2 2 parents also quit that and of his admitted as r e b u t t a l . In Crim. App. cert. denied, he his introduced evidence (Ala. football, by was U.S. he the prosecutor This Deardorff affirmed, , 129 fled shuffled grandparents, good c h a r a c t e r . 2004), that 6 S.Ct. police and forth back and that he to rebut evidence v. State, So. 3d 1987 from was Revis's properly 6 So. 1235 (2009), used 3d (Ala. 1205 2008), this court stated: " S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( g ) , A l a . C o d e 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t , t o n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t o f f e r s as m i t i g a t i o n e v i d e n c e a f a c t t h a t the S t a t e d i s p u t e s , the S t a t e ' s h a l l have the burden of d i s p r o v i n g the f a c t u a l e x i s t e n c e of that circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence.' " I n J a c k s o n v . S t a t e , 791 S o . 2 d 979 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000), the appellant objected to the prosecutor's cross-examination of Jackson's c h a r a c t e r w i t n e s s e s , c l a i m i n g t h a t the evidence was I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r n e v e r a r g u e d o r i m p l i e d t h a t R e v i s f l e d f r o m t h e p o l i c e . The p o r t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d t o w h i c h R e v i s c i t e s t o s u p p o r t t h i s c l a i m comes f r o m the p r o s e c u t o r ' s opening argument a t the g u i l t phase w h e r e i n he was s u b m i t t i n g i n d e t a i l w h a t he b e l i e v e d t h e evidence w o u l d s h o w . He s t a t e d t h a t a f t e r l e a v i n g t h e r e n t e d h o t e l r o o m and g e t t i n g R e v i s ' s g r e a t a u n t out o f the h o s p i t a l , R e v i s , h i s b r o t h e r , and h i s u n c l e " d i s a p p e a r e d " u n t i l the p o l i c e r e c e i v e d a t i p concerning the l o c a t i o n of the gun. (R. 267.)This reference was an argument i n d i c a t i n g that nothing more o c c u r r e d u n t i l t h e t i p was made. 2 2 107 CR-06-0454 improper because i t i n t r o d u c e d evidence of h i s p r i o r b a d c o n d u c t . We r e j e c t e d t h a t a r g u m e n t , s t a t i n g : "'To rebut Jackson's claim of good c h a r a c t e r , t h e S t a t e c r o s s - e x a m i n e d one o f Jackson's character witnesses regarding Jackson's prior misdemeanor assault c o n v i c t i o n and h i s s u s p e n s i o n from s c h o o l f o r c a r r y i n g a gun. T h i s c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n was proper both to test the witness's credibility as to his knowledge of Jackson's character and to rebut the m i t i g a t i n g evidence o f f e r e d by J a c k s o n . ' "791 So. 2d at 1026. "We have also held that an appellant's d i s c i p l i n a r y problems i n j a i l were a d m i s s i b l e t o r e b u t m i t i g a t i o n e v i d e n c e he o f f e r e d r e g a r d i n g h i s g o o d b e h a v i o r i n j a i l . I n C l a r k v . S t a t e , 896 S o . 2 d 5 8 4 , 597 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) (on r e t u r n t o r e m a n d a n d o n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g ) , we s t a t e d : "'Evidence of Clark's prison d i s c i p l i n a r y p r o b l e m s was c l e a r l y o f f e r e d t o r e b u t t h e e v i d e n c e he h a d o f f e r e d i n m i t i g a t i o n t h a t he was a " m o d e l i n m a t e . " (R. 1 5 4 7 . ) T h e e v i d e n c e was relevant and probative t o s e n t e n c i n g and was, thus, p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d . See, e.g., J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 791 S o . 2 d 979 (Ala. Crim. App.), c e r t . d e n i e d , 791 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 532 U.S. 934 (2001)(evidence of the defendant's prior misdemeanor c o n v i c t i o n and h i s s u s p e n s i o n from h i g h s c h o o l was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d t o r e b u t t h e defendant's mitigation evidence); and H a l l f o r d v . S t a t e , 548 S o . 2 d 526 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f ' d , 548 S o . 2 d 547 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 945 (1989)(evidence that the defendant was h a v i n g an i n c e s t u o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s 108 CR-06-0454 d a u g h t e r was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d t o r e b u t t h e defendant's m i t i g a t i o n evidence regarding h i s good c h a r a c t e r ) . " Deardorff v. State, Thus, the by Revis evidence of his was the murdering the gestae other and cited capital victim pain 1230. the penalty reputation witnesses, the prescription at introduced character at could properly disprove Revis's also element of 3d mitigation of which State as evidence 6 So. by was pills. violent a offering and use, through relevant offense, during by prisoner Revis a phase offered a c t s . Moreover h i s drug bad as evidence to the prove i n w h i c h he robbery This of evidence testimony was the was the robbery charged victim part of with to the of take res e s t a b l i s h e d motive. C. Revis that Stidham's conceded throat. any argues t h a t the that Revis throat Revis's argues aggravating t h a t the offense State was cut, uncle, and that this circumstance was improperly and although not Revis, evidence t h a t the e s p e c i a l l y heinous, 109 admitted was the prosecutor cut not evidence Stidham's relevant State d i d not a t r o c i o u s , or to argue cruel, CR-06-0454 when compared notice trial victim's court that i n t e n t i o n t o argue noted i n reveals Revis's of fact argue that uncle the t r i a l as t o t h e o f f e n s e . i n this case given aggravating that that the mentioned the A l a . Code aggravating The 1975. Nor circumstance throat Moreover, the aggravating 49(8), only circumstance of the offense victim. to exist i n this presentation thereby of made did not evidence the evidence incorporated not and occurred This into court divert function.'" the on o t h e r the adduced guilt phase. and i n t o l e r a b l e jury's Smith v. S t a t e , reversed at was attention § 13A-5find this case. immediately the penalty " ' i n an e x c e s s i v e that the atrocious, or cruel. d i d the t r i a l i n the the State d i d s l a s h i n g o f t h e v i c t i m ' s t h r o a t was p a r t the 1990), he order court c u t Stidham's was e s p e c i a l l y h e i n o u s , shot that i t s sentencing offense gestae n o r was i f t h a t was i t s i n t e n t . He f u r t h e r s u b m i t s record findings not offenses, t h r o a t was c u t . The fact capital of the State's circumstance, the to other of the res after Revis during phase the and was T h e comment was manner, from and [ i t ] i t s proper 581 So. 2 d 497, ( A l a . C r i m . App. grounds, 110 Ex p a r t e Smith, 581 So. 2 d CR-06-0454 531 ( A l a . 1991), 1101 A l a . C r i m . 2d 1118 during quoting Rutledge v . S t a t e , 523 So. 2 d 1087, App. 1 9 8 7 ) , r e v e r s e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 523 So. ( A l a .1988). the penalty Therefore, i t was properly admitted phase. D. Revis allowed argues that, an o f f i c e r arrested and t h a t alleges that at sentencing, to testify he this had p r e v i o u s l y been silent the arrest. remained testimony record testified Vickery the that, investigation, possible because suspects, Revis testimony his after constituted his was reveals in Stidham's sons a friend statement Revis Revis of Stidham's counsel's had been Ronny of the considered t o a c t as an t o rebut defense that silent. stages being very counsel sons. This argument i n upset about argued: "He c o u l d h a v e k e p t h i s m o u t h s h u t . T h i s c a s e w o u l d h a v e n e v e r b e e n s o l v e d . B u t he d i d n ' t do t h a t . A t some p o i n t t h i s case was b o t h e r i n g h i m . I t was b o t h e r i n g h i m t o t h e p o i n t t h a t maybe he c o u l d n ' t 111 as informant c o m m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e a n d t h a t h e h a d come f o r w a r d c o n f e s s i o n . Defense He impermissible Investigator early were o f one an t o remain that the he c o n t a c t e d was e l i c i t e d opening having when improperly that Revis comment o n t h e a s s e r t i o n o f h i s r i g h t However, the State with CR-06-0454 l i v e w i t h i t . ... B u t he c o u l d h a v e k e p t h i s m o u t h s h u t a l o n g w i t h the o t h e r p e o p l e , and i t w o u l d have never been s o l v e d . " (R. 692.) The have but come he forward when Stidham's his brother Similarly, [Ms. then i n d i c a t e d t h a t he friend, that prosecutor son, argued the police closing and later and uncle had this court found that eventually w o u l d a c t as C R - 0 6 - 0 8 5 4 , November 13, C r i m . App. in an Revis could contacted him, informant against his gave a s t a t e m e n t i n d i c a t i n g killed in Stidham. K i l l i n g s w o r t h v. 2009] So. 3d State, , (Ala. 2009): "We do n o t b e l i e v e t h e p r o s e c u t o r was c o m m e n t i n g on K i l l i n g s w o r t h ' s d e c i s i o n n o t t o t e s t i f y . R a t h e r , i t a p p e a r s t h a t he was e x p l a i n i n g t h a t one p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e was that Killingsworth and Connell had discussed k i l l i n g someone while J o n e s r e t r i e v e d t h e s h o t g u n f r o m h i s house and t h a t t h a t c o u l d h a v e b e e n why t h e y h a d c h a n g e d s e a t s w h e n Jones returned to the v e h i c l e w i t h the shotgun. Therefore, we f i n d t h a t t h e a r g u m e n t was about a r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e from the e v i d e n c e r a t h e r than a comment on t h e f a c t t h a t K i l l i n g s w o r t h d i d not t e s t i f y . A c c o r d i n g l y , we do n o t f i n d t h a t t h e r e was any p l a i n e r r o r i n t h i s regard." Killingsworth The v. State, testimony rebuttal evidence, of and So. 3d at Investigatory the prosecutor's 112 . Vickery was proper comment b a s e d on that CR-06-0454 testimony, was not as w e l l as t h e e v i d e n c e , a comment on Revis's was right a proper inference. I t to remain silent. Revis a l s o contends that I n v e s t i g a t o r V i c k e r y ' s that he got informant Revis out against of jail Stidham's so that sons in he testimony would act case improperly this as an i n t r o d u c e d i r r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r a r r e s t s . However, this testimony came forward rebutted defense counsel's with his admission Investigator Vickery's that forthcoming he despite be was Revis's released, promised. App. 1998), denied, six 529 prior trial of the 1039 good as an contact 740 So. to rebut character court properly act to 740 allowed appellant's prior solve cooperative and the offense. Revis's argument by the revealing 1115, (Ala. State that, i n order police 2d 1135 the the informant So. 2d ( 2 0 0 0 ) ("The convictions to rebutted State, v. affirmed, U.S. appellant's and failed Davis order testimony agreement to he See in argument t h a t Revis as he had (Ala. Crim. 1999), cert. offered evidence evidence to of concerning the reputation. Accordingly, the State convictions to introduce f o r the limited evidence purpose o f r e b u t t i n g m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e t h e a p p e l l a n t o f f e r e d t o show his good c h a r a c t e r and r e p u t a t i o n . See 113 H a l l f o r d v. State, 548 CR-06-0454 So. 2 d 526 ( A l a . C r . A p p . cert. denied, 4 9 3 U.S. 1988), aff'd, 548 S o . 2 d 547 (Ala.), 9 4 5 , 1 1 0 S . C t . 3 5 4 , 107 L . E d . 2 d 3 4 2 (1989)."). Moreover, indicate Investigator that Revis 3d (Ala. reversed i n part 2010] So. 3d testimony d i d not h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o r why h e was i n j a i l . Compare S m i t h v. S t a t e , So. Vickery's [Ms. C R - 9 7 - 1 2 5 8 , A u g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 ] Crim. App. on o t h e r 2007), grounds, (Ala. affirmed i n part and [Ms. 1 0 8 0 9 7 3 , O c t o b e r 2 2 , 2010)(in which the prosecutor's argument i n h i s opening statement a t t h e p e n a l t y phase o f t h e trial that Smith had p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s was harmless). VIII. Revis argues that the t r i a l prosecutor's violation refers from comments d e n i g r a t e d opening instructions 472 U.S. 3 2 0 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . t o a r g u m e n t s made b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r c o u r t made d u r i n g following voir comment was made remarks t o t h e v e n i r e and the the jury's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n o f C a l d w e l l v. M i s s i s s i p p i , the t r i a l The court's and an dire during concerning instruction examination. the prosecutor's the t r i a l process: "[T]he jury renders what i s c a l l e d an advisory v e r d i c t . Now, y o u ' r e s a y i n g l i f e w i t h o u t o r d e a t h , b u t t h a t ' s j u s t an a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t f o r t h e j u d g e t o c o n s i d e r when he d o e s t h e f i n a l sentencing." 114 He CR-06-0454 (R. 179.) Thereafter, prosecutor unable A during asked to vote potential the the panel voir i f any dire examination, member o r m e m b e r s w o u l d f o r the d e a t h p e n a l t y u n d e r any juror responded that she was to instruct her as to the trial process as be circumstances. uncertain that c o u l d v o t e f o r the d e a t h p e n a l t y and the t r i a l the court she attempted follows: "There a r e two phases i n t h i s case. You've a l r e a d y h e a r d r e f e r e n c e t o b o t h p h a s e s . We won't e v e n g e t t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g p h a s e i f , i n f a c t , y o u do n o t as a j u r y c o n v i c t t h i s d e f e n d a n t o f a c a p i t a l c r i m e . The S t a t e o f A l a b a m a h a s c h a r g e d h i m w i t h a c a p i t a l c r i m e . The b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s o n t h e S t a t e to prove a l l the elements of that c a p i t a l crime b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . I f a f t e r you h e a r a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e you d o n ' t f e e l l i k e t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a h a s met that burden of proof, then i t w i l l be y o u r d u t y n o t t o c o n v i c t t h i s d e f e n d a n t o f t h a t c a p i t a l c r i m e . Now, a s s u m i n g t h a t you do, and y o u do c o n v i c t h i m o f a c a p i t a l c r i m e , t h e n a n d o n l y t h e n do we go t o t h e s e c o n d p h a s e , a n d t h a t ' s t h e phase i n w h i c h you w i l l c o n s i d e r b o t h a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances and mitigating circumstances in d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r o r n o t you w o u l d recommend t o t h e Court the i m p o s i t i o n of e i t h e r the death p e n a l t y or l i f e without the p o s s i b i l i t y of p a r o l e . " (R. 197-98.) The final instance C a l d w e l l v. M i s s i s s i p p i , cited violation of supra, occurred immediately after the 115 by Revis as a CR-06-0454 trial when court's instructions the prosecutor t o the above-noted p o t e n t i a l addressed the entire panel juror, and s t a t e d : " O k a y . A g a i n , a n y o n e who f e e l s l i k e t h e y c o u l d n o t i m p o s e t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y ? (No r e s p o n s e . ) I g u e s s impose i s a little strong word. Recommend i s p r o b a b l y t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e . " (R. 199.) None potential trial the of the juror court's juror's instances of h i s or her role instructions role cited as t o by Revis misinformed as a j u r o r , or prosecutor's nor d i d the comments sentencing. "'It i s well e s t a b l i s h e d that "the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the t r i a l court accurately informing the jury of the extent of i t s s e n t e n c i n g a u t h o r i t y and t h a t i t s sentence verdict was 'advisory' and a 'recommendation' and t h a t the t r i a l court would make the final decision as to sentence does n o t v i o l a t e C a l d w e l l [v. M i s s i s s i p p i , 472 U.S. 3 2 0 , 1 0 5 S . C t . 2 6 3 3 , 86 L . E d . 2 d 2 3 1 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ] . ' M a r t i n v . S t a t e , 548 S o . 2 d 4 8 8 , 494 ( A l a . Crim. App.), a f f i r m e d , 548 S o . 2 d 4 9 6 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , c e r t . denied, 4 9 3 U.S. 9 7 0 , 110 S . C t . 4 1 9 , 107 L.Ed. 2 d 383 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . See W h i t e v. S t a t e , 587 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 8 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f i r m e d , 587 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 6 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; c e r t . denied, 502 U.S. 1 0 7 , 112 S . C t . 9 7 9 , 117 L . E d . 2 d 142 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; K u e n z e l v . S t a t e , 577 So. 2d 474 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1990), a f f i r m e d , 577 S o . 2 d 5 3 1 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . denied, 502 U.S. 8 8 6 , 112 S . C t . 2 4 2 , 116 L.Ed. 2 d 197 (1991)." 116 any diminish CR-06-0454 M c M i l l a n v. 3d State, , As 1539, [Ms. (Ala. Crim. this C R - 0 8 - 1 9 5 4 , N o v e m b e r 5, App. court determined D e c e m b e r 18, 2009] 2010] So. 2010). i n Vanpelt So. 3d v. State, , [Ms. CR-06- (Ala. Crim. App. 2009): " F i r s t , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t and t h e p r o s e c u t o r d i d not misinform the jury that i t s penalty-phase v e r d i c t i s a recommendation. Under § 13A-5-46, A l a . Code 1975, the j u r y ' s r o l e i n p e n a l t y phase of a capital case i s to render an advisory verdict recommending a sentence t o the c i r c u i t judge. I t i s t h e c i r c u i t j u d g e who u l t i m a t e l y d e c i d e s t h e c a p i t a l defendant's sentence, and, 'w]hile the jury's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g s e n t e n c i n g s h a l l be g i v e n c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i t i s not b i n d i n g upon the c o u r t s . ' § 13A-5-47 A l a . Code 1975. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t and the p r o s e c u t o r d i d n o t m i s i n f o r m the j u r y t h a t i t s penalty-phase v e r d i c t i s a recommendation." Here, misleading there or was no violation misinforming the of the jury as prohibition to i t s role against in the sentencing decision. IX. Revis argues prejudicially those of prosecutor the that contrasted victim. the Revis's prosecutor constitutional Specifically, he i m p r o p e r l y a r g u e d t h a t R e v i s was 117 improperly rights contends being that allowed and with the his CR-06-0454 constitutional to exercise He his rights, his cites whereas the v i c t i m was no longer able constitutional rights. the f o l l o w i n g argument by c l o s i n g statement at the penalty the phase prosecutor during i n support of his contention: " A l l t h i s t h a t we're g o i n g t h r o u g h f o r C h r i s Revis on h i s b e h a l f , t h a t ' s w h a t t h i s w e e k h a s b e e n a b o u t i s C h r i s R e v i s . J e r r y S t i d h a m g o t z e r o . He g o t no due p r o c e s s . He g o t nothing." (R. 811-12.) Revis d i d not therefore, Rule any 45A, object error must was no plain Mitchell v. 3d (Ala.Crim.App. State, prosecutor's Mitchell's App. argument by the of prosecutor; rise to the level plain error in the prosecutor's error. Ala.R.App.P. There See to t h i s also [Ms. argument 2010)(finding comparing rights during Maples v. 1999)(finding argument, CR-06-0827, A u g u s t " ' I ' l l State, no bet the you no the So. 2d impropriety [the 1, in victim] D o n ' t you family] go be tickled to 118 to plain the So. error in rights closing to argument). 56-57 (Ala. the prosecutor's doesn't tougher punishment than death. would 2010] victim's guilt-phase 758 27, comment. think think the Crim. it's a [victim's penitentiary this CR-06-0454 weekend and t o be. v i s i t with t h e i r son? Sure, i t ' s a m i s e r a b l e t o h a v e t o d r i v e down t h e r e . Sure i t ' s awful want to know t h e i r than h a v i n g him think so."). (Ala, Crim. references would That's better k i d was see i n the M c N a i r v. App. penitentiary? the victim's her r i g h t s were This was clearly by State, 1992)("The that were v a l u e d Who dead. Tougher than the But to place to r i g h t s and be jury weighed at their i n the factors i n the formation 590 So. 2d 369 (Ala. 1991), L.Ed. 360, 2d 310 (Ala.Cr.App. on other affirmed 1992); 364 the against 1990), 503 U.S. ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; B a n k h e a d v. 1989), a f f i r m e d grounds, 585 on return Harris v. So. as 2d remand, State, 539 as references having expected to 974, 585 (Ala.1991) 625 So. So. 2d 2d 1117, So. S.Ct. So. (on State, 590 112 2d 2d 1594, 97, 106 remanded rehearing), 1141 (Ala.Cr.App. 1123 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988)."). " I t i s improper for a prosecutor to argue v i c t i m ' s r i g h t s and t o compare t h o s e r i g h t s t o 119 been become D u r e n v. affirmed, State, implied appellant's. t o i n s t a n t i s s u e and 112 to numerous think these were not don't 337-38 times the worth, I 320, made v e r d i c t . See (Ala.Cr.App. cert. denied, 2d several true h e a t o f d e b a t e and of So. prosecutor uttered 118 653 i m p r o p e r . H o w e v e r , we the death penalty? the the CR-06-0454 r i g h t s of McNair[v. 1992)]: the defendant. S t a t e , 653 so. H o w e v e r , a s we s t a t e d i n 2 d 320 (Ala. Crim. App. "'The prosecutor made numerous references to the victim's rights and s e v e r a l t i m e s i m p l i e d t h a t her r i g h t s were t o be w e i g h e d a g a i n s t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s . T h i s was c l e a r l y i m p r o p e r . H o w e v e r , we think t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s were v a l u e d by the j u r y a t t h e i r t r u e w o r t h , as h a v i n g b e e n u t t e r e d i n t h e h e a t o f d e b a t e and were n o t e x p e c t e d t o become f a c t o r s i n t h e formation of the v e r d i c t . See D u r e n v . S t a t e , 590 So. 2d 3 6 0 , 364 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), a f f i r m e d , 590 So. 2 d 369 (Ala. 1991), c e r t . denied, 503 U.S. 974, 112 S . C t . 1594, 118 L . E d . 2d 310 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; B a n k h e a d v . S t a t e , 585 So. 2 d 97, 106 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), affirmed as to instant issue and remanded on other g r o u n d s , 585 So. 2 d 112 ( A l a . 1991) (on r e h e a r i n g ) , a f f i r m e d on r e t u r n t o r e m a n d , 625 So. 2 d 1141 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992); H a r r i s v. State, 539 So. 2d 1117, 1123 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) . '" "653 So. 2 d a t 3 3 7 - 3 8 . See a l s o C a l h o u n v . State, 932 So. 2 d 923 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 548 U.S. 926, 126 S.Ct. 2 9 8 4 , 165 L.Ed. 2d 990 (2006) (no reversible error when prosecutor commented t h a t the d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t h e r g o t t o p l e a d for h i s l i f e but t h a t the v i c t i m ' s mother d i d not g e t t o p l e a d f o r h e r s o n ' s l i f e ) ; L e w i s v. State, 889 So. 2 d 623 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) (no r e v e r s i b l e error when prosecutor argued that jury should consider the r i g h t s of the p e o p l e l i v i n g i n the c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e v i c t i m l i v e d ) ; J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 820 So. 2 d 842 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000), a f f ' d , 820 So. 2 d 883 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 535 U.S. 1058, 122 S.Ct. 1921, 152 L.Ed. 2d 828 (2002) (no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r when p r o s e c u t o r a r g u e d t h a t i t was n o t f a i r t o t h e v i c t i m b e c a u s e she d i d n o t g e t a 120 CR-06-0454 two-week t r i a l l i k e t h e d e f e n d a n t ) . F o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n M c N a i r , we f i n d n o p l a i n e r r o r . " B r o w n v . S t a t e , 11 S o . 3 d 8 6 6 , 9 1 8 - 1 9 (Ala. Crim. affirmed, cert. , 11 S o . 3 d 9 3 3 129 S . C t . 2864 Here, ( A l a . 2008), t h e p r o s e c u t o r made o n e b r i e f victim no longer numerous o c c a s i o n s be construed comment. could denied, mention his constitutional U.S. b e . The jury was of the fact rights while instructed t h a t t h e arguments o f counsel as e v i d e n c e made i n d e b a t e . 2007), (2009). t h a t R e v i s was b e i n g a c c o r d e d the App. were n o t t o b u t t o be c o n s i d e r e d as h a v i n g T h e r e was n o p l a i n error on been as a r e s u l t of this of h i s rights t o due 23 X. Revis process during argues t h a t he was d e p r i v e d and a f a i r the jury trial because o f the t r i a l court's errors selection. A. I n t h i s argument, R e v i s a l s o a l l u d e s t o t h e c l a i m t h a t R e v i s was p e n a l i z e d f o r h i s i n v o c a t i o n o f h i s r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t when h e was c o n t a c t e d b y t h e p o l i c e t o a c t a s a n informant b u t d i d n o t confess a t t h a t time. This c l a i m has p r e v i o u s l y been d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n and determined a d v e r s e l y t o R e v i s . See I s s u e V I I . D . 2 3 121 CR-06-0454 Revis remove contends three that potential the t r i a l jurors court who alleges impartial. He r a i s e s t h i s therefore, t h i s m a t t e r i s due t o be e v a l u a t e d plain-error rule. Juror answering S.D. Rule f o r the f i r s t any during voir potential had read about the case. He dire jurors knowledge o f t h e case o r p r e c o n c e i v e d he then you, that t i m e on appeal; pursuant to the any in pretrial or biases, " I do h a v e o f Alabama s o we that knew don't have Ken Mays any o f the w i t n e s s e s , was h i s brother-in-law. a underneath o n . " (R. 7 0 . ) S u b s e q u e n t l y , w h e n t h e v e n i r e i f a n y member affirmed n o t be had j u s t t o l e t y o u know t h a t asked could stated, t h a t works f o r the State problem l a t e r to examination, notions brother-in-law Ken Mays, by f a i l i n g 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . stated whether issue he erred Juror He a was S.D. was then a s k e d i f t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p w o u l d a f f e c t h i s d e c i s i o n "one way or the other." (R. 81.) He r e s p o n d e d , (R. S.D. 81.) J u r o r u l t i m a t e l y served n e v e r moved t o s t r i k e 2d this "No, s i r . I g u e s s n o t . " on t h e j u r y , b u t j u r o r . Cf F i s h e r v. S t a t e , 1027, 1035 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 1039 ( A l a . 1991), appellant was cert. aware denied, of these 504 U.S. statements 122 941 before Revis 587 S o . 587 S o . 2 d (1992)("[T]he the jury was CR-06-0454 empaneled. 'Counsel with j u r o r may and knowledge not remain s i l e n t i f unfavorable, trial.' Daniels 172-73 of a a n d g a m b l e on a f a v o r a b l e verdict the motion for 275 2d raise a State's cause. The to fact that witness The support State, in removal A l a . App. Juror d i d not statute a 49 matter a that S.D. require sets f o r cause which party i s governed states that a by out is § removal of a veniremember a was 654, that he the or according by factors to the defendant or with injured." cause State, as 473 Thus, be removed within the of civil the the prosecutor provision being related cousin 2d 1167, for being to ( A l a . C r i m . App. a witness, 123 1975, i f i t is ninth computed with the because be removed f o r witness. Scott 1 9 8 5 ) ( j u r o r was r e m o v e d f o r c a u s e on t h e g r o u n d to a State's 1975. or the person a l l e g e d to i s no So. for related w i t h i n the either to would A l a . Code degree, law, r e s u l t of a that f o r cause fifth there r e q u i r e d t o be first rules excused 12-16-150, A l a . Code 12-16-150(4), j u r o r may affinity be as a r e s u l t o f h i s b e i n g § 169, r e l a t e d by marriage s h o w n " t h a t he i s c o n n e c t e d b y c o n s a n g u i n i t y degree, So. new (1973)."). The v. of a d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n v. not t h a t s h e was s h e "was a related to CR-06-0454 a witness, person the and not alleged ... be statute i n j u r e d , ' the Proctor Crim. App. v. for venire where might be mistrial a the witnesses; was C i t y of 2001)(The motion or, fails married bias or was biased S.D. stated Mays, the record about the case. brother-in-law Juror S.D., Investigator properly or to had 38, the support a l t e r n a t i v e , to the trial by marriage c e r t a i n t h a t he to the one Revis prior indicates There him further, Mays w o u l d n o t strike of the that the or that removed f o r cause failed to knowledge of no he stated statement about the stated that based show t h a t Juror argues that Juror the case that by he him from read that his case. his being effect his ability Supreme 2 d 193 Court stated (Ala.2000): 124 Ken had to related serve juror. "As the Alabama B u r g e s s , 827 So. he State's knew t h e w i t n e s s be has that was told (Ala. Proctor's acknowledged of See grandmother). a j u r o r may had 43 denied i n t h i s case. Although Revis t h a t he 2d the impartiality, S.D. So. in grandfather not court 830 during juror he was still Prattville, trial Moreover, although on the prosecutor a p p e l l a n t ' s m o t i o n . " § 1 2 - 1 6 - 1 5 0 ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) . also he to 'the d e f e n d a n t o r in Ex parte as to a CR-06-0454 "'The test f o r deciding a challenge f o r cause i s whether the juror can ignore his p r e c o n c e i v e d ideas and render a v e r d i c t according to the evidence a n d t h e l a w . E x p a r t e T a y l o r , 666 So. 2 d 7 3 , 82 ( A l a . 1995) . A j u r o r "need n o t be e x c u s e d m e r e l y because [the juror] knows s o m e t h i n g o f t h e c a s e t o be t r i e d or because [the j u r o r ] has formed some opinions regarding i t . " K i n d e r v . S t a t e , 515 So. 2 d 5 5 , 61 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) . F o r a juror t o be d i s q u a l i f i e d , the juror's opinion of the defendant's guilt or innocence "must be s o f i x e d t h a t i t w o u l d b i a s t h e v e r d i c t a j u r o r w o u l d be required t o r e n d e r . " Oryang v. S t a t e , 642 S o . 2 d 9 7 9 , 987 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993) ( q u o t i n g S i e b e r t v. State, 562 S o . 2 d 5 8 6 , 5 9 5 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989)) (emphasis added). See a l s o Ala.Code 1975.'" Doster v. S t a t e , , [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 0 3 2 3 , ( A l a . C r i m . App. § 12-16-150, July 30, 2010] 2010). " B e c a u s e a d e f e n d a n t h a s no r i g h t t o a p e r f e c t jury jury, of h i s or her choice, see A l a . analysis of that Const. but rather 1901 § 6, we only find B e t h e a v. S p r i n g h i l l 125 jury or a t o an ' i m p a r t i a l ' the t o be t h e p r o p e r method o f a s s u r i n g right." So. 3d harmless-error the recognition Mem'l H o s p . , 833 So. 2 d CR-06-0454 1, 7 (Ala. 2002). Even i f Revis could show that Juror S.D. s h o u l d h a v e b e e n r e m o v e d f o r c a u s e , he w o u l d n e e d t o s h o w t h a t he was prejudiced jury." (Ala. 136 Id. See remove a several bias error witnesses that in and could would a who who the that the trial this challenge Much is and 990 court's stated a bearing falls prevented on So. d i d not the 2d U.S. that she on voir her to dire she tenor selected we in find denying to the discretion of the trial court i s able of or his her to view the responses court j u r o r ' s demeanor during voir j u s t i f y a c h a l l e n g e of a j u r o r f o r cause there be a s t a t u t o r y ground ( A l a . Code Section 126 in impartial, examination. "'To must from cause."). trial the her absolute here, i t s discretion to however, been because hear that an whether a p o t e n t i a l j u r o r i s b i a s e d or and sponte potential juror] determining the S.Ct. related decision; circumstances abuse 981-82 sua was short of proving [the 931, , 129 failing i m p a r t i a l v e r d i c t had court left "a l e s s - t h a n - i m p a r t i a l State, indicated j u r y . Under for with denied, trial have have fair on serve left cert. v o i r d i r e examination rendering to 2003), j u r o r f o r cause relationship "the being a l s o McGowan v . C r i m App. (2008)(no by dire CR-06-0454 12-16-150 (1975)), or some m a t t e r w h i c h imports a b s o l u t e b i a s o r f a v o r , and l e a v e s n o t h i n g t o the d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' N e t t l e s v. State, 435 So. 2 d 146, 149 (Ala. Crim. App.), a f f ' d , 435 So. 2 d 151 ( A l a . 1983). S e c t i o n 12-16-150 s e t s out the grounds f o r removal of veniremembers f o r cause i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s ; h o w e v e r , we f i n d t h a t none o f those s t a t u t o r y grounds are a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s case. In a d d i t i o n to the s t a t u t o r y grounds, there are other common-law grounds for challenging veniremembers f o r cause where t h o s e grounds are not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s t a t u t e . S m i t h v. S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 9 7 - 1 2 5 8 , December 22, 2000] So.2d (Ala. C r i m . App. 2000), a f f ' d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , rev'd i n part, [Ms. 1 0 1 0 2 6 7 , M a r c h 14, 2 0 0 3 ] So.2d (Ala. 2003); Kinder v. S t a t e , 515 So. 2d 55, 60 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . H e r e , we a r e d e a l i n g with t h e common-law g r o u n d f o r c h a l l e n g e o f s u s p i c i o n o f b i a s or p a r t i a l i t y . See d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e c o m m o n - l a w g r o u n d s f o r c h a l l e n g e i n T o m l i n v . S t a t e , 909 So. 2d 213 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002), remanded for resentencing, 909 So. 2d 283 (Ala. 2003). U l t i m a t e l y , 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 veniremember can set aside h i s or her opinions, p r e j u d i c e s , o r b i a s e s , and t r y the c a s e f a i r l y and i m p a r t i a l l y , a c c o r d i n g t o the law and the e v i d e n c e . S m i t h v. State, supra. This determination of a v e n i r e m e m b e r ' s a b s o l u t e b i a s o r f a v o r i s b a s e d on the veniremember's answers and demeanor and is w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t ; however, that discretion i s not unlimited. Rule 18.4(e), Ala.R.Crim.P., provides, in part: 'When a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r i s s u b j e c t to c h a l l e n g e f o r cause or i t r e a s o n a b l y appears t h a t the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r cannot or w i l l not render a f a i r and impartial verdict, the court, on i t s own initiative or on m o t i o n o f any p a r t y , s h a l l e x c u s e t h a t j u r o r f r o m s e r v i c e i n the case.' Even p r o o f t h a t a veniremember has a bias or fixed opinion is insufficient to support a challenge f o r cause. A p r o s p e c t i v e juror s h o u l d n o t be d i s q u a l i f i e d f o r p r e j u d i c e o r b i a s i f i t a p p e a r s from h i s o r h e r a n s w e r s and demeanor t h a t 127 CR-06-0454 the i n f l u e n c e of that prejudice or b i a s can e l i m i n a t e d and t h a t , i f c h o s e n as a juror, veniremember would render a v e r d i c t according to l a w a n d t h e e v i d e n c e . M a n n v . S t a t e , 581 So. 2 d 25 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) ; M i n s h e w v . S t a t e , 542 2 d 307 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1988)." McGowan v . Ala. 220, State 7 So. 990 So. 337 2d at 951. See (1890)(Daniel's denied concealed weapon, when t h e m o t i o n h a d was a first charge of the p l a c e been exhibited. accepted before the cousin juror and the not nor witness counsel j u r y , had and, in was a the was who of in s a i d to this 88 have f a c t when making he inquiry b e e n i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e r e was r e f u s a l of the no motion discretionary.). Juror of carrying know r e l a t i o n s h i p between them; however, the was for a l l e g e d t h a t one State's did State, trial w h e n t h e p i s t o l was he his v. f o r new conviction the where and Although accepting his motion properly jurors following Daniels be the the 22, So. the did failure was not due statutory exclusions Revis to Revis removed S.D. any remove t h i s further cites for questioning show cause t h a t he sua had t o be of § prejudice removed f o r cause under 12-16-150, due to Ala. the Code trial any 1975, court's juror. t o two p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s who sponte. Juror D.A. stated been a v i c t i m of a crime; 128 were he not during was shot CR-06-0454 during a an a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y , theft. record Juror D.A. indicates that also and h i s son had been a v i c t i m o f served Juror D.A. on t h e j u r y . affirmed t h a t he " c o u l d s i t on a c a s e a n d l i s t e n hear i t a n d make a f a i r However, t h e to the t r i a l t o t h e e v i d e n c e as you and i m p a r t i a l d e c i s i o n based e v i d e n c e a s y o u h e a r i t a n d make a f a i r court on t h e and i m p a r t i a l d e c i s i o n b a s e d on what you h e a r . " (R. 1 0 4 . ) He f u r t h e r a n s w e r e d i n t h e negative to a as problems from t h e shooting. So. is question t o whether he (R. 1 0 4 - 0 5 . ) K n o p v . M c C a i n , 2 d 2 2 9 , 232 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ( " U l t i m a t e l y , whether case the juror fairly had any r e s i d u a l can s e t aside and i m p a r t i a l l y , 561 t h e t e s t t o be a p p l i e d her opinions according and t r y t h e t o the law and the evidence."). Thus, t h e r e trial court's Juror about this was n o i n d i c a t i o n o f p r e j u d i c e failure t o remove J u r o r f o r cause. I.G. i n i t i a l l y indicated that case his prior knowledge and t h a t case would a f f e c t h i s a b i l i t y he D.A. t o serve n e x t a n s w e r e d t h a t he c o u l d p u t a s i d e b a s e h i s d e c i s i o n on t h e e v i d e n c e . 129 caused by the he h a d t w i c e regarding as a j u r o r . read the However, what he h a d r e a d a n d Thus, R e v i s has f a i l e d t o CR-06-0454 prove that State, 13 this So. denied, potential 3d 997, U.S. J.M. "stated that was he presented court's 1012 , that 130 at and was (Ala. S.Ct. could and circuit See 2 4 App. Hyde 2007), cert. Juror decision that he the court on the could law. evidence follow the J.M. was error in Thus, committed no d e n y i n g Hyde's c h a l l e n g e f o r cause of t h i s p r o s p e c t i v e See Brownfield s u p r a . " ) . F e r r y m a n v. 2d 972, 977 prospective v. (Ala. Crim. App. examination will base his reveals decision r e f u s a l to that on grant State, 1989)("Thus, even j u r o r admits to a p o t e n t i a l b i a s , dire judge's State, the the juror evidence a motion v. (2009)(potential 396 concerning the biased. Crim. base h i s trial instructions rehabilitated, juror to juror. 558 So. though i f further voir i n question can alone, a strike a then f o r cause and trial is not failing to error."). B. Revis argues r e m o v e a j u r o r who for the 2 4 death Juror that had the trial court s t a t e d t h a t he erred would a u t o m a t i c a l l y penalty. I.G. d i d not serve 130 on the by jury. vote CR-06-0454 The record examination potential penalty of indicates the jurors after body i n t h i s venire, would seeing case. that, during defense counsel a u t o m a t i c a l l y vote t h e gruesome pictures J u r o r A.F. r e s p o n d e d the as voir asked dire i f any f o r the of the death victim's follows: " I ' v e a c t u a l l y b e e n u p c l o s e w i t h d i s m e m b e r e d human bodies, and f o r a person t o d e l i b e r a t e l y take t h a t t i m e t o m a l i c i o u s l y d e s t r o y a human b o d y , a human person, I believe t h a t i f t h e y do i t w i t h full i n t e n t a n d t h e e v i d e n c e p r o v e s i t , t h e n b y a l l means the death p e n a l t y s h o u l d be i n v o k e d . That's my opinion." (R. 229.) Subsequently, for cause, following and defense the trial c o u n s e l moved t o s t r i k e court denied the J u r o r A.F. motion. transpired: " [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : . . . [ J u r o r A.F.] s a i d t h a t he f e l t t h e same w a y [ a n o t h e r p o t e n t i a l j u r o r ] f e l t a n d t h a t i f you committed a heinous a c t , you s h o u l d g e t the death p e n a l t y . "THE COURT: W e l l , he further said i f the e v i d e n c e s h o w e d t h a t i t was a h e i n o u s a c t , a n d o f course, they will receive instructions i f [the prosecutor] says t h a t ' s one o f t h e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , w h i c h I d o n ' t know w h a t y o u ' r e g o i n g to contend a r e t h e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s o t h e r t h a n r o b b e r y , b u t i f he d o e s , t h e n I t h i n k he h a s s a i d he w o u l d l i s t e n a n d he w o u l d b a s e i t on t h e f a c t s . So t h a t ' s a b u r d e n o f p r o o f t h e S t a t e h a s t o prove beyond a reasonable doubt, so I don't t h i n k I 131 The CR-06-0454 will strike more. "MR. him f o r cause GLENN: I don't unless you can t e l l me have any more." (R. 2 4 0 . ) Juror the A . F . d i d n o t s e r v e o n t h e j u r y a n d was State using i t s 5th strike o f 15 s t r i k e s . So. 2d 737, "'"The 'original consti¬ t u t i o n a l y a r d s t i c k ' on t h i s i s s u e was d e s c r i b e d i n W i t h e r s p o o n v . I l l i n o i s , 3 9 1 U.S. 5 1 0 , 88 S . C t . 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). Under Witherspoon, b e f o r e a j u r o r c o u l d be removed f o r cause b a s e d on t h e j u r o r ' s v i e w s on t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , t h e j u r o r h a d t o make i t u n m i s t a k a b l y c l e a r t h a t he o r s h e 132 by ( S u p p . R. 1 4 8 . ) "'"A t r i a l j u d g e i s in a decidedly better position than an appellate court to assess the c r e d i b i l i t y of the jurors during voir dire questioning. S e e F o r d v . S t a t e , 628 So. 2 d 1068 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993). For that reason, we g i v e great deference to a trial judge's ruling on challenges f o r cause. B a k e r v . S t a t e , 906 S o . 2 d 210 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2001)." " ' T u r n e r v. S t a t e , 924 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). struck 754 CR-06-0454 would a u t o m a t i c a l l y vote against the d e a t h p e n a l t y and t h a t h i s or h e r f e e l i n g s on t h a t i s s u e w o u l d t h e r e f o r e p r e v e n t the j u r o r from m a k i n g an i m p a r t i a l d e c i s i o n on g u i l t . H o w e v e r , t h i s i s no l o n g e r t h e t e s t . I n W a i n w r i g h t v. W i t t , 469 U.S. 412, 105 S . C t . 844, 83 L . E d . 2 d 841 (1985), the United States Supreme C o u r t h e l d that the p r o p e r standard for deter¬ mining whether a veniremember should be excluded for cause because of opposition to the death penalty is whether the veniremember's views would '"prevent or s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p a i r t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f h i s d u t i e s as a juror i n accordance with his i n s t r u c t i o n s and h i s oath."'[Quoting Adams v . Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 (1980).] The Supreme Court has expressly s t a t e d t h a t j u r o r b i a s does not have to be proven with " u n m i s t a k a b l e c l a r i t y . "Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986).' " ' F r e s s l e y v . S t a t e , 770 So. 2 d 1 1 5 , 127 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 770 So. 2d 143 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . See a l s o U t t e c h t v . B r o w n , 551 U.S. 1, 9, 127 S . C t . 2218, 2224, 167 L . E d . 2 d 1014 (2007) ("[A] j u r o r who is substantially impaired in his or her a b i l i t y to impose the death p e n a l t y under t h e s t a t e - l a w f r a m e w o r k c a n be e x c u s e d f o r cause; but i f the juror is not s u b s t a n t i a l l y impaired, removal f o r cause is impermissible.").' 133 CR-06-0454 " S a u n d e r s v . S t a t e , 10 So. 3 d 5 3 , 7 5 - 7 6 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , S a u n d e r s v. A l a b a m a , U.S. , 129 S. Ct. 2433, 174 L. Ed. 2d 229 (2009)." Johnson v.State, , in evidence J u r o r A.F. favor vote of proved p e n a l t y was basis C R - 9 9 - 1 3 4 9 , O c t o b e r 2, ( A l a . C r i m . App. Here, vote [Ms. that say death a t h a t he penalty. body was a proper sentence. no indication a body death penalty substantially instructions a impair or to would not 3d as said an be that then an automatic. the of his ability automatically death to f o l l o w the unbiased i f the death and his There was desecration would prevent trial of or court's juror. "Broad d i s c r e t i o n i s v e s t e d w i t h the t r i a l c o u r t i n determining whether or not to s u s t a i n c h a l l e n g e s f o r c a u s e . B r o w n v . W o o l v e r t o n , 219 A l a . 1 1 2 , 121 So. 404 ( 1 9 2 8 ) ; C l e n d e n o n v . Y a r b r o u g h , 233 A l a . 269, 171 So. 277 ( 1 9 3 6 ) ; G l e n n v . S t a t e , 395 So. 2 d 102 (Ala.Cr.App.) cert. denied, 395 So. 2d 110 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . On a p p e a l , t h i s C o u r t w i l l l o o k t o s e e if the trial court's discretion was properly e x e r c i s e d . A l a b a m a F o w e r Co. v . H e n d e r s o n , 342 So. 2 d 323 ( A l a . 1 9 7 6 ) ; C o l l i n s v . S t a t e , 385 So. 2 d 993 (Ala.Cr.App. 1 9 7 9 ) , r e v e r s e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 385 So. 2 d 1005 (Ala. 1980)." 134 the evidentiary death penalty, concerning sentence serve He T h u s , t h e r e was that his feelings implicating would dismembered s t a t e d f o r h i s i m p o s i t i o n of the f o r the So. 2009). d i d not the 2009] CR-06-0454 Ex parte N e t t l e s , 435 Juror 2d 151, 154 trial The So. was in the best A.F.'s A.F.'s court demeanor response discretion decidedly by the better the credibility See F o r d v. of we challenges responding not trial the 628 2d f o r c a u s e . B a k e r v. 2 0 0 1 ) . ' " S a u n d e r s v. C r i m . App. 2007), c e r t . 174 L.Ed. 737, 2d 754 229 (2009), ( A l a . C r i m . App. J u r o r A.F. d i d not have t o use remove him trial from the court's have been harmless. C r i m . App. 777 So. 2d to to a t r i a l 906 10 in of a assess questioning. 1993). judge's So. So. to 2d 3d For ruling 210 75 53, (Ala. (Ala. 2433, , 129 S.Ct. T u r n e r v. quoting State, 924 So. 2d 2002). d i d not one serve on Revis's jury, of h i s peremptory challenges any excuse Hagood v. (Ala. dire is U.S. error resulting Juror A.F. S t a t e , 777 So. 1998), a f f i r m e d i n p a r t 214 court State, j u r y . Thus, failure judge State, denied, Moreover, Revis trial voir Juror abuse ( A l a . C r i m . App. give great deference evaluate of appellate an 1068 C r i m . App. to question. finding "'A jurors during So. this a court. 1983). position to support p o s i t i o n than State, that reason, on does in (Ala. 1999)("Any 135 for error in cause 2d 162, r e m a n d e d on the from other trial 176 and to the would (Ala. grounds, court's CR-06-0454 failure to grant harmless and does Ala.R.App.F."). subsequently defense counsel's challenge for not excused reversal. record The warrant reflects that prospective Juror State, , n. indicates strong the this See ( A l a . C r i m . App. that as to neither party potential juror, Beard Accordingly, challenge ("We court because 2010] So. note t h a t the v. no for and State, death penalty but her However, beliefs. had to she d i d not 661 reversible exercise So. 2d error that a 789 she on record in was had not record to remove the (Ala.Cr.App. occurred 3d the strike serve he sequestered. t h a t a t h i r d p o t e n t i a l j u r o r i n d i c a t e d t h a t she questioned also 2010) 45, trial A.F., C R - 0 7 - 1 9 9 7 , F e b r u a r y 5, f e e l i n g s about the further shows 10 [Ms. was Rule i n d i c a t e d t h a t he w o u l d h a v e a p r o b l e m w i t h b e i n g M o r r i s v. cause jury."). 1995). denying the granted the cause. C. Revis State's argues t h a t the challenges indicated that failed object to trial f o r c a u s e as they to court to three p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s could not their removal 136 improperly impose at the death trial. penalty. Therefore, who He any CR-06-0454 e r r o r m u s t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f p l a i n e r r o r . R u l e 45A, In this jurors' case, the trial court Ala.R.App.F. evaluated the potential r e s p o n s e s a n d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e y w o u l d be u n a b l e impartially apply the law based on the to evidence. "[A] b l a n k e t d e c l a r a t i o n o f s u p p o r t o f o r o p p o s i t i o n to the death p e n a l t y i s not n e c e s s a r y f o r a t r i a l judge to d i s q u a l i f y a j u r o r . "'Veniremen simply cannot be asked enough q u e s t i o n s t o r e a c h the p o i n t where their bias has been made unmistakably c l e a r ; t h e s e v e n i r e m e n may n o t know how t h e y w i l l r e a c t when f a c e d w i t h i m p o s i n g the d e a t h s e n t e n c e , o r may b e u n a b l e t o a r t i c u l a t e , o r may w i s h t o h i d e t h e i r t r u e f e e l i n g s . Despite t h i s l a c k of c l a r i t y i n the p r i n t e d r e c o r d , h o w e v e r , t h e r e w i l l be s i t u a t i o n s where the t r i a l judge i s l e f t with the definite impression that a prospective juror would be unable to f a i t h f u l l y and i m p a r t i a l l y a p p l y t h e law. For r e a s o n s t h a t w i l l be d e v e l o p e d more f u l l y i n f r a , t h i s i s why d e f e r e n c e m u s t b e p a i d t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e who s e e s a n d h e a r s the juror.' " W a i n w r i g h t [ v . S t a t e , 469 U.S. 4 1 2 , 8 4 4 , 8 5 4 , 83 L . E d . 2 d 841 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ] . " Ex parte 1989), Whisenhant, cert. Here, 496 So. U.S. 2d 943 235, 241 105 S.Ct. (Ala. Crim. App. (1990.) a l l t h r e e p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s c o n f i r m e d t h a t t h e y were inextricably after denied, 555 426, opposed affirming that t o t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . As she could 137 not vote to to Juror impose a L.H., death CR-06-0454 penalty sentence, follow-up she l a t e r questioning responded to the t r i a l court's and s t a t e d : "THE COURT: ... W i t h o u t g o i n g a n y f u r t h e r t h a n t h a t , my q u e s t i o n i s , i s w o u l d y o u d i s r e g a r d t h i s Court's i n s t r u c t i o n , vote against the death penalty r e g a r d l e s s o f what t h e e v i d e n c e i s ? "[Juror L.H.] No, s i r . "THE COURT: So y o u w o u l d b e a b l e t o l i s t e n t o the Court's instruction, and under certain circumstances i f the evidence d i c t a t e s that the d e a t h p e n a l t y s h o u l d be imposed, you w o u l d be a b l e t o v o t e f o r t h a t ; i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? Do y o u u n d e r s t a n d w h a t I'm s a y i n g ? Do y o u w a n t me t o r e - e x p l a i n i t ? "[Juror L . H . ] : No, s i r . I g u e s s I h a v e t o d e c l i n e because I w o u l d n ' t f u l l y be h o n e s t about i t . "THE COURT: O k a y . A n d t h a t ' s "[Juror "THE L.H.]: fine. I ' d have t o d e c l i n e . COURT: T h a t ' s f i n e . T h a t ' s w h a t we n e e d t o know. " [ J u r o r L.H.]: I would respect f u l l y , b u t I ' d have t o d e c l i n e . "THE (R. COURT: O k a y . respectfully, Thank y o u s o much." 170-71.) Similarly, prosecutor's Juror question S.H. "[m]y r e l i g i o u s had as t o whether j u r o r s who c o u l d n o t v o t e that -- also there responded make 138 me the were any p o t e n t i a l f o r the death penalty. beliefs to feel She r e s p o n d e d that way. I was CR-06-0454 r a i s e d C a t h o l i c , a n d we, a s a r e l i g i o n , penalty. but probably not." the death of the law, I could I f i t were an o f f i c e r are against possibly, (R. 1 3 4 . ) T h e r e a f t e r , questioned by the t r i a l court, when s h e was f u r t h e r the following transpired: "THE COURT: ... L e t me a s k i t t h i s w a y : W o u l d you disregard the instructions that you would receive i n the sentencing phase, vote against the d e a t h p e n a l t y r e g a r d l e s s o f what t h e e v i d e n c e i s i n t h e c a s e ? D i d y o u u n d e r s t a n d my q u e s t i o n ? " [ J u r o r S.H.]: Y e s , a n d i t ' s r e a l l y h a r d t o a n s w e r t h a t b e c a u s e , I mean, I w o u l d r e s p e c t w h a t y o u w o u l d t e l l me, b u t I j u s t d o n ' t t h i n k we h a v e the r i g h t t o t a k e somebody e l s e ' s l i f e . I t h i n k God h a s t h e r i g h t t o d o t h a t , a n d we d o n ' t . "THE opinion. COURT: A n d l e t me t e l l y o u , I r e s p e c t Okay. G r e a t . Thank y o u v e r y much. "[Juror (R. S.H.]: Thank y o u . " 172.) A p o t e n t i a l j u r o r religious impartial convictions decision. may b e r e m o v e d prevent Bryant him v. S t a t e , (Ala. Crim. App. 1999), a f f i r m e d other grounds, understandable 9 5 1 S o . 2 d 724 that that the State or her would from where making an 951 So. 2 d 7 0 2 , 715-16 i npart, (Ala. f o r cause reversed 2002)("It seek i n p a r t on i s therefore t o ensure that i t r e m o v e s t h o s e j u r o r s who m i g h t b e u n a b l e t o r e c o m m e n d a d e a t h sentence because of religious convictions, such factors or moral 139 as feelings philosophy."). of guilt, CR-06-0454 Finally, whether Juror any able to She the (R. examined J u r o r R.J. death buck to that instructions the she of the t o do did death penalty." maintained instructions evidence. watch Juror that of the R.J. as statements, we stated court did "I extensively to believe impose the u n f a i r to "push the 175.) she to the that in (R. i f would However, could "take she the instructions, follow evidence warrants i t , impose 176.) answers might trial not court trial she know the reluctance she job." listen R.J.'s she the i f the (R. Because the Juror trial and that not Court, i n s t r u c t i o n s , and Although her stated then a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t i t was somebody e l s e maintained those and She to impose to as f e e l t h a t she and L a t e r , the question unable d i d not death penalty, 135.) the be as t o h e r b e l i e f s penalty. death penalty to would s t a t e d t h a t she impose j u s t d o n ' t know." the responded potential jurors death penalty. be R.J. were be and c o u r t was d e c i s i o n on best listen to court the p o s i t i o n to the tenor of d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g t h e S t a t e ' s m o t i o n t o remove J u r o r R.J. 140 the the follow its cause. that she abused for say i n the consistent, to able base her r e s p o n d e d and cannot not CR-06-0454 Because the of the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , b a s e d on t h r e e p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s whose r e m o v a l R e v i s their opposition to the death with t h e i r a b i l i t y to serve court did not challenges abuse 2009). See J.W.C. review set f o r the aside as substantially The granted the to the views State, trial court State's So. sentencing the challenges J.W.C."). D. 141 CR-06App. (Ala. Crim. 129 S.Ct. 2433 be able of options. death to consider could trial or not court's C l e a r l y , J.L.M.'s would their duties i t s discretion cause and veniremember penalty of J.L.M. t h a t he f o l l o w the for [Ms. 53, c a s e and abuse State's 3d each performance d i d not the trial , would not and the (Ala. Crim. that in this and State, d i r e examination beliefs the have i n t e r f e r e d , 10 responses challenges, granting U.S. voir on impaired in 3d demonstrates personal J.W.C.'s jurors. the death penalty instructions and So. s t a t e d t h a t he his would K i l l i n g s w o r t h v. denied, of clearly unequivocally vote discretion 2009] cert. penalty as i m p a r t i a l j u r o r s , a l s o S a u n d e r s v. 2007), (2009)("A his f o r c a u s e . See 0854, November 13, App. the as to have as when i t J.L.M. and CR-06-0454 Revis trial his contends that by death-qualifying court produced a conviction-prone r i g h t s to This C r i m . App. denied, an court the j u r y and venire, thus v i o l a t e d impartial jury. stated i n B r o w n v. 2007), affirmed, U.S. , 129 11 So. S.Ct. State, 3d 2864 933 11 So. 3d 866 (Ala. (Ala. 2008), cert. (2009): " I n D a v i s v . S t a t e , 718 So. 2 d 1148 (Ala. Crim. A p p . 1995) ( o p i n i o n on r e t u r n t o r e m a n d ) , a f f ' d , 718 So. 2 d 1166 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 525 U.S. 1179, 119 S . C t . 1117, 143 L . E d . 2 d 112 (1999), we stated: "'A jury composed exclusively of j u r o r s who have been d e a t h - q u a l i f i e d i n accordance with the test established in W a i n w r i g h t v . W i t t , 469 U.S. 4 1 2 , 105 S.Ct. 8 4 4 , 83 L . E d . 2 d 841 (1985), i s c o n s i d e r e d t o b e i m p a r t i a l e v e n t h o u g h i t may be m o r e c o n v i c t i o n prone than a non-death-qualified j u r y . W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 710 So. 2 d 1276 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) . See L o c k h a r t v . M c C r e e , 476 U.S. 1 6 2 , 106 S . C t . 1758, 90 L . E d . 2d 137 (1986). N e i t h e r the f e d e r a l nor the s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n p r o h i b i t s the s t a t e from ... death-qualifying jurors in capital c a s e s . I d . ; W i l l i a m s ; Haney v. S t a t e , 603 So. 2d 368, 391-92 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), a f f ' d , 603 So. 2 d 412 (Ala. 1992), c e r t . d e n i e d , 507 U.S. 9 2 5 , 113 S . C t . 1297, 122 L.Ed. 2 d 687 (1993).' "718 So. 2 d a t 1 1 5 7 . T h e r e was the State to death q u a l i f y the Brown v. State, the 11 So. 3d at 891. 142 no e r r o r i n a l l o w i n g prospective jurors." CR-06-0454 Moreover, held death-qualifying a j u r y has been consistently t o be p r o p e r i n A l a b a m a . " ' [ I ] n L o c k h a r t v. McCree, 47 6 U.S. 162, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 90 L . E d . 2 d 137 ( 1 9 8 6 ) , t h e S u p r e m e Court h e l d that the C o n s t i t u t i o n does not p r o h i b i t states from "death q u a l i f i c a t i o n " of j u r i e s in capital cases and that so qualifying a jury does not deprive a defendant of an i m p a r t i a l j u r y . 476 U.S. a t 1 7 3 , 106 S . C t . a t 1 7 6 4 . A l a b a m a c o u r t s have c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d l i k e w i s e . S e e W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 556 S o . 2 d 737 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) , r e v ' d in part, 556 S o . 2 d 744 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ; E d w a r d s v . S t a t e , 515 S o . 2 d 8 6 , 88 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ; M a r t i n v . S t a t e , 494 S o . 2 d 749 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 8 5 ) . ' " S o c k w e l l v . S t a t e , 675 S o . 2 d 4, 18 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) , a f f ' d , 675 S o . 2 d 38 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . " Brown v S t a t e , , [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 1 3 3 2 , ( A l a . C r i m . App. T h e r e was no e r r o r S e p t e m b e r 17, 2010] So. 3d 2010). on t h i s ground. XI. Revis argues that the t r i a l court committed errors i n i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s to the j u r y rights to a f a i r trial and a r e l i a b l e A. 143 a number in violation verdict. of of h i s CR-06-0454 Revis contends that the t r i a l c o u r t s h i f t e d the burden o f proof t o the defense by u s i n g c e r t a i n the jury as t o i t s duty Revis which throughout d i d not object h e now evaluated complains; pursuant to terminology to instruct the t r i a l . at trial therefore, the to the instructions this issue plain-error of i s due t o be rule. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. Specifically, improperly author o f Alabama right.'" passage referred Revis that t o an i n s t r u c t i o n Evidence, (Revis's b r i e f out of context. c o u r t gave argues the following to jurors record trial court by Judge M c E l r o y , t h e 95.) H o w e v e r , The the to "'just Revis reveals do what's has taken that the this trial instruction: "THE COURT: L a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , y o u h a v e now h e a r d t h e c a s e . You've h e a r d t h e o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t s , t h e e v i d e n c e a n d t h e c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s . I t ' s now my d u t y t o i n s t r u c t you c o n c e r n i n g t h e l a w t h a t a p p l i e s i n t h i s c a s e . J u s t t h i n k i n g b a c k t o w h e n I was i n l a w s c h o o l b a c k i n t h e l a t e ' 7 0 s , a n d t h e r e was a law p r o f e s s o r t h e r e who h a d b e e n the youngest c i r c u i t j u d g e e v e r i n t h e s t a t e o f A l a b a m a . H i s name was J u d g e M c E l r o y . I f a n y o f y ' a l l h a v e e v e r s e e n t h e e v i d e n c e book i n Alabama, t h e b i b l e on e v i d e n c e i n Alabama, i t ' s c a l l e d M c E l r o y ' s on E v i d e n c e . Judge M c E l r o y h a d b e e n a c i r c u i t j u d g e l i k e I am t o d a y . But t h e r e ' s a s t o r y about Judge M c E l r o y t h a t was o f t e n t o l d , t h a t s o m e t i m e s when he w o u l d t r y c a s e s , a t t h e e n d o f t h e e v i d e n c e he w o u l d s i m p l y j u s t s a y t o t h e j u r y , 'Go b a c k t o t h e j u r y r o o m a n d 144 CR-06-0454 j u s t do w h a t ' s r i g h t , ' a n d t h a t was t h e i n s t r u c t i o n . Well, today t h i n g s have changed i n our judicial s y s t e m . We h a v e m o r e l a w s , m o r e g u i d e l i n e s , a n d i t ' s v e r y , v e r y i m p o r t a n t t h a t I p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t you as to the a p p l i c a b l e law t h a t a p p l i e s i n t h i s case. I c a n n o t and w o u l d not j u s t say, 'Go b a c k and do w h a t ' s r i g h t . ' P l e a s e l i s t e n t o t h e law as I w i l l g i v e i t t o y o u , some w h i c h I w i l l r e a d s t r a i g h t f r o m t h e s t a t u t e s . B u t I'm a s k i n g y o u t o l i s t e n l i k e y o u have never l i s t e n e d b e f o r e i n your l i f e . " (R. 654-55.) The trial court did not shift R e v i s by t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n . R a t h e r , the i n s t r u c t e d as t o t h e e v i d e n c e jurors the importance of The judge not the law. did listening tell the to the informing a n d was proof preparing t h e j u d g e was j u r y t o be of burden of the to h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s jurors what on to do is as to i t s duty right. The as trial court i n s t r u c t e d the fact-finders following weighers above-quoted of the fully evidence instruction. The jury immediately was also p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d t h a t the State c a r r i e d the burden of proof as the and jury follows: "The defendant, i n h i s answer t o the indictment, s a y s t h a t he i s n o t g u i l t y . T h i s p l a c e s u p o n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , the d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y , the burden of proving h i s g u i l t beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden n e v e r r e s t s upon the d e f e n d a n t t o e s t a b l i s h his innocence, nor to d i s p r o v e the f a c t s t e n d i n g to e s t a b l i s h h i s g u i l t . In regard to t h i s , I i n s t r u c t 145 CR-06-0454 you t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s presumed t o i n n o c e n t , and the p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t he i s i n n o c e n t r e m a i n s until such time as each o f you i s c o n v i n c e d from t h e evidence the defendant i s g u i l t y beyond a reasonable doubt. This presumption of innocence i s t o be r e g a r d e d by you as a m a t t e r o f e v i d e n c e and i s a benefit t o which the defendant i s entitled. It attends the defendant throughout the t r i a l . " (R. 667.) Revis also contends that the trial court improperly s h i f t e d t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f b y i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y o n "how t o arrive to 'at the true f a c t s . ' " the following (Revis's b r i e f , instruction by the t r i a l a t 96.) He refers court: "The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s d o e s n o t come w i t h i n my p r o v i n c e . T h a t i s y o u r p r o v i n c e , a n d i t i s of t h e h i g h e s t i m p o r t a n c e i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e t h a t o u r p r o v i n c e s be k e p t s e p a r a t e . "Now, i n a r r i v i n g a t t h e t r u e f a c t s you a r e d i r e c t e d to take into account a l l the testimony of the w i t n e s s e s . I t i s your duty to attempt to reconcile a l l the testimony so that a l l the witnesses speak the truth i f you can do so reasonably." (R. 656.) Revis submits that the error was c o m p o u n d e d b y t h e t r i a l jury that, the issues As I have "You h a v e i n this said resulting this charge court's e a r l i e r i n s t r u c t i o n to the t a k e n an o a t h t o w e l l case and t o r e t u r n before, from the word 146 and t r u l y a verdict verdict i s try a l l i n this case. from Latin, CR-06-0454 veridictus. I t means t o s p e a k t h e t r u t h , w i l l b e a s k e d t o do i n t h i s c a s e . " the trial defense court had the burden committed the burden by the instruction reasonable of someone the to v. i s what you the the j u r y showing jury that the t r u t h , that the the meaning crime was else. would impart assumption meaning." H a r r i s App. instructed of showing jury instructions that (R251.) A c c o r d i n g t o R e v i s , of p r e s e n t i n g evidence However, this erroneously and that and not this the gave State, have jury to 412 meaning. took them So. reasonably 2d "We construed think i t a common s e n s e their plainly 1278, 1281 view apparent (Ala. Crim. 1982). "'"A t r i a l c o u r t h a s b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n in formulating i t s jury instructions, provid[ed] those i n s t r u c t i o n s accurately r e f l e c t the law and the f a c t s o f t h e c a s e . I n g r a m v. S t a t e , 779 So. 2d 1225 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1999) ( c i t i n g R a p e r v. S t a t e , 584 S o . 2 d 544 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991)). Moreover, t h i s C o u r t does not r e v i e w j u r y instructions in isolation, instead we consider the instruction as a whole. S t e w a r t v. S t a t e , 601 S o . 2 d 491 (Ala. C r i m . A p p . 19 9 2 ) . " ' " L i v i n g v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 9 8 - 1 3 2 6 , May 2 6 , 2 0 0 0 ] So. 2d , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . F u r t h e r , t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r a l c h a r g e m u s t be c o n s t r u e d as whole and m u s t be given a reasonable-- not s t r a i n e d - - c o n s t r u c t i o n . W i l s o n v . S t a t e , 777 S o . 147 a a a a 2d CR-06-0454 856 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999). See a l s o Maples v. S t a t e , 758 S o . 2 d 1, 63 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , aff'd, 758 S o . 2 d 81 ( A l a . 1999). F i n a l l y , i t i s always presumed that the jury followed the court's i n s t r u c t i o n s , E x p a r t e S t e w a r t , 659 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 , 128 (Ala. 1 9 9 3 ) , a f f ' d on r e m a n d , 730 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 3 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1996), aff'd, 730 So. 2 d 1246 (Ala. 1999), and that the j u r y considered the e n t i r e charge." S m i t h v. S t a t e , , in ( A l a . C r i m . App. part So. [Ms. C R - 9 7 - 1 2 5 8 , D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 ] on other 3d So. 2000), a f f i r m e d i n p a r t and grounds, [Ms. 1010267, March 14, reversed 2003] ( A l a . 2003). The Knotts trial v. court's State, 686 So. 2d error 431, no trial i n s t r u c t i o n "'created court's plain i n s t r u c t i o n s to the 1985)(finding as to 463 j u r y were (Ala. Knotts's the claim testimony, your parte and Scott, jury satisfied this App. that make 728 first the j u r y , So. 2d 172, instructions beyond evidence j o b i s t o r e c o n c i l e i t and i t a l l speak 180 stating the a reasonable doubt tending to prove 148 truth.'") . See (Ala. 1998)(finding that the a presumption of t r u t h i n t h e law s a y s i f you f i n d d i f f e r e n c e s o r d i s c r e p a n c i e s together in proper. Crim. f a v o r of the s t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e o f g u i l t ' " by c h a r g i n g "'Now 2d "'[i]f the of t r u t h of the the jury defendant's in mesh i t also no Ex error is not some of guilty CR-06-0454 connection w i t h the charged of Mr. Linder Defendant as other than the testimony Fletcher, the jury could not find the guilty.'"). Here, duty o r Mr. felonies, a instruction the t r i a l court fact-finder was informing i n arriving d i d not refer the jury at a or shift to Revis true as t o i t s verdict. The the burden of proof. B. Revis instruction conviction alleges was that the t r i a l erroneous t o be based because, on proof court's reasonable-doubt he i t allowed h i s insufficient standard e s t a b l i s h e d i n In re Winship, did is n o t o b j e c t on t h i s due t o be a n a l y z e d 4 5A, ground a t t r i a l ; pursuant t o meet 397 U.S. 358 the (1970). therefore, this to the plain-error He issue rule. Rule Ala.R.App.P. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e t r i a l as says, to reasonable doubt as court charged the jury follows: " I t d o e s n o t mean b e y o n d a l l d o u b t , b u t s i m p l y beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt i s a doubt o f a f a i r - m i n d e d j u r o r h o n e s t l y seeking the t r u t h a f t e r c a r e f u l and i m p a r t i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f 149 CR-06-0454 a l l the evidence i n the case. I t i s a doubt based u p o n r e a s o n a n d common s e n s e a n d t o w h i c h y o u c a n a s s i g n a r e a s o n b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e l a c k o f evidence or a c o n f l i c t i n the evidence. A reasonable d o u b t i s n o t a mere g u e s s o r s u r m i s e . I t i s a d o u b t b a s e d on r e a s o n a n d l o g i c a n d n o t u p o n s p e c u l a t i o n , and as I s a i d b e f o r e , i t i s a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , n o t beyond a l l doubt, but a r e a s o n a b l e doubt i s a doubt that you can assign a reason to based on the evidence, the l a c k of evidence or a c o n f l i c t i n the evidence. I f a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g a l l the evidence i n t h i s c a s e you h a v e an a b i d i n g c o n v i c t i o n o f t h e t r u t h o f t h e c h a r g e , t h e n you a r e c o n v i n c e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , a n d i t w o u l d be y o u r d u t y t o c o n v i c t t h e d e f e n d a n t . The r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t which e n t i t l e s an a c c u s e d t o an a c q u i t t a l i s n o t a mere f a n c i f u l , vague, c o n j e c t u r a l or s p e c u l a t i v e doubt, but a reasonable s u b s t a n t i a l doubt a r i s i n g from the evidence or from the l a c k of evidence t h a t remains a f t e r a c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e t e s t i m o n y . As I've said b e f o r e , the State's not required to c o n v i n c e you o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t b e y o n d a l l doubt and t o a m a t h e m a t i c a l c e r t a i n t y , nor beyond a shadow o f a d o u b t , b u t s i m p l y b e y o n d a d o u b t . " (R. 668-69.) Revis "not and t h a t because a mere p o s s i b l e doubt," the "not "reasonable s u b s t a n t i a l doubt," degree shifted with argues of guilt necessary the burden to charge a mere g u e s s him requiring substantial r e a s o n s why he I n Brown v. State, CR-07-1332, So. 3d , [Ms. 150 surmise," and i m p e r m i s s i b l y him t o come s h o u l d n o t be ( A l a . C r i m . App. or terms the charge d i m i n i s h e d the convict of p r o o f by c o n t a i n s the 2010), convicted. September this forward 17, 2010] court stated: CR-06-0454 " I n K n o t t s v . S t a t e , 686 S o . 2 d 431 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , o p i n i o n a f t e r r e m a n d , 686 S o . 2 d 484 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) , a f f ' d , 686 S o . 2 d 486 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , we h e l d : "'The Due Process Clause of the F o u r t e e n t h Amendment " p r o t e c t s t h e a c c u s e d a g a i n s t c o n v i c t i o n e x c e p t upon p r o o f beyond a reasonable doubt of every f a c t necessary t o c o n s t i t u t e t h e c r i m e w i t h w h i c h he i s c h a r g e d . " I n r e W i n s h i p , 397 U.S. 3 5 8 , 3 6 4 , 90 S . C t . 1 0 6 8 , 1 0 7 3 , 25 L . E d . 2 d 368 ( 1 9 7 0 ) . I n C a g e v . L o u i s i a n a , [498 U.S. 39 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , ] t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t f o u n d t h a t a jury charge that defined "reasonable doubt" by using the phrases "grave uncertainty," "actual substantial doubt," and "moral certainty" c o u l d have l e d a reasonable juror to interpret the i n s t r u c t i o n s to allow a finding of g u i l t based on a degree of proof below that required by the Due Process Clause. S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e C o u r t "made i t c l e a r t h a t the proper inquiry i s not whether the i n s t r u c t i o n ' c o u l d h a v e ' b e e n a p p l i e d i n an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l manner, b u t w h e t h e r t h e r e i s a reasonable l i k e l i h o o d that the j u r y d i d so a p p l y i t . " V i c t o r v. N e b r a s k a , 511 U.S. 1 6 , 114 S . C t . 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 3 , 127 L . E d . 2 d 583 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( q u o t i n g E s t e l l e v . M c G u i r e , 502 U.S. 62 7 2 - 7 3 a n d n. 4, 112 S . C t . 475 4 8 2 , a n d n. 4, 116 L . E d . 2 d 385 ( 1 9 9 1 ) , e m p h a s i s in original). Thus the constitutional question presented here i s whether there i s a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the i n s t r u c t i o n s to a l l o w the c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d on p r o o f i n s u f f i c i e n t t o meet t h e W i n s h i p r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s t a n d a r d . V i c t o r v . N e b r a s k a ; E x p a r t e K i r b y , 643 S o . 2d 587(Ala), cert. denied, [513] U.S. [ 1 0 2 3 ] 513 U.S. 1 0 2 3 , 115 S . C t . 5 9 1 , 130 151 CR-06-0454 L . E d . 2 d 504 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; C o x v . S t a t e , 2d 233 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) . 660 S o . "'In r e v i e w i n g t h e r e a s o n a b l e doubt i n s t r u c t i o n , we d o s o i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e charge as a whole. V i c t o r v. N e b r a s k a ; B a k e r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 412 F. 2 d 1 0 6 9 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 3 9 6 U.S. 1 0 1 8 , 90 S . C t . 5 8 3 , 24 L . E d . 2 d 5 0 9 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 538 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 0 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1988). So long as the d e f i n i t i o n of "reasonable doubt" i n the charge c o r r e c t l y conveys the concept o f reasonable doubt, the charge will n o t be c o n s i d e r e d so p r e j u d i c i a l as t o mandate r e v e r s a l . V i c t o r v . N e b r a s k a ; H o l l a n d v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 34 8 U.S. 1 2 1 , 75 S . C t . 1 2 7 , 99 L . E d . 150 (1954).' "686 S o . 2 d a t 4 5 9 . '"Use o f some b u t n o t a l l o f t h e terminology found offensive i n Cage does not automatically constitute reversible error."' Taylor v . S t a t e , 666 S o . 2 d 3 6 , 56 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , a f f ' d , 666 S o . 2 d 73 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ( q u o t i n g D o b y n e v . S t a t e , 672 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 4 3 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , a f f ' d , 672 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 4 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ) . F u r t h e r , we have p r e v i o u s l y h e l d that the statement that a reasonable doubt i s a doubt f o r which a reason can be given does not violate Cage and does n o t i m p r o p e r l y l e s s e n t h e S t a t e ' s b u r d e n o f p r o o f . See B u r g e s s v . S t a t e , 827 S o . 2 d 134 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) , a f f ' d , 827 S o . 2 d 1 9 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; E x p a r t e M c W i l l i a m s , 640 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 5 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , a f f ' d , 666 S o . 2 d 90 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ; M c M i l l i a n v . S t a t e , 594 S o . 2d 1253 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991) . "Although the t r i a l c o u r t u s e d some o f t h e l a n g u a g e f o u n d o b j e c t i o n a b l e i n Cage, t a k e n as a whole, the t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s i n t h i s case p r o p e r l y conveyed t h e concept o f reasonable doubt t o the j u r y and d i d n o t l e s s e n t h e S t a t e ' s burden o f proof. Also, there i s not a reasonable l i k e l i h o o d 152 CR-06-0454 t h a t the j u r y a p p l i e d the i n s t r u c t i o n s i n a manner t h a t would v i o l a t e Brown's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l rights. T h e r e f o r e , we do n o t f i n d t h a t t h e r e was a n y p l a i n error i n this regard." Brown v. State, Similarly, So. i n the some o f the terms 498 39 (1990), U.S. when t h e charge Moreover, with . case, l e s s e n the trial court's i n Cage v. use of Louisiana, State's burden of proof in i t s entirety. charge did t o R e v i s by not impermissibly i m p l y i n g t h a t he s u b s t a n t i a l r e a s o n s why a c o n s t r u c t i o n warps the he should shift m u s t come n o t be charge, charge to place the forward convicted. c l e a r meaning of the j u r y would not have u n d e r s t o o d the on the objectionable d i d not i s read burden of proof at present found the 3d Such and this the burden Revis. C. Revis argues t h a t the burden of p r o o f by of not the the offense. define court diminished Specifically, he that the In a State footnote d i d not 153 State's element alleges as in the j u r y on e v e r y to charge the " c o n t r o l l e d substance" indictment. submits failing trial that contained his prove brief, the type the judge did i n count I I Revis of further of p i l l s taken CR-06-0454 from Stidham by Revis or that the pills were a on this controlled ground substance. Revis failed therefore, error object this issue w i l l rule. The to Rule 45A, record, charged the be e v a l u a t e d p u r s u a n t establishes intentionally committing of force killed a t h e f t of with the element of nor plain- trial court i n t e n t to was capital the capital during offense the course s u b s t a n c e ( s ) , " by overcome the armed w i t h a d e a d l y of the use weapon. § " C o n t r o l l e d substance" offense of victim's physical with which Revis i s i t an e l e m e n t o f f i r s t - d e g r e e r o b b e r y . Code to the indictment alleged that Stidham A l a . Code 1975. the The "a c o n t r o l l e d resistance while Revis 5-40(a)(2), that to each element of the murder committed d u r i n g a robbery. Revis trial; Ala.R.App.P. however, j u r y as at 13A- i s not was an charged, § 13A-8-41, A l a . 1975. Section capital 13A-5-40(a)(2), offense "[m]urder by degree an or Section the of murder defendant attempt thereof Ala. Code 1975, defines committed during a during robbery in a committed by 13A-8-41, A l a . Code 1975, 154 the states the robbery the first defendant." that as CR-06-0454 "[a] p e r s o n commits the crime of r o b b e r y i n the f i r s t degree i f he v i o l a t e s S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 8 - 4 3 and h e . . . [ i ] s armed w i t h a d e a d l y weapon o r d a n g e r o u s instrument; or...[c]auses serious p h y s i c a l i n j u r y to another." Section 13A-8-43, A l a . Code 1975, states that "[a] p e r s o n commits the crime o f r o b b e r y i n the t h i r d degree i f i n the course of committing a t h e f t he: (1) [ U ] s e s f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o f t h e owner o r any p e r s o n p r e s e n t w i t h i n t e n t t o overcome his physical resistance or p h y s i c a l power of r e s i s t a n c e ; or (2) [ T ] h r e a t e n s t h e i m m i n e n t u s e o f f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o f t h e owner o r any person present with intent to compel acquiescence to the t a k i n g of or escaping w i t h the p r o p e r t y . " "The p r e s e n t r o b b e r y s t a t u t e s , h o w e v e r , do n o t r e q u i r e a ' t a k i n g ' o f p r o p e r t y , M a r v i n v . S t a t e , 407 S o . 2 d 576 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) ; A l a . C o d e [ 1 9 7 5 , ] §§ 13A-8-40 t h r o u g h 13A-8-44 (1975)(Commentary), so that not only is the value of the property i m m a t e r i a l , but a l s o the i n d i c t m e n t need not a l l e g e an actual theft to constitute the o f f e n s e . The o p e r a t i v e words of the c u r r e n t r o b b e r y s t a t u t e are 'in the course of committing a theft,' which i n c l u d e s an a t t e m p t e d t h e f t , M a r v i n v. S t a t e , s u p r a , r a t h e r t h a n t h e common l a w e l e m e n t o f an actual 'taking from the person.'" Grace See Ex cert. 868 v. State, 431 So. p a r t e Windsor, d e n i e d , 520 So. 2d 399, U.S. 402 2d 1331, 683 1171 So. 2d 1333 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1042, ( 1 9 9 7 ) . See ( A l a . 2003)("The 155 1045-46 1992). (Ala. a l s o Ex p a r t e 1996), Verzone, S t a t e ' s emphasis on the CR-06-0454 ownership not of the charged property i s misplaced, with theft with robbery, which because o f p r o p e r t y . I n s t e a d , he Verzone was was charged i s a crime a g a i n s t the p e r s o n ; i t does require that a theft be accomplished robbery t o be established."(footnote for the not elements of omitted)). B e c a u s e t h e p r o p e r t y t a k e n o r i n t e n d e d t o be t a k e n d u r i n g the robbery was no i s not error by the on t h e d e f i n i t i o n failure an of prove element of the trial judge's of " c o n t r o l l e d the type crime failure of robbery, to charge s u b s t a n c e " or by of p i l l s there the jury the S t a t e ' s taken D. Revis argues instruct the bad-acts evidence. court jury d i d not these p r i o r raise this Rule 45A, As checks erred in failing regarding i t s consideration of the a c t s as matter the trial Specifically, instruct bad m a t t e r i s due that at the jury trial he that evidence the court alleges that of h i s g u i l t . court level; prior- the i t c o u l d not to trial consider Revis d i d therefore, t o be a n a l y z e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e p l a i n - e r r o r not this rule. Ala.R.App.P. previously charges was noted, Revis's arrest introduced to explain 156 f o r the w o r t h l e s s the reason that he CR-06-0454 was in jail offense. gestae he The e v i d e n c e of Therefore, limiting when the gave this instructions as to the a s t o h i s d r u g u s e was p a r t offense because h i s statements because evidence were i t was of the res established properly present motive. admitted, warranted. " I t i s c o n t r a d i c t o r y and i n c o n s i s t e n t t o a l l o w , on t h e o n e h a n d , e v i d e n c e o f J o h n s o n ' s p r i o r b i g a m y conviction and p r i o r bad acts as substantive e v i d e n c e o f t h e o f f e n s e w i t h w h i c h s h e was c h a r g e d , yet, on t h e o t h e r hand, to require a limiting instruction instructing the jury that i t cannot c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t Johnson committed the charged offense. Other j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h a t have c o n s i d e r e d t h i s i s s u e have concluded that a limiting instruction i s not r e q u i r e d when e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r c r i m e s o r p r i o r b a d a c t s i s p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d as p a r t o f t h e r e s g e s t a e of the crime with which the defendant i s charged. See P e o p l e v . C o n e y , 98 P. 3 d 930 ( C o l o . C t . A p p . 2004) ( h o l d i n g t h a t e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r o f f e n s e s o r acts t h a t a r e p a r t and p a r c e l o f the charged offense is admissible a s r e s g e s t a e a n d may b e admitted w i t h o u t a l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n ) ; S t a t e v . L o n g , 173 N . J . 1 3 8 , 1 7 1 , 8 0 1 A. 2 d 2 2 1 , 2 4 2 ( 2 0 0 2 ) (evidence of the defendant's actions 'served to paint a complete picture of the relevant criminal t r a n s a c t i o n ' a n d t h e r e f o r e was a d m i s s i b l e , and a limiting i n s t r u c t i o n was u n n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e t h e evidence was admitted under the res gestae e x c e p t i o n ) ; a n d C a m a c h o v . S t a t e , 864 S.W. 2 d 5 2 4 , 535 (Tex. C r i m . App. 1993) ( h o l d i n g t h e e v i d e n c e o f the e x t r a n e o u s o f f e n s e s showed t h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h the c r i m i n a l a c t occurred, i . e . , t h e r e s gestae, and was t h e r e f o r e a d m i s s i b l e and n o t s u b j e c t to the requirement of a l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n ) . " 157 no CR-06-0454 Johnson v. , State, [Ms. ( A l a . 2006). 1539, December 1041313, October See a l s o V a n p e l t 18, 2009] 6, 2006] v. S t a t e , So. 3d , So.3d [Ms. CR-06- ( A l a .Crim. App. 2009). Moreover, the references bad acts or that impeachment limiting So. and show b a d evidence 3d character and i n s t r u c t i o n s by i n Revis's thus (Ala. C r i m App. cert. denied, plain error the t r i a l not introduced require court. 2007), affirmed, trial , 129 court's sponte v. State, c o n v i c t i o n s and were 11 So. 3 d 323 only describe best. the There the reference (2009)(finding to i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t contents sua sponte trial. introduced Also, the card and a d m i t t e d admitted was one T h e r e was give "Here, made a w a r e no o r a t any o t h e r o f 115 no we c h a r g e as vague a t t h e j u r y was of the f i n g e r p r i n t card. made t o t h e c a r d w h e n i t was the to a prior 315 ( A l a . 2008), l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s as t o p r i o r bad a c t s , s t a t i n g : can brief 11 S o . 3 d 2 5 6 , S . C t . 2865 failure as sua Johnson See B e l i s l e v . S t a t e , U.S. in were d i d not . T h e s e w e r e no p r i o r vague r e f e r e n c e s . statements to a l l e g e d of reference point i n exhibits that were b y t h e S t a t e . " ) . M o r e o v e r , some o f t h e 158 CR-06-0454 acts Revis constitute says constituted conduct "Here, t h a t was the evidence instruction was "prior necessarily not evidence acts" did of p r i o r required a but not limited motive." Spencer v. S t a t e , So. further, [Revis's] c r e d i b i l i t y . t o , evidence (Ala. Crim. 3d , no p l a i n error on t h i s 2008). reasons, of h i s intent [Ms. C R - 0 4 - 2 5 7 0 , A p r i l App. limiting convictions; t h e e v i d e n c e was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d f o r o t h e r including, not a bad a c t . [Revis] contends t h e e v i d e n c e was n o t o f f e r e d t o i m p e a c h Rather, bad and 4, 2 0 0 8 ] Therefore, there was ground. E. Revis contends misinformed the jury p e n a l t y phase. appeal; error. as the trial to the weighing 45A, any e r r o r must r i s e court during i t s instructions weighing the instructions process during the f o r the f i r s t to the l e v e l time of on plain Ala.R.App.P. Revis p o i n t s out the following trial court's He o b j e c t s o n t h i s g r o u n d therefore, Rule that aggravating slip o f t h e tongue by the concerning the process of circumstances and the mitigating circumstances: "Now, l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n o f t h e j u r y , i f a f t e r a f u l l and f a i r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l t h e evidence i n 159 CR-06-0454 t h i s c a s e you a r e c o n v i n c e d t h a t the aggravating circumstance of c a p i t a l murder d u r i n g the course of robbery i n the f i r s t degree outweighs the m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , y o u r v e r d i c t w o u l d be,'We, t h e j u r y , recommend t h e d e f e n d a n t , C h r i s t o p h e r Dewayne R e v i s , be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h . ' . . . . H o w e v e r , i f a f t e r a f u l l and f a i r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i n the case you're not convinced that the aggravating circumstance of c a p i t a l murder d u r i n g the course of r o b b e r y i n the f i r s t degree does not o u t w e i g h the mitigating circumstances, your v e r d i c t would be, 'We, the jury, recommend that the defendant, Christopher Dewayne R e v i s , be p u n i s h e d by life imprisonment without parole.'" (R. 820-21.) The trial c o u r t ' s use of a double n e g a t i v e 2 5 in explaining the a p p r o p r i a t e a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t i f the j u r y were t o f i n d the circumstance aggravating circumstances recently was addressed a slip a similar d i d not of the outweigh tongue. argument and the This that mitigating court has stated: " J o h n s o n ' s a r g u m e n t i s b a s e d on a s i n g l e w o r d b y the trial court during his charge, wherein he stated, 'The d e f e n d a n t i s p r e s u m e d t o be innocent u n t i l she i s p r o v e n g u i l t y b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t by the e v i d e n c e i n the case.' (R. 1 2 1 1 . ) She a r g u e s t h a t the trial c o u r t ' s use of the word 'until' r a t h e r than 'unless' r e q u i r e d the j u r y to r e t u r n a v e r d i c t of g u i l t . 'The incorrect instruction could h a v e b e e n a m e r e s l i p o f t h e t o n g u e on t h e p a r t o f This double negative i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t c o u l d be the r e s u l t of a c l e r i c a l e r r o r i n p r e p a r i n g the t r a n s c r i p t ; thus, R e v i s w o u l d h a v e s u f f e r e d no p r e j u d i c e , a n d no e r r o r w o u l d have o c c u r r e d . 2 5 160 CR-06-0454 the t r i a l c o u r t or, perhaps, i s the r e s u l t of an e r r o r made b y t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r i n t r a n s c r i b i n g t h e c o u r t ' s o r a l c h a r g e . ' Woods v . S t a t e , 13 So. 3 d 1, 41 n. 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) ( f i n d i n g no plain error in trial court's misstatement that the prosecutor's burden in disproving a mitigating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence means that the jury should consider that the circumstance does n o t e x i s t u n l e s s the e v i d e n c e as a w h o l e makes i t more l i k e l y t h a t i t d o e s e x i s t ) . See D o r s e y v . S t a t e , 881 So. 2 d 4 6 0 , 517 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001), a f f i r m e d i n p a r t , r e v e r s e d i n p a r t on o t h e r g r o u n d s , E x p a r t e D o r s e y , 881 So. 2 d 533 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , H e a r d v . S t a t e , 999 So. 2 d 992 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) (comment b y t h e trial c o u r t i n c h a r g i n g t h e j u r y as t o a f i n d i n g o f g u i l t on a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e was a c l e a r i n a d v e r t e n t s l i p o f t h e t o n g u e and d i d not c o n s t i t u t e p l a i n e r r o r i n l i g h t of the e n t i r e charge). " T h i s same i s s u e h a s b e e n p r e v i o u s l y p r e s e n t e d to t h i s C o u r t and d e c i d e d adversely to Johnson's p o s i t i o n . I n S n y d e r v . S t a t e , 893 S o . 2 d 4 8 8 , 548 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2003), Snyder contended t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t l e s s e n e d the S t a t e ' s burden of p r o o f by u s i n g the word ' u n t i l ' r a t h e r than 'unless' i n i t s c h a r g e on t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f i n n o c e n c e . He argued t h a t the use of t h i s word '"informed the j u r y t h a t a g u i l t y v e r d i c t was e x p e c t e d . " ' 893 So. 2 d a t 5 4 8 . This Court f o u n d no e r r o r due to this charge, stating: "'The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has used the word "until" to characterize the State's burden of proof. In Ex parte S c r o g g i n s , 727 So. 2 d 1 3 1 , 134 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , t h e c o u r t s t a t e d , "The b u r d e n o f p r o o f i n a l l criminal prosecutions r e s t s upon the S t a t e , w i t h the presumption of innocence a t t e n d i n g the defendant u n t i l the burden of p r o o f has b e e n met." A l s o , we a p p r o v e d a 161 CR-06-0454 s i m i l a r i n s t r u c t i o n i n Thomas v . S t a t e , So. 2 d 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) . 824 "'The t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s , when v i e w e d a s a w h o l e , c o r r e c t l y i n f o r m e d t h e j u r y t h a t i f t h e S t a t e d i d n o t meet i t s burden, the j u r y had a duty t o a c q u i t the d e f e n d a n t . No r e a s o n a b l e j u r o r w o u l d h a v e concluded that the i n s t r u c t i o n s implied that the State would always meet that b u r d e n . T h e r e was n o e r r o r , much l e s s p l a i n e r r o r , i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n s t r u c t i o n on the presumption o f innocence.' "893 So. 2d a t 549. "'A r e v i e w o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e n t i r e c h a r g e , r a t h e r t h a n t h i s s t a t e m e n t i n i s o l a t i o n , shows t h a t t h e j u r y was p r o p e r l y i n f o r m e d o f t h e l a w c o n c e r n i n g the presumption of innocence. Therefore, Johnson's s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s were n o t a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by t h i s charge.'" Johnson , v. S t a t e , (Ala. Crim. When v i e w e d have [Ms. C R - 9 9 - 1 3 4 9 , O c t o b e r App. The j u r y had p r e v i o u s l y So. 3d 2009). i n l i g h t of the entire reasonably understood 2, 2 0 0 9 ] i t s role been charge, the jury i n the weighing process. charged: "The p r o c e s s o f w e i g h i n g a g g r a v a t i n g a n d m i t i g a t i n g circumstances against each other i n order to determine the proper punishment i s not a m a t h e m a t i c a l p r o c e s s . I n o t h e r words, you s h o u l d n o t m e r e l y t o t a l t h e number o f a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s and compare t h a t number t o t h e t o t a l number o f mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The l a w o f t h i s State recognizes that i t i s possible i n at least some situations that one or a few aggravating 162 would CR-06-0454 circumstances might outweigh a l a r g e number of m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The l a w o f t h i s s t a t e a l s o r e c o g n i z e s t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e i n a t l e a s t some situations that a large number of aggravating circumstances might not outweigh one or a few mitigating circumstances. In other words, the law contemplates that different circumstances may be given d i f f e r e n t weights or values i n determining the sentence i n a case, and you, t h e j u r y , a r e t o d e c i d e what w e i g h t o r v a l u e i s t o be g i v e n t o a p a r t i c u l a r circumstance i n determining the sentence i n l i g h t of a l l o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h i s c a s e . Y o u m u s t do that i n the process of weighing the aggravating circumstance against the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances." (R. 818-19.) Moreover, erroneous the the instruction, instruction verdict had because of l i f e jury Revis specifically would to the have b e n e f i t t e d from the t h e j u r y w o u l d h a v e r e t u r n e d an imprisonment without aggravating adhered circumstance parole outweighed advisory i f i t found the that mitigating circumstances. T h e r e was n o p l a i n e r r o r a s a r e s u l t o f t h e t r i a l instructions to the j u r y regarding i t s role i n the court's weighing process. F. Revis argues that the t r i a l court's instructions to the j u r y as t o i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f m i t i g a t i n g circumstances erroneous. the t r i a l Specifically, he alleges 163 that were court's CR-06-0454 instruction prejudice, decision to the j u r y that o r any other erroneously i t could arbitrary informed i n s t r u c t i o n by t h e t r i a l evaluated pursuant to the passion, factor i n arriving the jury c o n s i d e r mercy as m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e . this not consider court; that Revis thus, at i t s i t could not d i d not object to this plain-error c l a i m must be rule. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. This held c o u r t has r e c e n t l y a d d r e s s e d t h i s adversely to Revis. This court same a r g u m e n t stated: "To t h e e x t e n t V a n p e l t a s s e r t s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t court erroneously i n s t r u c t e d the jury not to c o n s i d e r p a s s i o n , p r e j u d i c e , o r any o t h e r a r b i t r a r y factor, this argument is without merit. In C a l i f o r n i a v . B r o w n , 479 U.S. 5 3 8 , 5 3 9 , 107 S . C t . 837, 93 L . E d . 2 d 934 (1987), the United States Supreme C o u r t u p h e l d a jury instruction i n the p e n a l t y phase o f a c a p i t a l t r i a l t h a t informed the jurors that they 'must n o t b e swayed by mere sentiment, c o n j e c t u r e , sympathy, p a s s i o n , p r e j u d i c e , p u b l i c o p i n i o n o r p u b l i c f e e l i n g . ' T h i s c o u r t has r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t a c o u r t does n o t e r r i n t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e o f a c a p i t a l t r i a l when i t i n s t r u c t s the j u r y t h a t i t s h o u l d ' a v o i d t h e i n f l u e n c e o f any p a s s i o n , p r e j u d i c e , o r any o t h e r a r b i t r a r y f a c t o r . ' S e e B r o w n v . S t a t e , 11 S o . 3 d 8 6 6 , 922 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) ; E x p a r t e J e f f e r s o n , 473 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 0 , n.3 (Ala. 1985) ('The ... jury ... was properly instructed to avoid the influence of passion, prejudice, o r any o t h e r a r b i t r a r y f a c t o r '); R e e v e s v . S t a t e , 807 S o . 2 d 1 8 , 46 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) ( ' [ T ] h e j u r y was p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d ... t h a t its sentencing recommendation was not to be influenced by p a s s i o n , prejudice, o r any other 164 and CR-06-0454 a r b i t r a r y f a c t o r . ' ) ; B a r b e r v . S t a t e , 952 So. 2 d 393 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; M o r r i s o n v . S t a t e , 500 So. 2 d 36 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) . 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 i n s t r u c t i o n was n o t e r r o r , much l e s s p l a i n e r r o r . See R u l e 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P." Vanpelt 3d v. State, , instructing any C R - 0 6 - 1 5 3 9 , D e c e m b e r 18, (Ala. Crim. Therefore, or [Ms. there App. was 2009)(footnote no error by 2009] So. omitted). the trial court in the j u r y to a v o i d c o n s i d e r i n g p a s s i o n , p r e j u d i c e , other arbitrary factor in arriving at i t s decision. XII. Revis erroneous argues t h a t the because the t r i a l mitigating another trial circumstances statutory court's sentencing rise at trial to the on level was c o u r t f a i l e d t o f i n d two s t a t u t o r y to e x i s t , mitigating accorded little weight to and failed to circumstance, c o n s i d e r the n o n s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g evidence. object order these grounds; of p l a i n error. Revis f a i l e d t h e r e f o r e , any Rule 45A, error to must Ala.R.App.P. A. Revis submits e x i s t e n c e o f two age and offense t h a t the trial c o u r t s h o u l d have found statutory mitigating circumstances: the fact that was that he was committed by 165 an accomplice his uncle and in h i s young the in the capital which his CR-06-0454 participation Ala. Code 1975, The trial mitigating in was relatively minor. §§ 13A-5-51(7) and (4), respectively. court properly circumstance determined in this case. that The age trial was court not a stated i t s order: "The d e f e n d a n t was 26 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c r i m e . The l e g i s l a t u r e d o e s n o t p r o v i d e e v e n a c l u e w h a t i t h a d i n m i n d w h e n e n u m e r a t i n g 'age' as a m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e . Some a r g u e t h i s m e a n s a y o u n g a g e ; o t h e r s a r g u e t h a t i t means an o l d a g e . T h i s m i t i g a t o r may o n l y a p p l y t o a j u v e n i l e a n d n o t t o an a d u l t ; b u t , who k n o w s w h a t l u r k s i n t h e h e a r t s and minds of our legislators on this point? R e g a r d l e s s , the c o u r t does f i n d i t i n d e e d d i f f i c u l t t o o r d e r t h e e x e c u t i o n o f a y o u n g man w i t h a l l o f his l i f e b e f o r e him. However, w e i g h e d a g a i n s t h i s youth (an o b j e c t o f s y m p a t h y ) i s t h e t o t a l l a c k o f remorse the defendant p r o j e c t e d d u r i n g a l l phases of the t r i a l and s e n t e n c i n g i n t h i s c a s e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the c o u r t r e c a l l s the testimony of the S h e r i f f i n w h i c h he c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e d e f e n d a n t as a bully p r i s o n e r f r e q u e n t l y engaging i n f i s t f i g h t s over the past s e v e r a l months of his incarceration while waiting for his t r i a l . Despite t h e f a c t he i s a m a t u r e a d u l t , he h a s n o t a l t e r e d h i s a g g r e s s i v e and mean behavior, even faced with capital murder charges. The court finds that this mitigating f a c t o r , even i f i t e x i s t s i n t h i s case under the l a w , w o u l d be m i n u s c u l e c o m p a r e d t o t h e a t r o c i t y o f this crime." (C. 150-51.) The this trial court's determination, mitigating circumstance, 166 that after i t fully did not considering exist was CR-06-0454 proper. 1999), 531 I n Ingram v. S t a t e , affirmed, 779 So. 2 d 1283 ( A l a . U.S. 1 1 9 3 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , determination mitigating 779 So. 2 d 1225 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . this cert. denied, found that the t r i a l court 2000), court's t h a t Ingram's age d i d n o t s u p p o r t t h e s t a t u t o r y circumstance was proper, although there was e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t I n g r a m w a s 24 y e a r s o l d w h e n i n f a c t he w a s 22 y e a r s held that concerning therefore o l d a t t h e time the t r i a l Ingram's proper. court's of the offense. decision circumstances rested and This court on t h e e v i d e n c e maturity and I t stated: "The r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e c r i m e was c o m m i t t e d on J u l y 3 1 , 1 9 9 3 . T h u s , t o b e e x a c t , h e w a s 22 y e a r s , 4 m o n t h s , a n d 23 d a y s o f a g e o n t h e d a t e t h e c r i m e was c o m m i t t e d a n d 24 y e a r s , 5 m o n t h s , a n d 14 d a y s o f age a t the time o f sentencing, a difference of approximately 2 y e a r s a n d 21 d a y s . T h e r e c o r d s h o w s that the t r i a l court considered the presentence r e p o r t i n a r r i v i n g a t i t s s e n t e n c e . The r e c o r d a l s o shows t h a t j u s t b e f o r e s e n t e n c i n g on June 16, 1 9 9 5 , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a s k e d I n g r a m , 'How o l d a r e y o u n o w ? ' I n g r a m r e s p o n d e d , ' T w e n t y - f o u r . ' (R. 1 0 5 1 - 5 2 . ) T h e s t a t e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e f i n d i n g c o u l d have been a t y p o g r a p h i c a l or c l e r i c a l e r r o r , and i f not, because of Ingram's obvious m a t u r i t y a t t h e time t h e crime was c o m m i t t e d , i t w o u l d h a v e made n o reasonable d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , even i f t h e f i n d i n g had b e e n t h a t h e w a s 22 y e a r s o f a g e . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e s t a t e m a i n t a i n s t h a t w h e t h e r h e w a s 24 o r 22 w o u l d h a v e made n o d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e t r i a l court's f i n d i n g s i n t h i s case. In support o f i t s argument, t h e s t a t e c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s o u t t h a t b e f o r e committing t h e crime, Ingram had f a t h e r e d a c h i l d , 167 was CR-06-0454 h a d e m b a r k e d o n a c a r e e r a s a d r u g d e a l e r , a n d was n o l o n g e r a y o u t h b u t was ' l i v i n g o u t i n t h e w o r l d . ' We n o t e f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t a l t h o u g h unmarried, I n g r a m was t h e f a t h e r o f a o n e - y e a r - o l d c h i l d , had s p e n t much o f h i s l i f e i n B r o o k l y n , New Y o r k , h a d d r o p p e d o u t o f s c h o o l when h e was 10 y e a r s o f a g e , was o b v i o u s l y d e a l i n g i n d r u g s , was w o r l d l y a n d streetwise, and was sui juris and legally r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s a c t s . We a g r e e w i t h t h e s t a t e t h a t w h e t h e r I n g r a m was 24 o r 22 when h e c o m m i t t e d t h i s c r i m e , h i s age h a d no r e a s o n a b l e b e a r i n g upon its commission. We think that under the facts presented, even i f the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g had b e e n t h a t I n g r a m was 22 a t t h e t i m e h e c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e , i t s r u l i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n t h e same." 779 So. 2d a t 1244. Thompson v. S t a t e , (Ala. Crim. cert. App. denied, 1988), affirmed, Thompson (1989)(affirming the t r i a l of a criminal defendant not 'solely v. circumstance'; under the f a c t s mitigating old a t time 1300 493 (Ala.), U.S. 874 consideration, of the existence of a i t i s mitigating T h o m p s o n was 20 a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e of the case, November 2010)(finding 2d f i n d i n g t h a t " w h i l e t h e age i s an i m p o r t a n t this p r o p e r l y not found t o e x i s t ) . 08-1954, So. Alabama, court's determinative 542 542 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 6 , 1 2 9 7 that 5, trial circumstance of offense, m i t i g a t i n g circumstance See M c M i l l a n 2010] So. court's 3d v. S t a t e , determination t o be a c c o r d e d 168 was [Ms. CR- ( A l a .Crim. o f age, where M c M i l l a n was and, that was little App. 18 the years weight was CR-06-0454 not improper case). Crim. the But App. based see on the Burgess 2005)(finding offense to be a facts and circumstances v. State, 962 So. 2d 272, of 26 at Burgess's mitigating age circumstance; of 277 the the (Ala. time however, of the f a c t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t B u r g e s s t r i e d t o commit s u i c i d e f o l l o w i n g the this offense, leaving i s because the I didn't have her I tried really Revis's the mother or to get of accomplice in relatively minor note the the that stated r e l a t i o n s h i p wasn't argument existence a to know that on ... my also side, for and and at first, have found them.'"). the trial court should and that without his merit. that he was participation The p r o p e r l y made t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s c o n c e r n i n g mitigating reason [not l e g i b l e ] m i t i g a t i n g circumstance offense is father "'[t]he trial this was court statutory circumstance: "This circumstance was i n t r o d u c e d to the j u r y during the guilt phase of the trial, but was o b v i o u s l y r e j e c t e d by t h e j u r y . F u r t h e r , t h i s c o u r t f i n d s from the overwhelming evidence, i n c l u d i n g the November 7th confession of the defendant, that C h r i s t o p h e r R e v i s was, i n f a c t , the mastermind of t h e r o b b e r y a n d t h e p e r s o n who d e l i v e r e d the fatal shots to the v i c t i m . In h i s f i r s t s t a t e m e n t to law enforcement p r i o r to his a r r e s t , the defendant i n i t i a l l y d e n i e d any i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h J e r r y S t i d h a m on February 21st or F e b r u a r y 22nd o t h e r than a p o s s i b l e p h o n e c a l l t o a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r he h a d any 169 an CR-06-0454 drugs to sell. Eventually when c o n f r o n t e d with forensic and other c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence, he a d m i t t e d b e i n g a t t h e v i c t i m ' s , home i n t h e e a r l y morning o f F e b r u a r y 22d f o r t h e purpose o f r o b b i n g him o f h i s p a i n m e d i c a t i o n , b u t d e n i e d e n t e r i n g t h e home o r h a v i n g any knowledge of the shooting. Although he a d m i t t e d the robbery was h i s i d e a , according t o the defendant, h i s b r o t h e r and uncle carried out the plan while he r e m a i n e d i n the v e h i c l e o u t s i d e t h e v i c t i m ' s home. T h e d e f e n d a n t denied knowing t h a t Stidham had been shot and denied h e a r i n g s h o t s b e i n g f i r e d . He c l a i m e d t h a t h i s U n c l e E d d i e c a r r i e d t h e .22 r i f l e i n t h e house, and, a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 m i n u t e s l a t e r came o u t o f t h e h o u s e with 40-50 L o r t a b pills a n d t h e .22 r i f l e . The defendant's first statement was filled with i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and u n b e l i e v a b l e p r e v a r i c a t i o n t h a t the j u r y o b v i o u s l y chose n o t t o b e l i e v e . Nor does t h i s c o u r t . On N o v e m b e r 7, 2 0 0 4 , a s e c o n d i n t e r v i e w was c o n d u c t e d w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t a f t e r h i s a r r e s t . P r i o r t o t h i s c o n f e s s i o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n f o r m e d that Uncle Eddie had already given a statement t o l a w e n f o r c e m e n t . L a t e r d u r i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t h e was informed t h a t h i s B r o t h e r Jason had been a r r e s t e d i n Dubuque, Iowa a n d h a d j u s t a r r i v e d a t t h e H a m i l t o n airport f o r questioning. I n i t i a l l y , i n the second interview, the defendant confessed that the plan to r o b S t i d h a m o f b o t h t h e p i l l s a n d m o n e y was h i s , b u t a g a i n d e n i e d t h a t he was p r e s e n t when t h e s h o o t i n g took place. In planning the robbery, the defendant s t a t e d t h a t he t o l d b o t h h i s u n c l e a n d b r o t h e r n o t to ' h u r t ' S t i d h a m . A f t e r a d m i t t i n g t h a t he a l o n e h a d g o n e i n t o t h e v i c t i m ' s home f i r s t t o t a l k w i t h h i m a b o u t a d r u g d e a l , he c l a i m e d he r e f u s e d t o r e - e n t e r the house d u r i n g t h e robbery, i l l o g i c a l l y e x p l a i n i n g t h a t he c o u l d n o t g e t i n v o l v e d b e c a u s e , ' i f he'd ( S t i d h a m ) w e n t t o t h e c o p s h e ' d h a v e p i c k e d me o u t . ' O n l y a f t e r h e was i n f o r m e d t h a t h i s b r o t h e r h a d b e e n a r r e s t e d a n d a r r i v e d f r o m Iowa f o r q u e s t i o n i n g d i d t h e d e f e n d a n t c o n f e s s i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e m u r d e r . He c o n f e s s e d t h a t t h e p l a n was f o r h i m , n o t J a s o n o r Eddie, to rob the victim. Although, he f u r t h e r 170 CR-06-0454 s t a t e d that t h e i r p l a n d i d not i n c l u d e s h o o t i n g the v i c t i m , he s t a t e d , 'But t h e n when I s h o t h i m he r e a c h e d f o r a g u n . ' He r e c a l l e d s h o o t i n g t h e v i c t i m ' a b o u t e i g h t ' t i m e s . A s s o o n a s he f i r e d t h e s h o t s J a s o n a n d E d d i e r a n i n t h e h o u s e . The d e f e n d a n t t h e n admitted taking the pills while Eddie cut the victim's throat. Upon e x i t i n g the mobile home, C h r i s t o p h e r thought t h a t h i s b r o t h e r Jason had the d e f e n d a n t ' s w a l l e t . They drove a s h o r t d i s t a n c e t o H o d g e s , A l a b a m a , w h e r e t h e y d i v i d e d t h e money a n d pills, burned the defendant's wallet, and then c h e c k e d i n t o t h e most e x p e n s i v e room a t t h e H a m i l t o n D a y ' s I n n . The f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e , a s w e l l as t h e c o n f e s s i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , clearly show t h a t the defendant was much m o r e t h a n an accomplice in the capital murder and his p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s f a r f r o m m i n o r . The c o u r t r e j e c t s , as did the jury, any assertions made b y the defendant to the contrary as a mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e under 13A-5-51." (C. 147-49.) The trial circumstance did this not court and, exist decision fully based considered on evidence, the i n the present by the trial case. There this mitigating determined was no that i t error as to erred by court. B. Revis further argues that the trial little weight to the statutory according circumstance that he had no significant criminal activity. § 13A-5-51(1), finding, the court trial stated: 171 court mitigating history A l a . Code 1975. of As to prior this CR-06-0454 "The c o u r t d o e s f i n d t h i s t o b e a m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . The s t a t e p r o d u c e d no e v i d e n c e t o the j u r y i n the sentencing phase regarding [Revis's] p r i o r criminal activity. The sentencing r e p o r t by the Alabama Department of Pardons and P a r o l e s o f f e r e d by the s t a t e a t the s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e c o u r t c o n t a i n s a few misdemeanor o f f e n s e s committed by [Revis] ( H a r a s s i n g C o m m u n i c a t i o n s , 2 DUI'S, P u b l i c I n t o x i c a t i o n ) b u t none o f t h e s e h a v e a n y r e l e v a n c e i n t h i s c a s e . None would have been a d m i s s i b l e a t the t r i a l of this c a s e , a n d , t h e c o u r t p l a c e s no w e i g h t a d v e r s e to [ R e v i s ] o n t h e m now." (C. 146-47.) The weight it trial court d i d not state that on t h i s m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e . accorded misdemeanor no weight offenses to offered concerning the Thus, i s no e r r o r there the existence of Rather, State's to this i t placed i tstated that evidence refute as Revis's mitigating little to the evidence circumstance. here. C. Revis consider defense: also contends that the the nonstatutory m i t i g a t i n g specifically, background; his respectfulness; his kindness, his drug trial evidence abusive and generosity, addiction; 172 court his failed to o f f e r e d by the unstable family helpfulness, strong and religious CR-06-0454 b a c k g r o u n d ; and with the l o v e and his f a m i l y and The record make specific circumstances c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t he friends. reveals that although findings as to the these i n his sentencing [ A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , ] , t h e relevant mitigating defendant's offense life In had to order, or record and not mitigating i t did state that " [ i ] n specified in Section or any any aspect other of circumstances the of the t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t o f f e r s as a b a s i s f o r a s e n t e n c e conclusion, given ... court did c o u r t i s t o c o n s i d e r any circumstances imprisonment without trial as character trial nonstatutory a d d i t i o n to the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances 13A-5-51 shared the trial "[c]omplete parole court i n s t e a d of death." f u r t h e r acknowledged had 146.) that i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e w e i g h t t o be a l l m i t i g a t i n g circumstances." court (C. i n s t r u c t e d the (C. 151.) jury during the given Moreover, penalty the phase follows: "Now, the defendant i s allowed to offer any evidence i n mitigation; that i s , evidence that i n d i c a t e s or tends to i n d i c a t e t h a t the defendant s h o u l d be sentenced to l i f e imprisonment without eligibility for parole instead of the death sentence. The d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t b e a r a b u r d e n o f p r o o f i n t h i s r e g a r d . A l l t h e d e f e n d a n t m u s t do i s s i m p l y p r e s e n t t h e e v i d e n c e . The l a w s o f t h i s s t a t e provide that m i t i g a t i n g evidence s h a l l i n c l u d e , but not limited to, the following enumerated are 173 of CR-06-0454 m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , . . . a n d as I've s a i d b e f o r e , t h e y [ s i c ] a r e some t h a t i f p r o v e n b y t h e d e f e n d a n t , y o u may c o n s i d e r , b u t t h a t i s n o t a n a l l - i n c l u s i v e l i s t o f p o s s i b l e m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The l a w s of this State further provide that mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e s s h a l l n o t be l i m i t e d t o t h o s e I have j u s t r e a d , b u t may a l s o i n c l u d e a n y a s p e c t o f t h e defendant's character or background, any circumstances s u r r o u n d i n g the o f f e n s e , and any other relevant mitigating evidence that the defendant o f f e r s as s u p p o r t f o r a sentence o f l i f e without parole instead of death." (R. 815-17.) In So. no plain M o r r i s v. S t a t e , 3d, , error [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 1 9 9 7 , ( A l a . Crim. App. 2010), i n the t r i a l court's failure February this t h e case court t o make f i n d i n g s concerning any n o n s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g in 5, 2 0 1 0 ] specific circumstances and s t a t e d : " I n J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 24 S o . 3 d 540 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009), t h i s Court determined t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s a s t o e a c h nonstatutory mitigating circumstance i n i t s sentencing order d i d not constitute p l a i n error. Moreover, as i n t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r a d d r e s s e d a l l t h a t was r e q u i r e d , a l t h o u g h i t did n o t l i s t o r f i n d any n o n s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I n s o h o l d i n g , we w r o t e : "'In E x p a r t e L e w i s , [ M s . 1 0 7 0 6 4 7 , May 29, 2009] So. 3d ( A l a . 2009), t h e Alabama Supreme Court quoted Clark v. State, 8 9 6 S o . 2 d 584 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2000), c o n c e r n i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s duty i n considering whether proffered evidence 174 found CR-06-0454 constitutes stating: a mitigating circumstance, "'"'The sentencing order shows that the trial court considered all of the mitigating evidence offered by Clark. The t r i a l court did not limit or restrict Clark i n any way a s t o t h e e v i d e n c e he presented or the arguments he made regarding mitigating circumstances. In i t s sentencing order, the trial court addressed e a c h s t a t u t o r y mitigating circumstance listed i n § 13A-5-51, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , a n d i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t none o f those circumstances existed under the evidence presented. Although the trial court d i d n o t l i s t and make f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o r nonexistence of each nonstatutory mitigating circumstance o f f e r e d by Clark, as noted above, such a l i s t i n g i s n o t required, and the t r i a l court's n o t making such findings indicates only that the t r i a l court found the offered evidence not to be mitigating, not that 175 CR-06-0454 the t r i a l court d i d not consider this evidence. Clearly, the trial court considered Clark's proffered evidence of m i t i g a t i o n but concluded that the evidence d i d not rise to the level of a mitigating circum¬ stance. The trial court's findings in this regard are supported by the record. "'"'Because i t i s c l e a r from a review of the e n t i r e record that the trial court understood its duty to consider all the mitigating evidence presented by Clark, that the trial court did in fact consider a l l such evidence, and t h a t the trial court's findings are supported by the evidence, we find no error, plain or otherwise, i n the t r i a l court's f i n d i n g s regarding the s t a t u t o r y and n o n s t a t u t o r y mitigating circum¬ stances.' "'"896 So. 2d a t 652-53 added)." "'24 So. 3d a t 545. 176 (emphasis CR-06-0454 "'Here, i t i s c l e a r that the trial court considered a l l of the evidence o f f e r e d a n d made p r o p e r f i n d i n g s a s t o w h a t evidence constituted nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. "'[T]he trial court i s not r e q u i r e d to s p e c i f y i n i t s sentencing order each item of proposed nonstatutory m i t i g a t i n g evidence offered t h a t i t c o n s i d e r e d and f o u n d n o t t o be m i t i g a t i n g . ' W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 710 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 6 , 1347 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , a f f ' d , 710 S o . 2 d 1350 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 524 U.S. 9 2 9 , 118 S . C t . 2 3 2 5 , 141 L . E d . 2 d 699 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ." B r o w n v . S t a t e , 11 S o . 3 d 8 6 6 , 932 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007), a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e B r o w n , 11 S o . 3 d 933 ( A l a . 2008), c e r t . d e n i e d , Brown v. Alabama, U.S. , 129 S . C t . 2 8 6 4 , 174 L . E d . 2 d 582 ( 2 0 0 9 ) . "We have o f t e n s t a t e d t h a t ' " [ a ] l t h o u g h the trial court i s required to consider a l l m i t i g a t i n g circumstances, the d e c i s i o n of whether a particular mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e i s p r o v e n and t h e w e i g h t t o be g i v e n i t r e s t s w i t h the s e n t e n c e r . " ' Boyd v . S t a t e , 715 S o . 2 d 8 2 5 , 840 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 715 S o . 2 d 852 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , q u o t i n g W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 710 So. 2d 1276, 1347 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996), a f f ' d , 710 S o . 2 d 1350 ( A l a . 1997), c e r t . d e n i e d , 524 U.S. 9 2 9 , 118 S . C t . 2 3 2 5 , 141 L . E d . 2 d 699 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . " H o d g e s v . S t a t e , 856 So. 2d 875, 932 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001), a f f i r m e d , E x p a r t e H o d g e s , 856 S o . 2 d 936 (Ala. 2003), cert. denied, Hodges v. A l a b a m a , 540 U.S. 9 8 6 , 124 S . C t . 4 6 5 , 157 L . E d . 2 d 379 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( f i n d i n g t h a t "a t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t b o u n d t o f i n d as a m i t i g a t i n g circumstance that a codefendant r e c e i v e d a l e s s e r s e n t e n c e t h a n d e a t h . See J o h n s o n v . State, 820 So. 2 d 842 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) , aff'd, 820 So. 2d 883 (Ala. 2001) " ) . ' 177 CR-06-0454 " So. Morris 3d at v. S t a t e , , ." [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 1 9 9 7 , F e b r u a r y 5, 2 0 1 0 ] (Ala. Crim. App. H e r e , t h e j u r y was mitigating evidence to Revis's i t could character, consider a sentence Furthermore, the trial court at error this To a the individual life the t r i a l arriving on of imprisonment court's considered sentencing a l l the judgment. mitigating death. that evidence Therefore, errors that Revis argues that there was in no these alleged that required resulted i n cumulative error specific instances " ' " [ b ] e c a u s e we a l l e g e d by f i n d no c u m u l a t i v e e r r o r . " L a n e v . S t a t e , Crim. App. (Ala. C r i m . App. (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)." (Ala. Crim. App. 2007), 1039 than ground. extent i n the rather or would sentencing order r e f l e c t s a r e v e r s a l of h i s c o n v i c t i o n sentence, error any background, a n y o t h e r r e l e v a n t m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e he p r e s e n t e d t h a t support 3d 2010). instructed that as So. 1995). See also 2000).' ( 2 0 0 9 ) . T h e r e was McGriff Calhoun Harris cert. v. 673 v. denied, 178 (Ala. So. 2d 961 So. 2d 923, 974 2 So. U.S. no e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l 2 d 825 908 932 State, we So. State, v. S t a t e , no appellant, the find 3d 880, , 129 court's 928 S.Ct. findings CR-06-0454 regarding nonstatutory mitigating circumstances, c u m u l a t i v e o r as t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l a l l e g a t i o n s , either i n the present case. XIII. Revis argues vacated pursuant argues that that his sentence of t o R i n g v . A r i z o n a , 536 the jury never death U.S. determined i s due that be (2002). 584 to He the statutory aggravating circumstance e x i s t e d beyond a reasonable doubt that i t argues of outweighed mitigating circumstances. t h a t the j u r o r s were m i s i n f o r m e d about the their role; determined however, t h i s matter f u r t h e r argues in this o p i n i o n we also significance have a d v e r s e l y t o R e v i s . See He previously Issue V I I I . He t h a t t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e W a l d r o p , 859 law and the or So. 2 d 1024 ( A l a . 2004), "undermines the r e l i a b i l i t y i s contrary to of the c a p i t a l the sentencing p r o c e s s and u n f a i r l y skews s e n t e n c i n g t o w a r d the i m p o s i t i o n of t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . Adams v . T e x a s , 448 (Revis's b r i e f , submits runs afoul of a t 114.) the Due T h u s , he Process Clause U.S. and 38, 46-47 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ." that this decision the Sixth, Eighth, and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n i n capital cases. 179 CR-06-0454 In Ex applying parte Waldrop, the Alabama Supreme Court held in Ring: "Because the jury c o n v i c t e d Waldrop of two counts of murder d u r i n g a robbery i n the first degree, a violation of Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(2), the statutory aggravating circumstance of committing a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e w h i l e engaged i n the commission o f a r o b b e r y , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 4 ) , was ' p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e doubt.' A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(e); A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 0 . O n l y one a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e must e x i s t i n o r d e r t o impose a s e n t e n c e of d e a t h . A l a . Code 1975, § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( f ) . Thus, i n Waldrop's c a s e , the j u r y , and n o t the t r i a l j u d g e , determined the e x i s t e n c e of the 'aggravating circumstance necessary f o r i m p o s i t i o n of the death p e n a l t y . ' Ring [ v . A r i z o n a ] , 536 U.S. [ 5 8 4 , ] 6 0 9 , 122 S . C t . [2428,] 2 4 4 3 , 153 L.Ed. 2 d 556 [(2002)]. Therefore, the findings reflected i n the jury's verdict alone e x p o s e d W a l d r o p t o a range o f p u n i s h m e n t t h a t had as i t s maximum t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . T h i s i s a l l R i n g a n d Apprendi [ v . New J e r s e y , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2 3 4 8 , 147 L . E d . 2 d 435 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ] r e q u i r e . " Ex p a r t e Waldrop, The decision followed and Spencer So. 3d So. 2d 878, 879 27, , (2005); So. i n Ex upheld. 0827, A u g u s t 2010); 859 See 2010] v. 2d at parte 1188. Waldrop e.g., Mitchell So. State, [Ms. 3d CR- Ex ( A l a . C r i m . App. parte McNabb, v. 2008); 887 So. consistently State , 2004), 180 been [Ms. CR-06- (Ala. Crim. 04-2570, A p r i l ( A l a . C r i m . App. 903 has 4, Yeomans v. cert. 2d 2008] State, d e n i e d , 546 998, App. 1005-06 898 U.S. (Ala. CR-06-0454 2004), c e r t . denied, i s bound by the 543 decisions s t a t e d i n R e y n o l d s v. So. 3d U.S. 1005 of State, (2004). Further, this t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t . [Ms. court As C R - 0 7 - 0 4 4 3 , O c t o b e r 1, ( A l a . C r i m . App. we 2010] 2010): "Reynolds a l s o c h a l l e n g e s the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e W a l d r o p , 859 So. 2 d 1881 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . He c l a i m s t h a t the d e c i s i o n 'impermissibly eased the State's burden of p r o v i n g t h a t the death p e n a l t y i s a p p r o p r i a t e by ensuring that the jury was unaware that its g u i l t - i n n o c e n c e phase f i n d i n g a u t h o r i z e d the trial judge t o impose the death p e n a l t y w i t h o u t a d d i t i o n a l p r o c e s s , ' and t h a t t h e W a l d r o p d e c i s i o n 'undermines the r e l i a b i l i t y of the c a p i t a l s e n t e n c i n g process and u n f a i r l y skews s e n t e n c i n g t o w a r d t h e i m p o s i t i o n of the death penalty.' (Reynolds's brief, at 111-12.) 'However, this Court i s bound by the d e c i s i o n s o f t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t and has no a u t h o r i t y t o r e v e r s e o r m o d i f y t h o s e d e c i s i o n s . See § 12-3-16, A l a . Code 1975.' D o s t e r , s u p r a , So. 3d a t n. 13." R e y n o l d s v. State, So. Moreover, Revis's a d d r e s s e d by Lewis v. this 2006)(wherein Lewis 24 require aggravating n. and So. determined 3d 480, 31. adversely 533 a r g u e d among o t h e r Alabama's death-penalty not at s p e c i f i c arguments have been p r e v i o u s l y court State, 3d (Ala. specific t o him. See Crim. App. grounds that s t a t u t e v i o l a t e s R i n g because " i t does a unanimous f i n d i n g by circumstances the j u r y as to whether e x i s t beyond a reasonable 181 doubt the and CR-06-0454 whether the aggravating circumstances Thus, circumstances beyond a reasonable there i s no m e r i t outweigh the m i t i g a t i n g doubt"). to this claim. XIV. Revis argues additional process, State, was defense that the t r i a l counsel noted that to deprived him of h i s r i g h t s (Ala. Crim. appoint t o due He c i t e s Q u i c k v. App. 2 0 0 1 ) , i n w h i c h i t i t i s p r e f e r a b l e t o have two a t t o r n e y s in a case. However, i n Q u i c k v. S t a t e , Q u i c k have been p r o v i d e d c o - c o u n s e l never tried Quick was a death-penalty not entitled c o u r t and i s a p r i v i l e g e c l a i m e d t h a t he because h i s defense case, to a decision to appoint co-counsel This refusal equal p r o t e c t i o n , and a f a i r t r i a l . 825 S o . 2 d 2 4 6 , 2 6 0 capital court's but this second counsel court counsel should had held that because the i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y with the t r i a l r a t h e r than a r i g h t of the defendant. court stated: "In the present case, a review of the r e c o r d clearly demonstrates that the appellant was r e p r e s e n t e d b y c a p a b l e a n d e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l , who h a d p r a c t i c e d c r i m i n a l l a w f o r a t l e a s t 10 y e a r s . 'A defendant i s e n t i t l e d t o r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by c o u n s e l ; t h e r e i s no g u a r a n t e e t o be r e p r e s e n t e d b y more t h a n one c o u n s e l Furthermore, ... t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d very e f f e c t i v e a n d a b l e c o u n s e l . The r e f u s a l t o 182 CR-06-0454 a p p o i n t a d d i t i o n a l c o u n s e l was n o t e r r o r . ' B a l f a , 506 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 9 , 1374 ( L a . C t . A p p . S t a t e v. 1987)." 825 S o . 2 d a t 2 6 0 . In cert. Sale v. denied, Alabama, State, 8 So. 8 S o . 3 d 352 U.S. , 3d 330 ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a . 2008), 129 S.Ct. cert. 2062 App. denied, (2009), 2008), Sale this v. court stated: "'We have h e l d that § 13A-5-54, A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e s o n l y t h a t one a t t o r n e y meet t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s . " I n P a r k e r v . S t a t e , 587 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 2 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) , we h e l d t h a t w h e n a p e r s o n a c c u s e d o f a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e h a s one a t t o r n e y whose experience meets t h a t r e q u i r e d i n § 13A-5-54, t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h a t s e c t i o n have been s a t i s f i e d . " H o d g e s v . S t a t e , 8 5 6 S o . 2 d 8 7 5 , 899 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) . ' B e l i s l e v . S t a t e , 11 S o . 3 d 2 5 6 , 2 7 9 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007). Furthermore, a defendant i n a c a p i t a l c a s e i s e n t i t l e d t o o n l y one a t t o r n e y with f i v e y e a r s ' e x p e r i e n c e . S e e R o b i t a i l l e v . S t a t e , 971 So. 2d 43, 51-52 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2005); and W h i t e h e a d v . S t a t e , 777 S o . 2 d 7 8 1 , 8 5 1 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . " Sale v. S t a t e , 8 So. 3d a t 341. Moreover, there Revis's claim. Robitaille cert. v. denied, As i s no this State, 552 U.S. "Section 971 990 statutory court So. 2d has 43 authority previously ( A l a . Crim. to stated App. (2007): 13A-5-54, A l a . Code 183 1975, support states: in 2005), CR-06-0454 " ' E a c h p e r s o n i n d i c t e d f o r an o f f e n s e punishable under the p r o v i s i o n s of this a r t i c l e who i s not able to a f f o r d legal counsel must be provided with court a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l h a v i n g no l e s s t h a n f i v e years' prior experience in the active p r a c t i c e of c r i m i n a l law.' "This Court p r e v i o u s l y addressed t h i s issue i n Whitehead v. State, 777 So. 2d 781, 851 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999): " ' W h i t e h e a d a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t he was e n t i t l e d , u n d e r b o t h A l a b a m a and federal c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w , t o "two attorneys who were e x p e r i e n c e d i n c r i m i n a l and capital litigation." ... I n s u p p o r t o f h i s c l a i m , W h i t e h e a d c i t e s t h i s c o u r t t o § 13A-5-54, Ala. Code 1975, which provides that a person i n d i c t e d f o r a c a p i t a l offense who i s n o t a b l e t o a f f o r d an a t t o r n e y m u s t be provided with court-appointed counsel having no less than five years' prior experience in the active practice of criminal law. Initially we note that Whitehead d i d not r a i s e t h i s i s s u e i n the t r i a l c o u r t ; t h e r e f o r e , o u r r e v i e w w i l l be f o r p l a i n e r r o r . R u l e 45A, Ala.R.App.P. "'As t h e s t a t e c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s o u t i n i t s b r i e f to t h i s c o u r t , Whitehead does not argue on appeal, nor does the record i n d i c a t e , t h a t h i s appointed a t t o r n e y , Hoyt Baugh, l a c k e d the requisite five years' experience in the active practice of criminal law r e q u i r e d under § 13A-5-54. Whitehead complains o n l y t h a t he should h a v e b e e n a p p o i n t e d two a t t o r n e y s i n s t e a d 184 CR-06-0454 o f one. However, u n d e r § 13A-5-54, c o n t r a r y t o W h i t e h e a d ' s c l a i m , W h i t e h e a d was only e n t i t l e d t o one a t t o r n e y w i t h f i v e y e a r s ' experience in the active practice of c r i m i n a l l a w ; t h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e § 13A-5-54 d o e s n o t p r o v i d e f o r t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f two attorneys with five years' experience in the a c t i v e p r a c t i c e of c r i m i n a l law, we find t h a t W h i t e h e a d had the counsel to w h i c h he was entitled.' " W h i l e we r e c o g n i z e t h a t i n some c a s e s t h e r e may be a n e e d t o a p p o i n t two a t t o r n e y s , A l a b a m a h a s no s t a t u t e r e q u i r i n g t h a t two a t t o r n e y s be a p p o i n t e d t o a c a p i t a l defendant. R o b i t a i l l e m a k e s no a r g u m e n t t h a t h i s a p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y , J o h n H. W i l e y I I I , d i d not have the r e q u i s i t e f i v e y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e as r e q u i r e d by law. Robitaille 'had the counsel to w h i c h he was entitled.' W h i t e h e a d , 777 So. 2 d a t 8 51." Robitaille In v. the State, present 971 So. case, 2d at (footnote omitted). was Revis 52 afforded with meeting the s t a t u t o r y requirements t o r e p r e s e n t him. no by abuse of discretion decision to decline represent or error appointing the Revis trial a There court second counsel was in i t s counsel to execution is i t constitutes cruel and him. XV. Revis argues unconstitutional unusual that because, Alabama's he says, punishment. 185 method of CR-06-0454 This i s s u e has In deciding that an earlier p r e v i o u s l y been d e c i d e d a d v e r s e l y this same i s s u e death-penalty case, lacked this merit court to Revis. when r a i s e d stated: " H o w e v e r , i n E x p a r t e B e l i s l e , 11 So. 3 d a t 3 3 8 , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t , i n l i g h t o f t h e safeguards included i n the administration of the drugs used f o r executions by lethal injection in A l a b a m a , t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s do n o t c o n s t i t u t e c r u e l a n d unusual punishment. "'We note that Alabama's statutory d e a t h - p e n a l t y scheme has repeatedly been upheld against c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenges. A comprehensive l i s t i n g of the cases d e a l i n g with these challenges can be found in T r a v i s v . S t a t e , 776 So. 2 d 8 1 9 , 873 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 776 So. 2d 874 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 531 U.S. 1081, 121 S.Ct. 785, 148 L.Ed. 2 d 681 (2001). Moreover, we know of no authority in support of the general proposition that death by lethal injection violates a defendant's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . Indeed, a number o f jurisdictions have rejected s u c h c l a i m s . See, e.g., Sims v. S t a t e , 754 So. 2d 657, 668 ( F l a . 2000); State v. C a r t e r , 89 O h i o S t . 3 d 5 9 3 , 608, 734 N.E. 2 d 345 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ; R i t c h i e v . S t a t e , 809 N.E. 2d 258, 262 (Ind. 2004); Wheeler v. C o m m o n w e a l t h , 121 S.W. 3d 173, 186 (Ky. 2 0 0 3 ) . T o d a y , we j o i n t h e s e j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n h o l d i n g t h a t d e a t h by l e t h a l injection is not per se cruel and unusual punishment.' " B r y a n t v . S t a t e , 951 So. 2 d 7 3 2 , 7 4 7 - 4 8 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 951 So. 2 d 732 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 549 U.S. 1324, 127 S.Ct. 1909, 167 L.Ed. 2 d 569 (2007). (Footnote o m i t t e d . ) " 186 in CR-06-0454 M o r r i s v. S t a t e , , [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 1 9 9 7 , F e b r u a r y 5, (Ala. Crim. App. 2010] So. 3d 2010). Alabama's method of e x e c u t i o n i s not unconstitutional. XVI. Revis secure this it a argues reliable case. does trial; that He not and introductory that that he to a refers trial adequate complains show he the c a p t i o n page counsel. during an He to proceedings the failing in record i s inadequate present at every hearing and f o r the transcript of also court, alleges off-the-record that voir because stage pretrial t h a t names t h o s e p r e s e n t t h e t r i a l defense e r r e d by r e c o r d of the was court of cites the was dire the hearing the p r o s e c u t o r , he the not and present examination of v e n i r e m e m b e r s . He f u r t h e r argues t h a t the r e c o r d i s inadequate in to include arraignment, that jury selection, Lastly, that i t fails the and he a r g u e s a conference raises jury improperly fails of the charges. t o show sworn. these therefore, t h e y a r e t o be rule. 45A, Rule portions r e g a r d i n g the that the t r a n s c r i p t j u r y was Revis the issues f o r the first analyzed pursuant Ala.R.App.P. 187 time to the on appeal; plain-error CR-06-0454 Initially, venire (R. as well 6 4 - 6 5 , R. As voir was to dire no shown wrote as the 251). Revis's 2003)("Also, counsel's ... These factors his weigh appellant now 911, by the State, lacks during nor an trial court time appears i n the with the remainder App. 1161, 2d any claim 1982)("Merely of v. of the record, object State, defense on 410 no in is insufficient that a l l times. So. the 2d statement presence when v i e w e d Crim. prejudice because indicating appellant's such, (Ala. at or alleged brought to not there claimed his were p r e s e n t also Williams record, noted, Revis 897 attorneys m a k e s . " ) . See as 2 6 has did oath off-the-record from So. its the merit. resulting counsel against (Ala. Crim. 912 harm that administered e v e n w h e n h i s a b s e n c e was Finally, reveals potential jurors, a t t e n t i o n , defense basis. issue absences or P e r a i t a v. record j u r y , was this of the defense counsel, prejudice See petit claimed examination any that Thus, o b j e c t i o n by absence. App. we at this conjunction to mandate We n o t e t h a t t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e n t r y a s t o the a r r a i g n m e n t i n t h e c a s e - a c t i o n summary. H o w e v e r , t h e casea c t i o n s u m m a r y d o e s r e f l e c t t h a t a r r a i g n m e n t was set for A u g u s t 10, 2 0 0 5 , and, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d i n i t s s e n t e n c i n g order t h a t p r e v i o u s l y " [ i ] n response to the f o r e g o i n g charges t h e d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d p l e a s o f n o t g u i l t y . " (C. 142.) 26 188 CR-06-0454 reversal of this So. 967 2d cause. (1980), See Durden v. S t a t e , A l a . C r . A p p . , cert. denied, A l a . , 394 So. 2d 394 977 (1981)."). More his importantly, t h e page c i t e d by R e v i s c l a i m t h a t he was n o t p r e s e n t dire does n o t c o n t a i n Rather, dire the record examination during any i n d i c a t i o n reveals that that Revis to substantiate a portion of the voir of h i s absence. at the beginning was p r e s e n t . (R. 61.) of the voir The r e c o r d reflects: "THE COURT: L a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , a t t h i s t i m e I'm g o i n g t o q u a l i f y y o u i n t h e c a s e o f S t a t e o f Alabama v e r s u s C h r i s t o p h e r R e v i s . Mr. R e v i s i s i n t h e courtroom. "Would you please "(The stand, defendant Mr. complied.) "THE COURT: M r . C h r i s t o p h e r seated. be Revis? "(The defendant Revis also alludes Revis. Y o u may complied.)" (R. 5 8 . ) Although to list h i m as p r e s e n t hearing, Revis on t h e c a p t i o n t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e has resulting to the failure also failed to from h i s a l l e g e d allege absence. 189 page of the record for a pretrial t h a t he was n o t p r e s e n t . or show any prejudice CR-06-0454 In this Hall court v. S t a t e , 820 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999), stated: " H a l l next argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t t o be p r e s e n t a t e v e r y p h a s e o f t h e t r i a l when t h e c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an o f f - t h e - r e c o r d h e a r i n g outside h i s presence. "Initially, as t h e S t a t e notes i n i t s b r i e f t o t h i s C o u r t , t h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e record that Hall was not present at this o f f - t h e - r e c o r d c o n f e r e n c e . As t h i s C o u r t has o f t e n stated, 'We w i l l n o t p r e d i c a t e e r r o r on a s i l e n t r e c o r d . ' M a p l e s v . S t a t e , 758 S o . 2 d 1 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1999), citing, F o s t e r v. S t a t e , 587 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 6 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , o p i n i o n e x t e n d e d a f t e r remand, 591 So. 2d 151 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) . " E v e n i f we w e r e t o a s s u m e t h a t H a l l was a b s e n t f r o m t h i s h e a r i n g , we w o u l d s t i l l c o n c l u d e t h a t n o v i o l a t i o n of Hall's constitutional rights occurred h e r e . As t h i s C o u r t r e i t e r a t e d i n B o r d e n v. S t a t e , 769 S o . 2 d 935 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) : " ' R e c e n t l y , i n P o n d e r v . S t a t e , 688 S o . 2d 280 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996), this court stated: "'"'The c o u r t i n P r o f f i t t v . Wainwright, [685 F . 2 d 1227 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 464 U.S. 1 0 0 2 , 104 S . C t . 5 0 8 , 78 L . E d . 2 d 697 (1983)], acknowledged in a footnote that i n Snyder v. Massachusetts, 2 9 1 U.S. 9 7 , 54 S.Ct. 3 3 0 , 78 L . E d . 674 (1934), " w h i c h was a c a p i t a l c a s e , [ t h e C o u r t ] s t a t e d t h e s i x t h amendment p r i v i l e g e of confrontation could 190 CR-06-0454 'be l o s t b y c o n s e n t o r a t t i m e s even by misconduct.' Snyder v. M a s s a c h u s e t t s , 2 9 1 U.S. a t 1 0 6 , 54 S.Ct. at 332." Proffitt v. W a i n w r i g h t , s u p r a , a t 1257, n. 43. S e e a l s o S t a t e v . D a v i s , 290 N.C. 511, 227 S . E . 2 d 9 7 , 110 (1976) ("[t]he strict rule that an accused cannot waive h i s r i g h t t o be p r e s e n t a t e v e r y s t a g e o f h i s t r i a l upon an i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g i n g a c a p i t a l f e l o n y , S t a t e v. Moore, 275 N.C. 1 9 8 , 166 S.E.2d 652 (1969), i s n o t extended t o r e q u i r e his presence a t the hearing of a p r e t r i a l m o t i o n f o r d i s c o v e r y when h e i s r e p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l who c o n s e n t e d t o h i s a b s e n c e , a n d when no prejudice resulted from h i s absence"). See also State v. P i l a n d , 58 N.C. A p p . 9 5 , 2 9 3 S.E. 2 d 278 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , a p p e a l d i s m i s s e d , 306 N.C. 5 6 2 , 294 S.E.2d 374 (1982) ( " [ t ] h e [ c a p i t a l ] d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s case has n o t demonstrated any prejudice t o him by h i s absence from a part of the h e a r i n g . T h e e v i d e n c e e l i c i t e d was n o t d i s p u t e d a n d t h e r e h a s b e e n no showing t h a t i t would have been d i f f e r e n t had the defendant been present"). "'"'Thus, i f t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s presence ... would have been u s e l e s s t o [ h i s ] defense and i f the [pretrial] h e a r i n g was n o t considered t o be a "critical s t a g e " o f [ h i s ] t r i a l , t h e n we c a n f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s absence from the h e a r i n g . ' " 191 CR-06-0454 "'688 So. 2d a t 285, quoting Harris v. State, 632 So. 2d 503, 512 (Ala.Cr.App. 1 9 9 2 ) , a f f ' d , 632 S o . 2 d 543 ( A l a . 1993), a f f ' d , 513 U.S. 5 0 4 , 115 S . C t . 1031, 130 L . E d . 2 d 1004 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ( e m p h a s i s i n H a r r i s ) . See a l s o D o b y n e v . S t a t e , 672 S o . 2 d 1319 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , on r e t u r n t o r e m a n d , 672 S o . 2d 1353 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , a f f ' d , 672 So. 2 d 1354 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 517 U.S. 1169, 116 S.Ct. 1571, 134 L.Ed. 2d 670 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; E x p a r t e D e B r u c e , 651 S o . 2 d 624 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ; B u r t o n v . S t a t e , 651 S o . 2d 641 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) , a f f ' d , 651 S o . 2d 659 ( A l a . 1994), c e r t . d e n i e d , 514 U.S. 1115, 115 S.Ct. 1973, 131 L.Ed. 2d 862 (1995).' "769 So. 2d at 943. " S i n c e t h i s C o u r t r e l e a s e d B o r d e n we h a v e h a d s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s t o a d d r e s s t h i s i s s u e a n d on e a c h o c c a s i o n we f o u n d no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . See M c W h o r t e r v. State, 781 So. 2d 257 (Ala.Cr.App. 1999) (McWhorter's absence from i n i t i a l q u a l i f y i n g of the j u r y v e n i r e was not reversible error); Sneed v. S t a t e , 783 S o . 2 d 841 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , a n d H a r d y v . S t a t e , 804 S o . 2 d 247 (Ala.Cr.App. 1999)(Sneed's and Hardy's absence from in-chambers hearing c o n c e r n i n g r e d a c t i o n of s t a t e m e n t s and in-chambers hearing concerning jury's request during d e l i b e r a t i o n s f o r t w o v i d e o - r e c o r d e r s was n o t e r r o r ) . See also Burgess v. State, 723 So. 2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997)(Burgess's absence from two p r e t r i a l m o t i o n h e a r i n g s , an i n - c h a m b e r s discussion w i t h c o u n s e l and the v i c t i m ' s f a m i l y d u r i n g v o i r dire, and an i n - c h a m b e r s discussion with counsel about suspending Burgess's telephone p r i v i l e g e s was not r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r ) . " H a l l h a s n o t s h o w n t h a t he was p r e j u d i c e d b y h i s absence from t h i s o f f - t h e - r e c o r d d i s c u s s i o n where 192 CR-06-0454 h i s a t t o r n e y was p r e s e n t . error, occurred here." 820 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 6 - 3 7 Revis of the absence. nor The r e c o r d Revis because (footnote h a s shown trial further i t does neither that portion the the not jury contain s e l e c t i o n was strikes and he the argues a by (R. record i s i s included that fails a to inadequate of i n the conference what by the containing the the s t r i k e record. regarding the Although strikes a form entering of conference not transcribed. entry alleged indicate as to Further, jury charges for this an a p p a r e n t c o m p l e t e t r a n s c r i p t i o n o f t h e error conference. 632.) Although no any stage ground. was n o t t r a n s c r i b e d , t h e p a g e t o w h i c h h e c i t e s contains a t any transcription i n the record, i n d i c a t i n g the party juror the Revis t r a n s c r i p t i o n of potential absent prejudiced that charges. i s not included although h e was of the j u r y s e l e c t i o n , and a parties each that was contends of the j u r y actual he plain omitted). i s n o t u n r e l i a b l e on t h i s arraignment, portions regarding No e r r o r , m u c h l e s s requirement generally, the arraignment that the Fox v. S t a t e , was not transcribed, arraignment be there transcribed. [Ms. C R - 0 5 - 0 4 2 5 , A u g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 ] 193 i s See CR-06-0454 So. 3d , murder there ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ( o n a p p e a l trial and on appeal, this court in a that, noted capital"nor i s a t r a n s c r i p t of arraignment i n the record"). Revis no a l l e g a t i o n of any i m p r o p r i e t y during h i s arraignment, d o e s h e a l l e g e t h a t t h e a r r a i g n m e n t was n o t h e l d . the record discloses that, court stated that Revis charges So. against 2 d 217 reaching him. i n sentencing had entered pleas (Ala. 1981), c e r t . that denied, gives to a presumption from being Thus, weight ... court We the trial to the been reporter's of accuracy the notes, have 1206 417 (1983)("In the record d i d not a f f i r m a t i v e l y to stenographic arraignment. Revis, 4 6 3 U.S. the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals d o u b t l e s s reporter's Furthermore, of not g u i l t y show t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t / r e s p o n d e n t p l e a d e d undue nor (C. 1 4 2 . ) C o m p a r e O ' L e a r y v . S t a t e , i t s conclusion judgment, makes to the gave g r e a t , transcript which cited of t o no and i n our the d i d not stenographic or otherwise indictment, reflect authority notes prevents court a an which conclusive their content impeached or c o n t r a d i c t e d . " ) . there transcription was of the no plain error arraignment. 194 caused by the lack of CR-06-0454 XVII. Pursuant t o § 13A-5-53(a), Ala.R.App.P., of any e r r o r substantial In of this that A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , a n d R u l e 45A, c o u r t must s e a r c h t h e r e c o r d has or p r o b a b l y has a d v e r s e l y rights commission Stidham's murder controlled for killing [Jerry affected the the other count substances. Both was b a s e d counts o f two c o u n t s Stidham] o f a r o b b e r y . One c o u n t w a s b a s e d wallet; note of the appellant. t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , R e v i s was c o n v i c t e d capital and take were during the on t h e t h e f t o f on t h e t h e f t based on of t h e same c o n d u c t a n d r e q u i r e d t h e same p r o o f o f t h e n e c e s s a r y e l e m e n t s , because the property element of the c a p i t a l I n Wynn v . S t a t e , this court with two addressed counts burglary/murder held that only burglary/murder robbery/murder of taken during the robbery offense. 804 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 2 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) , a situation i n which robbery/murder and Wynn two f o r t h e m u r d e r o f t h e same v i c t i m . one c o u n t could i s n o t an of robbery/murder stand and stated was charged counts This court a n d one c o u n t o f concerning convictions: "Count I a l l e g e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t committed t h e r o b b e r y - m u r d e r ' w h i l e [ h e ] was a r m e d w i t h a d e a d l y 195 of the CR-06-0454 w e a p o n o r a d a n g e r o u s i n s t r u m e n t . ' (C.R. 19.) C o u n t II a l l e g e d that, i n the course of the robbery-murder, the a p p e l l a n t 'caused s e r i o u s p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o the s a i d Denise B l i s s . ' (C.R.19.) "'A p e r s o n c o m m i t s t h e c r i m e o f r o b b e r y i n the f i r s t degree i f he v i o l a t e s Section 13A-8-43 and he: "'(1) I s armed w i t h a d e a d l y weapon o r dangerous i n s t r u m e n t ; o r "'(2) Causes s e r i o u s i n j u r y to another.' "§ 13A-8-41(a), "'A p e r s o n the third committing A l a . Code 1975 commits degree a theft physical (emphasis added). the crime of robbery i n i f i n the course of he: "'(1) Uses f o r c e a g a i n s t the p e r s o n of t h e owner o r any p e r s o n p r e s e n t w i t h i n t e n t to overcome his physical resistance or p h y s i c a l power of r e s i s t a n c e ; or "'(2) Threatens the imminent use of f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o f t h e owner o r any p e r s o n p r e s e n t w i t h i n t e n t t o compel acquiescence to the t a k i n g of or escaping w i t h the p r o p e r t y . ' "§ 1 3 A - 8 - 4 3 ( a ) , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 . C l e a r l y , C o u n t s I a n d I I were s i m p l y a l t e r n a t i v e methods of p r o v i n g the s i n g l e offense of robbery-murder." Wynn v . State, "A single offenses and 804 So. crime thereby 2d a t 1148-49. cannot be subject 196 divided the into perpetrator two to or more multiple CR-06-0454 convictions 786, 2d 787 794, f o r the same o f f e n s e . " E x ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . As 797 (Ala. Crim. we stated App. p a r t e Darby, i n Abrams v. State, 2006): "'"The constitutional guarantee a g a i n s t double jeopardy protects a defendant from b e i n g subjected to m u l t i p l e punishments for the same offense. This guarantee bars the c o n v i c t i o n of a defendant for two separate counts of first-degree robbery where the evidence adduced at trial tended t o show t h a t the d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t t e d o n l y one a c t of robbery a g a i n s t one victim. M o o r e v . S t a t e , 709 S o . 2 d 1324 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997)." "'Young v. C r i m . App. State, 1998). 724 So. 2d 69, 73 (Ala. " ' " T h i s i s not a case where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two d i s t i n c t s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s . See B l o c k b u r g e r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 28 4 U.S. 299 ( 1 9 3 2 ) . ... The p e r t i n e n t i n q u i r y i n d e c i d i n g whether [these c o n v i c t i o n s are] a c c e p t a b l e i n the face of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l guarantees against double jeopardy then becomes d e f i n i n g t h e c o r r e c t u n i t of p r o s e c u t i o n . B e l l v. United S t a t e s , 349 U.S. 81 ( 1 9 5 5 ) . "'"'"A s i n g l e c r i m e c a n n o t be d i v i d e d into two o r more o f f e n s e s and thereby subject the 197 516 So.2d 978 So. CR-06-0454 perpetrator to multiple c o n v i c t i o n s f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . Const. of 1901, A r t . I , § 9; U.S. C o n s t . Amend. V." Ex parte Darby, 516 So. 2 d 786, 787 ( A l a . 1987). Such question of double jeopardy i s determined by the following principles: "'"'"It has been aptly noted t h a t 'the Blockburger [v. U n i t e d States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932),] test i s insufficient where ... the concern i s not multiple charges under separate statutes, but rather successive prosecutions f o r conduct t h a t may c o n s t i t u t e t h e s a m e a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n . ' Rashad v. B u r t , 108 F. 3 d 677 ( 6 t h Cir. 1997). This i s because when 'a defendant i s convicted for violating one statute m u l t i p l e times, the same e v i d e n c e test w i l l n e v e r be satisfied.' State v. A d e l , 136 Wash. 2 d 6 2 9 , 965 P. 2 d 1 0 7 2 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . The ' a p p r o p r i a t e i n q u i r y ' i n such a case 'asks what "unit of p r o s e c u t i o n " was intended by the 198 CR-06-0454 Legislature as the p u n i s h a b l e a c t . ... The i n q u i r y r e q u i r e s us to l o o k t o the language and purpose of the s t a t u t e s , to see whether they speak directly to the issue of the a p p r o p r i a t e u n i t of p r o s e c u t i o n , and if they do not, to ascertain that unit, k e e p i n g i n m i n d t h a t any ambiguity that arises i n the process must be r e s o l v e d , under the r u l e of lenity, in the defendant's favor.' Commonwealth v. Rabb, 431 M a s s . 1 2 3 , 725 N.E. 2d 1036 (2000) (con¬ cluding that allegedly m u l t i p l e d r u g possessions justify m u l t i p l e charges i f the p o s s e s s i o n s are s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by t i m e , place or intended purpose, the case here regarding defendant's p o s s e s s i o n of drugs at his residence for immediate s a l e and h i s p o s s e s s i o n of drugs at motel for future sales)." "'"'4 Wayne R. LaFave et a l . , C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e § 1 7 . 4 ( b ) , 2001 P o c k e t P a r t n. 66 (2d ed.1999). See a l s o P r o j e c t , "Twenty N i n t h Annual Review of Criminal 199 CR-06-0454 Procedure," 88 Geo. L. J. 879, 1293 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ("when t h e g o v e r n m e n t seeks to prove t h a t a s i n g l e act or occurrence r e s u l t s i n m u l t i p l e v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e same s t a t u t e , the r u l e of l e n i t y r e q u i r e s o n l y one p u n i s h m e n t u n l e s s l e g i s l a t i v e intent to impose multiple punishments i s shown").' " ' " T o w n s e n d v . S t a t e , 823 S o . 2d 717, 722 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001) (footnote omitted [in Girard] )." " ' G i r a r d [ v . S t a t e ] , 883 715-16 [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. So. 2 d 2002)]. [714] "'"'Robbery is an offense a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n . . . . ' " Ex p a r t e Windsor, 683 So. 2d 1042, 1046 (Ala. 1996)(quoting Windsor v. S t a t e , 683 So. 2 d 1 0 2 7 , 1032 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994)). That i s , the v i c t i m i n t h i s c a s e was G a l l a h a r , not the dry-cleaning business, although some of the property taken belonged to the business. Proof of an actual taking of property is not required to s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n f o r robbery. See C o o k v . S t a t e , 582 So. 2 d 592 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . Thus i t i s the use of f o r c e , or the t h r e a t of the use of force, against the person t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s the crime; t h e r e f o r e , the u n i t of p r o s e c u t i o n i s the a c t of v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t the person. Thus, the number of charges a g a i n s t the defendant i s n o t d e t e r m i n e d by t h e number o f p i e c e s of p r o p e r t y a c t u a l l y taken, a s was done i n t h i s case. Cf. 200 at CR-06-0454 C o n n o l l y v. S t a t e , 539 So. 2d 436, 441-42 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) ( " T h e State could not convert a single t h e f t of v a r i o u s items of property i n t o separate o f f e n s e s by a l l e g i n g the t h e f t of d i f f e r e n t items i n separate indictments. A l l the p r o p e r t y was t a k e n d u r i n g t h e same transaction a n d c o n s t i t u t e d one o f f e n s e . Such i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . " ) . "'In Young, t h i s Court reasoned: "'"In the present case, the court differentiated the two c o u n t s o f r o b b e r y as f o l l o w s : "'"'And the State i s maintaining that the f i r s t robbery charge i s i n r e g a r d t o t h e $42 o r $43 t h a t [ V . E . ] s a i d was taken from h i s w a l l e t . And then t h a t the o t h e r robbery c h a r g e was t h e going to the, I b e l i e v e , the front bedroom, seeking money on that occasion.' "'"(R. 416.) "'"The State presented e v i d e n c e o f one [ r o b b e r y ] , b u t n o t two separate robberies. The e v i d e n c e t e n d e d t o show t h a t Y o u n g c o m m i t t e d one c o n t i n u o u s a c t of robbery against V.E., using a d e a d l y weapon w h i l e c o m m i t t i n g a t h e f t . The f a c t t h a t Y o u n g f o r c e d V.E. i n t o a n o t h e r room does n o t c r e a t e a s e c o n d r o b b e r y . The t r i a l 201 CR-06-0454 court erred i n i n s t r u c t i n g the j u r y t h a t i t d i d . See R o l l i n g v . S t a t e , 673 S o . 2 d 8 1 2 , 8 1 5 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 19 9 5 ) . " "'724 So. 2d a t 73. "'The e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e , l i k e t h e evidence i n Young, shows that Craig c o m m i t t e d one c o n t i n u o u s a c t o f r o b b e r y against Gallahar. For the reasons stated above, t h e f a c t t h a t C r a i g took property from both Gallahar and from the d r y - c l e a n i n g b u s i n e s s does n o t c r e a t e two separate robbery offenses. Therefore, b e c a u s e C r a i g was t w i c e p l a c e d i n j e o p a r d y by b e i n g i n d i c t e d f o r and c o n v i c t e d o f two separate charges of f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery when he i n f a c t c o m m i t t e d o n l y one c r i m e against one victim, one of Craig's convictions f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery i s t o be v a c a t e d , a l o n g w i t h the accompanying - e^ c e . h< sent n r-i <^ * "893 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 5 2 - 5 6 ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . S e e S m i t h v. S t a t e , 895 So. 2 d 3 8 1 , 3 8 2 - 3 8 5 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( r e l y i n g on C r a i g , t h i s C o u r t f o u n d t h a t two convictions for first-degree robbery violated p r i n c i p l e s o f double j e o p a r d y where t h e a p p e l l a n t t o o k money f r o m t h e b u s i n e s s c a s h d r a w e r a n d f r o m o f f i c e m a n a g e r ' s p u r s e ) ; M c P h e r s o n v . S t a t e , 933 So. 2d 1114 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005) ( f i n d i n g C r a i g t o be f a c t u a l l y s i m i l a r , t h i s Court found the a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r two c o u n t s o f d i s c h a r g i n g a f i r e a r m into an o c c u p i e d d w e l l i n g during one c o u r s e of c o n d u c t was a d o u b l e - j e o p a r d y v i o l a t i o n ) . " Abrams v. S t a t e , Thus, present 978 S o . 2 d a t 7 9 7 - 9 9 . t h e two case charged counts of murder Revis with 202 during committing robbery t h e same i n the offense. CR-06-0454 Moreover, the fact concurrently unlawful does that not the sentences obviate the would have been harm resulting served from the conviction. "The s e p a r a t e c o n v i c t i o n , a p a r t f r o m t h e concurrent sentence, has potential adverse collateral c o n s e q u e n c e s t h a t may n o t be i g n o r e d . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e p r e s e n c e o f two c o n v i c t i o n s on t h e r e c o r d may delay the defendant's eligibility for parole or r e s u l t i n an i n c r e a s e d s e n t e n c e u n d e r a r e c i d i v i s t s t a t u t e f o r a f u t u r e o f f e n s e . Moreover, the second c o n v i c t i o n may be u s e d t o i m p e a c h t h e defendant's c r e d i b i l i t y and c e r t a i n l y c a r r i e s the s o c i e t a l s t i g m a a c c o m p a n y i n g a n y c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n . See B e n t o n v . Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 790-791, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 2 0 6 0 - 2 0 6 1 , 23 L . E d . 2 d 707 (1969); S i b r o n v. New Y o r k , 392 U.S. 40, 5 4 - 5 6 , 88 S . C t . 1 8 8 9 , 1898-1899, 20 L . E d . 2 d 917 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . T h u s , t h e s e c o n d c o n v i c t i o n , e v e n i f i t r e s u l t s i n no g r e a t e r s e n t e n c e , i s an impermissible punishment." Ball v. United We note appellate purportedly being the that brief case-action that States, a by circumstances, commission of alleged to was the trial Robbery capital (1985). as that "as 856 attached document j u r y v e r d i c t as vacated U.S. Revis summary signed 470 to murder." 203 to filed in Marion judge. The document i n d i c a t e s of the one of addition to his an count the addendum be duplicitous in an County indictment the the and was aggravating First Degree, during the (Revis's brief Appendix B.) CR-06-0454 However, this document i s not contained t h e r e f o r e may n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d by t h i s i n the record and court. " T h i s c o u r t may n o t c o n s i d e r m a t t e r s o u t s i d e t h e record t h a t a r e i n c l u d e d i n an a p p e l l a t e brief. W a l - M a r t S t o r e s , I n c . v . Goodman, 7 8 9 S o . 2 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 6 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . Our supreme c o u r t h a s e x p l a i n e d : "'"'[A]ttachments to briefs are not considered p a r t of the r e c o r d and t h e r e f o r e c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d on a p p e a l . ' " Morrow v. S t a t e , 928 S o . 2 d 3 1 5 , 320 n . 5 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2004) ( q u o t i n g H u f f v . S t a t e , 596 So. 2 d 1 6 , 19 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . Further, we c a n n o t c o n s i d e r e v i d e n c e t h a t i s n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l b e c a u s e this Court's appellate review " ' i s restricted t o the evidence and arguments c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' " Ex p a r t e O l d R e p u b l i c S u r . Co., 733 So. 2 d 8 8 1 , 883 n. 1 ( A l a . 1999) (quoting Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l C o . , 612 S o . 2 d 4 0 9 , 410 ( A l a . 1992), and c i t i n g Rodriguez-Ramos v. J . Thomas W i l l i a m s , J r . , M.D., P.C., 580 S o . 1326 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . ' 2d " R o b e r t s v . NASCO E q u i p . (Ala. 2007). H i l d r e t h v. S t a t e , (Ala. 7, 10 n. 1020-21 (Ala. Co., 986 So. [Ms. 2 0 8 1 0 7 9 , May 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 ] C i v . App. 2010). See a l s o Ex p a r t e 2 Ex p a r t e (Ala. 2008); ( A l a .2004); Crim. App. 2 d 3 7 9 , 385 Wilson v. 2001). 204 Brooks, State, 830 So. 3d , R u g g s , 10 S o . 3 d 897 So. So. 2d 2d 1017, 765, 788 CR-06-0454 Even April was i f we c o u l d 26, 2007. filed However, 2 7 on December appeal was f i l e d point, the t r i a l the consider with the notice 12, 2006, this court no l o n g e r 3d , Therefore this court with orders case remand REMANDED WITH and See a l s o Denson, So. [Ms. ( A l a . 2010) . to the t r i a l of this to the t r i a l opinion. court f o r we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e s t a t u t o r y of the p r o p r i e t y of the death made t o t h i s vacate Due r e t u r n s h o u l d b e made case must be remanded further proceedings, of one o f t h e c o n v i c t i o n s c o u r t w i t h i n 28 d a y s o f t h e r e l e a s e Because t h i s analysis Ex p a r t e i s due t o be remanded against Revis. to 3(a)(2) Ala.R.Crim.P. , that the court vacate sentences entered this So. 3d case 14, 2006. A t t h a t N o v e m b e r 5, 2 0 1 0 ] App. 2010); on notice had j u r i s d i c t i o n [Ms. C R - 0 9 - 1 3 0 7 , ( A l a . Crim. i n this a n d t h e amended 24.1(b), 1090952, A u g u s t 13, 2010] is i t was f i l e d of appeal c o u r t on December 4 ( b ) , Ala.R.App.P.; Rule Stevenson v. S t a t e , to document, c o n v i c t i o n and sentence as t o count one. Rule Rule and this sentence until return order. INSTRUCTIONS. W e l c h , Windom, a n d K e l l u m , J J . , concur. T h e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l w a s f i l e d o n M a r c h 8, 2 0 0 7 , a n d t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l r e c o r d was f i l e d on A p r i l 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 . 2 7 205

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.