Hope Elisabeth Ankrom v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel:08/26/2011 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 b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 CR-09-1148 Hope E l i s a b e t h Ankrom v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal BURKE, from Coffee C i r c u i t (CC-09-395) Court Judge. Hope Elisabeth Ankrom pleaded endangerment o f a c h i l d , a violation 1975. The t r i a l sentenced prison, but the court court suspended guilty to chemical o f § 2 6 - 1 5 - 3 . 2 , A l a . Code Ankrom that t o three sentence years i n and p l a c e d h e r CR-09-1148 on one year supervised We conviction. of affirm. Facts and probation. Procedural Ankrom her History At the g u i l t y - p l e a h e a r i n g , the p a r t i e s following appealed s t i p u l a t e d to the facts: "On January 31, 2009, the defendant, Hope Ankrom, gave b i r t h to a son, [B.W.], at M e d i c a l C e n t e r E n t e r p r i s e . M e d i c a l r e c o r d s showed t h a t the defendant tested positive for cocaine prior to g i v i n g b i r t h and t h a t t h e c h i l d t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r cocaine after b i r t h . " D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s worker Ashley A r n o l d became i n v o l v e d and d e v e l o p e d a p l a n f o r t h e care of the c h i l d . During the i n v e s t i g a t i o n the defendant admitted to Ashley t h a t she had used m a r i j u a n a w h i l e s h e was p r e g n a n t b u t d e n i e d u s i n g cocaine. " M e d i c a l r e c o r d s f r o m h e r d o c t o r s h o w t h a t he documented a substance abuse problem s e v e r a l times d u r i n g h e r p r e g n a n c y and she had t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r c o c a i n e and m a r i j u a n a on m o r e t h a n one occasion d u r i n g her pregnancy." On with the February chemical grand 18, endangerment jury indicted Ankrom " d i d k n o w i n g l y , permit is 2009, a child, to the Grand Ankrom of a was arrested child. Ankrom. recklessly, The or On and August indictment charged 25, 2009, stated that intentionally t o - w i t : [B.W.], a b e t t e r description Jury otherwise t o be cause 2 unknown, exposed of or which to, to CR-09-1148 ingest or inhale, substance, defined chemical i n Section t o - w i t : Cocaine, On or to have contact substance, 13A-12-260 in violation of Section September 25, 2009, Ankrom [§ t h e f a c t s , Ankrom 26-15-3.2, intended f o r the f e t u s " ; that "courts that 1975,] statute to filed a controlled paraphernalia of Alabama, such statutes a motion "[t]he shows apply i n other a l l e g e d l y harms the do not s t y l e d as a states p l a i n language that only to which apply violated impermissibly vague, applies"; "[t]he that and this a child, have statute fetus, t o do s o " ; that conduct was prosecution illegal of under pregnant this women 3 that contention that rule of a that violation law lenity considered no n o t i c e statute"; is the conduct that was the conduct "the defendant b e e n a c c o r d e d due p r o c e s s b e c a u s e t h e r e a determined previously prenatal not enacted renders the l e g i s l a t u r e has to include declined state's of the l e g i s l a t u r e prenatal therefore amending the s t a t u t e and to a f e t u s " ; that "[t]he defendant 1975, [26-15-3.2(a)(l)]." same o r s i m i l a r c h e m i c a l e n d a n g e r m e n t s t a t u t e s h a v e that as I n that motion, a f t e r s e t t i n g argued A l a . Code drug o f t h e Code "Motion to Dismiss Indictment." forth or with harms has a not that her "[t]he of the CR-09-1148 constitutional "[p]rosecution against and that reasons." State's responded Ankrom to that response, gave b i r t h tested and t h a t after birth. Based prosecution On son positive birth motion i t agreed to a giving 1975. Protection"; p u b l i c p o l i c y f o r numerous m o r a l and e t h i c a l the of pregnant, Equal women i s State that of allegedly drug-addicted The Ankrom guarantee and that that on that 31, In 2009, records showed immediately p r i o r tested conduct, 13, 2009. January medical f o r cocaine the c h i l d on on O c t o b e r positive the State for to cocaine argued that o f A n k r o m was p r o p e r u n d e r § 2 6 - 1 5 - 3 . 2 , A l a . C o d e October 15, 2009, t h e t r i a l court denied Ankrom's motion. On A p r i l 1, 2 0 1 0 , A n k r o m p l e a d e d g u i l t y § 2 6 - 1 5 - 3 . 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code plea issue hearing, before for appellate 1975. ( R . 1-14.) entering review, to a v i o l a t i o n her plea, At the g u i l t y - Ankrom reserved i n the f o l l o w i n g exchange: " T h e C o u r t : A l l r i g h t . S h o u l d y o u r p l e a b e one o f g u i l t y -- a n d I w i l l go o v e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s . B u t s h o u l d y o u r p l e a be one o f g u i l t y , w i l l y o u b e r e s e r v i n g any i s s u e s f o r a p p e a l ? "[Defense counsel]: "The C o u r t : Okay. what t h a t i s s u e o r what Yes, s i r . A n d do y o u w i s h t o s p e c i f y those issues would be? 4 of an CR-09-1148 " [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : Y e s , s i r . On S e p t e m b e r t h e 25th of 2009, I f i l e d a motion to dismiss the i n d i c t m e n t a g a i n s t Ms. A n k r o m p r e d i c a t e d u p o n t h e f a c t t h a t the f a c t s as r e l a t e d a r e g o i n g t o be s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e C o u r t and t h e y were r e c i t e d i n t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e i n d i c t m e n t . T h o s e f a c t s do n o t a s s e r t an o f f e n s e a g a i n s t h e r . The l a w u n d e r w h i c h s h e ' s c h a r g e d ; 2 6 - 1 5 - 3 . 2 , Code o f A l a b a m a 1975, a r e i n a p p l i c a b l e t o -- i s n ' t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case. "The Court: "[Defense reserving." Okay. Counsel]: That's the issue we are Discussion Ankrom a l l e g e s t h a t based on the facts of t h i s case, she cannot be c o n v i c t e d of v i o l a t i n g § 26-15-3.2(a)(1), A l a . Code 1975. Her a l l e g a t i o n p r e s e n t s a q u e s t i o n of f i r s t impression for this whether Court. a mother her pregnancy, Code 1975, controlled may and Ankrom's Crim. birth the We controlled note infant answer conclude conviction App. issue before this Court substance is during be p r o s e c u t e d u n d e r § 2 6 - 1 5 - 3 . 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . we we the ingested a substance. Initially, (Ala. who i f at affirmative, case, Specifically, tests that legal t h a t based was on question the for the in the facts of this S t a t e , 8 So. 3d 1024 proper. t h a t i n Doseck v. 2008), positive this Court 5 d e c l i n e d to review the CR-09-1148 merits of a improperly similar raised dismiss. This P., not does permit 3d at the to the trial court that Rule evidence ... by issue way of 13.5(c)(1), an and provides the no a the indictment pleading m o t i o n was motion based other on the "Rule mechanism of the evidence." Doseck, Ankrom's attorney referenced sufficiency for a to Crim. a present case, when r e s e r v i n g t h e as a "Motion to issue for review Dismiss Indictment." and of pretrial 8 So. the However, the o b v i o u s l y m i s l a b e l e d , because i t d i d not validity of the indictment. Rather, a m a t t e r of law, 1975, c o u r t was the constituted a violation offense clearly on charged notice i n the of this the styled challenge Ankrom's m o t i o n argument f o r t h r i g h t l y r a i s e d the i s s u e whether her Code been A l a . R. indictment that had 1025. In the of because d i s m i s s a l of Procedure challenge the Court held insufficiency Criminal in issue conduct, Ankrom's reservation 6 of indictment. legal the as of § 26-15-3.2, A l a . The trial issue, interpreted the language of the s t a t u t e t o encompass Ankrom's conduct, accepted and issue for and appellate CR-09-1148 review. The State d i d not object to the r e s e r v a t i o n of appears to be nearly this issue. Procedurally, the to present review. that 2d 1 and, i f f o l l o w e d , would h o l d t h a t Ankrom's c l a i m i s not for the case Doseck this Alabama 875 Court Supreme C o u r t , (Ala. 2002). I n Ex with such parte as to require this Court properly before this Court However, upon r e e x a m i n i n g decision conflicts identical D o s e c k , we now believe e s t a b l i s h e d precedent Ex parte Deramus, Deramus, the Alabama 882 from So. Supreme held: " I n d e e d , t h e mere m i s l a b e l i n g o f a m o t i o n i s n o t fatal. K i n g M i n e s R e s o r t , I n c . v. M a l a c h i M i n i n g & M i n e r a l s , I n c . , 518 So. 2 d 7 1 4 , 718 ( A l a . 1 987). T h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t i t i s ' c o m m i t t e d t o t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t i t w i l l t r e a t a m o t i o n (or o t h e r p l e a d i n g ) and i t s a s s i g n e d g r o u n d s a c c o r d i n g t o i t s We note t h a t Doseck i s b a s e d e n t i r e l y upon t h r e e p r i o r d e c i s i o n s : S t a t e v . F o s t e r , 935 So. 2 d 1216 (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; S t a t e v . E d w a r d s , 590 So. 2 d 379 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 1 ) ; a n d S t a t e v . M c C l a i n , 911 So. 2 d 54 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005). Those t h r e e p r i o r d e c i s i o n s are e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , b e c a u s e i n a l l o f t h e m : 1) t h e r e was no p u r e q u e s t i o n o f l a w f o r t h e c o u r t t o d e c i d e ; 2) t h e r e was no s t i p u l a t i o n o f f a c t s by the S t a t e and the d e f e n d a n t ; 3) t h e S t a t e d i d n o t c o n s e n t t o a r u l i n g b y t h e c o u r t on t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d ; a n d 4) i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e S t a t e d e s i r e d t o p r e s e n t i t s evidence at t r i a l . F o s t e r , 935 So. 2 d a t 1 2 1 6 ; Edwards, 590 So. 2 d a t 3 8 0 ; M c C l a i n , 911 So. 2 d a t 5 5 - 5 6 . 1 7 CR-09-1148 substance.' K i n g M i n e s R e s o r t , 518 S o . 2 d a t 7 1 8 ; s e e a l s o L o c k h a r t v . P h e n i x C i t y I n v . C o . , 488 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 3 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , a n d S e x t o n v . P r i s o c k , 495 S o . 2d 581 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . F u r t h e r , t h e Court has h e l d t h a t ' [ t ] h e substance o f a motion and n o t i t s s t y l e d e t e r m i n e s what k i n d o f m o t i o n i t i s . ' Evans v. W a d d e l l , 689 S o . 2 d 2 3 , 26 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . " 882 S o . 2 d a t 8 7 5 . teachings of different Ex This Court parte contexts. has s u b s e q u e n t l y f o l l o w e d t h e Deramus on numerous See, e.g., Ferguson occasions v. S t a t e , 418 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2008) ( t r e a t i n g motion to modify as an A l a . R. P., amended postconviction (Ala. Crim. Rule 32, relief); App. Ex p a r t e 2006) f o ra writ Bridges, 32 petition 905 2d f o r a writ prohibition); App. So. 2004) postconviction relief § Rule sentence petition for a writ App. 2005) as a p e t i t i o n f o r a writ 8 of 904 S o . 2 d 2 1 9 ( A l a . C r i m . 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . 1975). of (treating P., p e t i t i o n f o r as a m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r s e n t e n c e 1 3 A - 5 - 9 . 1 , A l a . Code for 936 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 4 petition ( A l a .Crim. o f mandamus 13 S o . 3 d o f habeas c o r p u s ) ; Ex p a r t e and B u l g e r v. S t a t e , (treating Mitchell, (treating mandamus a s a p e t i t i o n Crim. in under CR-09-1148 In h i s d i s s e n t i n Doseck, then Judge Shaw 2 explained: "I agree w i t h the m a j o r i t y that a motion t o d i s m i s s an i n d i c t m e n t i s n o t t h e p r o p e r a v e n u e f o r challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. However, t h e m a j o r i t y f a i l s t o acknowledge t h e w e l l s e t t l e d p r i n c i p a l that '[t]he substance of a motion and n o t i t s s t y l e d e t e r m i n e s what k i n d o f m o t i o n i t is.' E v a n s v . W a d d e l l , 68 9 S o . 2 d 2 3 , 24 ( A l a . 1997). S e e a l s o B o y k i n v . Law, 946 S o . 2 d 838 ( A l a . 2006) ( t r e a t i n g a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s as a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a v o i d j u d g m e n t u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. Civ. P . ) ; S t a b l e r v . C i t y o f M o b i l e , 844 S o . 2 d 555 (Ala. 2002) ( t r e a t i n g m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s as a m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t ) ; a n d E x p a r t e S.W.T., 782 S o . 2d 7 66, 7 67 ( A l a . 2000 ) (treating a motion r e q u e s t i n g '"an e n l a r g e m e n t o f t i m e i n w h i c h t o f i l e a post-trial m o t i o n " ' as a m o t i o n r e q u e s t i n g an extension o f t i m e f o r an a p p e a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 7 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. C i v . P . ) . The f a c t t h a t J e f f e r y R i c h a r d Doseck's p r e t r i a l motion c h a l l e n g i n g whether h i s a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d f e l o n y e s c a p e was s t y l e d a s a 'Motion t o Dismiss' i s not d i s p o s i t i v e of t h i s a p p e a l , as t h e m a j o r i t y c o n c l u d e s . " A l t h o u g h D o s e c k ' s m o t i o n was s t y l e d a s a m o t i o n to d i s m i s s , and i n i t Doseck r e q u e s t e d d i s m i s s a l o f the i n d i c t m e n t a g a i n s t h i m , as Doseck n o t e d i n h i s rebuttal to the State's response to h i s motion, ' [ t ] h e i s s u e i s w h e t h e r o r n o t an i n d i v i d u a l who violates the conditions o f work r e l e a s e [ b y n o t r e t u r n i n g t o h i s w o r k - r e l e a s e f a c i l i t y as s c h e d u l e d ] c a n b e c h a r g e d w i t h [ a n d c o n v i c t e d o f ] a f e l o n y when that individual i s at work release due to J u d g e Shaw Supreme C o u r t . 2 i s now an A s s o c i a t e 9 Justice on t h e A l a b a m a CR-09-1148 misdemeanor c o n v i c t i o n s . ' (C. 9.) Doseck admitted in h i s m o t i o n t h a t he failed to r e t u r n to his work-release f a c i l i t y at h i s scheduled time, i . e . , he s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e f a c t s as a l l e g e d b y t h e S t a t e . The only issue presented to the trial court was purely a question of law -whether Doseck's undisputed actions constituted felony escape or misdemeanor escape. See, e.g., Ex p a r t e J . C . C . , 4 So. 3d 1188 (Ala. 2008). The trial court, in d e n y i n g D o s e c k ' s m o t i o n , e f f e c t i v e l y r u l e d t h a t , as a m a t t e r of law, his actions constituted felony escape and not misdemeanor escape, and Doseck p r o p e r l y r e s e r v e d t h a t r u l i n g of law f o r r e v i e w on appeal d u r i n g the g u i l t y - p l e a c o l l o q u y . I would not p e n a l i z e Doseck f o r not s t y l i n g h i s motion p r o p e r l y when t h e p u r e q u e s t i o n of law p r e s e n t e d to this C o u r t was properly presented to the t r i a l court, r u l e d on b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t , a n d p r o p e r l y reserved for a p p e l l a t e review." Doseck, 8 So. We in 3d at agree w i t h circumstances Doseck -- where trial is charged court, a ruled for appellant should as pure those presented question of appeal violating on by the n o t be penalized 10 as trial now case that, in whether an s t a t u t e he or presented court, guilty-plea hold and to of the i s properly the during we in this law constitute a violation with reserved (Shaw, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . J u d g e Shaw's d i s s e n t , and such accused's actions she 1026 and colloquy to the properly -- for raising that question the of CR-09-1148 law i n an improperly dismiss the legally meritless precious judicial to note indictment. that the fully to the aware of the trial court. now refuse extent is issue State Court's 3.2(a)(1), Ala. i n a motion would trial Ankrom p r e s e n t e d and result would to, merits opinion this and ruled folly of issue clearly upon, by the Court to To the issue. i n Doseck h e l d o t h e r w i s e , Ankrom raised this g u i l t y - p l e a proceeding and in waste legal f o r our this to important a l l p a r t i e s were procedural the as Additionally, i t is Moreover, the to Further, be such otherwise sent presented consider during to hold being court. overruled. Turning To and I t would i t for pleading, resources. question to orally reserved cases trial that this hereby styled i t specific thereafter review. the Code merits 1975, of the present case, § 26-15- provides: "(a) A r e s p o n s i b l e p e r s o n commits the c r i m e of chemical endangerment of exposing a child to an e n v i r o n m e n t i n w h i c h he o r she does any of the following: "(1) Knowingly, r e c k l e s s l y , or intentionally causes or p e r m i t s a child t o be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a c o n t r o l l e d substance, chemical substance, or drug p a r a p h e r n a l i a as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 6 0 . A 11 CR-09-1148 violation under this subdivision i s a Class C felony." Ankrom Code 1975, does responds in alleges that that not t h e term " c h i l d " i n § 26-15-3.2, A l a . include a t h e p l a i n meaning the statute, includes viable fetus. of the term " c h i l d , " an u n b o r n i n t e r p r e t the p l a i n language what i t says and t o engage t o mean construction the l a n g u a g e i n t h e s t a t u t e i s ambiguous." Ex p a r t e So. 2 d 5 3 2 , 535 that criminal State." "The Ex p a r t e 'rule statute[s] parte statutes of Hyde, ... b e Bertram, fundamental strictly 778 S o . 2 d 2 3 7 , 2 3 9 n.2 requires construed 884 "[T]he are construed lenity So. C a s t i l l o v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 147 L. E d . 2 d 94 (2000)). 2d that i n favor 88 9, as u s e d instruct this of a statute in judicial ( A l a . 2001). State child. " P r i n c i p l e s of statutory construction to The 8 92 Court exactly only i f P r a t t , 815 rule [ i s ] against the ( A l a . 2000). "ambiguous criminal of the accused."'" ( A l a . 2003) Ex (quoting 530 U.S. 1 2 0 , 1 3 1 , 120 S. C t . 2 0 9 0 , "Although penal statutes a r e t o be strictly c o n s t r u e d , c o u r t s a r e n o t r e q u i r e d t o a b a n d o n common s e n s e . U n i t e d S t a t e s v . G r e e n , 446 F . 2 d 1 1 6 9 , 1 1 7 3 (5th C i r . 1971). Absent any i n d i c a t i o n t o t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e w o r d s must be g i v e n t h e i r o r d i n a r y a n d n o r m a l m e a n i n g . Day v . S t a t e , 378 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 6 , 1 1 5 8 12 CR-09-1148 (Ala. Cr. App.), reversed 2d 1 1 5 9 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . " W a l k e r v. S t a t e , The the This 1975. of l i v i n g true outside term "child." Code 18 y e a r s . "[t]he life, concerning 378 S o . App. public born, unborn 1982). policy and life t h e womb." § 2 6 - 2 2 - 1 ( a ) , of unborn. that is A l a . Code 26, A l a . Code 1975, d o e s n o t d e f i n e However, C h a p t e r s 1975, d e f i n e grounds, (Ala. Crim. that of Alabama i s to p r o t e c t C h a p t e r 15 o f T i t l e Ala. of has s t a t e d i s particularly capable the 428 S o . 2 d 1 3 9 , 141 legislature State on o t h e r a "child" 14 a n d 16 o f T i t l e as a " p e r s o n " under 26, t h e age § 2 6 - 1 4 - 1 ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ; § 2 6 - 1 6 - 2 ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Also, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has i n t e r p r e t e d t h e t e r m "minor c h i l d " i n Alabama's wrongful-death-of-minor s t a t u t e to include a viable fetus that received prenatal death before a live birth. Eich injuries v . Town o f G u l f causing Shores, 293 Ala. 9 5 , 300 S o . 2 d 354 (Ala. 1974). Specifically, the Court held that of and month o l d "the parents stillborn fetus wrongful death recognized 100, an [are] e n t i t l e d of the the v i a b l e child"; fetus eight to maintain thus, the as a " c h i l d . " 300 S o . 2 d a t 3 5 8 . 13 one-half an a c t i o n Court Eich, f o r the explicitly 293 A l a . a t CR-09-1148 Furthermore, the meaning ordinary Installation So. 2d 560, the d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n people & S u p p l i e s of Glenco 562 ( A l a . 1993). C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y 214 defined as "child" i s defined 2004), as "an unborn present State, 328 reasoning S.C. Alfa v. the Mut. According to recently i n Black's case give (11th ed. 2003), or "[a] baby or The v. would of a word p r o v i d e s Carpet I n s . Co., 62 8 Merriam-Webster's the word " c h i l d " i s born Law word. person." Dictionary The 254 word (8th ed. fetus." is similar 1 , 492 of the South to the S.E.2d Carolina 777 situation (1997 ) . in We Whitner find Supreme C o u r t i n t h a t the case to be p e r s u a s i v e . In Whitner, neglect, causing a a violation her baby system by reason during the third South Carolina properly (1985), legal mother the Supreme provided of of with mother's to ingestion that charge. S.C. relevant any child part: ... , 14 child (1985), f o r cocaine metabolites i n i t s held in criminal § 20-7-50 of of her pregnancy. Court the guilty Code Ann. born trimester convicted custody o f S.C. t o be of pleaded who "Any the crack On person shall, appeal, mother Code Ann. cocaine had § been 20-7-50 having without the the lawful CR-09-1148 excuse, refuse attention comfort for of or such such endangered, neglect child child shall to ... be provide ... , is guilty so ... that the the endangered of a or circuit 328 The at 5, whether that or likely were viable 492 S.E.2d statute fetus. to at Id. 779. encompassed m a t e r n a l endanger The Court the life, stated is acts health or and or likely on to be shall and court." issue care health life, misdemeanor p u n i s h e d w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the S.C. proper be Whitner, appeal that was endanger comfort of a that " [ u ] n d e r [South C a r o l i n a ' s ] C h i l d r e n ' s Code, ' c h i l d ' means a ' p e r s o n u n d e r t h e age of e i g h t e e n . ' S.C. C o d e A n n . § 2 0 - 7 - 3 0 ( 1 ) ( 1 9 8 5 ) . The q u e s t i o n f o r t h i s Court, t h e r e f o r e , i s whether a v i a b l e fetus i s a 'person' f o r p u r p o s e s of the C h i l d r e n ' s Code." 328 S.C. The is at 6, 492 S.E.2d a t South C a r o l i n a a child under S.C. 779. Supreme C o u r t h e l d Code Ann. § 20-7-50 that a viable (1985), reasoning: " S o u t h C a r o l i n a law has long recognized that viable fetuses are persons h o l d i n g certain legal r i g h t s and p r i v i l e g e s . I n 1960, t h i s Court decided H a l l v . M u r p h y , 236 S.C. 2 5 7 , 113 S . E . 2 d 790 (1960). That case concerned the application of South C a r o l i n a ' s w r o n g f u l d e a t h s t a t u t e t o an i n f a n t who died f o u r hours a f t e r her birth as a r e s u l t of i n j u r i e s sustained prenatally during v i a b i l i t y . The Appellants a r g u e d t h a t a v i a b l e f e t u s was not a person w i t h i n the p u r v i e w of the wrongful death s t a t u t e , because, i n t e r a l i a , a fetus i s thought to h a v e no s e p a r a t e b e i n g a p a r t f r o m t h e m o t h e r . 15 fetus CR-09-1148 "We found such a reason f o r e x c l u s i o n from recovery 'unsound, illogical and unjust,' and c o n c l u d e d t h e r e was 'no m e d i c a l o r o t h e r b a s i s ' f o r t h e 'assumed i d e n t i t y ' o f m o t h e r and v i a b l e u n b o r n c h i l d . I d . a t 2 6 2 , 113 S . E . 2 d a t 7 9 3 . I n l i g h t o f that conclusion, t h i s Court unanimously held: 'We h a v e no d i f f i c u l t y i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t a f e t u s h a v i n g r e a c h e d t h a t p e r i o d of p r e n a t a l m a t u r i t y where i t i s capable of independent l i f e a p a r t from i t s mother i s a p e r s o n . ' I d . a t 2 6 3 , 113 S . E . 2 d a t 793 (emphasis added). " F o u r y e a r s l a t e r , i n F o w l e r v . W o o d w a r d , 244 S.C. 6 0 8 , 138 S . E . 2 d 42 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , we i n t e r p r e t e d H a l l as s u p p o r t i n g a f i n d i n g t h a t a v i a b l e f e t u s i n j u r e d w h i l e s t i l l i n t h e womb n e e d n o t be b o r n a l i v e f o r a n o t h e r t o m a i n t a i n an a c t i o n f o r t h e w r o n g f u l d e a t h of the f e t u s . "'Since a viable c h i l d i s a person before separation from the body of i t s mother and since prenatal injuries t o r t i o u s l y i n f l i c t e d on s u c h a c h i l d a r e actionable, i t is apparent that the c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e s s u c h an " a c t , n e g l e c t o r d e f a u l t " by t h e d e f e n d a n t , t o t h e i n j u r y o f the c h i l d "'Once the concept of the unborn, v i a b l e c h i l d as a p e r s o n i s a c c e p t e d , we h a v e no d i f f i c u l t y i n h o l d i n g t h a t a c a u s e of a c t i o n f o r t o r t i o u s i n j u r y to such a child arises immediately upon the i n f l i c t i o n of the i n j u r y . ' " I d . a t 613, 138 S . E . 2 d a t 44 (emphasis added). F o w l e r m a k e s p a r t i c u l a r l y c l e a r t h a t H a l l r e s t e d on t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e v i a b l e f e t u s as a p e r s o n v e s t e d with legal rights. 16 CR-09-1148 " M o r e r e c e n t l y , we h e l d t h e w o r d ' p e r s o n ' as used i n a c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e i n c l u d e s v i a b l e f e t u s e s . S t a t e v . H o r n e , 282 S.C. 4 4 4 , 319 S . E . 2 d 703 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , c o n c e r n e d S o u t h C a r o l i n a ' s m u r d e r s t a t u t e , S.C. C o d e A n n . § 1 6 - 3 - 1 0 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . The d e f e n d a n t i n t h a t case s t a b b e d h i s w i f e , who was n i n e m o n t h s ' p r e g n a n t , i n the neck, arms, and abdomen. Although doctors p e r f o r m e d an e m e r g e n c y c a e s a r e a n s e c t i o n t o d e l i v e r t h e c h i l d , t h e c h i l d d i e d w h i l e s t i l l i n t h e womb. The defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and appealed h i s c o n v i c t i o n on the ground South C a r o l i n a d i d not r e c o g n i z e the crime of feticide. "This Court d i s a g r e e d . In a unanimous d e c i s i o n , we h e l d i t w o u l d be ' g r o s s l y i n c o n s i s t e n t ... to construe a viable fetus as a "person" f o r the purposes of imposing c i v i l l i a b i l i t y w h i l e r e f u s i n g to give i t a s i m i l a r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n the c r i m i n a l context.' I d . a t 447 , 31 9 S . E . 2 d a t 704 (citing F o w l e r v. Woodward, s u p r a ). A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e C o u r t recognized the crime of f e t i c i d e w i t h r e s p e c t to viable fetuses. " S i m i l a r l y , we do n o t s e e a n y r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r f i n d i n g a v i a b l e f e t u s i s not a 'person' i n the present context. Indeed, i t would be absurd to r e c o g n i z e t h e v i a b l e f e t u s as a p e r s o n f o r p u r p o s e s of h o m i c i d e l a w s and w r o n g f u l d e a t h s t a t u t e s b u t n o t f o r purposes of s t a t u t e s p r o s c r i b i n g c h i l d abuse. Our h o l d i n g i n H a l l t h a t a v i a b l e f e t u s i s a p e r s o n r e s t e d p r i m a r i l y on t h e p l a i n m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d 'person' in light of e x i s t i n g medical knowledge c o n c e r n i n g f e t a l d e v e l o p m e n t . We do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p l a i n and o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g o f t h e word ' p e r s o n ' h a s c h a n g e d i n a n y way t h a t w o u l d now d e n y v i a b l e f e t u s e s s t a t u s as p e r s o n s . "The p o l i c i e s e n u n c i a t e d i n t h e C h i l d r e n ' s C o d e a l s o support our p l a i n meaning r e a d i n g of 'person.' S.C. C o d e A n n . § 2 0 - 7 - 2 0 ( C ) ( 1 9 8 5 ) , w h i c h describes South Carolina's policy concerning children, 17 CR-09-1148 e x p r e s s l y s t a t e s : ' I t s h a l l be t h e p o l i c y o f t h i s S t a t e t o c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e p r e v e n t i o n o f c h i l d r e n ' s p r o b l e m s as t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t s t r a t e g y w h i c h c a n be p l a n n e d a n d i m p l e m e n t e d on b e h a l f o f c h i l d r e n and their families.' (emphasis added). The abuse or n e g l e c t o f a c h i l d a t any t i m e d u r i n g c h i l d h o o d can e x a c t a p r o f o u n d t o l l on t h e c h i l d h e r s e l f as w e l l as on s o c i e t y as a w h o l e . H o w e v e r , t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of abuse or n e g l e c t w h i c h takes p l a c e a f t e r b i r t h o f t e n pale i n comparison to those r e s u l t i n g from a b u s e s u f f e r e d by t h e v i a b l e f e t u s b e f o r e birth. This p o l i c y of p r e v e n t i o n supports a r e a d i n g of the word 'person' to include viable fetuses. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e s c o p e o f t h e C h i l d r e n ' s Code i s q u i t e b r o a d . I t a p p l i e s ' t o a l l c h i l d r e n who have need of s e r v i c e s . ' S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-20(B) (1985) (emphasis added). When c o u p l e d with the c o m p r e h e n s i v e r e m e d i a l p u r p o s e s of the Code, t h i s language supports the i n f e r e n c e t h a t the l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d to i n c l u d e v i a b l e f e t u s e s w i t h i n the scope of the Code's p r o t e c t i o n . " Whitner, 328 S.C. Likewise, to hold that "child," as Not have only "child" to at 6-8, i n the a that unborn viable nothing do see a or extraordinary For viable of the a State fetus in term " c h i l d " fetus. In about u s i n g example, other contexts, explicitly usage, term " c h i l d " i t i s not 18 i n t e r p r e t e d the everyday the in reason 1975. include included any t e r m i s u s e d i n § 2 6 - 1 5 - 3 . 2 , A l a . Code this not not term of is we 779-81. the courts a viable fetus. case, fetus the person S.E.2d a t present dictionary definition an 492 term the includes there is to include uncommon f o r someone CR-09-1148 to state first "child." Unless the l e g i s l a t u r e s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s otherwise, the term "child" that a mother i s simply a i s pregnant more general term more s p e c i f i c t e r m " v i a b l e f e t u s . " to proscribe necessary to legislature fetus and "child" term unambiguous; language thus, of the in judicial of does lenity for concluding "viable fetus," the against i t is However, conduct under a encompasses term. a convey against in this certain that "child" not that does not "child" § and a i f a age, the viable the meaning. 26-15-3.2, Court must Ala. term In fact, "viable the apply. of statute We do what the fetus" a viable not see the i t says language any is plain and not in the the rational meaning of the rule basis term fetus. t h r e e main arguments against i n t e r p r e t i n g i n § 2 6 - 1 5 - 3 . 2 , A l a . Code 1975, 19 1975, i s unambiguous, t h e p l a i n and o r d i n a r y include Code interpret t o mean e x a c t l y construction because Ankrom advances term to statute Also, the persons "child" statute. "child" proscribe sufficient conduct a specific to that I f the l e g i s l a t u r e d e s i r e s only that her redundant. The engage against a l l other is be use desires proscribing would conduct with to include a CR-09-1148 viable the fetus: (1) The legislature has term " f e t u s " or "unborn c h i l d " legislature's (2) most mothers i n t e n t was courts could substance from not legislature the or include "child." We Contrary to legislature drug will provides: fetus conviction Ankrom for that prenatal of and child (3) i n the d e f i n i t i o n a d d r e s s each argument Ankrom's points to support partial-birth human held theories distribution; an u n b o r n c h i l d has i n c l u d e d specifically 1975, have prosecuted argument, thereof that be 1975, of the i n turn. fact the term " c h i l d " § 26-23-3, her argument. abortion shall states to "Any the the that the the term " f e t u s " or "unborn c h i l d " i n A l a . Code 1975, does n o t i n c l u d e example when t h e to apply to a fetus; statutory o t h e r s t a t u t e s d o e s n o t mean t h a t 3.2, statutes jurisdictions criminally included h a s d e c l i n e d t o amend § 2 6 - 1 5 - 3 . 2 , A l a . C o d e to e x p l i c i t l y term other on abuse/endangerment i n other f o r the s t a t u t e be abuse specifically within guilty shall be "[t]here A l a . Code who this of a Class 20 an performs felony as p r e s c r i b e d doubt as A l a . Code and t h e r e b y C Ankrom 1975, 26-23-3, knowingly state punished i s no a viable fetus. Section physician i n § 26-15¬ i n the p l a i n kills and by a a upon law." meaning CR-09-1148 of that human that statute fetuses." of Ankrom's that brief, language However, the f l a w distinction fetus" the i t i s designed at 20. intended Ankrom to and term unborn more the use child "child" term may conduct Ankrom's general courts birth term argument we acknowledge in other "child." states is has child the in a is i s without the term apply to a fetus to perform so u s i n g an the would be s u c h as § 26-15-3.2 children; necessary. decisions that thus, Therefore, a from mother appellate cannot s u b s t a n c e abuse under abuse/endangerment 21 earlier, merit. many holding the "human specific statute b o r n and u n b o r n "child" term stated completed, such Id. she m i s s e s more impossible been criminally prosecuted for prenatal states' As hand, s t a t u t e s against first Next, i t the other statutes." i s that encompasses "child" On more term because nonsensical. proscribe other s u c h as § 26-23-3 c a n o n l y after a live general in to specifically o f t h e more s p e c i f i c t h e more g e n e r a l Statutes abortion i t has reasons f o r § 26-15-3.2(a) i n Ankrom's r e a s o n i n g between general "fetus." as protect: then t o a f e t u s , t h e n the l e g i s l a t u r e would have included the class " [ i ] f the l e g i s l a t u r e had apply or which or be those drug-distribution CR-09-1148 statutes. 190, 2d See, e.g., R e i n e s t o v. Superior 894 P . 2 d 7 3 3 ( C t . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) ; 1288 ( F l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ; (Ky. 1993); 182 v. Welch, 864 S.W.2d 2 8 0 62 O h i o S t . 3 d 5 1 4 , 584 N . E . 2 d 710 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; R e y e s v . S u p e r i o r C o u r t , 75 C a l . A p p . 3 d 2 1 4 , Rptr. App. 912 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ; 19 9 1 ) ; (1992), 305, S t a t e v. Gethers, cert. (1991); denied (1992); Sheriff, Washoe 885 P . 2 d 5 9 6 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; (Tex. App. 1994); 916 v. Hardy, 437 M i c h . County, P . 2 d 952 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; Collins 1 0 4 6 , 4 7 1 N.W.2d v. S t a t e , 1 3 9 N.M. S t a t e v . Dunn, we f i n d that those present case of prosecutions 7 4 1 , 137 P . 3 d 82 Wash. A p p . 1 2 2 , S t a t e v . Wade, 2 3 2 S.W.3d 663 (Mo. cases are either App. However, distinguishable from t h e jurisdictions involved or unpersuasive. the cases under c o n t r o l l e d substance statutory 110 N e v . 890 S.W.2d 893 S t a t e v . G e i s e r , 7 6 3 N.W.2d 4 6 9 (N.D. 2 0 0 9 ) . Some Ct. 188 M i c h . A p p . Nev. v. Encoe, State v. M a r t i n e z , (N.M. C t . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ; 2007); 585 So. 2d 1140 ( F l a . People 50, app. d e n i e d , 1317, 1195 141 C a l . S t a t e v . L u s t e r , 204 G a . A p p . 1 5 6 , 4 1 9 S . E . 2 d 32 4 6 9 N.W.2d 619 Ariz. J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 602 S o . Commonwealth S t a t e v. Gray, Court, from other statutes and, forbidding delivery of a u n l i k e t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , d e p e n d e d on construction of t h e term 22 "deliver." See, e.g., CR-09-1148 Johnson, supra; Hardy, supra; L u s t e r , the c o u r t s noted apply that to a fetus, does apply 1975. their unlike t o unborn states' § statutes homicide cases, d i d not statute, 13A-6-1(a)(3), S e e , e . g . , R e i n e s t o , 182 A r i z . Reyes,75 In other homicide Alabama's children. supra. which A l a . Code a t 1 9 2 , 894 P . 2 d a t 7 3 5 ; C a l . A p p . 3 d a t 2 1 7 , 141 C a l . R p t r . a t 913; Welch, 864 S.W.2d a t 2 8 1 . In Collins, divergent from proscribe any the Texas Alabama, conduct Court " t h e [Texas] with by i t s definitions 'individual,' has s p e c i f i c a l l y penal laws t o conduct been born and i s a l i v e . " "[n]o App. to limited committed or fetus that, fetus, a does n o t and t h e 'person,' the application and of our a g a i n s t a human b e i n g who h a s Collins, criminal held Code 'child,' 8 90 i n Dunn, t h e W a s h i n g t o n C o u r t Washington child' of Appeals Penal respect Legislature, Similarly, of case S.W.2d of Appeals has ever i n i t sd e f i n i t i o n at included of person." Dunn, 897-98. held that 'unborn 82 Wash. a t 1 2 8 , 916 P . 2 d a t 9 5 5 . In Gray, unlike the p r o s e c u t e d under a s t a t u t e p e r s o n , who i s t h e p a r e n t present that case, stated, ... o f a c h i l d 23 the mother was i n relevant part: under e i g h t e e n "No years CR-09-1148 of a g e ... s h a l l safety or create of the c h i l d , support 711. construed, defining infants. the Supreme 516, between Court parere, to the health statutes must interpreted and " c h i l d " mothers protection, and be that to apply fathers strictly s t a t u t e by only and t othe their born 3 d a t 5 1 5 - 1 8 , 584 N . E . 2 d a t 7 1 1 - 1 3 . noted that meaning of S t . 3 d a t 5 1 5 , 584 N . E . 2 d a t criminal "parent" 62 O h i o S t . Latin 62 O h i o t h e O h i o Supreme C o u r t relationship Ohio that t h e terms risk by v i o l a t i n g a duty o f care, Gray, Noting a substantial "[t]he to give word birth." parent 62 O h i o The comes from S t . 3d a t 584 N . E . 2 d a t 7 1 1 . Other courts have worried about the implications holding a mother c r i m i n a l l y l i a b l e statute for conduct harmful to her fetus. courts have statutes worried would that holding open t h e p r o v e r b i a l o f p r e g n a n t women who i n g e s t nicotine, injure o r engage the fetus. at 598; Welch, In Wade, t h e M i s s o u r i under a child-endangerment a mother Specifically, liable floodgates legal toxins, i n any b e h a v i o r See, e.g, Encoe, of that to under other such prosecution such as a l c o h o l o r could conceivably 110 N e v . a t 1 3 1 9 , 885 P . 2 d 864 S.W.2d a t 2 8 3 ; Wade, 232 S.W.3d a t 6 6 5 - 6 6 . Court of Appeals 24 stated that the logic CR-09-1148 of a l l o w i n g p r o s e c u t i o n s to p r o t e c t "would be extended ingestion, conduct is the that chosen to social service 232 failure might a difficult line handle about dealing with 3.2(a)(1), wear the seatbelts, problems of instead unlimited 1975, of only involving smoking, seatbelts, o r any only conduct history, or conclusions prenatal alcohol have other court substance statute. statute need not are not we are involving has Wade, Section we It through system." because ingestion, 26-15- asked to controlled failure conduct to harmful conduct wear that does substances. examined extrinsic policy abuse under statutes. See, 25 issues, materials t h a t a m o t h e r c a n n o t be abuse/endangerment mothers I t does not c o n c e r n other p o t e n t i a l l y controlled courts the extensions the other child. H o w e v e r , i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , we concerns Other alcohol any unborn pregnant a g e n e r a l endangerment involve and fetus as s u c h , o u r l e g i s l a t u r e substances or drug p a r a p h e r n a l i a . not of the smoking, harm t o a mother's A l a . Code construe, involving t o draw and, programs such cases to cause S.W.3d a t 6 6 6 . worry to the i n t e r e s t to legislative reach their criminally prosecuted for those states' child- e.g., Gethers, supra; CR-09-1148 Martinez, supra; liberty e n g a g e i n s u c h a r e v i e w b e c a u s e we to 15-3.2(a)(1), Pinigis v. (holding that a only mother "courts we find 977 So. language from criminally those To d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e , we Ankrom's "child" fetus in § final 26-15-3.2, a viable attempted to state that stage of "'failed be should fetus Code not states that term "child" development, legislative but the proposals they 26 to that prenatal "a from not i s unpersuasive. include a child the are the a term viable term " c h i l d " legislature amendment are holding for Code 1975, includes the 2007 ) materials, interpreting 1975, amend § 2 6 - 1 5 - 3 . 2 , A l a . the See ambiguous"). i n t e r p r e t the because (Ala. distinguishable against Ala. 26- child-abuse/endangerment extent argument § [legislative] is f i n d that t h e i r reasoning a l l e g e s t h a t we include the to 451 prosecuted states' at i t s face. determine other not that extrinsic to cases are hold 446, examine drug-distribution statutes case. 2d statutory be we i s u n a m b i g u o u s on may the abuse under present However, history, " [ i ] f the cannot substance or Bank, legislative Again, supra. A l a . Code 1975, Regions including intent" Geiser, to recently explicitly i n utero failed. particularly to at any However, dangerous CR-09-1148 ground on w h i c h to rest an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a p r i o r Baney v. S t a t e , 2009), quoting United S. 152 Ct. Pension 110 1414, Benefit L. Guar. S. C t . 2 6 6 8 , 42 S o . 3 d 1 7 0 , 174 States Ed. tenable the inference incorporated quoting of Denver, Ed. N.A., 2 d 119 437 (2002), v . LTV C o r p . , quoting in 496 U.S. (1990). that the existing change.'" legislation Craft, 511 U.S. already 535 U.S. B a n k o f D e n v e r , N.A. v . F i r s t (1994)). 1 6 4 , 1 8 7 , 114 S. C t . 1 4 3 9 , 128 L. In the present case, we do n o t n e e d t o § 2 6 - 1 5 - 3 . 2 , A l a . Code it says. we m u s t c o n s t r u e See P i n i g i s , Finally, as applied she says, her conduct Again, 1975, i s unambiguous the statute we on i t s t o mean e x a c t l y what supra. Ankrom argues t h a t § 26-15-3.2, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , i n the present case, i s v o i d f o rvagueness the statute a t 287, I n t e r s t a t e Bank hold thus, equally may b e d r a w n f r o m s u c h i n a c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g a s t o why t h e p r o p o s e d amendment f a i l e d . face; turn "'[Legislative] speculate that App. 633, 650, s i g n i f i c a n c e because s e v e r a l the offered Central 2d 110 L. E d . 2 d 579 inferences (Ala. Crim. v . C r a f t , 535 U.S. 2 7 4 , 2 8 7 , 122 Corp. inaction lacks persuasive statute d i d not give was p r o s c r i b e d . her adequate See V a u g h n 27 v. S t a t e , because, notice that 880 S o . 2 d CR-09-1148 1178, 1195 (Ala. void-for-vagueness define the ordinary in Crim. doctrine c r i m i n a l offense p e o p l e can a App. manner discriminatory does enforcement," reviewing court believes statutes plain the sanctions substances, and of process her due impermissible." above, the apply p l a i n meaning Therefore, Ankrom thus, definiteness that Code had her and arbitrary prohibition will to Ankrom does have and against fair at of term 1975, notice to 27. "child," notice constitutional merit. 28 what However, includes adequate of a that as argument "[t]he that its deprived conduct as we in § fetus. conduct is is held found viable her lurk controlled Ankrom i s b e i n g brief, the that give notice inherent there exposed fetuses to phrases a greater some alleges not r e a s o n , Ms. right Ankrom's Ala. proscribed; statute for that 26-15-3.2, statute have been d r a f t e d w i t h Specifically, criminal "the i n v a l i d a t e every statute which could "[m]any "[t]his [ i ] n most E n g l i s h w o r d s and of penal encourage but uncertainties"). language a sufficient not vagueness does not vagueness, f o r that that u n d e r s t a n d what c o n d u c t i s p r o h i b i t e d that because (holding requires with excessive precision" 2003) was without CR-09-1148 Conclusion Based is on t h e f o r e g o i n g , the judgment of the t r i a l court affirmed. AFFIRMED. Kellum and J o i n e r , Welch, P . J . , a n d Windom, dissent JJ., concur. i n part. 29 J . , concur i n the r e s u l t and CR-09-1148 WELCH, Presiding dissenting The Judge, concurring majority violation her affirms due the to the t r i a l the indictment. t o be a f f i r m e d , statute necessary 3 result Hope E l i s a b e t h A n k r o m ' s o f § 26-15-3.2, challenge dismiss the and i n part. following her g u i l t y plea to chemical a in Code court's I agree endangerment o f a c h i l d , 1975, a f t e r denial that chemical i n this conviction i s a construction of endangerment case, of and i s i n f a c t a child i s premature. "A guilty plea i s a judicial confession. '"A v o l u n t a r y guilty plea concludes the issue of g u i l t , dispenses w i t h t h e need f o r j u d i c i a l f a c t f i n d i n g , i s c o n c l u s i v e as t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t , and i s an a d m i s s i o n o f a l l f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t l y charged i n the indictment."' Whitman v. S t a t e , 903 S o . 2 d 1 5 2 , 155 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o t i n g M o r r o w v . S t a t e , 426 S o . 2 d [481,]at 484 [ ( 1 9 8 2 ) ] ) . The r u l e u n d e r w h i c h t h e c o r p u s d e l i c t i o f a c r i m e must be established applies only when the c o n f e s s i o n i se x t r a j u d i c i a l and t h e accused pleads not guilty, compelling the prosecution to present evidence t o prove i t s case. When a d e f e n d a n t p l e a d s guilty, he o r s h e a d m i t s e v e r y f a c t c o n s t i t u t i n g the elements of t h e o f f e n s e s and such a plea conclusively establishes the defendant's g u i l t . Once t h e t r i a l court has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e p l e a i s k n o w i n g a n d voluntary, the t r i a l court need only 30 reviewing of her motion to Ankrom's b u t I do n o t a g r e e t h a t charging or proper Ala. conviction 3 CR-09-1148 The indictment within charging the c i r c u i t established concur Ankrom court's jurisdiction, a l l of the elements i n the result. properly charged offense and h e r g u i l t y of the offense; Furthermore, an I plea therefore, I disagree with the m a j o r i t y ' s d e c i s i o n t o o v e r r u l e D o s e c k v . S t a t e , 8 So. 3d 1024 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008), and I d i s s e n t from t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e opinion. Some a d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l s case are relevant case on be exposed cocaine, Ankrom t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g appeal. recklessly, Ankrom or intentionally t o , to ingest in violation filed of the procedural was of the posture charged causing with or inhale, to dismiss i n this of this knowingly, or permitting a c h i l d to o r t o have of § 26-15-3.2(a)(1), a motion history contact A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . the indictment and s t a t e d t h a t "the a l l e g e d s c e n a r i o suggested by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n " "suffice dismiss stated f o r the Court's the indictment" i n the motion understanding against that her. a police of this (C. 20.) officer Ankrom had been 54 S o . 3 d 9 4 9 , 956 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) . 31 would motion s a t i s f y i t s e l f t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t knew w h a t he was p l e a d i n g g u i l t y t o . " G.E.G. v . S t a t e , with to then notified CR-09-1148 t h a t Ankrom had infant numerous had given tested grounds indictment, and birth that positive in she day for support of summarized and t h a t b o t h she cocaine. the the Ankrom motion grounds "For the f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s , the t h i s c a s e i s due t o be dismissed: and to as raised dismiss follows: indictment in "1. The p l a i n l a n g u a g e of t h e s t a t u t e shows t h a t the l e g i s l a t u r e intended f o r the statute to a p p l y o n l y to a c h i l d , not a f e t u s . "2. Overwhelmingly, courts i n other states w h i c h have e n a c t e d the same o r s i m i l a r chemical endangerment statutes have determined that such statutes do not apply to p r e n a t a l conduct that a l l e g e d l y harms a f e t u s . "3. The s t a t e ' s violated this statute v a g u e , and therefore The R u l e o f L e n i t y i n t h a t i n c o n s t r u i n g an should resolve the defendant. c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the Defendant r e n d e r s the law impermissibly the Rule of L e n i t y a p p l i e s . statutory construction states ambiguous s t a t u t e , the court ambiguity in favor of the "4. I t i s t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s d u t y , and of a district attorney, to proscribe offenses. not t h a t criminal "5. The l e g i s l a t u r e h a s p r e v i o u s l y considered amending the s t a t u t e to i n c l u d e p r e n a t a l conduct t h a t h a r m s a f e t u s , a n d d e c l i n e d do s o . "6. The D e f e n d a n t has not been a c c o r d e d due p r o c e s s b e c a u s e t h e r e was no n o t i c e t h a t h e r c o n d u c t was i l l e g a l u n d e r t h i s s t a t u t e . 32 the the CR-09-1148 "7. The p r o s e c u t i o n o f p r e g n a n t women v i o l a t i o n of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l guarantee of Protection. "8. Prosecution of pregnant, drug-addicted women i s a g a i n s t p u b l i c numerous m o r a l and e t h i c a l reasons." (C. 21-22.)(Emphasis The and State filed i t s argument a r e s p o n s e t o Ankrom's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , shame on y o u ; f o o l me State argued twice, court the issue chemical-endangerment tested positive presented shame of statute Court at Oct. 16, 2008)(table). arguments Ward's c a s e ; indictment filed a Court 33 The S t a t e So. alleged case were and t h e motion for a woman birth the t r i a l denied. whose See Ex p a r t e 3d 656 that almost court had been a r i s i n g out Ward (CR-07- and App. legal t o those i n a motion t o dismiss the to dismiss 33 of the ( A l a .Crim. identical The i n f a n t had the facts o f mandamus The S t a t e once, (C. 37.) already had been denied; writ me the a p p l i c a b i l i t y t h a t Ward h a d a l s o f i l e d petition directing this 2008), i n Ankrom's "Fool i n a mandamus p r o c e e d i n g of a Covington County p r o s e c u t i o n . 1925, began, o n me." to a f o r cocaine to this allegedly policy for i n original.) to the t r i a l that i s a Equal attached and t h a t Ward h a d seeking an the indictment, order which t o i t s response the CR-09-1148 brief filed denial of State the Alabama A t t o r n e y Ward's arguments attorney by the mandamus attorney general's argued that a petition, general brief General to had this to dismissal chemical endangerment. of the The attorney i t adopted made. Court mandamus d i d n o t entitled and i n support (C. i n Ex indictment In the Ward, the W a r d was charging general the a l l the 38.) parte l i e because of her not with argued: "Moreover, because the State has not been a f f o r d e d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o o f f e r a n y e v i d e n c e in t h i s c a s e , e i t h e r i n r e s p o n s e t o Ward's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s or at t r i a l , t h i s C o u r t , u n l i k e the c o u r t i n [Ex p a r t e C o l l i n s , 301 So. 2 d 551 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 7 4 ) ] , does not have ' a l l the e v i d e n c e pertaining t o t h e i s s u e o f t h e w r i t ' b e f o r e i t . See i d . [ , ] 392 So. 2 d a t 5 5 3 . I f W a r d i s t r i e d , s h e w i l l be a b l e to raise a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence i n a motion f o r judgment of a c q u i t t a l and, i f c o n v i c t e d , s h e w i l l be a b l e t o r a i s e t h i s same c h a l l e n g e on d i r e c t a p p e a l . B e c a u s e t h e S t a t e may be a b l e t o p r o v e a t t r i a l t h a t Ward e x p o s e d [ h e r i n f a n t ] t o c o c a i n e a f t e r she was born, and because t h i s Court does not have s u f f i c i e n t evidence before i t to f i n d otherwise, t h i s Court need not address the q u e s t i o n of whether t h e s t a t u t e a p p l i e s t o a woman who uses illegal drugs d u r i n g pregnancy." (C. 62.)(Emphasis After dismiss denying the the added.) State filed indictment, Ankrom's i t s response the trial motion: 34 to Ankrom's m o t i o n court entered an to order CR-09-1148 "Defendant's denied." (C. Motion she was the indictment, r e s e r v i n g the offense reversed says, Indictment is argues that a and the t r i a l the the motion sufficiency she had controlled under § dismiss dismiss alleged as to charged in against her also law and to substance as to court was due the her Ala. 35 because indictment challenges are be denied the was crime Because to dismiss correctly to prove the "whether 2 6-15-3.2(a)(1), the dismiss. that during the motion to indictment such judgment issue trial evidence believe be t o c h a r g e an o f f e n s e u n d e r t h e the favor should she the motions her because, challenge of the court's the rendered failed charged, made i n p r e t r i a l framed stated that motion facts judgment I believe Ankrom's the I i n the c o u r t e r r e d when i t d e n i e d to been the judgment indictment. ground, raised t h a t i s , whether the the i n d i c t m e n t trial issue a g u i l t y p l e a and her. and underlying entered against Ankrom the Dismiss 127.) Ankrom s u b s e q u e n t l y an to claim based with not on which properly I believe affirmed on that that majority has incorrectly mother who ingested a pregnancy Code 1975, may i f a be prosecuted at birth the CR-09-1148 infant 3d t e s t s p o s i t i v e f o r the c o n t r o l l e d substance," at , and that the majority's statute is unnecessary Finally, b e c a u s e I do n o t a g r e e 1024 (Ala. Crim. from that App. portion to the 2008), So. i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of resolution of the t h a t Doseck v. S t a t e , be case. 8 So. 3d overruled, I dissent c o n s i s t e n t l y held that a motion to dismiss of the should the decision. I. This an C o u r t has indictment, provide an Rule 13.5(c)(1), avenue for sufficiency of the cases cited therein. (Ala. Crim. App. indictment it heard because State's See pretrial evidence. also 2010)(the Crim. State circuit P., does not to the challenge See Doseck, supra, and So. 3d 377 dismissal of the v. B e t h e l , court's 55 against Bethel during g u i l t y - p l e a proceedings a f t e r the factual basis "Rule dismissal the A l a . R. 13.5[, o f an A l a . R. indictment Billingsley v. So. 3d (Ala. Crim. So. 3d 1038 f o r the State, (No. (Ala. Crim. Crim. based on plea P.,] App. does October 2010)(table); 2008). 36 error, not part the evidence"); 22, Jones in permit insufficient CR-08-1971, App. was v. 2010) State, 8 CR-09-1148 The majority precedent would in this have to before this either party, states i t has than recognizes case hold Court three and that that that, the i f Doseck were Ankrom's for review. the D o s e c k w o u l d be majority claim overrules followed, was Then, w i t h o u t not Doseck. ago, and has determined The decided less i t conflicts with f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , Ex So. 2d 875 (Ala. 2002), a motion -- and not the Deramus, substance what kind approval Shaw of 882 of motion his motion properly that is, felony whether escape The or recently parte Worley, (Ala. 2010). would not when he [Ms. by -- also such hold is with i n Doseck, i n which then Judge Doseck f o r not a pure question actions styling of an law, constituted escape. this the Court's Alabama 1090631 , S e p t . now that determines 10, opinion Supreme 2010) in Doseck Court So. in Associate 37 Justice on the Ex 3d A d e c i s i o n o v e r r u l i n g Doseck would c o n f l i c t J u d g e Shaw Supreme C o u r t . as quotes undisputed underlying reaffirmed majority penalize misdemeanor that i t s style presented Doseck's principles were 4 The the d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n s t a t e d t h a t he 4 i t is. from majority established precedent parte i t properly invitation r e e x a m i n e d D o s e c k , a c a s e t h a t was years controlling with Alabama CR-09-1148 p r e c e d e n t f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ; that this In Court Ex cannot parte overrule Worley, the f i v e f e l o n y v i o l a t i o n s and to her the charges, charges against State's proposed charges. The her made a Alabama v. , and Rules Worley, (Ala. Crim. reversed this We Court's dismissed court not and held "the as to CR-06-1879, 2009). judgment and the felony on held that the trial court truly sufficiency or by Alabama 13, permitted of the by the 2009] The Alabama the relying not Nov. caselaw." So. 3d Supreme Court stated, in relevant part: "The S t a t e s h o u l d have argued to the t r i a l court that the appropriate time for i t to consider W o r l e y ' s m o t i o n to d i s m i s s would have been at the conclusion of the State's case, not before the t r i a l , a n d t h a t , m o r e o v e r , when t h e t i m e t o c o n s i d e r t h e m o t i o n d i d come, t h e m o t i o n s h o u l d be d e n i e d f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons, thereby setting forth the proffer. I n s t e a d , the State proceeded immediately 38 to felony the is Procedure related the Court, j u d g m e n t and that with determined, support this determination App. Worley a p r e t r i a l motion court's Criminal [Ms. charged court that appealed, trial a had could determination such of trial because, improper. pretrial evidence, State was the State Worley f i l e d the evidence State Doseck, r e v e r s e d dismissal and Doseck. f i v e misdemeanor v i o l a t i o n s campaign a c t i v i t i e s . dismiss therefore, I believe CR-09-1148 to a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e i t expected t o be presented at t r i a l , without a d v i s i n g the t r i a l court t h a t i t s p r o f f e r was p r e m a t u r e a n d t h a t i t w o u l d b e e r r o r f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r e l y on i t . "We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e S t a t e i n v i t e d t h e e r r o r o f w h i c h i t now c o m p l a i n s when i t l a i d o u t f o r t h e trial court the evidence i t expected to offer i n o p p o s i t i o n to Worley's motion without informing the c o u r t t h a t i t w o u l d be p r e m a t u r e f o r i t t o c o n s i d e r that evidence." Ex parte Worley, So. 3d a t The A l a b a m a Supreme (emphasis Court's holding added). r e a f f i r m s the legal p r i n c i p l e s d i s c u s s e d a n d a p p l i e d i n D o s e c k -- t h a t a c h a l l e n g e to the s u f f i c i e n c y of the State's raised in a pretrial trial court was motion permitted to dismiss by examination of the s u f f i c i e n c y of to dismiss, a motion have relied of Worley's evidence law Supreme principles a If a pretrial i n the context Court would not e r r o r i n i t sa n a l y s i s 5 B e c a u s e t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t the conduct of the evidence the Alabama properly an i n d i c t m e n t . to on t h e d o c t r i n e o f i n v i t e d case. i s not underlying Doseck and has r e c e n t l y r e a f f i r m e d similar cases decided Unlike i n Worley, the State i n A n k r o m ' s c a s e -- b y a d o p t i n g t h e b r i e f s a n d a r g u m e n t s i n E x p a r t e W a r d -- c l e a r l y a r g u e d t h a t a r u l i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s was p r e m a t u r e b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e h a d n o t h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t i t s evidence. Therefore, the State d i d not i n v i t e e r r o r here. 5 39 CR-09-1148 both before and a f t e r Doseck, t h i s overrule Doseck. bound the decisions by Court. A s an i n t e r m e d i a t e A l a . Code decisions o f t h e Supreme C o u r t decisions of general provided the courts of such courts superintendence 1975, w h i c h shall of appeals and Ex p a r t e we a r e Supreme provides: "The the holdings and the decisions and govern appeals, and c o n t r o l court, of the Alabama s h a l l be s u b j e c t o f t h e Supreme b y C o n s t i t u t i o n a l A m e n d m e n t No. The m a j o r i t y ' s with of i s not at l i b e r t y to appellate and h o l d i n g s See § 1 2 - 3 - 1 6 , proceedings Court to the Court as 328." d e c i s i o n o v e r r u l i n g Doseck thus conflicts Worley. II. Even i f p r e c e d e n t preclude this nevertheless doing the 2d Court 779 Doseck and f o r e m o s t , doctrine from overruling Doseck, d i d not I would d i s s e n t from that p o r t i o n of the m a j o r i t y so, because First f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t should I believe has ignored 540 S o . the Alabama Bowen's d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n , overruled. In Grantham v. S t a t e , of stare d e c i s i s . ( A l a . 1988), n o t be opinion which the majority Supreme stated, Court adopted i n relevant Judge part: " ' U n t i l a d e c i s i o n o f t h i s c o u r t i s r e v i e w e d and r e v e r s e d by t h e Supreme C o u r t , i n c a s e s a u t h o r i z e d 40 CR-09-1148 by law and i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e r u l e s made and provided, t h e d e c i s i o n s and o p i n i o n o f t h i s court c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e have t h e f o r c e and e f f e c t o f judicial construction.' P e o p l e ' s A u t o Co. v . S t a t e , 23 A l a . A p p . 7, 8, 121 So. 907 ( 1 9 2 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 219 A l a . 2 8 0 , 121 So. 908 ( 1 9 2 9 ) . This p r i n c i p l e i s part of the foundation of our system of jurisprudence: " ' W h i l e t h e l a w i s a n d s h o u l d be e v e r i n progression towards perfection its a p p l i c a t i o n s h o u l d be as i m m u t a b l e as t h e law o f g r a v i t a t i o n u n t i l a change has b e e n e f f e c t e d t h e r e i n e i t h e r by c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment, by l e g i s l a t i o n o r by judicial interpretation. fi "'Hence, t h e r u l e o f s t a r e d e c i s i s has l o n g b e e n r e c o g n i z e d as t h e b u l w a r k o f A m e r i c a n j u r i s p r u d e n c e , and u n l e s s i t i s a d h e r e d t o i n t h i s i n s t a n c e w h a t was [the crime of e s c a p e u n d e r our d e c i s i o n i n A l e x a n d e r v. State, 475 So. 2d 625 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 8 4 ) , ] w o u l d now [be no c r i m e ] . " ' S u c h a r u l i n g w o u l d do v i o l e n c e t o our time-honored tradition of trial courts' r e l i a n c e on j u d i c i a l o p i n i o n s f o r g u i d a n c e and f r e e d o m f r o m e r r o r . I t w o u l d p l a c e t h e mark of c o n d e m n a t i o n upon the t r i a l j u d g e who i n the e x e r c i s e of h i s bounden duty looked to the d e c i s i o n s of the appellate court for guidance.' S t a t e v. S t o u t , 90 O k l a . C r i m . 3 5 , 210 P.2d 199, 203 (1949)." Grantham State, P.J., v. 540 State So. 2d 540 775, So. 2d 778-79 dissenting). 41 at 781, quoting (Ala. Crim. App. Grantham v. 1987)(Bowen, CR-09-1148 Although construing judicial Supreme would Grantham discussed a statute as the a having construction until Court, I am following of anything standard it disinclined 849 a sua sponte the from this parties, rationale cast intervening 2d 914, without a 926 law any any has or reexamination commands, Court that makes when i t is By The decision ignored precedent argument the Servs, conducting recent of Court procedure. precedent abandoned briefing decision. recent this that of t h i s ( A l a . 2002). from of the Court the underlying majority's willingness without to an change i n t h e law or a c h a l l e n g e from t h e p a r t i e s a lack of j u d i c i a l restraint. i n Doseck i s e n t i t l e d t o s t a n d u n t i l and i n Alabama of Doseck t h e m a j o r i t y has and without f o r the aside reflects So. principle Court and from of Alabama Moore v. P r u d e n t i a l R e s i d e n t i a l reexamination foregoing the of c r i m i n a l to overrule c o n t r o l l i n g i n v i t e d t o do s o . " P'ship, by Court effect C o u r t has s t a t e d : " S t a r e d e c i s i s a minimum, a d e g r e e o f r e s p e c t Ltd. this and for a decision at not force i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n of a rule The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e of i t i s reversed unaware set a different decision r e c e i v e s an a d e q u a t e r e v i e w 42 This Court's decision i t i s properly challenged following a thorough briefing CR-09-1148 from the parties. stuff than Piedmont "Stare t h e mere f a b r i c Exec. Shirt decisis should of t h i s year's M f g . Co., 547 b e made of sterner fashion." So. 2d Lowman v . 90, 96 ( A l a . 1989)(Houston, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t ) . Furthermore, Doseck. Since there exists principles 13.5(c), on w h i c h A l a . R. C r i m . today -- p r o v i d e based on a p r e s u m e d The majority majority's reaching like whether the merits under their which in relied i n a motion I proposition -- a n d i t d o e s n o t of point. argument to the t r i a l should court n o t be Doseck and defendants the question of the statute penalized f o r s t y l e d manner," the majority's that a motion or other pleading 43 the i s that the indictment. with Rather, overruling constitute a violation to dismiss Rule evidence. support are charged do n o t d i s a g r e e i n Doseck. i n the State's p r e s e n t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n i n an " i m p r o p e r l y as has been indictment this present there d i s m i s s a l o f an dispute o f Ankrom's actions they Court insufficiency argument who this P., d i d n o t i n 2 0 0 8 not f o ro v e r r u l i n g of C r i m i n a l Procedure or i n the f o r the p r e t r i a l does Ankrom, basis 2 0 0 8 , when D o s e c k was d e c i d e d , no c h a n g e i n t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s legal no v a l i d So. 3d a t such . discussion of the should be t r e a t e d CR-09-1148 according to i t s substance significant that then Doseck, fact that Judge Shaw i s that and n o t i t s s t y l e . the majority failed i n Ex p a r t e to However, t h e does n o t a d d r e s s h e r e , and address Deramus i n h i s dissent and i n subsequent in cases a p p l y i n g t h a t p r i n c i p l e o f l a w , two c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t e d : f i r s t , there was a filed by t h e p e t i t i o n e r , and second, petition or appropriate issue. Doseck. pleading petition or pleading available means o f g a i n i n g That to i s not the case here, a s a means o f g a i n i n g facts, as alleged, alternative or f i l i n g find obtained i t most pleading pretrial telling or motion that Ankrom f o r that procedure, i s or other by which should another as the of the relevant have under there exists of that does filed could provided no the no have issue. not state such I what or the type was t o b e c o n s i d e r e d . i s that crime Ankrom review there 44 a However, the majority mechanism sort o f h e r argument charge judicial simple: also petitioner review review p l e a d i n g Ankrom's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s reason was some use a motion t o d i s m i s s the statute. properly the of a n d i t was n o t t h e c a s e i n d i d not chemical-endangerment procedure there judicial Ankrom c o u l d n o t p r o p e r l y indictment the "misstyled" of The pleading, f o r i n t h e Alabama CR-09-1148 Rules of C r i m i n a l Procedure or i n c a s e l a w t h a t p e r m i t s court to whether The review they alleged charge because indictment." was stipulated offense under facts the dismiss no So. the other argument i t d i d not 3d a t indictment pleading that the by the fact current Alabama procedure review of sufficiency majority the creates a mechanism "was obviously validity did -- Therefore, can pleading that a of because Doseck issue for statute. filed file. her the trial determine Ankrom l i k e l y as substantive because Ankrom m i s l a b e l e d Undeterred . -- to challenge to relevant m a j o r i t y a s s e r t s t h a t the motion to d i s m i s s mislabeled, to an or a be the a motion there majority's reviewed simply is unavailing. no mechanism court to of the and simply conduct State's exists a in pretrial evidence, declares: " [ W ] h e r e a p u r e q u e s t i o n o f l a w as t o w h e t h e r an accused's actions constitute a violation of the s t a t u t e he or she i s charged with v i o l a t i n g is p r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , r u l e d on b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and p r o p e r l y r e s e r v e d f o r appeal d u r i n g t h e g u i l t y - p l e a c o l l o q u y -the appellant s h o u l d n o t be p e n a l i z e d f o r r a i s i n g t h a t q u e s t i o n o f l a w i n an i m p r o p e r l y s t y l e d p l e a d i n g , s u c h as i n a motion to d i s m i s s the i n d i c t m e n t . To h o l d o t h e r w i s e would r e s u l t i n l e g a l l y m e r i t l e s s cases being sent to trial and would waste precious judicial resources. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t i s important to note t h a t t h e S t a t e and Ankrom p r e s e n t e d t h i s l e g a l i s s u e f u l l y to the t r i a l c o u r t . F u r t h e r , a l l p a r t i e s were 45 the the CR-09-1148 clearly aware of the question presented to, ruled upon, by the trial court. I t would procedural folly f o r o u r C o u r t t o now refuse c o n s i d e r the m e r i t s of t h i s i s s u e . " So. 3d I at . disagree reasons. trial with First, court. reviewing the As the majority's i s s u e was I have not or considered as were pleading. There a i f is trial underlying i t no court substantive a above, misstyled some conduct issue for Court can be or pretrial presented not "properly petition, a is that this the here beyond the modified into such a bounds procedure of its the Alabama Rules the rules Alabama Rules a of form Civil the authority, and procedure of the whether -- majority the statute. has acted has, in o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e and of summary Procedure. styled" review defendant's a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e a v i o l a t i o n of the sanctioning several to pleading other pleading, to analysis "properly presented" discussed mislabeled allowing a and be to well essence, engrafted judgment as found See 56, A l a . R. Rule By in the Civ. P. Only the promulgate criminal Alabama rules and proceedings. Supreme regulate § Court the the authority to procedures applicable to 12-2-7(4), 46 has Ala. Code 1975; Ala. CR-09-1148 Const. 1901, § 150. State, 8 84 authority So. The A l a b a m a 2d 900 t o amend Supreme C o u r t ( A l a . 2003), the rules noted of procedure i n Marshall that and v. i t has the stated: "The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s c l a i m e d i n B r o o k s [ v . S t a t e , 892 S o . 2 d 969 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) , ] that i t had ' c r e a t e d a narrow exception to the 4 2 - d a y r u l e [ i n R u l e 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R . A p p . P.,] i n F o u n t a i n v . S t a t e , 842 S o . 2 d 719 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2000) B r o o k s , 892 S o . 2 d a t 9 7 1 . The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s may n o t , h o w e v e r , amend t h e rules of procedure." 8 84 So. Dutell 2d v. at "this intent and n.5 State, 1991)(stating Criminal 905 596 that, Procedure court will them. The pretrial 625 the Supreme added) . Court this Alabama on a to hypothetical create of t h i s Court's authority. 47 the rule" (Ala. 1983)). C o u r t may an question of Court, as s e t o u t i n t h e As i n t e r p r e t and not r e w r i t e avenue for a regarding s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e goes w e l l p a s t t h e c l e a r l y limits App. Rules Supreme r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e , b u t i t may attempt also and t o e f f e c t u a t e 439 S o . 2 d 55 court, See ( A l a . Crim. by t h e Alabama to ascertain appellate majority's ruling 624, promulgated v. W r i g h t , apply the e x i s t i n g 2d emphasis construing attempt Shelton an i n t e r m e d i a t e So. in of the Alabama citing (second the defined CR-09-1148 It is important whether Ankrom's statute -- is to note actions not that the constituted truly the trial f o r w h i c h he court. denial the of the to dismiss the the substantive not an realistic i s s u e as i t s review in that case properly substantive trial court. the was the statute in the light because issue The i s s u e , but the Ward's the raised in a i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of of majority of law" in an label is depends on facts of that issue was the case. State parte general's the not r e s o l u t i o n of Ex only and the The for review "a p u r e q u e s t i o n of A indictment, i s s u e was the Court. r u l i n g s from adverse because Ankrom's in reserve the to the this dismiss presented" attempt to j u s t i f y received indictment, of before issue ruling to -¬ violation adverse substantive "properly labels she only motion underlying motion not The or issue a d e f e n d a n t a t a g u i l t y - p l e a h e a r i n g may issues substantive adopted Ward, brief motion available to violation of and was to arguments the initial that i n the briefs submitted argument in trial court had properly denied because Ward had a remedy the dismiss challenge the the whether her actions chemical-endangerment 48 statute the attorney legal constituted -- she a could CR-09-1148 file the a motion f o r a judgment of a c q u i t t a l State's whether case her at trial. actions a motion pretrial for a review of the to criminal an a t t e m p t by contrary substantive . Ankrom indictment, and the the to issue chemicalat trial To sanction evidence in a legal amend o f that motion to a this question, the rules of the the trial on by by the trial earlier in this in court far trial the State, the assertion, s t a t u t e a p p l i e d to the issues reads dismiss of majority's the merely too much when i t s t a t e s t h a t ruled likely response the detailed majority was Court " r u l e d on numerous sentence order issue to not As raised The acquittal. that i t i s purely i s s u e whether the A n k r o m ' s c a s e was at the of procedure. Next, 3d of this of The "properly presented" s u f f i c i e n c y of guise conclusion Ankrom. a violation o n l y be judgment case, even under the amounts i t i s with constitute endangerment s t a t u t e can in So at the trial court court. followed indictment none the of 49 the to the the as and one- substantive i t i s more denied argued could the motion. court's fact, Doseck issues So. dismiss underlying because, of special writing, denied In facts court." motion into the be in the the properly CR-09-1148 challenged in Furthermore, dismiss, a motion when i t did the not trial have w h i c h t h e m a j o r i t y now the guilty-plea as part motion of review dismiss to the Next, of the and, the the and contends to and " i t is court." . 3d the p a r t i e s ' the c o u r t i s i r r e l e v a n t . with Procedure the provide properly before the parties presented substantive motion to to facts on were p r e s e n t e d at properly court's their that the considered ruling on the p a r t i e s were r u l e d on important legal aware by court the to note issue fully as trial here, that to the there the s u f f i c i e n c y of the to amend review court. the motion the trial is the of an Moreover, complete the fact indictment 50 Rules issue of not I question legal no evidence before That awareness does not p r o v i d e for issue, given dismiss the a w a r e n e s s o f an i s s u e p l a c e d authority to on stipulated not Where, p r o c e d u r a l mechanism to review Court are trial this trial, i t the they S t a t e and Ankrom p r e s e n t e d before ruled indictment. indictment. says, So. the Those f a c t s the presented majority court before of majority question dismiss relies. hearing, the to this Criminal otherwise whether arguments on the the t h a t Ankrom m e r e l y filed a and filed a that the State CR-09-1148 response t h a t c o n s i s t e d p r i m a r i l y of b r i e f s from another Be that as foregoing was i t may, i t is to me why Although issue the now would resources, have court argues be a u t h o r i t y to the the t r i a l majority judicial State cited v. in that, procedural I note, again, correct to stated that lack McClain, Doseck, motion Court she 911 the dismiss reversed of to refuse folly that this the evidence not this court's not Court also stated: trial a judge's f r u s t r a t i o n , 911 So. to to Rule " A l t h o u g h we 2d we at after are 56. unlike the McClain Court, 51 Crim. waste of does not by basis Ala. understand 2005), defendant's alleged the This and stated for dismissing R. Crim. the basis to me has an the follow that s t a t e of the majority a This for It appears that P. bound to current victim case. nonetheless the making App. the the judgment m a j o r i t y here i s f r u s t r a t e d w i t h the but, a folly prosecute 13.5(c), issue consider Court granted viable the c r i m i n a l procedure. (Ala. court want according law." 54 to and perceived indictment trial was 2d trial the did So. indictment the of for i t s consideration. a s t r u c t u r a l change to the r u l e s g o v e r n i n g In either arguments i s r e l e v a n t , because the s u b s t a n t i v e not p r o p e r l y b e f o r e the unclear case. failed the law, to CR-09-1148 follow the the law. Rules which I n s t e a d , the m a j o r i t y has attempted of Criminal to conduct Procedure t o amend t o c r e a t e a mechanism a pretrial review of the s u f f i c i e n c y a l lthe f o r e g o i n g reasons, I believe with of the evidence. For analysis fails. unsupported caselaw with Not o n l y i s t h e m a j o r i t y ' s r e v e r s a l o f Doseck by from t h e Alabama this Court, t h e Supreme pretrial motion of Criminal the majority's Court's to Rules decision dismiss an on t h e a n t i c i p a t e d i n Ex parte indictment engraft to such majority's in e v i d e n c e , and t h i s rewrite the a mechanism attempt Rules into to rewrite boundaries did this (Ala. 2001), Rules of t h i s Court's actions Crim. App. 2000), conflicts Worley. i s not Criminal A proper based Procedure I believe issue i n this authority just i n F o u n t a i n v. S t a t e , rev'd a of a charge the Rules of Criminal Court's and C o u r t does n o t have t h e the rules. order to reach the substantive the of Procedure decision mechanism by which t o c h a l l e n g e t h e v a l i d i t y authority the majority's i n part, to that the Procedure case exceeds as c l e a r l y as 842 S o . 2 d 719 842 S o . 2 d 726 ( A l a . when t h e C o u r t p u r p o r t e d t o c r e a t e an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e of Appellate Procedure. 52 CR-09-1148 Finally, analysis in procedural at although this I case, mechanism by the p r e t r i a l might be a useful Such a p r o c e d u r e whether that and existing there change administration of law w i l l be that the the to Alabama's justice. In t o be to or would case, made b y at Ala. Const. 1975, Art. existing this juncture be helpful to the a change in the the Alabama Legislature the governance s u b j e c t to the l i m i t a t i o n s V I , § 150, and courts, modify rules provided that the right whether governing the the "practice rules substantive right of by a trial do jury. and not o f any procedure" party," While to in a l l " a b r i d g e , e n l a r g e , or I such a change i n c r i m i n a l p r o c e d u r e 53 of § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 4 ) , A l a . Code t h a t p r o v i d e t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t w i t h a u t h o r i t y create the 1901, statute procedure. i n the or the Alabama C r i m i n a l Rules Committee, under o f t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t and a stipulated criminal know any or criminal a w h o l e s a l e change way of court could consider the p a r t i c u l a r i s no majority's creation a set of a l l e g e d i s necessary have with a circuit under addition would agree believe which supports a charge however, I not stage whether facts law, do so have as to not protect decided i s warranted, I do CR-09-1148 know that such authority. change Because without portion creating a change any the majority authority of the opinion this new i s not w i t h i n overruling Windom, J . , c o n c u r s . 54 Court's has attempted t o do procedure. this t o make so, I dissent Doseck and scope from of that the impermissibly CR-09-1148 WINDOM, Judge, concurring i n the result and dissenting in part. I agree circuit motion with court's to the majority's denial dismiss the of Code decision Crim. this the 1975. to App. State 2008), merits of a Doseck because provides to affirm Ankrom's against her. the pretrial Further, I i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of § 2 6-15-3.2(a)(1), I , however, overrule Elizabeth indictment agree w i t h the m a j o r i t y ' s Ala. Hope decision disagree majority's 3d 1024 ( A l a . not b e l i e v e that the law i n for a trial judge to rule State, I do a procedure facially the v. valid with 8 So. indictment Therefore, I, r e s p e c t f u l l y , dissent majority's before trial. that portion of the notes that "'"[t]he 6 opinion. Initially, the majority substance of a motion of i t is."'" motion Deramus, 882 Evans Waddell, Ankrom v. filed So. a correctly and n o t i t s s t y l e So. 2d from on 875, 68 9 876 So. pretrial 3d 2d determines , motion to 26 kind Ex parte (quoting ( A l a . 2002), 23, what quoting in ( A l a . 1997 ) ) . dismiss the turn Here, indictment I j o i n Judge Welch's s p e c i a l w r i t i n g and w r i t e s e p a r a t e l y t o f u r t h e r e x p l a i n why I do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d r e a c h t h e q u e s t i o n o f how t o i n t e r p r e t § 2 6 - 1 5 - 3 . 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. 6 55 CR-09-1148 against while her for Code court offense. against [her] § to she] Cir. the the and ... of judicial the charged It legally its ( A l a . 1960) v. of facts using infant § cocaine who tested 26-15-3.2(a)(1), of a Ala. circuit rul[e] the m e r i t s the determination that to (quoting the charges F.3d label other 1266, placed 1267 on her determination words, she in was she not sought guilty of indictment. that "[a]n indictment unbiased grand jury, call trial of State, beyond summary j u d g m e n t a pretrial In her Because of the S a l m a n , 378 of circuit 1975. "look[] [sought] S t a t e s v. i n the Code court on child i n d e c i d i n g whether indictment. settled i s enough Aaron -- endangerment i n substance, c o n s t i t u t e d and face, merits." 365 is well an violate chemical Regardless the a pretrial, offense not in effect United 2004). merits to 2 6-15-3.2(a)(1), m o t i o n , Ankrom sought, of actions Ankrom f u r t h e r sought to have the have favor...." (11th did makes indictment [her, her birth a stipulation sought of the -- which violated Ankrom that giving cocaine consider actions ground and 1975, a criminal face the pregnant positive Ala. on for 271 Ala. C o s t e l l o v. 56 United ... the 70 , 77, returned i f valid charge 122 by So. States, of a on the 2d 360, 350 U.S. CR-09-1148 359, 363 (1956)). Rule 13.5(c)(1), Ala. R. Crim. P., provides: "A m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e i n d i c t m e n t may be b a s e d u p o n objections to the venire, the lack of legal qualifications o f an individual grand j u r o r , the l e g a l i n s u f f i c i e n c y of the i n d i c t m e n t , or the f a i l u r e o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t t o c h a r g e an o f f e n s e . " Although a defendant grounds d e t a i l e d may i n Rule some c o n s t i t u t i o n a l or challenge Ala. Critzer, R. 951 Civ. F.2d P.,] 306, indictment 1 3 . 5 ( c ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. jurisdictional summary j u d g m e n t p r o c e d u r e 56, an in Crim. grounds, P., 307 (11th cases." Cir. and United to States an indictment are p r e t r i a l proceedings. 7 not See a proper L o v e t t v. on no Rule v. 1992). A c c o r d i n g l y , Alabama c o u r t s have l o n g h e l d t h a t the of the "[t]here i s [akin to a motion pursuant criminal on consideration State, 31 A l a . A p p . merits during 210, I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o note t h a t Ankrom does not challenge the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence presented to the grand j u r y pursuant to § 12-16-200, A l a . Code 1975. F u r t h e r , i t does not appear from the r e c o r d t h a t such a m o t i o n c o u l d have been considered. See L o p e r v . S t a t e , 469 So. 2 d 7 0 7 , 712 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1985) ( h o l d i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e t e s t i m o n y of a s i n g l e w i t n e s s b e f o r e the grand j u r y i s s u f f i c i e n t t o comply w i t h A l a . Code § 12-16-200 ( 1 9 7 5 ) [ , and t h a t ] [w]hen i t a p p e a r s t h a t w i t n e s s e s were e x a m i n e d by t h e g r a n d j u r y , o r t h e j u r y h a d b e f o r e t h e m l e g a l d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e , no i n q u i r y i n t o the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence i s indulged") ( c i t a t i o n s and quotations omitted). 7 57 CR-09-1148 211, 14 So. 2d indictment the 837, were "defensive answer matters," innocent, an indictment, the may State v. the of the the So. 2d that an alleged that the State not a proper indictment); 2d 2d 379, 54, of of be the 56 an Id.; indictment ... should (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) i s not dismiss an 1216 v. unable indictment); ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005) of the or to meet a pretrial Anderson, 58 8 evidence So. i t s burden 3d 1991) be are made State v. (holding a ground State v. (holding possibility of proof dismissal 1033, on See that not on trial therein. c o u r t may for attack ( A l a . C r i m . App. case she based evidence be Because indictment State's ground State 380 and assertion that the 1216, only, postponed u n t i l t r i a l " ) ; insufficiency will matters for a pretrial valid the [ s ] e v e r a l of indictment"). f o r d i s m i s s a l of merits ... c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t the otherwise So. should So. valid allegations contained sufficiency 935 an but 911 defensive a defendant's C o u r t has grounds with the "demurrers to [because] a proper subject 590 upon w h i c h a t r i a l Foster, to dismiss to t r i a l McClain, that this that "entwined overruled s u c h as not Edwards, (holding prior are not merits (holding that demurrer presented no is court (1943) were p r o p e r l y grounds of hence 838 1035 of is an (Ala. CR-09-1148 Crim. App. 2008) indictment State to trial Bethel, v. 55 So. are should the not be made that the before not United 8 So. circuit defendant, basis of 3d the 951 357 no not to take a 378 a t 307. App. charges, defendant's] basis and those counts 59 pleas then course to the that indictment F.3d See and merits 1266, 1267 also State 2008) v. (reversing against the factual and holding that court should have to allowed of a c t i o n trial]"). ... United held the ground t h a t the the factual the has charges dismissing [the indictment pretrial insufficient, a t t o r n e y to determine h i s next or o f an two 2010) indictment] face was accept App. the Circuit Salman, an evidence."); Likewise, plea refused to that (Ala. Crim. on of on F.2d dismissal guilty of had v. w h i c h were d i s m i s s e d to [of based dismiss (Ala. Crim. trial"). States 356, court "[i]nstead found merits to lack challenges look beyond the (11th C i r . 2004); C r i t z e r , the 37 9 indictment determination. Robertson, 377, that a of A p p e a l s f o r the E l e v e n t h c o u r t s may dismiss appropriate on 3d with not based principle "entwined States Court trial is prior (reaffirming that ("[I]t the counts i t the district [i.e., whether CR-09-1148 For "was a instance, indicted sixth of of counts of possession possession of to dismiss not ' i l l e g a l l y not guilty of possession Id. The court allegations 'illegally in the States,' he was the indictment, of a considered indictment, firearm of h i s a r r e s t , an by and alien in violation indicted, maintaining of h i s a r r e s t " ; "Salman that States, an illegal facts held "Salman that States' and d i s m i s s e d was alien. beyond was as a m a t t e r the he as a t h e r e f o r e , he undisputed or u n l a w f u l l y i n the United at the time by or u n l a w f u l l y ' i n the United of law, at the time trial After of firearms, ammunition, or u n l a w f u l l y i n the United a motion matter law 378 F . 3 d a t 1 2 6 7 , t h e d e f e n d a n t 18 U.S.C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 5 ) ( A ) . " filed was for five count 'illegally i n Salman, the not of indictment. Id. On a p p e a l , decision the Eleventh C i r c u i t reversed the t r i a l court's holding: "By l o o k i n g b e y o n d t h e f a c e o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t and ruling on t h e m e r i t s of the charges against S a l m a n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n e f f e c t g r a n t e d summary judgment i n f a v o r of the defendant. See United S t a t e s v. Jensen, 93 F . 3 d 6 6 7 , 669 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 996) ( c i t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C r i t z e r , 951 F . 2 d 3 0 6 , 307 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1992) ( p e r c u r i a m ) ) . I n so d o i n g , t h e d i s t r i c t court overlooked b i n d i n g precedent from t h i s court. In C r i t z e r , as i n t h i s c a s e , the district c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , ' a s s u m i n g t h e f a c t s t o be 60 CR-09-1148 true, defendant's actions did not constitute a v i o l a t i o n of f e d e r a l law.' I d . a t 307. We reversed the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l of the indictments against Critzer, holding: " T h e r e i s no s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t p r o c e d u r e in criminal cases. Nor do the rules provide for a p r e - t r i a l determination of sufficiency of the evidence The sufficiency of a c r i m i n a l indictment is determined from i t s f a c e . The indictment i s s u f f i c i e n t i f i t charges i n the language of the s t a t u t e . "Id.; s e e a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v . D e L a u r e n t i s , 230 F.3d 6 5 9 , 661 (3d C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . L e v i n , 973 F.2d 463, 471-72 (6th C i r . 1992) (Martin, J., dissenting) (stating that a p r e - t r i a l examination of the evidence d i s r e g a r d s the boundary t h a t exists b e t w e e n t h e r o l e o f t h e g r a n d j u r y and t h e r o l e o f the t r i a l court). T h e r e i s no d i s p u t e t h a t the g o v e r n m e n t p r o p e r l y i n d i c t e d S a l m a n f o r an a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n of § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 5 ) ( A ) . "Because Salman was properly indicted, the government i s e n t i t l e d to present i t s evidence at t r i a l and have i t s s u f f i c i e n c y t e s t e d by a m o t i o n f o r acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal P r o c e d u r e 29. See D e L a u r e n t i s , 230 F . 3 d a t 6 6 1 . A motion f o r a c q u i t t a l under Rule 29 i s t h e proper avenue f o r c o n t e s t i n g the s u f f i c i e n c y of the e v i d e n c e in criminal cases because there i s no explicit a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t a p r e - t r i a l j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w on t h e m e r i t s u n d e r t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s of Criminal Procedure." Salman, In the 378 F.3d at D o s e c k , 8 So. well-settled 1268 (footnotes omitted). 3d a t 1 0 2 4 - 2 6 , t h i s C o u r t principle that 61 a trial court merely may followed not make a CR-09-1148 pretrial was determination indicted Code. to f o r second-degree Doseck, dismiss indictment facts not o f an i n d i c t m e n t . escape. l i k e Ankrom and the undisputed on t h e m e r i t s See § 13A-10-32, A l a . Salmon, f i l e d against contained him i n the Doseck a pretrial on the motion ground indictment that established t h a t h i s a c t i o n s d i d not c o n s t i t u t e second-degree escape. Id. Thus, to have the indictment and Doseck, circuit like court the charges this of the of against [him,] summary j u d g m e n t i n [ h i s ] f a v o r . . . . " 1267. merits the of [seeking] appeal, face the effect On sought merits the at Salmon, beyond on F.3d and "look[] rul[e] 378 Ankrom The circuit court denied Court followed w e l l - s e t t l e d an indictment are not a in Salman, Doseck's law and ... motion. that ground proper held for dismissal. The m a j o r i t y i n t h i s c a s e o v e r r u l e s D o s e c k , and holds facts pure that and] ... question constitute a " i n [a] c a s e where of [the [where trial law as to violation of the with violating[,] ... for raising question that the there court whether of 62 law" 1024, is a stipulation i s presented with] of a an statute appellant 8 So. 3 d accused's actions he or charged should in a she not is be pretrial penalized motion; CR-09-1148 therefore, So. 3d be i s s u e was at Doseck, seeks the 8 . So. 3d penalized question that a pretrial of judgment the because held make valid are the merely a followed that t r i a l courts I do judgment at 307. holding the that trial the believe sought that for a with fact that of a the the court presented determination each not merits trial F.2d decision 307. This well-settled are not therefore, that precedent authorized on I 63 the disagree case. Court's For and criminal of with the the same in correctly under Alabama law merits of court in at the summary summary j u d g m e n t p r o c e d u r e indictment; overrule F.2d was who should summary overlooks they not determination to court consideration pretrial decision no 951 a pretrial i.e., proper 951 is majority overrules defendant, properly before because the favor. i s no Critzer, a was court. proceeding, Critzer, Ankrom sought in their a o v e r r u l i n g D o s e c k and of law," "[t]here cases." "[t]here trial majority that in a criminal indictment, indictment Doseck by the the ground cases." proceeding D o s e c k and merits the of Ankrom's g u i l t "a p u r e q u e s t i o n an on because in criminal I believe both 1024 , simply before differently, a summary j u d g m e n t procedure in Stated properly a to facially majority's reason, I CR-09-1148 disagree motion with the to dismiss Accordingly, the majority's believe that of that holding the was sought determination relief I respectfully motion to dismiss relief majority's that circuit that was dissent overrules court's that Ankrom's available pretrial. from decision the majority's decision pretrial, to a f f i r m sentence. 64 portion of Because I Doseck. s h o u l d be a f f i r m e d b e c a u s e unavailable that denying Ankrom's the motion I concur Ankrom's i n the sought result conviction and

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.