Bryan Pettibone 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-09-1530 Bryan Pettibone v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WELCH, Presiding Code was c o n v i c t e d o f f o u r c o u n t s o f e n t i c i n g f o r immoral purposes, 1975; three violations Court Judge. Bryan Pettibone a child from B a l d w i n C i r c u i t (CC-09-272) counts o f § 13A-6-67, of violations o f § 13A-6-69, second-degree A l a . Code sexual Ala. abuse, 1 9 7 5 ; a n d one c o u n t o f CR-09-1530 attempted second-degree s e x u a l abuse, a violation 67 Code For and 13A-4-2, Ala. 1975. enticement c o n v i c t i o n s , the t r i a l serve f i v e y e a r s ' imprisonment. degree-sexual-abuse Pettibone t o one degree-sexual-abuse Pettibone were conviction, Initially in a we note mistrial on March commenced on presented at the that during Middle the i n prison. This appeal May the School, 3, trial the the four 3, 2010, court No B.B. 2010. during her basketball second- sentenced motions and 2008-2009 the following The school who trial was s t u d e n t s : B.B., resulted P e t t i b o n e ' s second year a at M.D., D.S., and was evidence Central teacher trial evidence State presented t e s t i f i e d to the f o l l o w i n g . e i g h t h g r a d e , B.B. sentenced posttrial Pettibone's f i r s t trial. Pettibone, female four second- attempted trial For court c o a c h , had i n a p p r o p r i a t e p h y s i c a l r e l a t i o n s and with the followed. that second of For each of the t h r e e to s i x months' imprisonment. filed. each 13A-6- court sentenced Pettibone to convictions, year o f §§ Baldwin basketball communications and K.B. During the seventh and attended Central Baldwin Middle School, and eighth-grade and f o o t b a l l year she teams. On 2 was a cheerleader for a Friday, the date of the which CR-09-1530 was u n s p e c i f i e d a t t r i a l , i n B.B.'s e i g h t h - g r a d e standing when at her locker Pettibone year, approached her a s k e d , "When a r e y o u g o i n g t o c a l l me?" "Never." B.B. said that they were j o k i n g her his number. When and Pettibone telephone at (R. 279.) school gave (R. 279.) s h e was B.B. B.B. and said, around, did not P e t t i b o n e over t h e weekend, P e t t i b o n e a p p r o a c h e d h e r on Monday and asked B.B. gave P e t t i b o n e h e r number, one why B.B. had not c a l l e d him. another. At a certain point, 3," w h i c h meant " I l o v e and they began t e x t m e s s a g i n g Pettibone you." began t e x t i n g (R. 281.) B.B. B.B., testified: "We w e r e o n t h e way t o a b a s k e t b a l l game o n e a n d we w e r e t e x t i n g a n d h e t o l d me t o l o o k a t a n d l i c k my l i p s s e x y - l i k e a n d l o o k a t h i s a r m s , big t h e y were and s t u f f l i k e t h a t . And then t i m e , o n t h e way, h e t o l d me t h a t h e was h o r n y t o come f i x i t . " (R. "1-2¬ day him how one and 282.) B.B. testified while s h e was stood i n the a i s l e that sitting on t h e s e a t flexing licked his lips o f t h e bus, and h i s muscles B.B. stated B.B. h a d b e e n " f i n g e r e d " b y one o f h e r p r e v i o u s b o y f r i e n d s could also do t h e same. 3 that (R. he h a d h e a r d 283.) her Pettibone Pettibone i f he h e r on t h e p h o n e at her. at that asked told Pettibone B.B. that and told CR-09-1530 Pettibone that Pettibone a l s o began hugging one day didn't like he Pettibone w a n t no could sent her more o f face-to-face." not. B.B. testified s i d e - t o - s i d e but (R. side 284.) crap, B.B. he she and testified a t e x t message and that that that stated that "he wanted a r e a l further hug, testified, "He a s k e d me i f he c o u l d k i s s me and I was, l i k e , I d o n ' t know. He a s k e d me, l i k e of a c e r t a i n n u m b e r f r o m , l i k e , one t o t e n . I g i v e him a number. I c a n ' t remember w h a t i t was. He a s k e d i f t h e r e was any c h a n c e o f a t o n g u e k i s s i n g and I r e s p o n d e d I d o n ' t know s t i l l . " (R. 285.) B.B. also to the in one i n h i s classroom, with Pettibone stated that, and room, b e g a n t e l l i n g k i s s e d her talking on when t h e classroom. B.B.'s the cheek. locker. how Pettibone m u c h he Pettibone custodian Pettibone and unlocked B.B. stated and f o r too her a person long. at text she a l s o t a l k e d from approximately to or that l o n g and talking phone that was alone l o c k e d the door f o r her, and were a l r e a d y door and done came i n a l s o began p u t t i n g "1-2-3" messages on stated she cared B.B. the talking B.B. the her instance, messaging mother, a D.B., and Pettibone one another 9:00 number a l l day a.m. her about too often a s k e d whose phone number i t 4 in began t o 1:00 confronted c e r t a i n telephone When D.B. p.m. the was, CR-09-1530 B.B. told her that i t belonged to someone other than Pettibone. At getting B.B. that p o i n t , B.B. Pettibone s u s p i c i o u s , and P e t t i b o n e Pettibone also sent meet h i m somewhere meet w i t h D.B. B.B. told B.B. during purchased her mother a cell was phone f o r a t e x t message and asked h e r t o a b a s k e t b a l l g a m e , b u t B.B. d i d not him. testified h a d h e r own to cell the f o l l o w i n g . phone and t h a t began t a l k i n g on t h e phone l a t e r 1 2 : 0 0 o r 1:00 a.m. her that bedroom w i t h D.B. testified she n o t i c e d at night u n t i l testified the door D.B. locked that that B.B. approximately t h a t B.B. b e g a n t a l k i n g i n w h e n B.B. h a d n o t done so previously. Peggy School, Johnson, the custodian testified at Central Baldwin Middle to the f o l l o w i n g : "One d a y I h a d g o n e t o c l e a n [ P e t t i b o n e ' s ] r o o m a n d t h e d o o r was l o c k e d a n d n o r m a l l y h i s d o o r was not l o c k e d . A n d I u s e d my k e y a n d I g o t i n . A n d I f l i p p e d t h e l i g h t on a n d I r e a l l y d i d n ' t p a y any a t t e n t i o n and I got busy. A n d o u t o f t h e r i g h t -¬ my e y e s i g h t o n t h e r i g h t , I saw m o v e m e n t , a n d a s I looked, Mr. Pettibone and a w h i t e student were c o m i n g f r o m t h e r i g h t c o r n e r o f t h e r o o m h e a d e d up front." (R. 446.) 5 CR-09-1530 Johnson s t a t e d t h a t she l a t e r d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e was B.B. The S t a t e p r e s e n t e d the principal, office. had B.B. purchased her. Mike evidence Vivar, s h o w e d D.B. presented D.B., and B.B. records late were a d m i t t e d at night evidence met and V i v a r t h e c e l l r e f l e c t e d t h a t B.B. phone i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i n December, f o r h e r as w e l l as n o t e s Cell-phone records the student in phone Pettibone Pettibone had w r i t t e n into evidence, and t h e and P e t t i b o n e had been t a l k i n g i n December 2008. The State i n d i c a t i n g t h a t B.B.'s c e l l phone discussed Shayla Central hugging and k i s s i n g H o l l o w e l l , a teacher Baldwin Middle School, each on also contained a t e x t m e s s a g e c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n P e t t i b o n e a n d B.B. they Vivar's wherein other. and t h e c h e e r l e a d i n g coach a t testified to the f o l l o w i n g . H o l l o w e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t P e t t i b o n e w o u l d w a i t f o r B.B. t o come out of Hollowell's classroom that Pettibone proximity. a n d B.B. three would or four talk t o one Because H o l l o w e l l had " p e r s o n a l times another a week i n close s u s p i c i o n s " about t h e s i t u a t i o n t o w a r d t h e e n d o f B.B.'s seventh-grade year, asked B.B. the assistant principal 6 that and not be placed she in CR-09-1530 Pettibone's science class for her eighth-grade year. (R. 405.) Hollowell testified Pettibone t h a t D.S. events for and walking toward Pettibone's and a w a y games b e t w e e n the games w e r e D.S. attended also to the that she i n h i s classroom, and Pettibone 9:30 p.m., after depending games. kissed another one touched her home on Middle D.S. School testified when and that and c l a s s i n the Pettibone or i n the was the D.S. was e i g h t h grade. classroom, l o c k e r room. she she w o u l d meet b e f o r e i n Pettibone's that D.S. or D.S. on testified after also testified during that she and Pettibone multiple occasions and that Pettibone back, b u t t o c k s , incident, Pettibone his clothes. D.S. in a closet P e t t i b o n e w o u l d meet i n t h e c o a c h ' s o f f i c e basketball over and D.S. s e v e r a l times following. science b a s k e t b a l l games e i t h e r one and saw athletic f o r Pettibone during b a s k e t b a l l season. i n Pettibone's t h a t she classroom 8:00 Central Baldwin testified she school over. testified scorekeeper that videotaped and placed Pettibone and 7 stomach over her clothes. D.S.'s on his genitals D.S. hand w o u l d t a l k on t h e In phone, CR-09-1530 text one a n o t h e r , using t h e number and P e t t i b o n e "1-2-3." to the following. eighth-grade girls volleyball returned from Rogers basketball that he l o v e d h e r , a t Central Baldwin Middle Rogers t e s t i f i e d basketball coach. D.S. (R. 5 6 5 . ) Leigh Rogers, a teacher testified told coach t h a t s h e was t h e and seventh-grade testified trips, School, that after she would the stay girls teams outside e n s u r e t h a t a l l t h e g i r l s w e r e p i c k e d up b y t h e i r p a r e n t s , to and Coach T h e r e s a S c h r e c k w o u l d e n s u r e t h a t a l l t h e g i r l s were o u t o f t h e l o c k e r room. 2008 the school girls outside year, On o n e p a r t i c u l a r Rogers had already was u n d e r night during t h e 2007¬ the impression that a l l g o n e home, a n d S c h r e c k and Rogers t a l k i n g w h e n t h e y s a w D.S.'s m o t h e r a r r i v e . D.S. were then emerged from t h e b u i l d i n g and t o l d S c h r e c k and Rogers t h a t she had been i n "Pettibone's room" w a t c h i n g t h e game film. (R. 427.) Theresa volleyball Schreck, to Pettibone's was teacher coach a t C e n t r a l to the following. who a and Baldwin Middle Schreck t e s t i f i e d classroom i n Schreck's girls School, and testified t h a t s h e h a d s e e n D.S. g o on numerous o c c a s i o n s physical-education 8 basketball and t h a t class, would D.S., bring CR-09-1530 Schreck notes classroom started could were indicating t o grade becoming, no l o n g e r that M.D. papers. s h e was Schreck y o u know, h a b i t u a l go up t h e r e many p a p e r s occurrence." that because going to testified, "The and so I t o l d I didn't t o be g r a d e d Pettibone's feel notes h e r she that f o r i t t o be an there everyday (R. 4 3 8 . ) t e s t i f i e d to the following. and she Pettibone b e g a n t e x t m e s s a g i n g o n e a n o t h e r w h e n s h e was i n t h e that Pettibone papers Pettibone invite In one they began that discussed kissing her to h i s classroom instance, pointed and P e t t i b o n e when M.D. to The d o o r kissing the and t o l d t o the classroom M.D. and grade entered t o a table i n the corner and Pettibone was kissed w i t h an open mouth, p u t h i s hands u n d e r h e r s h i r t b u t n o t under her bra, testified clothes. an that t o go s i t a t t h e t a b l e . locked, M.D. stated would f o r him. classroom, M.D. M.D. School t h a t she Central grade. Middle testified attended eighth Baldwin M.D. that M.D. a n d p u t h i s h a n d s b e t w e e n M.D.'s t h i g h s . Pettibone touched her private area over her t e s t i f i e d t h a t she c o u l d see t h a t P e t t i b o n e erection. 9 M.D. had CR-09-1530 K.B. Baldwin testified Middle to the following. School and kept Schreck and P e t t i b o n e . class. score K.B. attended Central a t b a s k e t b a l l games f o r K.B. was a l s o i n P e t t i b o n e ' s science K.B. a n d P e t t i b o n e b e g a n t e x t m e s s a g i n g e a c h o t h e r a n d discussed kissing, physically. meeting hugging, K.B. and testified i n the coach's that office Pettibone also touched Pettibone also turned possibly she K.B.'s breasts around while Pettibone and over and further Pettibone and began hugging K.B. a g a i n s t K.B.'s b u t t o c k s and going her pressed began kissing. clothes. his penis h a d an e r e c t i o n . I. Pettibone argues on appeal resulted from h i s second t r i a l Jeopardy Clause and because that the convictions i n May 2 0 1 0 v i o l a t e his first trial ended t h a t he s h o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n p r o s e c u t e d that the Double in a mistrial i n a second trial. Specifically, P e t t i b o n e argues t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n goaded the defense moving into presented that the testimony were n o t p a r t Initially, Pettibone for a mistrial was we tried o f D.S. because that i n March prosecution a s t o new a l l e g a t i o n s o f a b u s e of the underlying note the indictment. before 2010 10 this second for enticing and trial, abusing CR-09-1530 D.S., M.D., K.B., a n d B.B.; h o w e v e r , resulted i n a mistrial. testified outside that that During Pettibone's Pettibone made h i s c l o t h e s , and before D.S. w o u l d p r e s e n t Record Pettibone's a t 12, 26-27.) this her touch trial, D.S. trial, D.S. his genital area (Third testified e x a m i n e d , t h e d e f e n s e moved f o r a m i s t r i a l had trial t h e d e f e n s e was u n a w a r e testimony. After first first Supplemental a n d was cross- and argued t h a t i t no n o t i c e o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t e s t i m o n y a n d a r g u e d t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y was h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l . In response, the prosecutor stated t h e day o f t r i a l that h e d i d n o t know u n t i l would t e s t i f y the that d e f e n s e was n o t t o l d testimony that D.S. R e c o r d a t 28, 39.) she would so t e s t i f y . The t r i a l a n d D.S. c o n f i r m e d prosecution about court making its p r i o r t o D.S.'s (Third Supplemental q u e s t i o n e d D.S. a b o u t w h e n about t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e o f that she d i d , i n fact, only t h e a c t on t h e d a y o f t r i a l . the presence o f t h e j u r y , t h e t r i a l in D.S. made h e r t o u c h h i s g e n i t a l s , b u t on t h e d a y o f t r i a l had t o l d the prosecution abuse, the Pettibone that court notify Outside stated the following ruling, "THE COURT: O k a y . A f t e r t h i n k i n g about t h i s o v e r l u n c h , t h e t e s t i m o n y b y [D.S.] i s o f s u c h a c h a r a c t e r and n a t u r e t h a t i t s u b s t a n t i a l l y changes the evidence t h a t ' s being p r e s e n t e d , n o t n e c e s s a r i l y 11 CR-09-1530 404(b) as t h e d e f e n s e m e n t i o n e d , element i n the crime. but to a critical "And I c o u l d p r o b a b l y g i v e a c u r a t i v e c h a r g e t o the j u r y . One o f t h e t h i n g s I t h o u g h t a b o u t d o i n g was maybe r e m o v i n g t h e t h r e e c o u n t s t h a t d e a l t w i t h [ D . S . ] , r e m o v i n g t h a t a n d t e l l i n g t h e j u r y n o t t o -¬ Mr. S i m p s o n [ p r o s e c u t o r ] , t h i s i s -- i f y o u make a n o t h e r a c t i o n l i k e t h a t i n my c o u r t , we w i l l b e having a contempt h e a r i n g . "MR. SIMPSON: Y e s , s i r . "THE COURT: U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s s t i l l t h e r e a n d I c o u l d s e e how t h e j u r y c o u l d g e t back t h e r e even though t h e y weren't c o n s i d e r i n g t h e [D.S.] charges and s t i l l holding that piece of evidence i n t h e i r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the other charges t h a t Mr. P e t t i b o n e w o u l d be f a c i n g w i t h them. And i t ' s j u s t t o a p o i n t t h a t I d o n ' t -- I d o n ' t s e e how I c a n do a n y t h i n g e l s e b u t d e c l a r e a m i s t r i a l . " I w i l l n o t e -- a n d t h e r e a s o n I w a n t e d t o t a l k t o t h e l a s t w i t n e s s a g a i n was i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was n o t k n o w n t o t h e S t a t e i n a n y w a y u n t i l f i r s t t h i n g t h i s morning, although I b e l i e v e t h e p r u d e n t t h i n g f o r t h e S t a t e t o have done w o u l d be t o a d v i s e t h e d e f e n s e p r i o r t o u s c o m i n g into c o u r t o r had i t been a s u r p r i s e t o t h e S t a t e d u r i n g the m i d d l e o f t h e t r i a l , t h a t t h e S t a t e s h o u l d have a s k e d f o r a s i d e b a r o r a s h o r t r e c e s s f o r us t o discuss i t . "Nevertheless, State knew about defense w i l l f u l l y out that about being "MR. i t and thing i t ' s , -- t h a t t h e d i d not provide or intentionally. i t first said, I don't see anything this to the They j u s t morning. So found -- b u t y o u know -¬ S I M P S O N : Y o u r H o n o r , may I make a n 12 argument CR-09-1530 "THE COURT: No, you may not. I heard the a r g u m e n t s f r o m b o t h s i d e s b e f o r e l u n c h a n d my r u l i n g i s t h a t I am d e c l a r i n g a m i s t r i a l . " (Third Supplemental Record at A s b e s t we statements can that enforcement discern, Pettibone B.B., after D.S., the M.D., first additional a l l e g a t i o n s of during first trial a the Pettibone and trial which (C. the 49-56), was defense Here, Double and begin additional that into the moving defense Jeopardy Clause requested be that victims not counsel requested determine aware so t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n c o u l d the trial allegations. court erred Finally, 1 in failing s u b m i t a q u e s t i o n t o t h e j u r y on w h e t h e r t h e p r o s e c u t o r the law contained prosecution prosecution to first these the submitted wanted the argues and K.B. the using trial trial, seems t o a r g u e t h a t in a mistrial t o end new 38-39.) the entered i f the that for a filed and a pretrial motion prosecution evidence. trial to invoke second case recently obtained the goaded mistrial. to have the into to court dismissed statements (C. 45-48.) empanel i n Pettibone's first the a of the Defense jury trial to did, I t i s not c l e a r from P e t t i b o n e ' s b r i e f which a l l e g a t i o n s f r o m t h e o t h e r v i c t i m s -- K.B., B.B., a n d M.D. -- w e r e new a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t were not p r e s e n t e d i n the f i r s t trial. 1 13 CR-09-1530 in fact, 46.) goad In the defense addition, into moving court the t r i a l h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n , for a mistrial. conducted a (C. pretrial a f t e r which i t denied the motion. (R. 26.) Double-jeopardy p r i n c i p l e s from b e i n g t r i e d Kennedy, 456 repeatedly U.S. 667 protect a criminal f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . (1982). I n Oregon v. defendant Oregon v. Kennedy, the U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r which a mistrial second trial. g r a n t e d on a d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n The C o u r t would bar a stated: "We d o n o t b y t h i s o p i n i o n l a y down a f l a t r u l e t h a t where a d e f e n d a n t i n a c r i m i n a l t r i a l successfully m o v e s f o r a m i s t r i a l , h e may n o t t h e r e a f t e r i n v o k e the b a r of double jeopardy against a second t r i a l . B u t we d o h o l d t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r w h i c h such a d e f e n d a n t may invoke the b a r of double jeopardy i n a second e f f o r t t o t r y him are l i m i t e d to t h o s e cases i n w h i c h t h e conduct g i v i n g r i s e t o the s u c c e s s f u l m o t i o n f o r a m i s t r i a l was i n t e n d e d t o provoke t h e defendant i n t o moving f o r a m i s t r i a l . " 456 U.S. This a t 679. Court has stated: "'The d o u b l e j e o p a r d y c l a u s e forbids the government t o t r y a person t w i c e f o r the same c r i m e . I f after a criminal t r i a l begins t h e government d e c i d e s t h a t t h e case i s going b a d l y f o r i t , i t cannot dismiss the case and r e p r o s e c u t e t h e defendant. Nor i s i t permitted to achieve by 14 CR-09-1530 i n d i r e c t i o n w h a t i t i s n o t p e r m i t t e d t o do directly; and t h u s i t cannot engage i n t r i a l m i s c o n d u c t t h a t i s i n t e n d e d t o and does p r e c i p i t a t e a s u c c e s s f u l motion f o r mistrial by the defendant. Oregon v. K e n n e d y , 456 U.S. 6 6 7 , 676 (1982). The requirement of i n t e n t is critical, and e a s i l y misunderstood. The f a c t t h a t t h e government blunders at trial and the blunder precipitates a successful motion for a m i s t r i a l does not b a r a r e t r i a l . Id. at 674-76. Illinois v. S o m e r v i l l e , 410 U.S. 458 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . P o w e l l , 982 F. 2 d 1 4 2 2 , 1429 (10th C i r . 1986); U n i t e d S t a t e s v . P e r e z S a n c h e z , 806 F. 2 d 7 (1st C i r . 1986). Yet the blunder w i l l a l m o s t a l w a y s be i n t e n t i o n a l t h e p r o d u c t of a d e l i b e r a t e a c t i o n , n o t o f a mere s l i p of t h e tongue. A p r o s e c u t o r who i n c l o s i n g argument comments improperly on the defendant's failure to have taken the stand, thus p r e c i p i t a t i n g a m i s t r i a l or a r e v e r s a l on a p p e a l , i s no d o u b t s p e a k i n g d e l i b e r a t e l y , t h o u g h h i s j u d g m e n t may be f o g g e d by t h e h e a t o f combat. But u n l e s s he i s trying to abort the trial, his misconduct w i l l not bar a r e t r i a l . It d o e s n ' t e v e n m a t t e r t h a t he k n o w s he i s a c t i n g i m p r o p e r l y , p r o v i d e d t h a t h i s aim i s to get a c o n v i c t i o n . Oregon v. Kennedy, supra, 456 U.S. at 675-76. The only r e l e v a n t i n t e n t i s i n t e n t to terminate the t r i a l , not i n t e n t to p r e v a i l at t h i s t r i a l by i m p e r m i s s i b l e means.'" " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Cir. 1993)." Spears v. State, 647 Oseni, So. 2d 996 15, (some c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . 15 F. 21-22 2d 186, 187-88 (7th ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994) CR-09-1530 In Brannon 1989), t h i s v. State, 549 So. Court held that i n order 2d 532 to bar (Ala. Crim. a second t r i a l double-jeopardy g r o u n d s t h e d e f e n d a n t m u s t make a s h o w i n g the intended prosecutor In Brannon, this Court to provoke a motion for a on that mistrial. stated: "Here, t h e a p p e l l a n t has n o t p r o v e n , nor has t h e trial court determined, that the prosecutor's a c t i o n s were i n t e n d e d to provoke appellant into moving f o r a m i s t r i a l by attempting to get into e v i d e n c e p a r t o f a s t a t e m e n t made b y a p p e l l a n t . The p r o s e c u t o r ' s attempts to i n t r o d u c e the statement, or some o f t h e c o n t e n t s of i t , were p r e j u d i c i a l to appellant. T h i s i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show i n t e n t , a rational because ' [ e ] v e r y a c t on the p a r t of a prosecutor during a t r i a l i s designed to "prejudice" the d e f e n d a n t by p l a c i n g b e f o r e the judge or j u r y evidence leading to a finding of his guilt.' [ O r e g o n v . K e n n e d y ] , 456 U.S. a t 674, 96 S . C t . at 2088. The p r o s e c u t o r s i m p l y a t t e m p t e d t o i n t r o d u c e i n t o e v i d e n c e a s t a t e m e n t made b y t h e a p p e l l a n t -¬ s o m e t h i n g w h i c h any r a t i o n a l p r o s e c u t o r w o u l d t r y t o do. The t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d on i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y as a q u e s t i o n of law. Obviously, both the prosecutor a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h o u g h t t h e r e was a reasonable possibility that the statement was admissible b e c a u s e t h e c o u r t r e c e i v e d i t on t h e contingency t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r c o u l d s h o w t h a t i t was indeed admissible. The court, had i t perceived the e v i d e n c e t o be u n q u e s t i o n a b l y inadmissible, could have, and w o u l d have, p r o h i b i t e d i t s a d m i s s i o n right t h e n and t h e r e . Indeed, had t h e c o u r t done so, t h e r e m i g h t b e some b a s i s f o r a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r had i n t e n t i o n a l l y a t t e m p t e d t o provoke a p p e l l a n t i n t o moving f o r a m i s t r i a l . The r e c o r d as i t s t a n d s , h o w e v e r , i s d e v o i d o f a n y s u c h i n t e n t by t h e p r o s e c u t o r . " 16 App. CR-09-1530 549 So. By (Ala. 2d at c o n t r a s t , i n Ex 1995), "presented due to the p a r t e A d a m s , 669 Alabama substantial the "factual, acted 536. evidence prosecutor's not legal, improperly mistrial." and Supreme that intentional questions about intentionally I n Adams, t h e Court So. Court the 2d 128, held first 132, that Adams mistrial 17 was misconduct" and whether prosecutor to the provoke raised the stated: "This case i s u n l i k e Brannon, supra, i n t h a t , here, the trial court immediately stopped the proceedings a n d d e c l a r e d a m i s t r i a l b a s e d on the prosecutor's question. T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r was p r e p a r e d t o submit p r o o f t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d e v e r made t h e s t a t e m e n t the p r o s e c u t o r asked about. T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r , i n any s u b s e q u e n t m o t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g , was p r e p a r e d t o s h o w t h a t t h e question as to the defendant's statement had a factual basis. Under these circumstances, the p r o s e c u t o r ' s a c t i o n s d u r i n g the f i r s t t r i a l c o u l d s u p p o r t an i n f e r e n c e t h a t he i n t e n d e d t o p r o v o k e a m i s t r i a l b y p r e s e n t i n g an i n f l a m m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t i n the context of a q u e s t i o n without f a c t u a l support. The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s h a s s t a t e d t h a t ' w h e r e the a p p e l l a n t ' s motion f o r m i s t r i a l i s prompted by j u d i c i a l or p r o s e c u t o r i a l e r r o r intended to provoke the m o t i o n ' or i s o t h e r w i s e prompted by bad faith a c t i o n s t a k e n b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r i n an a t t e m p t 'to harass or p r e j u d i c e the defendant, then double j e o p a r d y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s may act to bar retrial.' O l i v e r v . S t a t e , 479 So. 2 d 1 3 8 5 , 1390 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 8 5 ) , c i t i n g L e e v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 432 U.S. 2 3 , 3 3 - 3 4 , 97 S . C t . 2141, 2 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 53 L . E d . 2 d 80 (1977)." 130 first CR-09-1530 Ex parte In Adams, Ex 669 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 1 parte Taylor, 720 So. 1998), law enforcement t e s t i f i e d informant had been w e a r i n g with Taylor. Before (Ala. 2d 1054 at t r i a l a recording trial, 1995). that a device the prosecution declared existence Taylor's that motion t o dismiss court's State failed petition ruling, for a writ this to when he spoke disclose court the denied the audiotape t o After t o review the p e t i t i o n considering the t r i a l and h e l d : "The p r o s e c u t o r s t a t e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t know a b o u t the tape and t h a t she b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s d i d not t e l l her about i tbecause they d i d n o t t h i n k i t w o u l d b e u s e f u l -- ' y o u c a n ' t make o u t any v o i c e s o r w o r d s . ' J u d g e B a h a k e l , when g r a n t i n g the motion f o r a m i s t r i a l , s t a t e d , 'I don't r e a l l y fault the prosecutors i n this particular case; t h e y ' r e good a t t o r n e y s , and I t h i n k t h e y ' r e d i l i g e n t attorneys.' We a l s o n o t e t h a t c o d e f e n d a n t B r o w n ' s attorney observed, 'I tend to believe [the prosecutor] that they j u s t got t h i s tape, and i t came o u t o n t h e w i t n e s s stand without Mr. C l a r k [Taylor's counsel] and I knowing anything about [it].' T h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s a c t i o n s were 'intended t o "goad" t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t o moving f o r a m i s t r i a l . ' 18 that made o n t h e g r o u n d suppressed o f mandamus Court denied confidential The t r i a l thus b a r r i n g a r e t r i a l . App. However, a m i s t r i a l the indictments, had i n t e n t i o n a l l y a mistrial, Taylor's the of the tape t o the defense. the State invoke because Crim. had been t o l d t h i s a u d i o t a p e was o f p o o r s o u n d q u a l i t y . was (Ala. CR-09-1530 In f a c t , t h e prosecutor v i g o r o u s l y argued m i s t r i a l was n o t w a r r a n t e d i n t h i s case." 720 that a So. 2d a t 1056. Here, P e t t i b o n e has f a i l e d t o present or t o r a i s e an i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n making a motion f o r a m i s t r i a l . motion fora mistrial prosecution court the t r i a l had engaged court i n misconduct. that she t o l d this the record a c t had occurred. prosecution at absolved the may any change a minor their abuse. wrongdoing child-victim 19 through his D.S.'s testimony to this additional the t r i a l court i n presenting i n this possible that the court that chided the case, as t o P e t t i b o n e ' s between The t r i a l trial court i n v e s t i g a t e d and t h e time o f t r i a l , of sexual the on t h e d a y o f t r i a l discovered, i t i s entirely testimony his penis the t r i a l changed h e r testimony Certainly initially cases State o f D.S., subsequently abuse. i t was that the D.S. made t h e a d d i t i o n a l the defense the time of Rather, contains only Although f o rnot alerting evidence testimony the prosecution the defense's d i dnot find a l l e g a t i o n t h a t P e t t i b o n e made h e r t o u c h In addition, evidence goaded him i n t o When i t g r a n t e d f o u n d t h a t on t h e d a y o f t r i a l clothes. sufficient the who acts of child-victims time a case i s particularly i n declared a mistrial CR-09-1530 because i t stated "critical that element instruction D.S.'s of the testimony crime" would not a l l e v i a t e was p e r t i n e n t and that the prejudice a to a curative created by her testimony. In addition, defense into apparent court's making that a d i d the prosecution motion the prosecution declared mistrial, vigorously a mistrial, n o t goad t h e but opposed Once t h e t r i a l the prosecution i ti s the trial court had attempted a d d i t i o n a l argument on t h e m o t i o n , a n d t h e t r i a l prevented i t from doing so. Unlike the prosecution the p r o s e c u t i o n i n P e t t i b o n e ' s in for a declaration of a mistrial. actually present not only case presented t h e g o o d - f a i t h b e l i e f t h a t D.S. was b e i n g testimony was n o t p r e s e n t e d t o harass court i n Adams, D.S.'s testimony truthful. Pettibone to D.S.'s a n d was n o t inflammatory. Finally, allegations reasons we n o t e t h a t D.S.'s t e s t i m o n y was discussed Pettibone moving admissible i n greater argues for a mistrial additional statements that regarding at Pettibone's detail later second i n this the prosecution so t h a t the prosecution from the remaining 20 goaded t h e new trial for opinion. him could into obtain v i c t i m s B.B., K.B., CR-09-1530 a n d M.D. t o support Pettibone the has n o t p r e s e n t e d trial testimony not transcript from these supplied argument. victims trial, on mistrial. the attempt this victims. goaded record whether trial as Therefore, a mistrial was, i n f a c t , going because Pettibone for a mistrial, upon t h i s Pettibone claim. II. 21 the this these second during whether to the the a motion argument for a on t h e favorably f o r D.S.'s t e s t i m o n y a t a second i n an trial. arguments o r evidence poorly that f o r the State. d i dnot present evidence showing t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n moving as and a chance d i dnot present particular evidence was n o t p r o g r e s s i n g and t h a t t h e State presented trial this making bases contain P e t t i b o n e has but before into apparently that the statements relevant the defense Pettibone to However, any p o r t i o n s o f trial as trial are with Therefore, presented motion, to obtain first first the f i r s t Pettibone However, P e t t i b o n e the the we q u e s t i o n that the f i r s t State Court sufficient after which prosecution theory a this from three Further, made hearing a d d i t i o n a l a l l e g a t i o n s o f abuse. substantial goaded t h e defense i s not e n t i t l e d to into relief CR-09-1530 Pettibone his Batson 2 made a p r i m a and that argues court erred facie showing of r a c i a l discrimination at t r i a l failed race-neutral reasons t o veniremembers. However, t o provide o f two b l a c k conceded i n t h e t r i a l neutral reasons struck, the following Pettibone i n denying Specifically, i t s strikes Pettibone the t r i a l motion. the State support that argues that court that the State had race- f o r one o f t h e s t r i k e s . After t h e j u r y was occurred: "MR. BOLTON [ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : Y o u r H o n o r , we h a d 42 j u r o r s i n i t i a l l y . A number were s t r u c k f o r cause. We a c t u a l l y t h e n s t r u c k f r o m 3 7 . O f t h e 37 jurors, three j u r o r s were A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n . The S t a t e s t r u c k a s i t s f o u r t h s t r i k e J u r o r No. 17 who was a n A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n . The S t a t e a s i t s s e v e n t h strike struck Juror No. 24 which was an African-American. T h e d e f e n d a n t s t r u c k J u r o r No. 40 who w a s a n A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n who w a s t h e f o r m e r Baldwin County sheriff's investigator child p r o t e c t i v e worker, so f o r t h . Now, t h e S t a t e s t r u c k two o f t h e t h r e e r e m a i n i n g A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s which l e f t t h e j u r y w i t h no African-Americans. "Counsel would concede t h a t t h e s t r i k e o f Juror No. 17, t h a t t h e S t a t e probably h a d some raceneutral reasons. C o u n s e l -- b a s e d o n t h e a n s w e r s o f J u r o r No. 2 4 , ... , h e r a n s w e r s w e r e s u c h t h a t a n y s t r i k e o f h e r would have been a r a c i a l s t r i k e i n t h a t t h e r e was no r a c e - n e u t r a l r e a s o n s f o r s t r i k i n g j u r o r No. 24 a n d w o u l d move t o d i s m i s s t h e p a n e l under t h e Batson challenge. 2 Batson v. Kentucky, 4 7 6 U.S. 79 22 he (1986). CR-09-1530 "MR. SIMPSON [ p r o s e c u t o r ] : No. 1, I d o n ' t t h i n k h e ' s met t h e b u r d e n a n d t h e r e ' s t h r e e a n d he s t r u c k one o f them. I d o n ' t s e e how t h a t w o u l d s h o w me a race-neutral reason. "No. 2, w i t h r e s p e c t t o No. 2 4 , t h e r e w e r e t w o r e a s o n s why I s t r u c k h e r . She c l e a n s t h e O f f i c e o f M a t t h e w Rone and I've had a v e r y c o n t e n t i o u s case w i t h him and I d o n ' t l i k e M a t t h e w Rone and M a t t h e w R o n e d o e s n ' t l i k e me a n d we know t h a t . I know h e ' s d e f e n d e d t h e c a s e t h a t we've h a d d i l i g e n t l y . "Second, I've seen her s l e e p i n g i n the during jury s e l e c t i o n yesterday. courtroom "MR. BOLTON: She i s a c l e a n i n g p e r s o n who cleans Matthew Rone's o f f i c e . She d o e s n ' t w o r k i n h i s office. S h e ' s n o t a l e g a l -- i n v o l v e d i n a n y o f t h e legal process. She h a s a d a u g h t e r who w o r k s w i t h the court system i n Mobile. She a n s w e r e d no other q u e s t i o n s a n d I c e r t a i n l y n e v e r saw h e r s l e e p i n g . "THE COURT: O k a y . "MR. BOLTON: neutral." (R. think that reason is race- 241-243.) Here, Batson e.g., the motion trial does Davenport 1994)(trial counsel's instruction 479 Don't So. v. court's objection court's not constitute State, 653 So. "okay" to failure to an adverse 2d 1006 response of "thank you" not considered 2 d 1338 response to give 23 ruling. (Ala. Crim. See, App. f o l l o w i n g defense a an a d v e r s e r u l i n g ) ; ( A l a . C r i m . App. Pettibone's requested Seay v. 1 9 8 5 ) ( t r i a l court's jury State, response CR-09-1530 of "thank you" So. 2d "all v. 843 (trial does not no court's ruling court's App. appellate the Pettibone review." King 2d of 1991). response of 404 and Stone 1994) well" d e f e n d a n t and Thus, 502 ( A l a . C r i m . App. "very to defendant's no "Where objection there to the issue i s procedurally barred v. State, this 595 issue So. was 2d not 539, 542 from (Ala. preserved for review. motion extent can prosecution's reasons not race-neutral. C r i m . App. See to reason for He for striking 'dozing' 24 shown that veniremember were 579 not to ruling, So. 2d a veniremember during striking."). III. the failure adverse has State, fact that court's an relief. M i t c h e l l v. or trial considered 1991)("The inattentive another v a l i d t h a t the be the be So. adverse to the State, adverse r u l i n g ) ; c o n s t i t u t e an a d v e r s e r u l i n g ) . entitled to Hammond v . 1 9 8 6 ) ( t r i a l court's response i s not (Ala. ruling); c o n s t i t u t e an Moreover, to the grant App. f a i l u r e to r u l e , the appellate Crim. adverse H u n t s v i l l e , 656 o b j e c t i o n d i d not is an (Ala. Crim. right" C i t y of not the 45, 49 appears proceedings is CR-09-1530 Pettibone admitting because the a r g u e s on evidence the foundation the d i d not and because the f o r the evidence Ala. and states R. K.B. 404(b), Ala. R. pretrial failed to Evid., notice lay from a l l e g e s was initial B.B., brief. testified the As appeal proper addition, Pettibone argues Pettibone's brief on admitted. In t h i s appeal Pettibone detailed the changed t h e i r first Rule testimony reply brief discussion of Pettibone of changed section in alleges that his K.B., a l l e g a t i o n s from what trial t o what t h e y they t e s t i f i e d to trial. we t h a t the the in his section, Pettibone to d u r i n g the best a and regarding statement-of-the-facts a n d M.D. second during written is the of a improperly evidence 36-41), in D.S., Evid., there that in substantively inadmissible. (R. allegations to he In court erred t o p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e c o r d t h a t i n c l u d e a h e a r i n g on 404(b), in was trial Pettibone State evidence. i t i s unclear which evidence D.S. Rule give However, cites t h a t the in violation State evidence that appeal can discern, Pettibone appears d i f f e r e n c e s between what the first statements trial come and under 25 what the they guise to on girls testified stated of contend Rule in their 404(b) as CR-09-1530 collateral acts. (C. 4 9 - 5 6 . ) what s p e c i f i c t e s t i m o n y importantly, court. did he we to may not argue t o the t r i a l regarding pretrial D.S. and hearing. make b e c a u s e he proffer to claims identify that court, other than K.B., which (R. 3 6 - 4 1 . ) failed this not consider we w i t h Rule the Pettibone discussed seriously facts the argument (Pettibone's b r i e f Pettibone's resulted at 49.) first in a mistrial all four g i r l s to the trial as began on trial on M a r c h that occurred 3, During March 2010. address and K.B. 1, 2010, and (R. 28.) stated the a l l e g a t i o n s of a pretrial abuse On March 4, 2010, to the prosecution between Pettibone. that D.S. of 3 gave w r i t t e n statements events to Crim. i n support a r g u m e n t , o u t o f a n a b u n d a n c e o f c a u t i o n , we w i l l at a question this presented at 2 8 ( a ) , A l a . R. to allege specific trial those a l l e g a t i o n s Pettibone Although whether P e t t i b o n e has c o m p l i e d P., does n o t s h o u l d have b e e n p r o h i b i t e d , and, more failed Therefore, Y e t he s t i l l each of hearing, p r o f f e r e d by them the D.S. as and State and P e t t i b o n e a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s as to the elements of the offenses w i t h which Pettibone was c h a r g e d w e r e c o n f u s i n g b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s muddled the charged o f f e n s e s w i t h the c o l l a t e r a l a l l e g a t i o n s . We w i l l a d d r e s s t h i s a r g u m e n t a t l e n g t h l a t e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n . 3 26 CR-09-1530 K.B. had changed (R. 34.) from Specifically, Pettibone made Pettibone turned buttocks. that u s e one buttocks Pettibone was h e r as degree-sexual-abuse statute Pettibone touch 404(b), made A l a . R. E v i d . that the t r i a l pressed to The (R. 4 1 . ) h i s penis she had a l r e a d y f o r which second- incident the wherein as e v i d e n c e 404(b) touched the I t appears stated the hearing the incident use under from that evidence occurred occurred at the hearing Pettibone i n addition i n the a s t o D.S.: "MR. BOLTON [ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : W a i t a m i n u t e . They've n o t p r o v i d e d any [Rule] 404(b). They've g o t to provide 404(b) i n writing and they've not p r o v i d e d any 404(b) i n w r i t i n g . A n d , y o u know, i t ' s f i v e m i n u t e s a f t e r t e n a n d w e ' r e f i x i n g t o go t o trial. "MR. SIMPSON: He's h a d t h e s e 27 Rule the record (R. 4 1 . ) following that to her Pettibone K.B.'s s t a t e m e n t t o h e r as R u l e stated for violating h i s penis court admitted h i spenis instances trial. D.S. and trial. stated that argued during i n c i d e n t wherein charged D.S. a n d K.B. and pressed The S t a t e and k i s s e d actually t o the second h i s penis, her around (R. 3 4 , 4 1 . ) trial i n the second t r i a l her touch i t would D.S.'s the f i r s t statements. first CR-09-1530 "THE COURT: I d i s a g r e e . Yeah. I t wasn't a t t a c h e d t o a motion t h a t says here i s t h e 404(b) that we're providing but the statements were provided. The d e f e n s e maybe Mr. P e t t i b o n e i s n o t b u t h i s a t t o r n e y i s w e l l aware t h a t t h e y ' v e g o t proof of a specific instant, not a generality. "So charge the other matters would the jury instances as b a s i s consider the That's why that they be 404(b) a n d I c a n cannot f o r a conviction, actual specific use that instance the they other must alleged. -¬ "MR. BOLTON: O f c o u r s e , y o u ' r e g o i n g t o l e t t h e m both i n now. One i s 4 0 4 ( b ) - ¬ II "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . The a n s w e r I think t h e l a s t q u e s t i o n y o u s a i d was s o t h e C o u r t ' s g o i n g to a l l o w i tb o t h [ s i c ] i n ,t h e answer i s y e s . "MR. BOLTON: O k a y . W e l l , j u s t l e t me d o t h i s , we're expanding this t h i n g much f u r t h e r than I anticipated. I would make a m o t i o n under Rule 1 6 . 4 [ , A l a . R. C r i m . P.,] o f p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e d i s c o v e r y . F i r s t o f a l l , t h e s e new i t e m s h a v e b e e n p r o v i d e d , y o u know, a m o n t h b e f o r e the t r i a l which i s not s u f f i c i e n t time. " S e c o n d o f a l l , i f t h e C o u r t i s now g o i n g t o a l l o w t h e o l d i n s t a n c e s t h a t t h e S t a t e a l l e g e d and t h a t t h e g r a n d j u r y h e a r d i s now 4 0 4 ( b ) , we -¬ "THE COURT: L e t me b a c k u p , some o f i t ' s n o t 404(b). Some of i t goes directly to the s o l i c i t a t i o n [ ] charge. I f you're e v i d e n c e , I'm n o t s u r e -4 about o l d The t r i a l c o u r t e r r a n t l y r e f e r s t o t h e enticement s o l i c i t a t i o n charges. 4 as talking 28 charges CR-09-1530 "MR. BOLTON: s e x u a l abuse. "THE - the o l d incident of the alleged COURT: O k a y . That's -¬ "MR. BOLTON: The o l d a l l e g a t i o n s o f w h a t t h e y argued t o the j u r y l a s t time i s these are the e v i d e n c e o f s e x u a l abuse. "THE COURT: S i n c e i t wasn't s e t out i n the indictment, I d o n ' t know w h a t t h e o l d i n d i c t m e n t was. "MR. BOLTON: W h a t t h e y a r g u e d t o t h e j u r y t h e l a s t time. I m e a n , y o u know, Y o u r H o n o r w a s h e r e with us. "MR. S I M P S O N : W e ' r e n o t r e q u i r e d t o make t h e same a r g u m e n t t o t h e j u r y n o m o r e t h a n M r . B o l t o n is. "MR. BOLTON: Well, the thing i s I made a s p e c i f i c m o t i o n f o r 4 0 4 ( b ) m a t e r i a l , a n d when t h e y got t h i s s t u f f , i f they intended back i n March t o s a y , o k a y , w e ' r e now g o i n g t o c h a n g e w h a t we s a y i s t h e b a s i s o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t t o t h e new s t u f f a n d t h e o l d i n f o r m a t i o n i s g o i n g t o be 4 0 4 ( b ) , 404(b) i n t h e Alabama Rules o f Evidence says t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r in a c r i m i n a l case s h a l l provide reasonable notice i n advance o f t r i a l . "Now, w e ' r e t a l k i n g a b o u t j u s t a m a t t e r o f h o u r s a n d I r e a l i z e t h a t t h e y g a v e me t h e new s t u f f b u t there's nothing s i n c e M a r c h 4 when t h e y g e t t h e s t u f f t h a t t h e y ' r e now g o i n g t o t a k e , q u o t e , t h e o l d incidents that the grand j u r y heard i s the basis f o r t h e i n d i c t m e n t s a n d now make t h a t 4 0 4 ( b ) a n d u s e i t all. "And t h a t c e r t a i n l y i s n o t i n a d v a n c e o f -- n o t reasonable n o t i c e i n advance o f t r i a l , and I would a s k u n d e r R u l e 16.4 t h a t Y o u r H o n o r n o t a l l o w t h a t 29 CR-09-1530 to happen but to grant a protective order in v i o l a t i o n o f t h e d i s c o v e r y r u l e s w h i c h Your Honor h a s g r a n t e d a n d n o t a l l o w t h e m t o now j u s t m u l t i p l y t h i s case by t a k i n g the o l d i n s t a n c e s making i t 404 (b) a n d t h e new i n s t a n c e s w h i c h i s now t h e b a s i s of the indictments which i s o b v i o u s l y not true since the grand j u r y never heard i t . II "THE COURT: . . . . t h e f o u n d a t i o n a l b a s i s o f t h e charge cause the charge t h a t the grand j u r y i n d i c t e d on was I'm g o i n g t o u s e g e n e r i c t e r m s -- t h e t o u c h i n g o f t h e r e a r e n d . Am I n o t c o r r e c t ? That was t h e b a s i s a s t o t w o o f t h e g i r l s . The b a s i s o f t h e s e x u a l a b u s e c h a r g e was t h e t o u c h i n g by the defendant of the g i r l s ' bottom. "MR. SIMPSON: T h a t was o n l y [D.S.] who t e s t i f i e d . one g i r l . T h a t was II "MR. S I M P S O N : O k a y . To r e s o l v e t h i s i s s u e , t h e S t a t e w i l l go f o r w a r d u n d e r t h e t o u c h i n g o f t h e b u t t a s s e x u a l a b u s e t h a t was g i v e n t o t h e g r a n d j u r y a n d t h e S t a t e w o u l d o f f e r t h e t o u c h i n g o f t h e p e n i s as 404(b). II "MR. (R. 35-41.) Rule SIMPSON: A s t o [D.S.]." 5 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. E v i d , states: P e t t i b o n e r e n e w e d h i s o b j e c t i o n s a s t o K.B. a n d D.S.'s a d d i t i o n a l testimony a t the time each g i r l presented her testimony. (R. 5 7 4 , 6 2 5 . ) 5 30 CR-09-1530 "Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts i s not a d m i s s i b l e to prove the c h a r a c t e r of the person i n o r d e r t o show a c t i o n i n c o n f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h . It may, h o w e v e r , be a d m i s s i b l e f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s , s u c h as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, p r e p a r a t i o n , p l a n , knowledge, i d e n t i t y , or absence of m i s t a k e or a c c i d e n t , p r o v i d e d t h a t upon request by the a c c u s e d , the p r o s e c u t i o n i n a c r i m i n a l case s h a l l p r o v i d e reasonable n o t i c e i n advance of t r i a l , or d u r i n g t r i a l i f the court excuses p r e t r i a l n o t i c e on g o o d c a u s e s h o w n , o f t h e g e n e r a l n a t u r e o f any such evidence i t intends to introduce at t r i a l . " A. Here, Pettibone allegations mistrial March prosecution, date that act as to second t r i a l of a l l the Further, been aware date that the 3, 2010. d e f e n s e , and D.S. additional adequate had from the on had of abuse on had March is her. Defense 31, hearing and Pettibone has shown clear had that counsel time (R. to for t r i a l 641, that he suffered i n responding 31 to was at C. the 49-56.) the 27, on May trial 2010, 3, any the an statements present that occurred this notice stated a the committed m o t i o n i n l i m i n e on A p r i l difficulty her resulted in Therefore, 2010. sufficient a pretrial any trial changed defense r e c e i v e d the w r i t t e n a pretrial experienced first Pettibone against court with not D.S. c o u r t a l l b e c a m e a w a r e on that victim. t h a t the Pettibone trial that record The stated this victims Notice for 2010. prejudice or evidence the CR-09-1530 State presented received over defense abuse i n the a month received that v i c t i m s ' w r i t t e n statements, before adequate were trial notice admitted as began. of Rule the which Therefore, additional 404(b), Ala. the acts R. he of Evid., evidence. B. Ordinarily, admissible. bad The in general conformity f o r w h i c h he rule collateral rule was with being i s that admissible absence Evid. for of "Motive leads v. bad a c t s would not evidence of 1988)(internal or So. citations on character such plan, accident." as 'an evidence as the 1226, occasion Evid. "may, of 1235 crime (Ala. motive, identity, 404(b), or The however, proof inducement, or commit the 2d defendant knowledge, Rule Ala. that R. which charged.'" Crim. omitted). "Evidence tending to e s t a b l i s h motive i s always admissible. P e r k i n s v . S t a t e , 808 So. 2 d 1 0 4 1 , 1084 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 808 So. 2 d 1143 (Ala. 32 be collateral R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. m i n d t o do 538 character purposes, i s defined State, bad preparation, mistake or tempts the Bowden that other intent, that tried. further provides opportunity, or evidence of acts or crimes i s i n a d m i s s i b l e to prove t h a t the acted be Admissibility App. CR-09-1530 2001), L. E d . Irvin v. v a c a t e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 536 U.S. 2 d 8 3 0 , 122 S. C t . 2 6 5 3 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . " State, 940 So. 2d 331, 350 953, (Ala. Crim. 153 App. 2005). "'In determining whether evidence concerning a collateral act of sexual abuse i s a d m i s s i b l e t o prove motive, we must c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s : (1) the offense(s) charged; (2) the circumstances surrounding the o f f e n s e ( s ) c h a r g e d a n d t h e c o l l a t e r a l o f f e n s e ( s ) ; (3) the other c o l l a t e r a l evidence o f f e r e d at trial, and (4) t h e o t h e r p u r p o s e ( s ) for which i t i s o f f e r e d . ' " C a m p b e l l v. S t a t e , 718 So. 2d 123, 130 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997), q u o t i n g B o w d e n v . S t a t e , 538 S o . 2 d 1226, 1237 ( A l a . 1988).' " E s t e s v. S t a t e , App. 1999)." Garner v. State, "[I]t misconduct order App. v. 2001), C r i m . App. i s well need City 1991). This a So. not 206, 533, 537 that a 2d match of 2d v. and Court (Ala. Crim. collateral has s c h o o l employee App. act sexual a c t t o be a d m i s s i b l e . " v. 587 charged of 2007). the 830 So. 2d State, 745 So. Ex p a r t e R e g i s t e r , State, (Ala. Crim. collateral the Smith 210-11 precisely of P r a t t v i l l e , 1998), J.D.S. So. settled citing 1994); where 977 f o r evidence Proctor 776 So. previously i s the 33 2d 38, 680 1249 held offense 42 2d (Ala. Crim. 284, So. 290 (Ala. 2 d 225 (Ala. (Ala. Crim. that in in some App. cases sexual offender, evidence of CR-09-1530 collateral student sexual are Crim. See C a m p b e l l v. and Proctor, charged with three counts to they had two are count four counts the time and the scorekeepers K.B. and where abuse f o r the text at messages, school. t h a t he messages. Pettibone the -- school either D.S. with he was occurred. athletic one and So. 2d circumstances collateral are not abused, seventh Both offenses only similar, solicited, different teacher. girls D.S. calls, Pettibone girls K.B. Pettibone lure the the classroom 34 told numbers girls or to the e i g h t h grade and and/or and at A l l four or 123 sexual notes at were began communicated w i t h a l l four them u s i n g would a abuse second-degree The department. telephone his -- four i n the Further, loved of of second-degree the Pettibone were e i t h e r f r i e n d s h i p w i t h each g i r l victims c h a r g e d and relationships school were w h i t e them attempted nearly identical. same m i d d l e using of cases S t a t e , 718 of e n t i c i n g a c h i l d . offenses v i c t i m s -- improper the one in to supra. 1997), motive statements students. App. surrounding as sexual prove abuse, abuse, and and/or to P e t t i b o n e was sexual with admissible against other (Ala. acts a girls he gave several of "1-2-3" in text empty athletic the rooms in offices -- CR-09-1530 w h e r e he would B.B.'s c a s e . Pettibone his t h e m on Specifically, touching penis. breasts kiss K.B. and buttocks. her the mouth or D.S. buttocks, Pettibone evidence was cheek, as in he also pressed her i n a d d i t i o n to also pressed admissible hand touching his penis her her Pettibone's F i n a l l y , because evidence of motive i s always admissible, for s e x u a l l y abusing the State for the was not required evidence. See Therefore, we cannot discretion in admitting young to that the girls. establish Bowden, say to to to show motive This the t e s t i f i e d that i n addition to t e s t i f i e d that buttocks, on a proper supra, the and trial foundation Perkins, court supra. abused its evidence. IV. Pettibone into evidence associated proper the to that or the trial cell-phone victims' Pettibone predicate According Ala. his with Specifically, not argues to Pettibone, or court records their the Evid. Pettibone's the records cell phones. State phone r e c o r d s principal 35 and are exception argument admitting f a i l e d to lay authenticate f a l l w i t h i n the b u s i n e s s - r e c o r d s R. in parents' argues t h a t the properly erred the a records. hearsay and of Rule 803(6), appears to do be CR-09-1530 that Lindsey service to families, result were Stewart, a n e m p l o y e e o f AT&T, who s u p p l i e d Pettibone and three was n o t q u a l i f i e d could not properly admitted of as a records authenticate as e v i d e n c e t e s t i f i e d to the following. AT&T include billing taking questions difficulties with phone and that that f o rthe purposes that i s the southeastern Pettibone State's Exhibits evidence: 22C, of Springs, records to the admission a t the time that they that Mississippi, testifying trial. have technical testified testifying of this who at a as trials. records Stewart f o r At&T testified f o r the center. of the following were offered into 1 6 , 1 7 A , 1 7 B , 1 7 C , 17D, 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 1 , 2 2 A , 2 2 B , a n d and 28. things, was customers Stewart o f AT&T's c o m p l i a n c e objected that f o r AT&T, a n d s h e customers' includes custodian division from i n Oceans she custodian she calls of her duties affirmed manager telephones. w o r k s i n a n AT&T o f f i c e Stewart and as a t h e phone r e c o r d s handling she part custodian their Stewart t e s t i f i e d that her duties and their and at trial. S t e w a r t was a c u s t o m e r - s e r v i c e at the victims phone call State's records Exhibit 28 contained, AT&T c o m p i l e d f o r t h i s 36 trial among other i n a compact CR-09-1530 disc ("CD") printed format. out telephone The records moved t o e x c l u d e the records was a file marked January code not with 9, 2 0 0 9 . prepare review presence that court that from evidence. o f "527455" State Pettibone CD. the also (R. 3 2 0 . ) contained o n t h e CD b e f o r e conducted a T h e CD a n d was c r e a t e d E x h i b i t 17A was m a r k e d w i t h the information trial from reflects same a s E x h i b i t 2 8 . the information The code State's o f "527455," record However, a on file Stewart d i d o n t h e CD a n d d i d n o t trial. hearing outside of the of the j u r y at which the f o l l o w i n g t r a n s p i r e d : "THE COURT: H e r e ' s my p r o b l e m , [prosecutor], y o u ' v e g o t a w i t n e s s n o o f f e n s e t o w h a t I'm a b o u t to s a y b u t you've g o t a w i t n e s s t h a t i s t e s t i f y i n g as c u s t o d i a n o f r e c o r d s t h a t s h e h a s s a i d u n t i l s h e g o t on t h e s t a n d s h e ' s n e v e r l o o k e d a t b e f o r e . "So, one, she's never c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e d i t t o w h a t AT&T h a s , s h e h a s n ' t c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e d t o w h a t t h e CD t h a t s h e r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e y s e n d i n h a s o r compared i t t o t h e w r i t t e n documents. So I'm n o t real sure why s h e ' s here which i s probably a q u e s t i o n she's a s k i n g as w e l l . "MR. S I M P S O N : Y o u r H o n o r , we c a l l e d AT&T. We subpoenaed t h e records f r o m AT&T. I t i s their standard p r a c t i c e t o send -- r a t h e r than send s o m e b o d y f r o m -- a t t h e i r home b a s e , t h e y h a v e a regional service center. That's where she i s . T h a t ' s what she does. A n d t h e y s e n d somebody w i t h the regional service center with the records. T h a t ' s what she t a l k s about. That's her job-- 37 CR-09-1530 "THE COURT: .... I d o n ' t c a r e how b i g AT&T i s . There a r e c e r t a i n requirements under t h e Rules o f Evidence t h a t must be met a n d y o u c a n ' t do i t d i f f e r e n t j u s t b e c a u s e t h e company i s s o b i g t h e y don't want t o send somebody up h e r e t o t e s t i f y t o it " I mean, t h e r e a r e from what I see t h a t you're trying to introduce, I think there are numerous ways t o do i t b u t p u t t i n g somebody on t h e s t a n d t h a t d o e s n ' t know a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e r e c o r d s o r i d e n t i f i e d t h e CD o r c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e d i t t o t h e p a p e r i s n o t one o f t h e ways t o do i t . "MR. required SIMPSON: o f your Your Honor w i l l , Firsthand knowledge i s not authenticating witnesses, under Gamble's R u l e s "THE COURT: F o r a c u s t o d i a n "MR. SIMPSON: F o r a c u s t o d i a n and of Evidence i f -¬ of records. of records. " "THE WITNESS: ....AT&T a s k e d me t o b e t h e custodian of records today to verify that these records a r e t r u e AT&T d o c u m e n t s , t h a t t h e y a r e b i l l e d f r o m AT&T. I have n o t l o o k e d through these records l i n e - f o r - l i n e " those "THE WITNESS: those a r e o u r documents and a r e o u r C D ' s , t h e w a y we c o m p i l e r e c o r d s . " "THE WITNESS: I i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e CD "THE COURT: Y o u ' v e haven't looked CD? 38 looked a t the cover at the of the CR-09-1530 "THE W I T N E S S : Y e s . T h a t i s a n AT&T -¬ "MR. S I M P S O N : S h e s e e s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e d o c u m e n t s t h e m s e l v e s a r e AT&T d o c u m e n t s . T h e y h a v e AT&T o n t h e t o p h e r e . She's a b l e t o t a l k about t h a t ' s t h e r e c o r d o n t h e CD. That's that record number. She's a b l e to identify these a r e AT&T records II "THE COURT: A n d y o u a r e c o n f i d e n t t h a t those records o r a r e you not c o n f i d e n t that those records t h a t you j u s t l o o k e d a t a p p l y t o t h o s e phone numbers and t h e d a t e s t h a t a r e l i s t e d on t h a t document. "THE W I T N E S S : Y e s . I'm c o n f i d e n t t h o s e records f o rthe dates that they s t a t e . " (R. 327-32.) The d e t e r m i n a t i o n within the t r i a l not be d i s t u r b e d discretion. the t r i a l of the admissibility court's discretion, except upon a c l e a r court, of evidence and t h a t d i s c r e t i o n showing S e e , e . g . , Woods v . S t a t e , Crim. App. 2007). in a r e AT&T rests will o f an abuse o f 13 S o . 3 d 1 Furthermore, as t h e p r o s e c u t i o n Professor (Ala. says: Gamble alluded to " L i k e any o t h e r document, a b u s i n e s s r e c o r d must be a u t h e n t i c a t e d . T h i s means t h a t a f o u n d a t i o n must be established, as a condition precedent to a d m i s s i b i l i t y , with s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m a t t e r i n q u e s t i o n i s what i t s proponent claims. I f t h e document i s c l a i m e d t o be a record of the First National Bank then a f o u n d a t i o n m u s t b e e s t a b l i s h e d t o show t h a t i t i s such. The p a r t y o f f e r i n g t h e b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s h o u l d 39 CR-09-1530 be alert t o t h e f a c t t h a t a v a i l a b l e methods o f a u t h e n t i c a t i o n may l i e u n d e r t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f Evidence, statute, or other rule of court. Unless one o f t h e s e s o u r c e s g r a n t s s e l f - a u t h e n t i c a t i o n f o r certified copies, the proper method for authenticating a business record i s v i a the t e s t i m o n y o f an i n - c o u r t w i t n e s s . Consistent with t h i s g e n e r a l a u t h o r i t y , i f one o f f e r s a document under Rule 803(6) then the proper method of a u t h e n t i c a t i o n , as w e l l as s a t i s f y i n g t h e elements o f s h o w i n g i t t o be a b u s i n e s s r e c o r d , i s t h r o u g h the testimony of a shepherding w i t n e s s . There i s not a requirement t h a t such a shepherding w i t n e s s have f i r s t h a n d knowledge o f t h e m a t t e r s r e c o r d e d . Indeed, the witness may n o t have even been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the business a t t h e time that the r e c o r d w a s made. However, t h e w i t n e s s must be e i t h e r t h e c u s t o d i a n o r o n e who k n o w s w h e t h e r i t w a s t h e r e g u l a r p r a c t i c e o f t h e b u s i n e s s t o make s u c h a r e c o r d a n d w h e t h e r t h e r e c o r d was k e p t i n t h e c o u r s e of r e g u l a r l y conducted b u s i n e s s . " Charles Evidence W. Gamble and Robert § 254.01(3) J . Goodwin, McElroy's a t 1540 ( 6 t h e d . 2 0 0 9 ) . As f o r P e t t i b o n e ' s c h a l l e n g e t o S t e w a r t ' s "[t]here the i s no r e q u i r e m e n t that the 803(6), qualifications, t h a t t h e a u t h e n t i c a t i n g w i t n e s s be c u s t o d i a n , e n t r a n t , o r maker Comments t o R u l e Alabama of the record." A l a . R. E v i d . Committee Stewart's testimony s h e i s a c u s t o m e r - s e r v i c e m a n a g e r a t AT&T w i t h a c c e s s t o records and that s h e was a b l e t o v e r i f y b e l o n g t o AT&T w a s s u f f i c i e n t to establish "qualified Rule witness" under 40 803(6), that the records t h a t S t e w a r t was a A l a . R. Evid. CR-09-1530 (identifying as an exception to the hearsay rule "[a] memorandum, r e p o r t , r e c o r d , , o r d a t a c o m p i l a t i o n , i n a n y f o r m , of acts, events, or near the time person with conducted by, o r from of that record, activity, business or data testimony of (emphasis i n the course and i f i t was activity t o make compilation, positively based custodian or of the regular t h e memorandum, a l l as other regularly shown on h e r e x p e r i e n c e identified that 17A, (State's Exhibits those records) which was p u r c h a s e d qualified by the added)). First, the made a t i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s m i t t e d by, a knowledge, i f kept business practice report, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, working the telephone a t AT&T, records 1 7 B , 1 7 C , a n d 17D w e r e the telephone records by h e r parents AT&T a n d w e r e AT&T r e c o r d s . f o r B.B.'s Stewart i n State's portions of cell A . B . a n d D.B., (R. 2 9 9 . ) witness" phone, were In addition, from Stewart identified S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t s 1 6 , 1 8 , a n d 20 a s P e t t i b o n e ' s AT&T records. (R. 3 0 7 , 3 0 8 , 3 1 3 . ) Exhibit mother. State 21 as a n AT&T (R. 3 0 9 . ) presented cell billing Stewart statement In State's Exhibit phone records 41 identified f o r S.B., State's K.B.'s 22A, 22B, a n d 22C, t h e f o r M.W., M.D.'s m o t h e r , CR-09-1530 and Stewart 311.) identified This records, these testimony was records a s AT&T sufficient i . e . , " t o support a records. (R. to authenticate the finding that q u e s t i o n i s what i t s p r o p o n e n t c l a i m s . " Rule the matter i n 9 0 1 ( a ) , A l a . R. Evid. S e c o n d , S t e w a r t t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e c o r d s i n S t a t e ' s 17A w e r e made i n t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e o f A T & T ' s b u s i n e s s a n d t h a t i t was AT&T's r e g u l a r We conclude establish records rule. that parents testimony predicate records. was (R. 2 9 9 . ) sufficient f o r admission to o f t h e AT&T the business-records exception t o the hearsay See R u l e listed specifically t o make s u c h Stewart's the proper under records practice 8 0 3 ( 6 ) , A l a . R. E v i d . above may for trial through their have or by AT&T Finally, been although the produced the victims by or the cell-phone accounts, § AT&T victims' 12-21-43, Ala. Code 1 9 7 5 , d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e maker o f t h e r e c o r d s have personal personal evidence. 777 knowledge knowledge goes of the records. t o the weight Rather, of a lack of the records as See a l s o C a l c a n o v . C a l c a n o , 257 C o n n . 2 3 0 , 2 4 1 - 4 2 , A . 2 d 6 3 3 , 641 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( " T o require the defendant t o produce a w i t n e s s t h a t c o u l d t e s t i f y from p e r s o n a l knowledge as t o t h e 42 CR-09-1530 s p e c i f i c t i m e t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r d o c u m e n t w a s made w o u l d u n d u l y constrain the use of the business People v. A b e l s o n , 369 to State, 790 underlying So. probability 2d of dates 361 behind documents recorded). [Rule because documents made See D o w d e l l App. of Rptr. were 803(6)] the earmark trustworthiness, i n and 2000)("The exception i s reliability they v. reflect or the o f t h e e n t e r p r i s e and a r e r e l i e d upon i n conduct of b u s i n e s s . " ) . Finally, contacted a l l the them u s i n g victims their cell this e v i d e n c e was c u m u l a t i v e . the trial court evidence the parents, and authenticated, the 1 6 , 164 C a l . ( A l a .Crim. this have exception."), contained the the event 359, records day-to-day operations the the that with rationale business on show contemporaneously that 104 C a l . A p p . 3 d S u p p . (1980)(relying themselves records abused telephone testified phones; hence, Therefore, i t sdiscretion records f o r Pettibone and t h e State l a i d records. V. 43 Pettibone admission we c a n n o t they victims, were of say that i n admitting f o r three because that into their properly an a p p r o p r i a t e p r e d i c a t e f o r CR-09-1530 Pettibone testimony from Robertsdale Miranda 6 argues that Rex Police the State Bishop, Department, s i l e n c e and t h a t an erroneously investigator regarding the testimony elicited with Pettibone's the post- created ineradicable error. At trial, the following occurred: "Q. [Prosecutor:] When you a r r e s t e d P e t t i b o n e , d i d you a t t e m p t t o i n t e r v i e w him? "A. [Bishop:] interviewed." I was t o l d Mr. he d i d n o t want t o be (R. 5 2 7 . ) Defense instruction not to counsel objected to the jury testify. The and requested on P e t t i b o n e ' s trial court an immediate constitutional gave the right following instruction: "THE COURT: L a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , y o u a r e n o t t o d r a w a n y i n f e r e n c e w h a t s o e v e r -- w e l l , l e t me b a c k up. A n y t i m e s o m e o n e may b e a c c u s e d o f a c r i m e , t h e y h a v e t h e r i g h t u n d e r t h e F i f t h Amendment t o t h e Constitution not t o discuss i t , especially with s o m e o n e t h a t i s -- t h a t i s i n v e s t i g a t i n g i t o r y o u [ p e r c e i v e ] t o be on t h e o t h e r s i d e . "The f a c t t h a t Mr. P e t t i b o n e a d v i s e d either d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y t h e o f f i c e r t h a t he d i d n o t wish to talk t o him i s simply invoking h i s 6 M i r a n d a v. A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. 4 3 6 44 (1966). CR-09-1530 c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t n o t t o do t h a t a t t h a t t i m e a n d you a r e n o t t o draw any inference whatsoever -¬ c e r t a i n l y you a r e n o t t o draw any t y p e o f negative inference f r o m t h a t b e c a u s e t h a t i s an absolute c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t h a t he has." (R. 530.) Pettibone instructed the Initially, did the we court instruction. note that Ragsdale gave It defense is State, v. 895 State, Because Pettibone on t h e ruling, nothing and Moreover, States post-arrest, accused (Ala. in at counsel incumbent an the trial court did not receive So. 2d 376 So. 448 2d r i g h t not for this Doyle v. Supreme See 442 (Ala. only relief to t e s t i f y Court Ohio, Court 1980)(recognizing Ex parte that counsel (Ala. Crim. limiting to -- App. Crim. he obtain App. there U.S. held that not Harris, be 387 610 1984). -- an adverse (1976), an So. the accused's used against i t i s "fundamentally 45 and review. 426 i s no an See 2004); requested to p o s t - M i r a n d a s i l e n c e may trial. objection, i t s requested upon an Investigator Bishop's issue f o r a p p e l l a t e review. r e c e i v e d the instruction United Pettibone issue regarding adverse r u l i n g to preserve v. after because i n response to defense counsel's trial Jones object jury. a d v e r s e r u l i n g as t o any testimony not 2d 868, unfair the 871 and CR-09-1530 in violation o f due p r o c e s s o f l a w t o i n f o r m a p e r s o n a r r e s t t h a t he h a s a r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t inference of g u i l t from t h a t under and t h e n p e r m i t an silence"). " I n G r e e r v . M i l l e r , 4 8 3 U.S. 7 5 6 , 107 S . C t . 3102, 97 L . E d . 2 d 618 (1987), the U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' c l a r i f i e d t h a t " t h e h o l d i n g o f [ D o y l e 4 2 6 U.S. 610 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , ] i s t h a t t h e Due v .- O h i o , Clause bars 'the use f o r impeachment Pr o c e s s purposes' of a defendant's post-arrest silence."' U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S t u b b s , 944 F . 2 d 8 2 8 , 834 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) , q u o t i n g G r e e r , 4 8 3 U.S. a t 7 6 3 , 107 S . C t . a t 3 1 0 8 , i n t u r n q u o t i n g D o y l e , 4 2 6 U.S. a t 6 1 9 , 96 S.Ct. a t 2245. Furthermore, '[w]hile a single comment a l o n e may sometimes constitute a Doyle violation, t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n Greer makes clear that a single mention does not automatically s u f f i c e t o v i o l a t e defendant's rights when t h e government does not s p e c i f i c a l l y and e x p r e s s l y a t t e m p t t o u s e -- a s w a s a t t e m p t e d i n D o y l e a n d G r e e r -- t h e i m p r o p e r comment t o i m p e a c h the d e f e n d a n t . S e e L i n d g r e n v . L a n e , 925 F . 2 d 1 9 8 , 201 (7th C i r . 1991).' S t u b b s , 944 F . 2 d a t 8 3 5 . (Emphasis i n o r i g i n a l . ) " Wilkerson v. State, 686 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 7 2 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). The no record further trial. mention of Additionally, indication that attempt[ed] Miller, on a p p e a l i n d i c a t e s 483 U.S. 756 t h e p r o s e c u t o r made Pettibone's post-Miranda the record the prosecution t o use that does not "specifically silence contain and at any expressly a s was a t t e m p t e d i n D o y l e a n d G r e e r [ v . (1987)] 46 -- the improper comment to CR-09-1530 impeach t h e defendant." these reasons, constitute silence an Investigator improper f o r purposes Furthermore, curative trial court's Bishop's comment on testimony Pettibone's the trial court and j u r o r s instructions. against error provided when an a r e presumed "There i s i n the best position remarks a r e so p r e j u d i c i a l State, 581 So. 2 d 5 6 2 , 565 omitted). i s the t r i a l immediate to follow the a prima court cure the effects Wells v. S t a t e , Further, impress 2d (Ala. Crim. of p r e j u d i c i a l upon the 'trial the jury that improper i n their o f such remarks 8 6 2 , 867 1997). 47 v. 1991)(citations made b e f o r e a (Ala. Crim. court acts (Ala. App. jury." 1993). promptly to [ q u e s t i o n s ] a r e t o be deliberations, a r e removed." ( A l a . Crim. App. Morton i n s t r u c t i o n i s deemed t o remarks ... trial improper 516 So. 2 d 8 8 2 , 886 619 S o . 2 d 2 2 8 , 230 b y them The whether App. facie immediately as t o be i n e r a d i c a b l e . " "A p r o p e r l i m i t i n g "[w]here disregarded effects t o determine See a l s o Brown v . S t a t e , C r i m . App. 1987). d i d not post-arrest charges the j u r y t o d i s r e g a r d t h e improper remarks. court For of Doyle. instruction, presumption W i l k e r s o n , 686 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 7 2 . the p r e j u d i c i a l Reed v. S t a t e , 717 S o . CR-09-1530 To the extent the trial not object court nor court to the curative immediately precluded after challenges instruction the t r i a l reviewing given by the gives a that given court Pettibone d i d by the court. of this court i s the curative See L a u d e r d a l e App. 1989) ( h o l d i n g curative instruction f u r t h e r o b j e c t i o n i s made b y t h e a p p e l l a n t , t h e r e for this court trial gave t h e i n s t r u c t i o n adequacy ( A l a . Crim. court the instruction Therefore, the t r i a l 555 So. 2 d 799 the t r i a l we n o t e for a mistrial. from instruction where Pettibone gave t o t h e j u r y , d i d h e move State, that v. that, a n d no i s no e r r o r to review). VI. Next, Pettibone evidence. a Pettibone judgment evidence, of presented acquittal at the close sentencing. Initially, challenges (R. we n o t e below 691-695, Pettibone c o n v i c t i o n he f o reach at the close of the of a l l of the evidence, c o n v i c t i o n s as t o each v i c t i m . particular sufficiency the h i s arguments i n a motion f o r made 636-644, that the Sentencing State's and R. does n o t c h a l l e n g e after 4-12.) a l l the However, each argument f o r t h e does victim. 48 challenge will be set forth CR-09-1530 "With respect t o the s u f f i c i e n c y - o f - t h e - e v i d e n c e claim, i t i s well settled that '"[i]n determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a c o n v i c t i o n , a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t must a c c e p t as t r u e a l l evidence i n t r o d u c e d by the S t a t e , accord the State a l l legitimate inferences therefrom, and c o n s i d e r a l l e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the p r o s e c u t i o n . " ' B a l l e n g e r v . S t a t e , 720 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 3 , 1034 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) , q u o t i n g F a i r c l o t h v. S t a t e , 4 7 1 S o . 2 d 4 8 5 , 488 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 4 ) , a f f ' d , 4 7 1 S o . 2 d 493 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . '"The t e s t used i n determining the s u f f i c i e n c y of evidence to s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n i s whether, viewing the evidence i n the light most favorable to the p r o s e c u t i o n , a r a t i o n a l f i n d e r o f f a c t c o u l d have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."' N u n n v . S t a t e , 697 S o . 2 d 4 9 7 , 498 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g O ' N e a l v . S t a t e , 602 S o . 2 d 4 6 2 , 464 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) . '"When t h e r e i s l e g a l e v i d e n c e from which t h e j u r y c o u l d , by f a i r inference, find the defendant g u i l t y , the trial c o u r t s h o u l d submit [the case] t o the j u r y , and, i n such a case, t h i s court w i l l not d i s t u r b the t r i a l court's decision."' F a r r i o r v . S t a t e , 728 S o . 2 d 691, 696 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) , q u o t i n g W a r d v . S t a t e , 557 S o . 2 d 8 4 8 , 850 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) . 'The r o l e o f a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s i s n o t t o s a y w h a t t h e facts are. O u r r o l e ... i s t o j u d g e w h e t h e r t h e evidence i s l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t to allow submission o f an i s s u e f o r d e c i s i o n [by] t h e j u r y . ' Bankston v . S t a t e , 358 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 0 , 1 0 4 2 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . " Williams v. State, 10 So. 3d 1083, 1086 ( A l a . Crim. 2008). "'Circumstantial evidence i s not i n f e r i o r evidence, and i t w i l l be g i v e n t h e same w e i g h t a s direct evidence, i f i t , along with the other evidence, i s susceptible of a reasonable inference pointing unequivocally to the defendant's g u i l t . Ward v. S t a t e , 557 S o . 2 d 848 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) . In 49 App. CR-09-1530 r e v i e w i n g a c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t on c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , t h e t e s t t o be a p p l i e d i s whether t h e j u r y might reasonably f i n d that t h e evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except t h a t o f g u i l t ; n o t whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis b u t g u i l t , b u t whether a j u r y might reasonably so conclude. Cumbo v . S t a t e , 368 S o . 2 d 871 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 7 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 3 6 8 S o . 2 d 877 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . ' " Lockhart v. 1997)(quoting Crim. State, 715 So. Ward v. S t a t e , 2d 895, 899 (Ala. Crim. App. 610 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 1 - 9 2 ( A l a . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ) . " ' " I n t e n t , ... b e i n g a s t a t e o r c o n d i t i o n o f t h e mind, i s r a r e l y , i f ever, s u s c e p t i b l e o f d i r e c t o r p o s i t i v e p r o o f , a n d must u s u a l l y be i n f e r r e d from the facts testified t o by witnesses and t h e circumstances as developed by the evidence."' S e a t o n v . S t a t e , 645 S o . 2 d 3 4 1 , 3 4 3 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 4 ) ( q u o t i n g M c C o r d v . S t a t e , 501 So. 2d 5 2 0 , 528-29 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 6 ) ) . I n t e n t '"'may b e i n f e r r e d from t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e a s s a u l t , t h e use of a deadly weapon and other attendant circumstances.'"' F a r r i o r v . S t a t e , 728 S o . 2 d 6 9 1 , 695 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) ( q u o t i n g J o n e s v . S t a t e , 591 S o . 2 d 5 6 9 , 574 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n , J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 390 So. 2 d 1 1 6 0 , 1167 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)). '"The i n t e n t of a defendant a t t h e time o f t h e offense i s a j u r y question."' C.G. v . S t a t e , 841 So. 2 d 2 8 1 , 291 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2001) ( q u o t i n g Downing v. S t a t e , 620 S o . 2 d 9 8 3 , 985 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) ) . " Dickey In v. S t a t e , this following 9 0 1 S o . 2 d 7 5 0 , 754 case, (Ala. Crim. P e t t i b o n e was c o n v i c t e d statutes: 50 App. 2004). of violating the CR-09-1530 Section pertinent in 13A-6-67, A l a . Code 1975, which provides, in part: "(a) A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f s e x u a l the second degree i f : abuse " " ( 2 ) He, b e i n g 19 y e a r s o l d o r o l d e r , subjects another person to sexual contact who i s l e s s t h a n 16 y e a r s o l d , b u t m o r e t h a n 12 y e a r s o l d . " Section pertinent 13A-4-2, A l a . Code 1975, provides i n part: "(a) A p e r s o n i s g u i l t y o f an a t t e m p t t o commit a c r i m e i f , w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o commit a specific offense, he does any overt act towards the commission of such o f f e n s e . " Section pertinent 13A-6-69, A l a . Code 1975, which provides, in part: "(a) I t s h a l l be u n l a w f u l f o r any p e r s o n w i t h lascivious intent to entice, allure, persuade or i n v i t e , or attempt to e n t i c e , a l l u r e , persuade or i n v i t e , a n y c h i l d u n d e r 16 y e a r s o f a g e t o e n t e r a n y v e h i c l e , room, h o u s e , o f f i c e o r o t h e r p l a c e f o r t h e purpose of p r o p o s i n g to such c h i l d the performance of an a c t o f s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e o r an a c t w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e s t h e o f f e n s e o f sodomy o r f o r t h e p u r p o s e of p r o p o s i n g the f o n d l i n g or f e e l i n g of the s e x u a l or g e n i t a l p a r t s of such c h i l d or the b r e a s t of such child, or for the purpose of committing an a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t on s u c h c h i l d , o r f o r t h e p u r p o s e of p r o p o s i n g t h a t such c h i l d fondle or f e e l the sexual or g e n i t a l p a r t s of such person." 51 CR-09-1530 In addition, § contact 13A-6-60, A l a . Code 1975, defines sexual as: "(3) S e x u a l C o n t a c t . Any t o u c h i n g o f t h e s e x u a l or other i n t i m a t e p a r t s of a person not m a r r i e d to t h e a c t o r , done f o r the p u r p o s e of g r a t i f y i n g the sexual d e s i r e of e i t h e r p a r t y . " A. Pettibone evidence degree to Evidence argues n o t e n t i c e B.B. the the of as State to presented enticement as B.B. and insufficient attempted charged i n counts Specifically, one testimony and B.B. of secondand two P e t t i b o n e a r g u e s t h a t he did to a s p e c i f i c place with l a s c i v i o u s only between him the a b u s e o f B.B. of the i n d i c t m e n t . that that c o n v i c t him sexual Presented contact or r e f e r r e d to hugging intent attempted and and contact a quick kiss on cheek. H o w e v e r , B.B. t e x t messages and at night. testified t h a t she and Pettibone sometimes late When B . B . ' s m o t h e r b e c a m e s u s p i c i o u s o f w h a t B.B. was doing on for B.B. so the t a l k e d on t h e p h o n e o f t e n a n d exchanged phone they so could arousing further Pettibone began t e l l i n g late, Pettibone continue suspicion B.B., on the to part purchased a communicate of B.B.'s without mother. " 1 - 2 - 3 , " m e a n i n g t h a t he B.B. 52 phone loved CR-09-1530 B.B. testified: "We w e r e o n t h e way t o a b a s k e t b a l l game o n e a n d we w e r e t e x t i n g a n d h e t o l d me t o l o o k a t a n d l i c k my l i p s s e x y - l i k e a n d l o o k a t h i s a r m s , big t h e y were and s t u f f l i k e t h a t . And then t i m e , o n t h e way, h e t o l d me t h a t h e was h o r n y t o come f i x i t . " (R. 282.) B.B. while testified she Pettibone was stood that sitting Pettibone that had B.B. boyfriends been the seat of his lips the bus at that f l e x i n g h i s muscles at her. B.B. t o l d h e r on t h e phone t h a t he h a d h e a r d "fingered" a l s o began hugging by one of B.B. her previous (R. 2 8 3 . ) testified face-to-face." of that side-to-side but t e s t i f i e d side (R. 2 8 4 . ) crap, B.B. he w a n t e d a r e a l further testified, "He a s k e d me i f h e c o u l d k i s s me a n d I w a s , l i k e , I d o n ' t know. He a s k e d me, l i k e o f a c e r t a i n number f r o m , l i k e , one t o t e n . I g i v e h i m a number. I c a n ' t remember what i t was. He a s k e d i f t h e r e was any c h a n c e o f a t o n g u e k i s s i n g a n d I r e s p o n d e d I d o n ' t know s t i l l . " (R. 285.) 53 B.B. t h a t she and s e n t h e r a t e x t message and s t a t e d t h a t w a n t no m o r e her and t h a t he c o u l d n o t . one d a y P e t t i b o n e didn't on licked a n d a s k e d i f h e c o u l d d o t h e same. told Pettibone Pettibone Pettibone i n the a i s l e stated that like day him how one and that "he hug, CR-09-1530 B.B. also stated to the on him the cheek. and a l s o sent him. M.D., K.B., in and going to same was From concluded act s u b j e c t i n g B.B. or to lured sexual parts the B.B. contact Pettibone sexual from his to a b u s e as of to Pettibone sexual classroom her us, which guilty to meet meet a l l the victims behavior evidence, the or we the to with the fondle or jury an jury enticement B.B. 54 could and attempted overt from propose sexual Based sufficient reasonably have B.B. enticed B.B.'s fondle his genitals. h o l d t h a t t h e r e was to to could Further, intent feel as as t o committed contact. she d i d not B.B. of and together. asked her Pettibone's that that o r t o p r o p o s e t h a t she evidence classroom testimony door that j u r y could conclude that Pettibone with record before the trial, have the a alone f o r her, i n d i c a t i v e of h i s behavior motive. that evidence, in a t e x t message and because D.S. was l o c k e d the cared a b a s k e t b a l l game, b u t the she Pettibone much he alone reasonably toward how instance, Peggy Johnson c o r r o b o r a t e d B.B. Finally, admitted her B.B. somewhere d u r i n g with as and Pettibone Pettibone was one room, b e g a n t e l l i n g k i s s e d her saw in i n h i s classroom, with Pettibone that, upon legal found second-degree CR-09-1530 B. E v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d Initially, preserved. judgment would we question Defense counsel of acquittal admit testimony, as whether stated at the close t o Count VIII i fthe witness's a s t o D.S. during and Count testimony be an e i t h e r (R. 695.) Pettibone's argument as t o Count initial sexual did, evidence charges contact. i n fact, buttocks argues that which I t appears touch (R. 6 4 0 . ) no g r o u n d s D.S.'s that However, stated. we will address did not present VIII. State the State proceeded Pettibone buttocks, i s not sexual contact. i s some were of caution, the that "I IX and would t h a t h e s e x u a l l y a b u s e d D.S. under for a the defense asked the t r i a l though Out o f an abundance Pettibone sufficient Count V I I I , i s case: IX, there o r Count o r i n Count V o r Count V I . " to dismiss h i s motion i s t o be b e l i e v e d , c o u l d be an e i t h e r / o r i n C o u n t V I I I at the close of a l l the evidence, argument of the State's it court this argues because the alleged that the touching In addition, Pettibone no i f he of the argues that the State presented i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t he e n t i c e d D.S. f o r sexual to a specific place contact. 55 intercourse or f o r sexual CR-09-1530 H o w e v e r , D.S. either before classroom, room. and in D.S. t e s t i f i e d t h a t she and Pettibone Pettibone's closet a a f t e r b a s k e t b a l l games e i t h e r i n the his classroom, testified also in that she and or in Pettibone i n t h e c o a c h ' s o f f i c e d u r i n g b a s k e t b a l l games. that she and occasions stomach the over phone, loved Pettibone and evidence, that her the locker or to his room feel his sexual As to buttocks code and and testified on multiple to classroom, propose to the talk on D.S. that he 565.) coach's sexual contact parts, or D.S.'s s e x u a l to From v. the enticed office, with or to or her propose that to that D.S. parts. Pettibone's § and would told (R. contention that 13A-6-60(3), A l a . State, 644 So. 2d Code 1975, 1339 (Ala. t h a t evidence t h a t Roughton touched the rubbed D.S. Pettibone "1-2-3." meet back, buttocks, i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence of sexual meaning of Roughton Pettibone would D.S. another touched her another, the one locker the j u r y c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t P e t t i b o n e l u r e d D.S. feel clothes. using or fondle kissed Pettibone t e x t one her, w o u l d meet inside of the victim's 56 touching D.S.'s contact within this Court held Crim. App. was in 1994), victim's buttocks thighs the and sufficient CR-09-1530 evidence of P a r k e r v. S t a t e , 406 that thigh the "sexual sexual before we from which guilty So. and meaning of us, contact." the 2d 1036, stomach contact. hold that jury of enticement Further, 1039 are intimate was held App. parts sufficient within reasonably and second-degree legal have found sexual in 1981), b a s e d upon the could of Court (Ala. Crim. Therefore, there this the record evidence Pettibone a b u s e as to D.S. C. Evidence Finally, Pettibone insufficient specific evidence place M.D. one stated that grade papers that and Pettibone for him. he t o K.B. that and the enticed she and that they would invite When M.D. State and sexual discussed her to classroom the Pettibone table. began open mouth, bra, and put put The kissing door to M.D. the Pettibone h i s hands under her t o l d M.D. was but M.D. on M.D. to classroom, to locked, k i s s e d M.D. shirt a text classroom the and h i s h a n d s b e t w e e n M.D.'s t h i g h s . 57 began kissing. entered sit to contact. his corner presented M.D. Pettibone Pettibone p o i n t e d to a t a b l e i n the at M.D. K.B. i n t e r c o u r s e or that another as argues for sexual testified messaging presented with top of go and an her testified CR-09-1530 t h a t P e t t i b o n e t o u c h e d h e r p r i v a t e a r e a on t o p o f h e r c l o t h e s . M.D. testified erection. Pettibone that she From t h a t e v i d e n c e , contact with parts, or t o propose testified see that the jury e n t i c e d o r l u r e d M.D. sexual K.B. could Pettibone c o u l d have found to h i s classroom her or to fondle or feel that that she kept score an that t o propose h i s sexual she o r f e e l had M.D.'s sexual parts. at basketball games f o r S c h r e c k a n d P e t t i b o n e a n d t h a t s h e was a l s o i n P e t t i b o n e ' s science other class. and further began K.B. and P e t t i b o n e discussed kissing, physically. meeting Pettibone Pettibone turned K.B.'s b u t t o c k s testified office propose that K.B. while around and p r e s s e d Pettibone that fondle she f o n d l e or feel or feel 58 she and over going Pettibone hugging and her clothes. h i s penis h a d an e r e c t i o n . against From that that Pettibone enticed t o propose sexual K.B.'s each possibly and began t h e j u r y c o u l d have concluded her or to and t o u c h e d K.B.'s b r e a s t s o r l u r e d K.B. t o t h e c o a c h ' s o f f i c e with t e x t messaging hugging, i n the coach's kissing. evidence, K.B. began sexual h i s sexual parts, parts. contact or to CR-09-1530 Based upon the record before s u f f i c i e n t l e g a l evidence us, we hold that there from which the j u r y c o u l d have found P e t t i b o n e g u i l t y o f e n t i c e m e n t as was reasonably t o K.B. and M.D. D. Therefore, did not f o r the e r r i n denying acquittal on those reasons given Pettibone's above, motions the trial court f o r a judgment of charges. VII. Finally, Pettibone instructions law and contained t h a t the argues incorrect trial court to App. comply with Bryant 3d and page or m i s l e a d i n g court's agree, instructed the at t h a t P e t t i b o n e has of Rule jury statements (Pettibone's brief, requirements State, cursory numbers contained assertion v. (Ala. appellant's the the a n d we trial 28(a)(10), of jury 69.) failed Ala. R. P. In So. State argues, the "mistakenly about m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s " . The that that of [Ms. Crim. App. argument the no legal the trial CR-08-0405, 2011), that record 59 when contained supporting argument court Feb. had no the supporting erred, we 4, 2011], reviewing citations claims the an to raised general discussed the CR-09-1530 cases We h o l d i n g that Rule then 28(a)(10) i s t o be cautiously applied. held: "Here, too, we find that Bryant's cursory summary o f the claims in his petition with no s p e c i f i c d i s c u s s i o n of the f a c t s or law i n the form o f a n a r g u m e n t a s t o why he b e l i e v e s t h e s e claims were improperly summarily dismissed, with only c i t a t i o n s t o page o r p a r a g r a p h numbers, and with only a single c i t a t i o n to general l e g a l a u t h o r i t y i s not s u f f i c i e n t to comply w i t h Rule 28(a)(10)." Bryant, As So. 3d i n Bryant at and . i n the cases on w h i c h i t r e l i e d , that Pettibone's f a i l u r e to present any jury incorrect; instructions provide any requested allegedly specific certain certain jury purposes the record instructions our determination and appellate his indicating had his which failure that objected failure find he to had to cite to any any and his of h i s argument; argument s u p p o r t i n g h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t instructions 28(a)(10) of any facts indicating or a u t h o r i t y i n support to present Rule to were incorrect instructions; failure with claims citations legal supports he we contained that that he review. VIII. 60 incorrect facts Pettibone has waived failed the to and law comply argument for CR-09-1530 Pettibone was sentenced misdemeanor f o r each convictions. Thus, prison f o r each for Pettibone committed sexual a r e c e i v e d a t e r m o f one on a p p e a l t h a t we because abuse Section 13A-6-67(b), should Pettibone's should A l a . Code " S e x u a l abuse i n the second misdemeanor, except that i f a second or subsequent o f f e n s e of s e c o n d d e g r e e w i t h i n one y e a r offense, the offense i s a Class Specifically, the State be 1975, The remand this sentences for enhanced from A l a . Code states: degree i s a Class A p e r s o n commits a s e x u a l abuse i n the of another sexual C felony." argues: " I n each s e x u a l abuse c a s e , P e t t i b o n e e n t i c e d h i s v i c t i m i n t o a room a t s c h o o l w h e r e he then abused her. See (R. 557-59, 563-65, 596-99, 623-26). Enticing a child is a 'criminal sex o f f e n s e ' as t h a t t e r m i s d e f i n e d i n t h e Code o f Alabama. See A l a . Code 15-20-21(4)e. Thus, Pettibone s e x u a l l y abused each of his victims immediately after committing 'another sexual offense,' and each o f t h o s e i n s t a n c e s of sexual abuse constituted a Class C felony under § 13A-6-67(b). Thus, Pettibone's three one-year sentences f o r these c o n v i c t i o n s are outside the range o f punishment a u t h o r i z e d by law. See A l a . Code § 13A-5-6(a)(3). Accordingly, this Court s h o u l d remand t h i s case t o t h e t r i a l court with 61 A year i n conviction. misdemeanors to f e l o n i e s pursuant to § 13A-6-67(b), 1975. Class second-degree-sexual-abuse second-degree-sexual-abuse resentencing second-degree having of h i s three State argues i n i t s b r i e f case as CR-09-1530 i n s t r u c t i o n s to resentence Pettibone f o r those C felony offenses." (State's b r i e f , Pettibone State's being the a t pp. argues request made trial If 98-99.) i n his reply first h i s sentence sentence may So. c o u r t and 1238 2d 690, 691 for a proper (Ala. 515, 2d Crim. 523 476 We for the i s void.'" sentence sentence." App. (Ala. Crim. agree App. w i t h the reasons that that the i t is i t invades mandate allegedly time, of v. because State, i f 893 So. 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o t i n g R o g e r s v. S t a t e , and 1998)). "We the illegal exceeds the j u r i s d i c t i o n Cruitt are required the of 2d 728 to remand t o the s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t citing ( A l a . C r i m . App. that the "'[A]n any G l a s s v. 2008), and outside at ( A l a . C r i m . App. n o t i c e an i l l e g a l appeal i n sentencing. the sentence ( A l a . C r i m . App. on u n t i m e l y because appeal is illegal. challenged is illegal, trial 1236, be on sentenced statute, the time court's discretion P e t t i b o n e was sentence brief f o r r e s e n t e n c i n g was f o r the class 2005); State, 14 Kennedy v. and M o s l e y So. State, v. 3d 188, 929 State, So. 986 194 2d So. 2007). State's construction follow. 62 of § 13A-6-67(b) CR-09-1530 "In any case involving statutory inquiry begins with the language of meaning of the s t a t u t o r y language i s p l a i n , our a n a l y s i s there." Ex p a r t e McCormick, 932 So. the construction, 2d statute, 124 and II III " ' " M o r e o v e r , 'one " i s n o t t o b e subjected to a penalty unless the words of the statute p l a i n l y impose i t , " Keppel v. T i f f i n S a v i n g s B a n k , 197 U.S. 3 5 6 , 3 6 2 , 25 S . C t . 4 4 3 , 49 L . E d . 790 [ ( 1 9 0 5 ) ] . . . . "'"Words u s e d i n t h e s t a t u t e must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning." Alabama Farm B u r e a u Mut. Casualty Ins. Co. v . C i t y o f H a r t s e l l e , 4 60 So.2d 1219, 1223 ( A l a . 1984). The g e n e r a l r u l e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n for the p r o v i s i o n s of the Alabama C r i m i n a l Code i s f o u n d i n A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-1-6: " A l l p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s t i t l e s h a l l be construed according to the fair i m p o r t of t h e i r terms t o promote j u s t i c e and t o e f f e c t t h e o b j e c t s of the law, including the purposes stated in section 1 3 A - 1 - 3 . ... " 63 i f the ( A l a . 2005). "'Principles of statutory construction i n s t r u c t t h i s Court to i n t e r p r e t the p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f a s t a t u t e t o mean e x a c t l y w h a t it says and to engage in judicial c o n s t r u c t i o n only i f the language i n the s t a t u t e i s ambiguous.' E x p a r t e P r a t t , 815 S o . 2 d 5 3 2 , 535 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . our ends CR-09-1530 "Carroll v. State, (Ala.Crim.App.1992)." C r a w f o r d v. S t a t e , , 599 So.2d [Ms. C R - 0 9 - 1 2 2 7 , ( A l a . C r i m . App. definition of 29, 2011] the i n a statute, term should be So. 3d t h e commonly applied." D r e d g i n g , L.L.C. v. Alabama Dep't o f Revenue, 517 1264-65 2011). "[W]hen a t e r m i s n o t d e f i n e d accepted April 1253, Bean 855 S o . 2 d 5 1 3 , ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , c i t i n g R e p u b l i c S t e e l C o r p . v . H o r n , 268 A l a . 279, 281, 105 13A-6-67(b) So. 2d 446, 447 (1958). The words u s e d i n are not d e f i n e d by the l e g i s l a t u r e , language of the s t a t u t e § however, the i s s i m p l e a n d u n a m b i g u o u s as shown as r e f l e c t e d i n the Merriam Webster's C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y (11th ed. 2003). The statute begins by stating the general rule: " S e x u a l abuse i n t h e second degree i s a C l a s s A misdemeanor." The general rule i s followed by the exception which begins w i t h the word "except." as "unless." Merriam Webster's (11th ed. 2003). the second " E x c e p t " may Collegiate So, § 1 3 A - 6 - 6 7 ( b ) b e g i n s : degree i s a Class A to the be rule, defined Dictionary ""Sexual abuse i n misdemeanor, [unless] p e r s o n commits a in degree ... second or subsequent offense of sexual the second "perpetrate." " "Commits" Merriam-Webster's C o l l e g i a t e 64 435 is a abuse defined as Dictionary 250 CR-09-1530 (11th ed. 2003). bring about or In turn, 7 carry Dictionary 923 word indicate to "perpetrate" out." Merriam-Webster's (11th ed. 2003). an "Or" i s u s e d alternative." C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y 872 ( 1 1 t h e d . 2 0 0 3 ) . and as "subsequent" modify "offense as, "to Collegiate "as a f u n c t i o n Merriam-Webster's The w o r d s o f sexual abuse." an a d j e c t i v e , i s d e f i n e d as "next time." i s defined "second" "Second," to the f i r s t i n place or M e r r i a m W e b s t e r ' s C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y 1121 ( 1 1 t h e d . 2003). "Subsequent," as an order, or "following i n time, Collegiate Dictionary "offense of sexual abuse p r o v i d e d 1245 abuse" adjective, place." (11th ed. refer i s defined Merriam 2003). Webster's The words of sexual Section 13A-6- to the d e f i n i t i o n i n § 13A-6-67, A l a . Code 1975. 8 as We l e a v e f o r a n o t h e r d a y t o c o n s i d e r t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s c h o i c e o f t h e word "commits" as opposed t o the phrase " i s convicted of." Moreover, the possible implication of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)(holding t h a t any f a c t which i n c r e a s e s a punishment a b o v e t h e s t a t u t o r y maximum m u s t b e p r e s e n t e d t o a j u r y a n d proven beyond a reasonable doubt), i s not before the Court i n the i n s t a n t case. 7 8 " ( a ) A p e r s o n commits t h e crime s e x u a l abuse i n t h e second degree i f : of "(1) He s u b j e c t s a n o t h e r person to s e x u a l c o n t a c t who i s i n c a p a b l e o f c o n s e n t b y r e a s o n o f some f a c t o r o t h e r t h a n being 65 CR-09-1530 67(b) concludes offense, year" the in the meaning "within one offense i s a Class means within 12 clearly offense" with clearly year C of another felony." months. sexual "[W]ithin "[A]nother one sexual r e f e r s t o any s e x u a l o f f e n s e d e f i n e d as statutes to these of Alabama. Therefore, words, § 13A-6-67(b) giving such ordinary reads: "Sexual abuse i n the second degree i s a C l a s s A m i s d e m e a n o r , [ u n l e s s ] ... a p e r s o n [ c a r r i e s o u t h i s or her next, or alternatively, any following] o f f e n s e of s e x u a l abuse i n the second degree w i t h i n [12 months] of [any other sexual o f f e n s e ] , the offense i s a Class C felony." Therefore, when g i v i n g p l a i n m e a n i n g t o t h e w o r d s o f t h e s t a t u t e , t h e enhancement does n o t a p p l y t o a d e f e n d a n t ' s first offense first of second-degree sexual abuse unless that o f f e n s e f o l l o w s , w i t h i n 12 m o n t h s , t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a n y sexual offense. Pettibone's within The case, twelve less enhancement does apply where, months, than 13A-6-67, as in t h e second-degree s e x u a l abuse does f o l l o w , any 16 y e a r s other sexual offense. o l d ; or " ( 2 ) He, b e i n g 19 y e a r o l d o r o l d e r , subjects another person to sexual contact who i s l e s s t h a n 16 y e a r s o l d , b u t m o r e t h a n 12 y e a r s o l d . " § other A l a . Code 1975. 66 If the CR-09-1530 legislature intended second-degree for sexual could "antecedent," Alternatively, been used to would t h a t was lenity mandates i f an i n favor 08-1728 , November 778 of follow within one § a felony, 13A-6-67 i s defined Dictionary 52 the as (11th "antecedent" the word "prior." ed. 2003). could have intent. the statute "'ambiguous 5, were to be 237 sexual considered Further, State v. Adams, (Ala. i t is well (Ala. 2000). The against In abuse rule statute[s] 3d construed sexual offense. criminal So. strictly 2d second-degree accused.'" 2010] omitted). So. of another of the c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s are Hyde, in besides offense t r e a t e d as adjective, instance that construed parte this p r e c e d e d by 2010)(citations first r u l e o f l e n i t y w o u l d p r o h i b i t an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n enhance not an words even t o be used Collegiate other Moreover, that as reflect ambiguous, the offense, have which, Merriam-Webster's defendant's abuse, which does not year of another s e x u a l Legislature a of ... be [Ms. Crim. App. settled that the State. addition, "'[w]e are d e e p l y m i n d f u l of the p r i n c i p l e t h a t c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s a r e t o be s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d , but a d h e r e n c e t o s t r i c t c o n s t r u c t i o n d o e s n o t r e q u i r e an u n r e a s o n a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t the l e g i s l a t u r e c o u l d not have i n t e n d e d . ' Horsley v. S t a t e , 374 So. 2d 363, 372 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), 67 CR- Ex CR-09-1530 a f f i r m e d , 374 So. 2 d 375 (Ala. 1979), vacated on o t h e r g r o u n d s , H o r s l e y v . A l a b a m a , 448 U.S. 903, 100 S . C t . 3 0 4 3 , 65 L . E d . 2 d 1133 (1980). See A l a . C o d e 1975, § 13A-1-6 (criminal statutes 'shall be construed according to the fair import of their t e r m s t o p r o m o t e j u s t i c e and t o e f f e c t t h e o b j e c t s of the law ')." Hunt v. State, 642 Here, the 2009 s c h o o l who was M.D., year fondle violation case, 1028 presented and to feel § ( A l a . C r i m . App. evidence that during Middle b a s k e t b a l l coach, an empty the girl's 13A-6-69(a), School, in parts Code 1975. 9 D.S., to order or 2008¬ Pettibone, each young g i r l sexual Ala. the e n t i c e d B.B., schoolroom with 1993). have -- i.e., breast, Thus, in each i n s t a n c e of second-degree s e x u a l abuse f o l l o w e d sexual § 999, physical contact or of 2d at C e n t r a l Baldwin K.B., inappropriate to State a teacher and So. offense of e n t i c i n g a child 1 3 A - 6 - 6 9 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975. Code 1975, immoral although Section s p e c i f i c a l l y designates purposes the as record a "Criminal does not A s t o B.B., Pettibone degree s e x u a l abuse. and Sex reflect e n t i c e m e n t f o r i m m o r a l p u r p o s e s and 9 f o r immoral purposes. was 15-20-21(4)(e), defines enticement Offense." the precise the s e x u a l abuse this the See Ala. for Moreover, dates the occurred, c o n v i c t e d of attempted 68 a second- CR-09-1530 the r e c o r d i s c l e a r t h a t a l l of these sexual offenses w i t h i n t h e 2008-2009 s c h o o l y e a r , occurred i . e . ,w i t h i n a p e r i o d of 12 months. Here, because each o f f e n s e of second-degree followed a prior sexual offense and a l l the sexual abuse offenses were committed w i t h i n a p e r i o d o f 12-months, P e t t i b o n e ' s to one fall for year i n p r i s o n f o r second-degree sexual w i t h i n the s t a t u t o r y range of punishment. the M.D., second-degree a n d K.B. Code 1975, should to Class C sexual be abuse enhanced felonies. 1 1 committed under sentences abuse 1 0 do Each sentence against not D.S., § 13-A-6-67(b), A l a . Therefore, this case must We note f o r the sake of c l a r i t y t h a t attempted seconddegree s e x u a l abuse i s a d i s t i n c t o f f e n s e from second-degree s e x u a l abuse, and, t h u s , P e t t i b o n e ' s s e n t e n c e f o r t h i s o f f e n s e s h o u l d n o t be e n h a n c e d p u r s u a n t t o § 1 3 A - 6 - 6 7 ( b ) . 10 I n T a y l o r v . S t a t e , 23 S o . 3d 692 (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 0 8 ) , T a y l o r was c o n v i c t e d o f s e c o n d - d e g r e e r a p e a n d s e c o n d degree sexual abuse and was sentenced to 20 years' i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r t h e s e c o n d - d e g r e e - r a p e c o n v i c t i o n a n d t o 10 years' imprisonment for the second-degree-sexual-abuse conviction. T h i s C o u r t remanded t h e c a s e f o r s e n t e n c i n g as t o T a y l o r ' s s e c o n d - d e g r e e - s e x u a l abuse c o n v i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o § 1 3 A - 5 - 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975, as a C l a s s A m i s d e m e a n o r , because the r e c o r d d i d not " i n d i c a t e t h a t the offense i n t h i s c a s e was a second or subsequent offense of second-degree s e x u a l a b u s e t h a t was c o m m i t t e d w i t h i n one y e a r o f a n o t h e r sexual offense." 23 S o . 3d a t 6 9 3 . 1 1 69 CR-09-1530 be remanded f o r s e n t e n c i n g Code 1975. Further, three assessments Fund for each convictions. that of of assessments less not Accordingly, 13A-6-67(b) and f o r the committed against § 13A-5-6(a)(3), ordered Crime Pettibone Victims than case of a $50. felony remanded trial sentence M.D., to pay the trial hold court a new i n compliance with (2) convictions i n d i c a t e whether those sentences are to run c o n c u r r e n t l y or c o n s e c u t i v e l y each other other c o n v i c t i o n s ; and or his an Pettibone's (1) court: K.B.; states range. Pettibone and pay abuse shall second-degree-sexual-abuse D.S., to Compensation Therefore, statutory is the Ala. second-degree-sexual w i t h i n the this hearing the convicted instructions that sentencing court three are are to § 1 5 - 2 3 - 1 7 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, not of to his who assessment § trial $25 However, offenders with the pursuant 3) impose with three a s s e s s m e n t s f o r the Crime V i c t i m s Compensat i o n Fund w i t h i n statutory range for Pettibone's three the second-degree-sexual- abuse c o n v i c t i o n s . The Court at days from record the the should earliest date of be certified possible this date opinion. 70 and transmitted to and by than no later this 28 CR-09-1530 A F F I R M E D AS TO C O N V I C T I O N S AND REMANDED WITH I N S T R U C T I O N S AS TO S E N T E N C I N G . Kellum, concurs Burke, and J o i n e r , i n the result. 71 J J . , concur. Windom, J . ,
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.
