Keokie Tareze Hudson, alias 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-09-1913 Keokie T a r e z e Hudson v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal BURKE, Judge. Keokie attempted and from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t (CC-09-3387; CC-09-3388) Tareze murder, one c o u n t vehicle, Hudson was convicted o f two c o u n t s of v i o l a t i o n s o f § 1 3 A - 4 - 2 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , of discharging a violation a firearm into o f § 1 3 A - 1 1 - 6 1 , A l a . Code an 1975. occupied He was CR-09-1913 sentenced as a habitual sentences of life attempted murder, felony imprisonment and to 20 for years' shooting-into-an-occupied-vehicle he was fined Compensation $50, Fund, Hudson r a i s e s the trial court offender payable to each imprisonment the Alabama This i s s u e on a p p e a l . to Rule that the trial Rule 404(b) the specific 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. court's limiting e v i d e n c e were First, purposes for and the jury which followed. that acts evidence, Second, broad the Victims he a r g u e s instructions overly for Crime appeal Evid. of Additionally, improperly admitted c o l l a t e r a l pursuant concurrent conviction conviction. f o r each count. two to he contends regarding d i d not was the indicate to use the evidence. H u d s o n was from two January 17, 2009, and and formed one occupied vehicle. that he was sitting vehicle. Miles on The two f o r the Stanley in his vehicle, the v e h i c l e The fired stemming o c c u r r e d on one count a firearm Miles, talking and s t a t e d t h a t h e was 2 incident of d i s c h a r g i n g victim, able to telephone the p o l i c e . indictments first the b a s i s count The when H u d s o n a p p r o a c h e d the to t r i a l separate incidents. attempted murder an brought with five incident, into testified a friend, shots n o t h i t and t h a t he second of which into was was CR-09-1913 the b a s i s June f o r the second attempted-murder charge, 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 , when M i l e s where have people from a cookout. minutes well. after According evidence Tavaries acts that and he was not as one heart. present Miles evidence relating to three The f i r s t their project. According testified at him, i n v o l v i n g Hudson, M i l e s , and M i l e s ' s drove that like but that vehicle and o t h e r s and B a t e s we was like one m o r n i n g , alley were i n the Gate there that trying that." Miles City hanging out i n the Hudson apparently at t r i a l , were testified thought i t wasn't Early t o an to the testimony brother, sometime i n F e b r u a r y 2008, and B a t e s . Bates he occurred Hudson Miles Marco. something, two s h o t s up shot Bates something showed actually and friend, suggesting 15 t o 20 individual involved both Miles believed fired Hudson and another and alley. socialize approximately Day," event presented also Bates. housing to an on 2009. State collateral Day," i n the back, damaging h i s lungs " S h e p Day" a n d t h a t The "Shep gather that t o M i l e s , Hudson Hudson p r e s e n t e d on J u n e 2 8 , testified a r r i v e d a t "Shep of which h i t M i l e s at attending the neighborhood Miles he was occurred to attack Hudson's Hudson "was t o jump on M a r c o (R. 90.) Bates saying or then " [ H u d s o n ] j u s t upped w i t h a gun" and p o i n t e d i t 3 CR-09-1913 into the v e h i c l e . tried t o r o b him. the pistol Miles after shooting also t h e gun involved only birthday party as witnessed at to sell house. saw Bates, Miles. pants ran on the back (R. 53.) there the ankle. The and third and he was at in known hopes Miles a of refused were c h i l d r e n i n t h e From t h e door, Miles the house. Miles outside "ups a gun" and f i r e d w h i c h went t h r o u g h t h e b o t t o m o f t h e s c r e e n in that him when a man door to leave. i n a vehicle Hudson toward that cousin some m a r i j u a n a f r o m M i l e s . that testified i n November 2008, and testified for his four-year-old sitting and back act occurred However, Stank r e f u s e d testified fired (R. 50.) Miles knocked then went t h r o u g h B a t e s ' s Hudson him any m a r i j u a n a b e c a u s e Hudson Hudson Hudson the i n c i d e n t i n h i s face. "Stank" purchasing to Bates, During the attempted robbery, The s e c o n d c o l l a t e r a l only According a t B a t e s and t h e b u l l e t leg. pointed (R. 90.) two s h o t s , one o f door and h i t M i l e s (R. 53.) collateral involved only Tavaries act occurred Bates. 4 on January Bates t e s t i f i e d 27, 2009, t h a t he was CR-09-1913 sitting on h i s g i r l f r i e n d ' s "Kenny P o o " 1 p o r c h when H u d s o n , drove by t h e house. Bates "Wee Wee," and stated: " I s e e n [ H u d s o n ] l o o k o v e r me, b u t I d i d n ' t t h i n k they would turn around. So b y t h e t i m e I t o l d my l i t t l e d a u g h t e r t o go i n t h e h o u s e , t h e y h a d b e e n turned around. So when t h e y t u r n e d a r o u n d , I h e a r d like f o u r s h o t s h i t me. A n d o n e h i t me i n t h e leg (R. " 106.) Before offer trial, the three 404(b), A l a . R. hearings were admissibility court's evidence, the State collateral Evid. held gave acts (C. 55.) outside notice as e v i d e n c e During the presence about the State the purpose i t intended pursuant trial, o f t h e Rule 404(b) e v i d e n c e . inquiry that two of the j u r y to to Rule separate on t h e I n response to the behind offering the responded: "Judge, t h e d e f e n d a n t has a l r e a d y brought i n t o q u e s t i o n the i s s u e of i d e n t i t y , not o n l y i s t h i s v e r y r e l e v a n t t o i d e n t i t y i n t h i s case, i t a l s o goes towards h i s i n t e n t . This i s an attempted murder I t goes towards opportunity. E v e r y t i m e [ H u d s o n ] s e e s S t a n l e y M i l e s , he i s s h o o t i n g a t h i m t r y i n g t o k i l l h i m . T h e s e two o t h e r i n s t a n c e s a r e e x a c t l y what [ R u l e ] 404(b) i s d e s i g n e d t o b e , n o t f o r h i s b a d c h a r a c t e r , b u t t o come i n a n d g i v e t h e j u r y a c l e a r e r p i c t u r e as f a r as i n t e n t , p l a n , opportunity, identity." The r e c o r d i s u n c l e a r as t o t h e a c t u a l i d e n t i t i e s o f "Wee Wee" a n d "Kenny Poo." 1 5 CR-09-1913 (R. 40.) The j u d g e collateral for a c t s t o come the limited intent allowed i n , stating: purpose and i d e n t i t y the evidence under i f identity Later i n the t r i a l , third collateral act. third collateral act should involved case. it's 404(b) admitted Hudson argued n o t be only Tavaries Bates, of a package "I'm g o i n g on i s an i s s u e . " the judge However, t h e j u d g e kind Rule of the f i r s t deal. the issue of (R. 4 1 - 4 2 . ) 2 about evidence admissible not the v i c t i m stated: t o admit i t testimony that two the of the because i t i n the present " W e l l , i t would I mean, i t s t a r t s appear t o me w i t h t h e two o f them [ B a t e s a n d M i l e s ] a n d c o n t i n u e s w i t h t h e two o f them. ... I'm g o i n g t o a d m i t how [ t h e j u r y it." i tw i t h a c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n i s ] to view i t . I'll as t o o v e r r u l e your o b j e c t i o n t o (R. 1 0 2 - 0 3 . ) I. On a p p e a l , Hudson an e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e evidence correctly that Rule t h a t p r e v e n t s t h e S t a t e from of a defendant's the defendant's asserts bad acts f o r the purpose bad c h a r a c t e r . 404(b) i s introducing of showing He n o t e s t h a t R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) does T h e j u d g e w e n t on t o s t a t e t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l i m p l i e d t h a t i d e n t i t y was a t i s s u e i n h i s o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t . (R. 40¬ 41.) F u r t h e r m o r e , Hudson p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l that someone e l s e s h o t B a t e s on J u n e 28, 2009. 2 6 CR-09-1913 allow the "such as introduction proof of of notice, p l a n , knowledge, i d e n t i t y , In analyzing Rule such evidence for other opportunity, intent, preparation, or absence of mistake or 404(b), this Court has purposes accident." stated: "'evidence of the accused's having committed another act or crime i s not a d m i s s i b l e i f the o n l y p r o b a t i v e f u n c t i o n of such e v i d e n c e i s t o prove bad c h a r a c t e r and the accused's conformity therewith. This i s a general e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e which p r e v e n t s the i n t r o d u c t i o n of p r i o r a c t s or crimes f o r the sole purpose of s u g g e s t i n g that the accused i s more l i k e l y to be g u i l t y of the crime i n q u e s t i o n . T h i s r u l e i s g e n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e whether the other c r i m e o r a c t was c o m m i t t e d b e f o r e o r a f t e r the one for which the defendant is presently being t r i e d "'The foregoing exclusionary rule does not work t o e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e of a l l c r i m e s o r a c t s , o n l y s u c h as a r e o f f e r e d t o s h o w the defendant's bad character and c o n f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h on t h e o c c a s i o n o f t h e now-charged crime. If the defendant's commission of another crime or misdeed i s r e l e v a n t f o r some o t h e r m a t e r i a l p u r p o s e i n t h e c a s e t h e n i t may be a d m i t t e d . ' "C. G a m b l e , M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 6 9 . 0 1 ( 1 ) (5th ed. 1996) (footnotes o m i t t e d ) . The other p u r p o s e s f o r w h i c h c o l l a t e r a l - c r i m e s e v i d e n c e may be a d m i s s i b l e , i . e . , the e x c e p t i o n s to the e x c l u s i o n a r y rule, include: 7 CR-09-1913 "'(1) Relevancy to prove physical capacity, s k i l l , o r means t o c o m m i t t h e now-charged crime; (2) p a r t o f t h e r e s gestae or p a r t of a continuous t r a n s a c t i o n ; (3) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e s c i e n t e r o r g u i l t y k n o w l e d g e ; (4) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e criminal intent; (5) relevancy to prove plan, d e s i g n , s c h e m e , o r s y s t e m ; (6) r e l e v a n c y t o prove motive; (7) relevancy to prove identity; (8) r e l e v a n c y t o r e b u t special defenses; and (9) r e l e v a n c y i n various particular crimes.' " N i c k s v . S t a t e , 521 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 2 6 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1987), a f f ' d , 521 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 5 ( A l a . ) , cert. d e n i e d , 487 U.S. 1 2 4 1 , 108 S . C t . 2 9 1 6 , 101 L . E d . 2 d 948 (1 9 8 8 ) , q u o t i n g N e l s o n v . S t a t e , 511 S o . 2 d 2 2 5 , 233 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) , a f f ' d , 511 S o . 2 d 248 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 486 U.S. 1 0 1 7 , 108 S . C t . 1 7 5 5 , 100 L . E d . 2 d 217 (1988)." Lewis v. State, Additionally, exclusionary open issue 889 this rule as So. 2d Court "do to 623, noted or t h e common p l a n , essentially coextensive applies at 661 (internal In that 41.) o n l y when i d e n t i t y citations the present " i tcertainly case, of the there is a other or design identity i s actually App. exceptions those scheme, with the unless more Furthermore, ( A l a . Crim. that not apply one 661 2003). to the real and purposes. exception i s exception, at issue." and 889 S o . 2 d omitted). the t r i a l court t o l d defense seems t h a t y o u p u t i d e n t i t y in issue." The c o u r t w e n t on t o s t a t e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e 8 counsel would (R. also CR-09-1913 "be a d m i s s i b l e on t h e i s s u e o f [ H u d s o n ' s ] intent, w h a t he i n t e n d e d t o d o . B e c a u s e [ H u d s o n ] may not have s h o t a t [ M i l e s ] e v e r y t i m e he's seen him, but at l e a s t i n t h e l a s t two y e a r s , h e ' s s h o t a t h i m a p p a r e n t l y e v e r y t i m e he's seen him, assuming you b e l i e v e w h a t Mr. M i l e s s a y s . Of c o u r s e , t h a t ' s a jury issue." (R. 41.) purposes argues So, the of showing that the are 17.) not and enough contends to the distinctive Irvin v. State, 940 So. evidence by the Hudson S t a t e do the collateral acts crime i . e . , that they (Hudson's b r i e f 331 not brief modus o p e r a n d i , s h o w i n g 2d the (Hudson's that charged for (R. 4 1 - 4 2 . ) 3 exception. he t h e w o r k o f t h e same p e r s o n . " cites intent. the acts offered f o r the i d e n t i t y l a c k "a p e c u l i a r l y is identity Specifically, similar court admitted collateral meet t h e c r i t e r i a at trial (Ala. Crim. that i t a t 17.) App. He 2005), for t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t s u c h e v i d e n c e i s a d m i s s i b l e o n l y when the surrounding circumstances the charged anyone of the p r i o r c r i m e show a g r e a t d e g r e e viewing the two t h e y were c o m m i t t e d by of s i m i l a r i t y , o f f e n s e s would the same a c t s and naturally those of such that assume that person. It s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t " [ a ] t r i a l c o u r t w i l l n o t be p l a c e d i n e r r o r f o r a s s i g n i n g the wrong r e a s o n f o r a p r o p e r r u l i n g , i f t h a t r u l i n g i s c o r r e c t f o r any r e a s o n . " I r v i n v. S t a t e , 940 So. 2d 3 3 1 , 345 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 00 5)(internal citation omitted). 3 9 CR-09-1913 The circumstances t h a t Hudson Tavaries and Bates, January incident the tried within 2009. facts, when taken within t h e Gate the i d e n t i t y v. S t a t e , 1993)(finding prior that together, City housing enough same p h y s i c a l l o c a t i o n , t h e m e t h o d was substantially similar, with children (Ala. set Crim. App. 1 9 8 9 ) ( e v i d e n c e by a defendant Additionally, identity this Court happened i n similarity tof i t See ( A l a . Crim. App. was met at when t h e approximately of c r e a t i n g the crime were State, f o r arson was a t i s s u e ) . has h e l d : 10 rule. o f two p r i o r who was on t r i a l when t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s v. was These and t h e v i c t i m s i n the c a r ) ; Briggs each project. occurred the in a l l happened a l l the acts exception exposure] 2008, or Bates to the exclusionary the identity are a c t s , as w e l l as t h e 628 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 9 , 1 0 1 1 - 1 2 bad a c t [indecent that of the charges, show exception February and e i t h e r M i l e s and t h a t acts and h i s b r o t h e r , reveals the c o l l a t e r a l period; to Miles between record formed the bases proximity Stegall The v i c t i m ; that an 1 8 - m o n t h close occasions was t h e s h o o t e r that the c o l l a t e r a l both Stanley on s e v e r a l Hudson incidents to k i l l 27, intended surrounding young 549 women So. 2d 155 fires allegedly was admissible CR-09-1913 "'The question of a d m i s s i b i l i t y of evidence i s g e n e r a l l y l e f t to the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court, a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h a t q u e s t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d e x c e p t u p o n a c l e a r s h o w i n g o f a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' E x p a r t e L o g g i n s , 771 S o . 2 d 1093, 1103 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . This i s equally true with regard to the admission of c o l l a t e r a l - a c t s evidence. See D a v i s v . S t a t e , 740 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 5 , 1130 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . " Irvin v. State, 940 Based on So. t h e above, 2d 3 3 1 , 345 i t cannot be abused i t s discretion purpose of showing Moreover, by ( A l a . Crim. said admitting the i t was also admissible 770 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 , 109 the d e f e n d a n t was convicted was committed during the trial, the t r i a l evidence court f o r the t o show (Ala. intent. C r i m . App. the defendant 1999), argued that he d i d n o t i n t e n d store. to rob c o n v e n i e n c e s t o r e c l e r k a n d , t h e r e f o r e , he was g u i l t y victims of p r i o r defendant. This probative convenience In intended armed The p r o s e c u t i o n robberies Court held t o show that In o f m u r d e r made c a p i t a l b e c a u s e i t an a r m e d r o b b e r y o f a c o n v e n i e n c e of i n t e n t i o n a l murder. and 2005). identity. P r e s l e y v. S t a t e , At that App. that offered testimony a l l e g e d l y committed the p r i o r a c t s were by only from the relevant he d i d h a v e t h e i n t e n t t o r o b t h e store. the present case, the State to cause the death had t o prove of another person 11 that Hudson as p a r t of i t s CR-09-1913 burden i n proving attempted murder. Ala. 1975. By his brother Code Miles and presenting demonstrate that question. Therefore, exception for Hudson evidence prior intended that §§ 13A-4-2, that occasions, to kill evidence Hudson the Miles fits 13A-6-2, the shot State on the Rule at could day in 404(b) intent. However, i n o r d e r only on See be relevant weighed against and the t o be admissible, probative. danger The of the e v i d e n c e must probative unfair value prejudice must to defendant. "'Judicial inquiry does not end with a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t the evidence of another crime is relevant and probative of a necessary element of the charged o f f e n s e . I t does not s u f f i c e s i m p l y t o see i f t h e e v i d e n c e i s capable of b e i n g f i t t e d w i t h i n an exception to the rule. Rather, a balancing test must be applied. The e v i d e n c e o f a n o t h e r s i m i l a r c r i m e must not only be relevant, i t must also be reasonably necessary to the government's case, and i t m u s t be p l a i n , clear, and conclusive, before i t s probative value w i l l be held to outweigh its potential prejudicial effects.' United States v. T u r q u i t t , 557 F . 2 d 464, 468-69 (5th C i r . 1977) (citations omitted). " H o w e v e r , i t i s ' o n l y when t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of e v i d e n c e is "substantially o u t w e i g h e d by the danger of unfair prejudice," ... that relevant 12 not be the CR-09-1913 evidence should be e x c l u d e d . ' United States v. Bailleaux, 685 F . 2 d 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 1 1 ( 9 t h C i r . 1982) (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) . '[T]he p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of t h e e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r o f f e n s e s m u s t a l s o be b a l a n c e d against i t s " p r e j u d i c i a l nature" to determine i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y . " P r e j u d i c i a l " i s used i n t h i s phrase to l i m i t the i n t r o d u c t i o n of p r o b a t i v e evidence of p r i o r m i s c o n d u c t o n l y when i t i s u n d u l y a n d u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c i a l . ' S t a t e v . D a i g l e , 440 S o . 2 d 2 3 0 , 235 (La. C t . App. 1 9 8 3 ) . "'Of course, "prejudice, in this c o n t e x t , means m o r e t h a n s i m p l y damage t o the opponent's cause. A p a r t y ' s case i s a l w a y s damaged by e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e f a c t s are c o n t r a r y to h i s c o n t e n t i o n ; but t h a t c a n n o t b e g r o u n d f o r e x c l u s i o n . What i s m e a n t h e r e i s a n u n d u e t e n d e n c y t o move t h e t r i b u n a l t o d e c i d e on a n i m p r o p e r b a s i s , c o m m o n l y , t h o u g h n o t a l w a y s , an e m o t i o n a l one." S t a t e v . K u r d , Me., 360 A. 2 d 5 2 5 , 527 n. 5 (1976), quoting McCormick, H a n d b o o k on t h e Law o f E v i d e n c e § 185 a t 439 n. 31 ( 2 n d e d . 1 9 7 2 ) . ' "State v. F o r b e s , 445 A . 2 d 8, 12 (Me. 1982). " ' [ W ] h e n t h e e v i d e n c e s h o w s a common scheme o r p l a n and t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n the two offenses a r e so numerous and distinctive t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e has great probative value, the fact that i t leads inexorably to the l o g i c a l conclusion that i f t h e d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t t e d t h e o n e c r i m e he also committed the other, does not c o n s t i t u t e "prejudice" but rather proper overwhelming proof of g u i l t . (People v. Haslouer, s u p r a , 79 C a l . A p p . 3 d [ 8 1 8 ] a t pp. 8 2 4 - 8 2 9 , 145 C a l . R p t r . 234 [ ( 1 9 7 8 ) 13 CR-09-1913 ].)' 164 Averette The had June the S t a t e , 469 fact on p r i o r he v. P e o p l e v . R a n c e , 106 C a l . A p p . 3 d C a l . R p t r . 8 2 2 , 825 (1980)." occasions the 28, that State's Hudson to case because e v i d e n c e does not record for various to i t was Cf. the charged was to show t h a t unfairly err by Parte the intent collateral-acts prejudicial. admitting the 2009 and necessary to 33 tending So. 3d nature numerous p r i o r However, the possessed to kill Miles. evidence 404(b) State appears by trial evidence. their that the character but requisite It offered the convictions suggests the the value. a c t s because of This to 1279, of outweigh i t s probative he 14 17, evidence t o show H u d s o n ' s b a d II. brother t o show t h a t reasonably Jackson, 1985). his January the p r e j u d i c i a l Accordingly, Rule and probative only crimes. introduced specifically, victim specific collateral not intended ( A l a . C r . App. both the (C. 6 8 - 7 1 . ) e v i d e n c e was the Ex Moreover, offenses. to the on r e v e a l s t h a t Hudson has similarity 1374 i t was substantially have chosen these that at Miles Additionally, (Ala. 2009). The 1371, shot kill prove Hudson's i n t e n t . 1285-86 2d i s b o t h r e l e v a n t and intent 2009. So. 245, cannot the intent; be State court did said was not CR-09-1913 Hudson a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e l i m i t i n g the jury regarding thereby any Thus, Hudson objections Court review an objection record Buford " [ i ] n order to the g i v i n g upon what s p e c i f i c Cauley or v. State, 681 the issue on trial. appeal. to preserve the d e n i a l f o r the appellant of a for jury to state f o r g r o u n d s t h e o b j e c t i o n i s made." 891 S o . 2 d 4 2 3 , 431 So. 2d ( A l a .Crim. App. 1105, ( A l a . Crim. 1107 2004), 1996). In J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , So. that raising that held broad, i n s t r u c t i o n s at from i t i s necessary v. S t a t e , quoting App. long to H o w e v e r , he f a i l e d t o to the l i m i t i n g i s precluded has instruction, the 4 0 4 ( b ) e v i d e n c e was o v e r l y constituting reversible error. raise This the Rule i n s t r u c t i o n given 3d ( A l a . Crim. the c i r c u i t limiting [Ms. C R - 0 9 - 1 5 8 0 , court App. erroneously i n s t r u c t i o n regarding convictions. This 2010), Court 17, 2010] the appellant failed the December to give admission of argued the j u r y a his stated: "At trial, [the appellant] neither requested a limiting i n s t r u c t i o n nor objected to the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s . R u l e 2 1 . 3 , A l a . R. C r i m . P., provides, i n relevant part, that '[n]o party may a s s i g n as e r r o r t h e c o u r t ' s ... g i v i n g o f a n ... incomplete or otherwise improper o r a l charge, unless the p a r t y o b j e c t s t h e r e t o b e f o r e the j u r y r e t i r e s t o c o n s i d e r i t s v e r d i c t , s t a t i n g t h e m a t t e r t o w h i c h he 15 prior CR-09-1913 or she o b j e c t s and t h e g r o u n d s o f t h e o b j e c t i o n . ' See a l s o S h o u l d i s v . S t a t e , 953 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 5 , 1282 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2006) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s challenge to the c i r c u i t court's j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n was n o t p r e s e r v e d a n d t h u s was n o t p r o p e r l y before this Court). Because [the appellant] failed to r e q u e s t a l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n and f a i l e d t o o b j e c t to the c i r c u i t court's instruction, he d i d not preserve this issue for this Court's review. T h e r e f o r e , t h i s i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e him t o any r e l i e f . Jackson v. State, So. Like the appellant either of the t r i a l 3d a t . i n J a c k s o n , Hudson court's limiting 110.) C o n s e q u e n t l y , he i s p r e c l u d e d appeal and For court i s not e n t i t l e d the i s due foregoing t o be to failed to object instructions. (R. from r a i s i n g the i s s u e to 59, on relief. reasons, the judgment of the trial affirmed. AFFIRMED. Windom and J o i n e r , J J . , c o n c u r ; w i t h o p i n i o n , j o i n e d by K e l l u m , J . 16 Welch, P.J., dissents, CR-09-1913 WELCH, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , The for majority two on two affirms counts discharging of Keokie Tareze attempted incidents. 17, 2009, The The s e c o n d i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d a neighborhood he a r r i v e d a n d t h a t of which h i t M i l e s The State gathering. Miles testified approximately Hudson fired over objections Hudson's again court's I would hold evidence court two s h o t s objections; on a p p e a l . the t r i a l a t h i m , one and h e a r t . i t admitted evidence evidence of was n o t of the admissible. 17 other brother, raises finds committed two to three Hudson The m a j o r i t y court that the c o l l a t e r a l - a c t admission of the evidence. that that relating admitted was 15 t o 20 m i n u t e s i n the back, damaging h i s lungs The t r i a l when into the v e h i c l e . i n v o l v i n g Hudson, M i l e s , and M i l e s ' s evidence because shots a friend acts Bates. when with on testified presented Tavaries trial Miles, of based occurred also collateral the count on J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 , when M i l e s Hudson a r r i v e d a t t h e g a t h e r i n g after Stanley five one incident i n h i s c a r and t a l k i n g Hudson a p p r o a c h e d them and f i r e d attending and convictions v e h i c l e , charges first and t h e v i c t i m , t h a t he was s i t t i n g Hudson's murder a f i r e a r m i n t o an o c c u p i e d separate January dissenting. those no e r r o r i n I disagree, and reversible error collateral acts CR-09-1913 "Evidence crimes of p r i o r i s generally 08-1759, 2011). Feb. The 25, well or subsequent inadmissible." 2011] So. established collateral 3d rule , acts and State, B a i l e y v. bad [Ms. CR- (Ala. Crim. i s that a defendant's o r i n n o c e n c e i s t o be b a s e d on e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t with charged. which he is currently Evidence bad acts the jury to crimes i n the past, particular the crime jurors' Drinkard, of 777 defendant's far of outweigh Crim. prior c r i m e s has of j u r o r s . " App. C. he i s charged from 296 fair the main of other crimes 2005). -- value E.g., or bad that Irvin "Most v. agree a l m o s t an i r r e v e r s i b l e committed The Ex general the 18 rule acts State, the prejudicial is likely be 940 such gained So. i m p a c t upon the to from 2d evidence Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s Alabama E v i d e n c e § 1996). parte protects might that the t h u s , i t draws issue." because cause committed evidence trial collateral has he ( A l a . 2000). a probative that crime i t could defendant likely to the evidence. (Ala. ed. 295, the collateral-act right any which away 2d of evidence admitting (5th with So. because i t i s more minds exclusion effect that, guilt to the of i s " p r e s u m p t i v e l y p r e j u d i c i a l because infer App. 331 of minds 69.01(1) CR-09-1913 Although collateral-act limited the evidence, purposes provides, general rule that one evidence i n some c a s e s . in pertinent is Rule of can 404(b), prohibition be admitted A l a . R. of for Evid., part: " E v i d e n c e of o t h e r c r i m e s , wrongs, or a c t s 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 a p e r s o n 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 " That a c o l l a t e r a l bad one of the evidence the trial "other act or o f f e n s e purposes" admissible. does not Further m i g h t be offered for a u t o m a t i c a l l y render a n a l y s i s must be performed court: "'Judicial i n q u i r y does not end with a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t the evidence of another crime is relevant and probative of a necessary element of the charged o f f e n s e . I t does not s u f f i c e s i m p l y t o see i f the e v i d e n c e i s capable of b e i n g f i t t e d w i t h i n an exception to the rule. Rather, a balancing test must be applied. The e v i d e n c e o f a n o t h e r s i m i l a r c r i m e must not only be relevant, i t must also be reasonably necessary to the government's case, and i t m u s t be p l a i n , clear, and conclusive, before i t s probative value w i l l be held to outweigh its potential prejudicial effects.' United States v. T u r q u i t t , 557 F . 2 d 464, 468-69 (5th C i r . 1977)(citations omitted). 19 the by CR-09-1913 " H o w e v e r , i t i s ' o n l y when t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of evidence is "substantially o u t w e i g h e d by the danger of unfair prejudice," ... that relevant evidence should be excluded.' United States v. Bailleaux, 685 F.2d 1105, 1111 (9th C i r . 1982) (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) . '[T]he p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of t h e e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r o f f e n s e s m u s t a l s o be balanced against i t s " p r e j u d i c i a l nature" to determine i t s admissibility. " P r e j u d i c i a l " i s used i n t h i s phrase to l i m i t the i n t r o d u c t i o n of p r o b a t i v e e v i d e n c e of p r i o r m i s c o n d u c t o n l y when i t i s u n d u l y a n d u n f a i r l y prejudicial.' S t a t e v . D a i g l e , 440 So. 2d 2 3 0 , 235 (La. C t . App. 1983)." Averette 1985). matters v. State, Determinations for determinations its 744 the (Ala. Crim. evidence So. of 2d the trial w i l l be discretion. The 4 69 See, App. 1371, admissibility court's reversed e.g., 1374 (Ala. of Crim. App. evidence are discretion, o n l y i f the t r i a l T a r i q - M a d y u n v. and court State, 59 those abuses So. 3d 2010). State's pretrial notice stated, in relevant of the proposed Rule 404(b) part: "1. Between April to May 2008, Keokie Hudson attempted to rob T a v a r i e s Bates, the v i c t i m ' s b r o t h e r , and s h o t a t him w h i l e t h e v i c t i m was with his brother. "2. On N o v e m b e r 8, 2008, K e o k i e Hudson shot at S t a n l e y M i l e s , the v i c t i m , i n the c u r r e n t case, w h i l e he was at a b i r t h d a y p a r t y l o c a t e d at 7542 6 6 t h S t r e e t S o u t h , B i r m i n g h a m , AL 3 5 2 0 6 . "3. On J a n u a r y 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 , K e o k i e H u d s o n d r o v e b y t h e v i c t i m ' s h o u s e w h e r e he l i v e d w i t h h i s b r o t h e r Tavaries Bates at 6th Avenue South, 20 CR-09-1913 B i r m i n g h a m , AL 3 5 2 1 5 . When K e o k i e d r o v e b y t h e h o u s e , he s h o t i n t o i t s t r i k i n g T a v a r i e s B a t e s who was s t a n d i n g on t h e p o r c h . " (C. 120.) At trial, considered outside testimony the about jury's the admitted the testimony majority states that the t r i a l show identity majority's is acts, on the trial o f i n t e n t a n d on i d e n t i t y , were identity." his testimony "admissible collateral on (R. of 59.) the jury that the from residence and the the evidence to that the correct. At the stated limited of the that first i t would purpose on the i f i d e n t i t y became an i s s u e . court then i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y issues of hearing Tavaries shooting -- acts indicates the f i r s t After a c t -- H u d s o n ' s girlfriend's objection for a However, t h e t r i a l Miles's presence acts court issue during record court Although the a d m i s s i b i l i t y evidence 41-42.) those admitted partially admit (R. of the the collateral purposes. court only of the hearing collateral three for limited intent, statement conclusion two and presence, the two collateral acts intent, motive, or testimony outside the Bates Bates court about while the Bates overruled third was at Hudson's t o t h e e v i d e n c e and r e j e c t e d Hudson's argument that t h e e v i d e n c e was i n a d m i s s i b l e b e c a u s e M i l e s was n o t t h e v i c t i m 21 CR-09-1913 of that that shooting. the The testimony from "offered for a very just intent, for that character motive, The collateral reasons, intent. on the In this about he that was discussion (R. his relevant the being t h a t the But jury shot was defendant i s with i t ' s o f f e r e d to show 110.) types of issues the three 4 about because, to the in conformity those testimony admitted of instructed acted design, only." properly testimony its then occasion. holds was and scheme, purpose majority acts Bates character plan, limited court l i m i t e d purpose, not a p e r s o n of bad t h a t bad trial prove reasons the majority identity the and collateral The t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s were c l e a r l y i n a d e q u a t e . Ex p a r t e B i l l u p s , [Ms. 1 0 9 0 5 5 4 , Dec. 30, 2 0 1 0 ] So. 3d (Ala. 2010)("By simply r e c i t i n g the complete 'laundry list' of p e r m i s s i b l e t h e o r i e s under Rule 404(b), the trial c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s case gave the j u r y inadequate guidance. ... The t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n a l s o f a i l e d t o l i m i t t h e S t a t e t o t h e p u r p o s e s -- as n o n s p e c i f i c as t h e y w e r e -- t h a t i t a d v a n c e d i n s u p p o r t o f a d m i s s i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g B i l l u p s ' s i n v o l v e m e n t i n [the c o l l a t e r a l i n c i d e n t s ] . T h u s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d b y f a i l i n g t o l i m i t the j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h a t e v i d e n c e to o n l y those p u r p o s e s f o r w h i c h t h e e v i d e n c e was p u r p o r t e d l y o f f e r e d b y t h e S t a t e ( p l a n , i d e n t i t y , m o t i v e , and i n t e n t ) . " ) . Furthermore, the trial court's final charge to the jury in this case i n c l u d e d no i n s t r u c t i o n a b o u t t h e c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence. However, b e c a u s e Hudson d i d not r a i s e t h e s e o b j e c t i o n s at t r i a l , he f a i l e d t o p r e s e r v e t h e i s s u e f o r a p p e a l . 4 See 22 CR-09-1913 evidence holds, fits within in relevant the identity exception, the majority part: "The circumstances surrounding the collateral a c t s are t h a t Hudson t r i e d to k i l l both Stanley M i l e s and h i s b r o t h e r , T a v a r i e s B a t e s , on several occasions b e t w e e n F e b r u a r y 2008 and January 27, 2009. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s that i n each i n c i d e n t H u d s o n was t h e s h o o t e r a n d e i t h e r M i l e s o r B a t e s was t h e i n t e n d e d v i c t i m ; t h a t t h e c o l l a t e r a l a c t s , as w e l l as t h e i n c i d e n t s t h a t f o r m e d t h e b a s e s o f t h e c h a r g e s a l l h a p p e n e d w i t h i n an 1 8 - m o n t h p e r i o d ; and t h a t a l l the a c t s happened i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y to the Gate C i t y h o u s i n g p r o j e c t . T h e s e f a c t s , when t a k e n t o g e t h e r , show e n o u g h s i m i l a r i t y t o f i t w i t h i n t h e i d e n t i t y e x c e p t i o n to the e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e . " So. I argue 3d at . am compelled at trial, to nor note, did acts and tried been committed Rather, the collateral Hudson acts had rationale against State the was for in a admissible shot at essence collateral-act evidence. to Rule 404(b) defendant's character therewith. As for and the when to trial which novel in or and the is court, was peculiar not trial Bates the being manner. evidence of the because and that prohibition i s not offered admissible to defendant's when did that Hudson general Evidence i t State hold, Hudson's show t h e 23 that Miles of the court argued very pursuant the that trial essentially previously is the crimes collateral had first, i t ruled prove a conformity that the CR-09-1913 collateral-act evidence stated d e f e n s e had as that the shooter. crimes were Hudson was neither As that the the the Thus, on trial, State nor exclusionary 2005), the admissible, placed similar to majority a p p l i c a t i o n of rule governing i s f a r too the that the Irvin v. State, this Court the an simply identity collateral crimes makes for which argument that below. the 940 holding, identity liberal identity In court i n i s s u e Hudson's determining H u d s o n made the substance of the m a j o r i t y ' s majority's established. in sufficiently f o r the principles App. the was So. exception in this exception 2d 331 I believe case. The are well (Ala. Crim. stated: " C o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence i s a d m i s s i b l e to prove i d e n t i t y o n l y when t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e p e r s o n who c o m m i t t e d t h e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e i s i n i s s u e and the c h a r g e d o f f e n s e i s committed i n a n o v e l or p e c u l i a r manner. 1 Charles W. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s Alabama E v i d e n c e § 6 9 . 0 1 ( 8 ) ( 5 t h e d . 1 9 9 6 ) ; Ex p a r t e A r t h u r , 472 So. 2d 665 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 820 So. 2d 8 4 2 , 8 61 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000 ); T y s o n v. S t a t e , 784 So. 2d 3 2 8 , 344 (Ala. Crim. App.), a f f ' d , 784 So. 2d 357 ( A l a . 2000 ). 'Under t h e identity exception to the general exclusionary rule p r o h i b i t i n g the a d m i s s i o n of other or collateral c r i m e s as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f t h e g u i l t o f t h e a c c u s e d , the p r i o r crime i s not r e l e v a n t to prove i d e n t i t y u n l e s s b o t h t h a t and t h e n o w - c h a r g e d c r i m e a r e " s i g n a t u r e c r i m e s " h a v i n g t h e a c c u s e d ' s mark and t h e p e c u l i a r l y d i s t i n c t i v e modus o p e r a n d i so that t h e y may be s a i d t o be t h e w o r k o f t h e same p e r s o n . ' B i g h a m e s v . S t a t e , 440 So. 2d 1 2 3 1 , 1233 (Ala. Crim. 24 to CR-09-1913 App. 1983). '[E]vidence of a p r i o r crime i s a d m i s s i b l e o n l y when t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g the p r i o r crime and those s u r r o u n d i n g t h e p r e s e n t l y charged crime "exhibit such a great degree of similarity that anyone v i e w i n g t h e two o f f e n s e s w o u l d n a t u r a l l y assume them t o have been committed b y t h e same p e r s o n . " ' E x p a r t e A r t h u r , 472 S o . 2 d a t 668 ( q u o t i n g B r e w e r v . S t a t e , 440 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 5 , 1161 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 3 ) ) . See a l s o Mason v . S t a t e , 2 5 9 A l a . 4 3 8 , 66 S o . 2 d 557 ( 1 9 5 3 ) ; a n d G o v a n v . S t a t e , 40 A l a . A p p . 482 , 115 S o . 2 d 667 ( 1 9 5 9 ) (recognizing that the identity exception i s a p p l i c a b l e o n l y where b o t h t h e p r i o r c r i m e and t h e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e w e r e c o m m i t t e d i n t h e same s p e c i a l or p e c u l i a r manner). "When e x t r i n s i c o f f e n s e e v i d e n c e i s i n t r o d u c e d to prove i d e n t i t y , the l i k e n e s s of the offenses i s the c r u c i a l consideration. In other words, the p h y s i c a l s i m i l a r i t y m u s t be s u c h t h a t i t m a r k s t h e o f f e n s e s as t h e h a n d i w o r k o f t h e a c c u s e d . " 940 So. 2d a t 347. The circumstances majority's holding, admissibility demand a collateral reversal even this case and t h e l e g a l here. cause The t h e i n s t a n c e s from circumstances to way principles one the governing the identity charged offenses and i n any s p e c i a l In f a c t , which the or p e c u l i a r that they had the circumstances the charges another. arose were Furthermore, the surrounding the three c o l l a t e r a l 25 support to prove one t o assume n a t u r a l l y b y t h e same p e r s o n . similar i n no evidence a c t s were n o t committed been committed surrounding of added.) of c o l l a t e r a l - a c t manner t h a t would not (Emphasis a c t s were n o t CR-09-1913 at a l l similar t o one a n o t h e r . be considered "signature crimes," distinctive modus perpetrator. charged Irvin, operandi Nothing or uncharged 940 identity that i . e . , crimes identified identified -- "as So. 2d a t 347. any of the handiwork applied because the period, because each an 18-month Hudson as the shooter and either and b e c a u s e t h e i n c i d e n t s housing project applied to exception is allow untenable; these w o u l d be Miles Hudson the of could had as the i f the acts virtually a the offenses -¬ accused." that the incidents occurred incident involved or h i s brother a l l o c c u r r e d i n or near collateral rendered that The m a j o r i t y ' s a s s e r t i o n exception within victim, None o f t h e c r i m e s h e r e identity into as a the exception evidence, the meaningless. "'Much m o r e i s d e m a n d e d than t h e mere repeated commission o f c r i m e s o f t h e same c l a s s , s u c h as r e p e a t e d ... r a p e s . The p a t t e r n a n d characteristics o f t h e c r i m e s must be so u n u s u a l a n d d i s t i n c t i v e as t o be l i k e a s i g n a t u r e . ' 1 M c C o r m i c k on E v i d e n c e § 190 a t 8 0 1 - 0 3 ( 4 t h e d . 1 9 9 2 ) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . " Hurley v. S t a t e , 971 S o . 2 d 7 8 , 83 The o n l y p r o b a t i v e f u n c t i o n an i m p e r m i s s i b l e o n e : " t o p r o v e in order 404(b), show A l a . R. action Crim. P. in 26 2006). offered here the c h a r a c t e r of a person conformity The App. of the evidence was to ( A l a .Crim. therewith." collateral acts were Rule not CR-09-1913 admissible under the i d e n t i t y exception. a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n when i t a d m i t t e d identity exception, analysis and d e c i s i o n As I this incidents that were with determination The details developed court the majority's issue. t o show H u d s o n ' s holding. trial the evidence under the disagree as t o t h i s f o r the majority's a c t s were a d m i s s i b l e with and The that the c o l l a t e r a l intent, I also regarding at t r i a l the revealed disagree collateral that two o f the c o l l a t e r a l e v e n t s i n v o l v e d Hudson's a c t i o n s t o w a r d a t h i r d party, the victim's Bates, present act. The d e t a i l s regarding the c o l l a t e r a l with regard Hudson's intent, crimes to by involved the commission and t h a t even exacerbated during brother, the fact Bates, testified that attempted to rob him Hudson was u n d e r the that and first -- two not of the t h i r d and of the influence of drugs. was collateral In fact, Bates -- act t o have confusing confusion the three Miles. was n o t collateral a c t s were that collateral appeared Miles when Hudson occurred because The m a j o r i t y fails t o e x p l a i n how c o l l a t e r a l i n c i d e n t s i n w h i c h Hudson a l l e g e d l y shot the v i c t i m ' s brother were e v i d e n c e o f Hudson's i n t e n t t o shoot the v i c t i m during was b e i n g tried. t h e s u b s e q u e n t i n c i d e n t s f o r w h i c h he Rather, the majority 27 simply states: CR-09-1913 "In the present c a s e , the S t a t e had t o p r o v e t h a t Hudson i n t e n d e d t o cause the d e a t h of a n o t h e r p e r s o n as p a r t o f i t s b u r d e n i n p r o v i n g attempted murder. See §§ 1 3 A - 4 - 2 , 1 3 A - 6 - 2 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 . By p r e s e n t i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t H u d s o n s h o t a t M i l e s a n d his brother on p r i o r occasions, the State could d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t Hudson i n t e n d e d t o k i l l M i l e s on t h e day i n q u e s t i o n . Therefore, that evidence f i t s the R u l e 404(b) e x c e p t i o n f o r i n t e n t . " So. I 3d at . disagree. indicates that the collateral-act Hudson fact First, guilty of that i n the conformity the support fit p r e v i o u s l y shot shooting this 28, Court So. was for shooting improperly effect The the jury charges had, a few to based and Rule 3d The the another man acted Allen trial in does evidence 404(b). v. State, (Ala. Crim. [Ms. App. Hinkle was CR-08- 2010), a collateral convicted f o r the attempted court permitted testimony weeks b e f o r e 28 find majority's rationale of the on apparently, d e a t h o f C a n e s h u a H e n r y and that, opinion introducing at M i l e s in Hinkle admitted. murder of Henry's c o u s i n . the for a s i m i l a r i s s u e , t h a t e v i d e n c e of a offense to he majority t h a t the c o l l a t e r a l - a c t held 2010] the encourage shooting intent exception case p r e s e n t i n g the to i t s determination Second, May was present present w i t h i n the from purpose w i t h the p r i o r a c t s . not 1778, quote primary evidence t h a t Hudson had and the the shooting, Hinkle CR-09-1913 had struck argument; Caneshua the court multiple times determined evidence was admissible disagreed and to in the that the prove Hinkle's face during collateral-act said: intent. " H i n k l e contends t h a t because the j u r y could infer Hinkle's intent to murder Caneshua from H i n k l e ' s use of a d e a d l y weapon i n e f f e c t u a t i n g t h e murder, the S t a t e c o u l d not p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e of a c o l l a t e r a l offense i n order to prove i n t e n t . The Alabama Supreme Court has recognized that a d e f e n d a n t ' s use o f a d e a d l y weapon t o k i l l a v i c t i m i s s u f f i c i e n t t o g i v e r i s e t o an i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e defendant intended to k i l l the v i c t i m . See, Ex parte Burgess, 827 So. 2d 1 93, 199 ( A l a . 2000 ) ('intent to kill may be inferred from the defendant's act of u s i n g a deadly weapon.'). Thus, by d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t H i n k l e used a handgun to shoot and kill Caneshua, the State produced sufficient evidence from which the j u r y c o u l d i n f e r t h a t H i n k l e a c t e d w i t h the r e q u i s i t e i n t e n t to murder Caneshua Henry. However, t h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t once t h e inference has been created, the State may not p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e of c o l l a t e r a l o f f e n s e s to support a showing of i n t e n t . See H u n t e r v . S t a t e , 802 So. 2 d 2 6 5 , 269 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000), quoting Brewer v . S t a t e , 440 So. 2 d 1 1 5 5 , 1159 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983) ('"When t h e e l e m e n t t h e S t a t e b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f on c a n 'be i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e a c t i t s e l f , ' the State may not use extraneous offenses as c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence of t h a t element i n i t s case in c h i e f . " ' ) ( c i t a t i o n s omitted). A c c o r d i n g l y , the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g the State to present testimony r e g a r d i n g the p r i o r a l t e r c a t i o n between H i n k l e a n d C a n e s h u a as e v i d e n c e o f i n t e n t t o c o m m i t the charged offense, pursuant to Rule 404(b), because the f a c t s of the murder a l r e a d y gave r i s e to an i n f e r e n c e o f i n t e n t . " 29 an We CR-09-1913 So. 3d a t As i n Hinkle, presented at Hudson's that on already the charged gave rise to The jury Hudson had fired two s h o t s might into o r t h a t Hudson had f i r e d the shots confrontation. his intent weapon. discretion purposes the second Rather, was Therefore, admitted other evident the the c o l l a t e r a l of t h i s dissent collateral no dispute warranted evidence to prove i n t e n t . accident shootings, a gathering have shootings a heated that that the that argue of testimony shots was d i d not For heard There defense deadly inference at a s o c i a l and h e a r t . a d m i s s i o n o f any c o l l a t e r a l - a c t the shootings a t h i m , one o f w h i c h s t r u c k h i m i n t h e the i n t e n t i o n of the shooter during an multiple H u d s o n h a d w a l k e d up t o M i l e s and damaged h i s l u n g s about about Miles. t o murder occasion had f i r e d back the evidence i n w h i c h M i l e s was a p a s s e n g e r , a n d t h a t , i n t h e incident, and 5 trial intent one vehicle . trial acts resulted The from an i n self-defense or i f Hudson from committed the use court to prove of abused the i t s intent. I assume, w i t h o u t deciding, a c t p r o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e -- t h e T h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e e r r o r was h a r m l e s s b e c a u s e t h e j u r y would have r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y r e g a r d l e s s of t h e erroneous admission of that evidence. 5 30 CR-09-1913 November to 8, 2008, shooting show H u d s o n ' s m o t i v e . act evidence acts involving involving requirements similar plain, be the Miles and be Averette v. State, United (emphasis attempt to Miles's brother opinion, was clearly that was irrelevant. not Even standing unduly to Hudson find as about was do has also value be will effects." Crim. 464, not App. 468-69 made shootings because be in and, that any which in my evidence second collateral act a shot at M i l e s would have been the jury and poor Hudson g u i l t y 31 of was also provided evidence prejudicial having another i t must F.2d relevant so i f the toward M i l e s ' s brother, portray jury alone, and (Ala. majority victim could 1374 basic of i t must T u r q u i t t , 557 evidence the majority irrelevant, actions the how evidence prejudicial 1371 , The i n v o l v e d Hudson's f i r i n g admissible with S t a t e s v. added). explain the 2d the i t s probative potential So. collateral meet relevant, admitted collateral- the government's case, its 469 the not "The conclusive, before outweigh (1977) only properly that did not to was admissible, test: held 1985), quoting was balancing must -- assuming brother n e c e s s a r y to the clear, Miles Even Miles's of crime reasonably to of here about Hudson's that evidence character the and charged served to only encourage crimes because CR-09-1913 in committing them he was acting in conformity with his character. Finally, of the effect of probative value, and to adequately balance balancing its court f a i l e d prejudicial possible failed the t r i a l of the possible purpose proffered for the which evidence was relevant of relevant was and here an to i t s also factors. evidence requires evidence relative majority effect value the evidence the the prejudicial probative to c o n s i d e r the b a l a n c i n g A has proper relative analysis the necessary reasonably the whether offered, of to t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e , and o n l y t h e n a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f w h e t h e r evidence is unfairly J a c k s o n , 33 So. therein. and third evidence not prejudicial. 1284-85 I would collateral prohibition unduly 3d 1 2 7 9 , Although did or ( A l a . 2009), hold that incidents f i t within was any and exception was not S t a t e ' s c a s e , even i f the e v i d e n c e had fit into the e x c e p t i o n s and so the relevant the had factors evidence was been was relevant necessary, unduly Hudson. 32 and I that would unfairly to the Ex parte cases quoted about inadmissible and that a g a i n s t such evidence See evidence to the first because the general relevant one the to the o r more o f a b a l a n c i n g of have concluded prejudicial to CR-09-1913 The the collateral State's occurred evidence case. If was the as M i l e s t e s t i f i e d , not reasonably facts evidence of undoubtedly charged collateral confused the offenses. The regarding acts issue against of probative outweigh prejudice irrelevant collateral-act d a n g e r t h a t t h e j u r y was that because probably Hudson prejudice Although evidence the brother. other the person d i d not The admission a case permits was intended and Hudson court of he also on t r i a l . The to protect 33 unfair against. whether discretion has abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n when the is entitled reasons, decided t h e undue and that of substantial shootings, f o r w h i c h he was i s admissible, evidence the foregoing of created collateral acts to a reversal trial. For the c o u r t has d i s c r e t i o n t o d e c i d e I b e l i e v e the t r i a l admitted Miles's 404(b) the t r i a l collateral-act it committed decision i n this that Rule in i n f l a m e d by t h e e v i d e n c e committed the crimes majority's limits. evidence brother guilt of another t o Hudson. trial. i f any, value, about shootings undue question Miles's Hudson's to shooting f o r w h i c h he was on i r r e l e v a n t testimony that the t h e r e w o u l d h a v e b e e n no t h a t Hudson c o m m i t t e d t h e s h o o t i n g s The necessary I dissent. against and a new CR-09-1913 Kellum, J., concurs. 34

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.