C. B. D. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

rel: 09/30/2011 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 OCTOBER TERM, APPEALS 2010-2011 CR-10-0640 C.B.D. v. S t a t e o f Alabama A p p e a l from H o u s t o n J u v e n i l e C o u r t (JU-06-165.2 t h r o u g h JU-06-165.12) KELLUM, Judge. C.B.D., a m i n o r , was a d j u d i c a t e d of possession 192(b), o f obscene A l a . Code 1975. matter, delinquent violations He was p l a c e d o n 11 c o u n t s of § on p r o b a t i o n . 13A-121 This i s t h esecond appeal i nt h i s case. As e x p l a i n e d i n d e t a i l b e l o w , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n i t i a l l y g r a n t e d C.B.D.'s 1 CR-10-0640 The evidence indicated presented the following. criminal-investigation Department, On F e b r u a r y and h i s grandparents, same d a y . taken As were versatile discs, memory d r i v e s , three County 25, Sheriff's 2009, 15-year-old lived with warrant h i s mother, the search K.R., warrant later a t C.B.D.'s r e s i d e n c e , S g t . C.B.D.'s m o t h e r o r g r a n d m o t h e r a total permit or driver's compact of iPods, a n d an X-Box b r a n d the residence, with having license. of 476 p i e c e s of "computer including types an C.B.D. obtained a search -- t h e o t h e r was away f r o m confiscated, with the February and executed of the search, a sergeant r e g a r d i n g then C.B.D. t o g e t h i s d r i v e r ' s a result media" on C.B.D. either hearing of the Houston that where delinquency Rafferty, When he a r r i v e d Rafferty presented warrant the 27, 2009, S g t . R a f f e r t y the residence the unit was l a u n c h e d for that Bill testified investigation at discs, digital two c o m p u t e r s , video-gaming device. three (R. motion t o suppress c e r t a i n evidence, and t h e S t a t e appealed that r u l i n g t o t h i s Court. T h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e r u l i n g on the motion t o suppress and remanded t h e case f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. S t a t e v . C.B.D., [Ms. C R - 0 8 - 1 2 4 5 , O c t o b e r 9, 2009] So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) . We t a k e j u d i c i a l notice o f t h i s Court's records from the previous appeal. See H u l l v . S t a t e , 607 S o . 2 d 3 6 9 , 3 7 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ( t h i s C o u r t may t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f i t s own r e c o r d s ) . 2 CR-10-0640 92.) I n a d d i t i o n , t h r e e c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e s were a l s o c o n f i s c a t e d . Sometime returned mother during the search to the residence and grandmother, juvenile Miranda C.B.D. waived Rafferty. 2 Sgt.Rafferty rights, h i s rights and agreed downloaded, used one computer also center" C.B.D. to speak admitted that he c h i l d pornography. -- t o v i e w computer i n t h e house, stepbrother, 2 202, a n d t h a t he telephone. "quite "may looked -- a A n HP b r a n d B.E., asking B.E. o f h i s s t e p s i s t e r and h a l f See Miranda v. A r i z o n a , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . a t , and t h a t he Dell sister. C.B.D. telephone to send him nude C.B.D. was n o t 384 U.S. 4 3 6 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , a n d § 3 was as t h e "media (R. 1 0 3 . ) to brand computer b u t i t was b e i n g u s e d said (R. 91.) C.B.D. s a i d i n t h e house and c a b l e . C.B.D. often." have" (R. 8 9 . ) pornography. f o r the television photographs with Sgt. C.B.D. a d m i t t e d d e n i e d s e n d i n g t e x t messages t h r o u g h h i s c e l l u l a r his of h i s pornography from t h e I n t e r n e t t o a computer and specific found of both h i s on t h e I n t e r n e t he h a d l o o k e d a t p o r n o g r a p h y also C.B.D. and, w i t h t h e consent of h i s mother, then e-mailed i tto h i s c e l l u l a r C.B.D. advised While speaking with Sgt. Rafferty, had downloaded that the residence, and, i n the presence t h a t he h a d l o o k e d a t p o r n o g r a p h y had of 12-15¬ CR-10-0640 arrested with at the time o f t h e s e a r c h b u t was l e f t a t t h e house h i s family. Reggie Yeomans, a computer-forensics investigator with t h e H o u s t o n C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s D e p a r t m e n t who was p r e s e n t a t t h e time of the search, testified that he c o n d u c t e d a forensic examination of the confiscated items, including the Dell computer C.B.D. admitted computer, I n v . Yeomans believed constituted using found child t o view pornography. numerous images pornography. brand On t h e and v i d e o s Sgt. he Rafferty s u b s e q u e n t l y s i g n e d 13 j u v e n i l e - d e l i n q u e n c y p e t i t i o n s b a s e d o n 13 different computer. images After and/or that hearing the evidence and/or v i d e o s , t h e j u v e n i l e 11 o f t h e 13 c o u n t s in videos were found and v i e w i n g court found This t h e images C.B.D. d e l i n q u e n t o n o f p o s s e s s i o n o f obscene matter the delinquency petitions. on t h e appeal as c h a r g e d followed. I. C.B.D. c o n t e n d s court erred seized (Issues from that, i n denying f o rseveral h i s motion reasons, the juvenile to suppress the evidence h i s r e s i d e n c e as a r e s u l t I - V i n C.B.D.'s brief.) 4 of the search warrant. CR-10-0640 The records i n this this case filed a indicate motion resulting motion, and from appeal that, to on M a r c h suppress evidence were obtained provisions. ruling on t h i s motion C.B.D. filed statements evidence return a The r e c o r d s statements In that second motion from arguing that court. to suppress the after 1 5 - 5 - 1 3 , A l a . Code search motion, no warrant, a f f i d a v i t , the evidence of return had been and to effectuate executed, P., a n d §§ as o f t h e d a t e made, any h i s residence, i t had been 1975, and t h a t , various On May 4, 2 0 0 9 , the S t a t e had f a i l e d of the warrant of do n o t i n d i c a t e 3 . 1 0 , 3 . 1 1 , a n d 3 . 1 4 , A l a . R. C r i m . second initially and i n violation by t h e j u v e n i l e resulting specifically and a l l C.B.D. C.B.D. made o n l y g e n e r a l a r g u m e n t s t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t s the Rules 2, 2 0 0 9 , the execution of the search warrant. constitutional the and i n t h e p r e v i o u s appeal i n and see 15-5-12 of the the search and i n v e n t o r y had n o t been produced by t h e State. At a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n , affidavit could at and s e a r c h warrant b e made, b u t t h a t the delinquency the State asserted that the had been lost before i t was p l a n n i n g t o p r e s e n t hearing regarding 5 a return testimony the contents of the CR-10-0640 warrant which and a f f i d a v i t . C.B.D. argued proper procedures that and t h a t warrant and a f f i d a v i t failure to any t e s t i m o n y follow argued that return the warrant impossible warrant if the State procedures, could suppress, return in finding affidavit suppress, also and r e t u r n i n g t h e of the i r r e l e v a n t because of the procedures. by t h e f a i l u r e because, warrant and any c h a l l e n g e Finally, C.B.D. also of the State to he said, affidavit, without i t was to the contents C.B.D. s t a t e d i t had f o l l o w e d be r e q u i r e d court that of even the proper to e s t a b l i s h probable granted the motion the State's that initially failure to effectuate and t h e subsequent required suppression the juvenile and t h i s to follow the of the warrant. of the warrant appealed the during the contents e s t a b l i s h that i twould juvenile regarding and a f f i d a v i t and a f f i d a v i t . f o rissuance The and was executing, be ensued, had f a i l e d the r e q u i s i t e f o rhim to lodge the cause would h e was p r e j u d i c e d what discussion the State i n obtaining, warrant knowing A lengthy court's Court reversed, granting The S t a t e the motion holding: "In t h i s case, the j u v e n i l e court held the State s t r i c t l y accountable f o r i t s failure to effectuate 6 a loss of the warrant of the evidence. order to to CR-10-0640 a return of the search warrant, suppressed the e v i d e n c e , and d i s m i s s e d t h e case. We c o n c l u d e that t h i s was e r r o r . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h o u l d have afforded the State the opportunity to o f f e r evidence s u f f i c i e n t to demonstrate that the search warrant e x i s t e d a n d t h a t i t was n o t l o s t t h r o u g h f a u l t o f the S t a t e and t o e s t a b l i s h t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e l o s t warrant through secondary evidence." S t a t e v . C.B.D., , [Ms. C R - 0 8 - 1 2 4 5 , O c t o b e r (Ala. Crim. On remand, suppression hearing, the search warrant a circuit said that, the search (R. 16.) remember said in which Houston the another State County, requesting case i n v o l v i n g based presented warrant a Brad the Mendheim, testified search that he warrant in a a j u v e n i l e i n February 2009. on " c o n v e r s a t i o n s " w i t h was " a p p a r e n t l y " issued the prosecutor, i n C.B.D.'s case. H o w e v e r , J u d g e M e n d h e i m t e s t i f i e d t h a t he c o u l d n o t any s p e c i f i c s that h i s general everything warrant conducted court and accompanying a f f i d a v i t . to p l a c e t h e o f f i c e r if at Sgt. Rafferty child-pornography He juvenile t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e and c o n t e n t s o f judge remembered So. 3d App. 2009). the following testimony 9, 2 0 0 9 ] was about policy the warrant i n issuing true a search requesting the warrant i n the affidavit submitted and, i f necessary, 7 i n this to case. He warrant was under oath and a s k i n support of the obtain additional CR-10-0640 information not contained i n the a f f i d a v i t . some c a s e s , he w o u l d handwriting i t on t h e w a r r a n t . also add i n f o r m a t i o n He s a i d t h a t , i n to the warrant Judge Mendheim s a i d t h a t , " f o r a c o m p u t e r p o r n o g r a p h y c a s e , " he w o u l d h a v e g e n e r a l l y that the o f f i c e r why requesting he o r s h e b e l i e v e d pornography warrant and without that that computer "wouldn't have information." testified Mendheim also warrants f o r S g t . R a f f e r t y and t h a t that warrant. Sgt. contacted an Resources Based testified by t h e C h i l d r e n ' s representative (R. child the search 18-19.) Judge numerous Sgt. Rafferty cause before search "knows ... requesting a (R. 19.) Rafferty interview, contained issued he h a d s i g n e d w h a t he n e e d s " i n t e r m s o f p r o b a b l e search required the warrant state i n the a f f i d a v i t a particular he by and of ("DHR"), he went that Advocacy Center to the Houston as well on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n February as t h e CAC County with he r e c e i v e d 2009, ("CAC") and from spoke with of father, t h e CAC was regarding Department C.B.D.'s he 3 a Human B.D. and from We n o t e t h a t S g t . R a f f e r t y a t t e m p t e d t o t e s t i f y r e g a r d i n g t h e s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n h e h a d r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e CAC, b u t C.B.D. o b j e c t e d o n h e a r s a y g r o u n d s , a n d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s u s t a i n e d t h e o b j e c t i o n and l i m i t e d Sgt. R a f f e r t y ' s testimony, i n s t r u c t i n g Sgt. R a f f e r t y n o t t o t e s t i f y about "the s p e c i f i c s o f what t h e y a c t u a l l y t o l d h i m . " ( R . 2 8 . ) 3 8 CR-10-0640 B.D., he prepared an affidavit where C.B.D. was residence address a n d l o t number he e x p e c t e d t o f i n d Rafferty we o b t a i n e d the information from he specific means from from message C.B.D. and n o t "remember specific and s t a t i n g t h a t Sgt. the "[f]acts on the B.D. that issues with Rafferty asking B.E. lists items that who C.B.D. he B.D.'s B.E.'s, take nude Although Sgt. remembered had that about case child- he r e m e m b e r e d " t h e (R. 3 4 . ) i n child-pornography t o be s e a r c h e d this he r e c e i v e d h a d concerns and, thus, i n the a f f i d a v i t of storing to also w o r d f o r w o r d how t h e a f f i d a v i t f o r the a f f i d a v i t . " said but h i s stepson's, his sisters. testified father CAC, regarding b e c a u s e much o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o f our grounds generally obtained received text C.B.D.'s pornography Sgt. put i n the a f f i d a v i t himself up[,]" from basis a of specifically come had of could typed the pornography at the residence. had telephone photographs was he he interception Rafferty listing f o rthe i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n " (R. 3 7 ) , i n c l u d i n g n o t o n l y information cellular living, warrant o f C.B.D.'s r e s i d e n c e child specifically and search and t h e search cases, he warrant the for, including a l l electronic information, such 9 as c e l l u l a r telephones, CR-10-0640 computers, hard d r i v e s , music/video players, was cameras, scanners, p r i n t e r s , p o r t a b l e and gaming c o n s o l e s . a r e a s o n he r e q u e s t e d a w a r r a n t f o r more than j u s t C.B.D.'s c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e , S g t . R a f f e r t y s a i d t h a t "all this [referring affidavit ... t o t h e above [b]ecause i n this When a s k e d i f t h e r e list any p a r t case of items] i s put into the o r a n y one o f t h e s e items where i m a g e s c a n be s t o r e d w o u l d be a p a r t o f t h e c a s e . " 36.) According and search warrant the warrant to Sgt. Rafferty, and took on F e b r u a r y he p r e p a r e d the a f f i d a v i t i t t o J u d g e M e n d h e i m , who 27, 2009. (R. Sgt.Rafferty said signed t h a t he e x p l a i n e d t h e f a c t s o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o Judge Mendheim and swore true under oath and t h a t that Judge the information i n the a f f i d a v i t Mendheim and t h e n s i g n e d t h e w a r r a n t . asked him a d d i t i o n a l t h e same day. Sgt. Rafferty have a copy o f t h e a f f i d a v i t been unable deliberately to find them. o f t h e r e s i d e n c e where said He s a i d , however, the a f f i d a v i t The w a r r a n t was that or search warrant destroy or lose I n v . Yeomans t e s t i f i e d questions S g t . R a f f e r t y c o u l d n o t remember what s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s Judge Mendheim a s k e d . executed was a n d t h a t he h a d that 10 and t h a t he d i d n o t and w a r r a n t . t h a t he p a r t i c i p a t e d C.B.D. l i v e d he d i d n o t i n the search he saw a c o p y o f CR-10-0640 the search warrant a n d t h a t i t a u t h o r i z e d a s e a r c h o f C.B.D.'s residence f o r " [ a ] n y media t h a t c o u l d s t o r e images o r v i d e o s . " (R. 6 0 . ) During t h e s e a r c h , I n v . Y e o m a n s w r o t e on t h e b a c k o f the copy o f t h e s e a r c h warrant was a list c o n f i s c a t e d from t h e r e s i d e n c e , and l e f t search warrant a t C.B.D.'s home. s e a r c h , he n e v e r h a d p o s s e s s i o n or affidavit, warrant, lose the warrant C.B.D. a following the search warrant return of the destroy, hide, or and a f f i d a v i t . was DHR involving Shellhouse, testified d i d not e f f e c t u a t e that investigation that he d i d n o t d e l i b e r a t e l y that t h a t copy o f t h e of the o r i g i n a l employed w i t h "allegations material he He s a i d Shellhouse, testified that that and t h a t Donna to of a l l the evidence the Houston investigating other the investigation was caused electronically and she c o n t a c t e d that, although C.B.D. children" i n c l u d e d e l e c t r o n i c media. County DHR, regarding and that the (R. 4 4 . ) According h e r t o be concerned transmitting Sgt. Rafferty. s h e was n o t p r e s e n t pornographic Shellhouse also during the search o f C.B.D.'s r e s i d e n c e , s h e w e n t t o C.B.D.'s r e s i d e n c e o n M a r c h 4, 2009, paper a n d C.B.D.'s with mother, t y p e w r i t i n g on K.R., i t that 11 showed K.R. said her a piece the of sheriff's CR-10-0640 department had given her at the time search read warrant. C.B.D.'s looked cellular from telephone C.B.D. initially mother asking and her testified she d i d n o t that i n February B.E.'s, f o r nude text pictures 5-year-old to C.B.D.'s m o t h e r confiscate messages when he saw him that and found s h e h a d gone n o t h i n g on i t . spoke with Sgt. Rafferty C. B.D. may h a v e accessed that said cellular have been ... c h i l d "some Following porn the testimony, expressed material pursuant to the search warrant because, he s a i d , " t h e r e ' s n o t been 26, 2009, concern that and t h e r e may (R. 52.) C.B.D. a r g u e d obtained cellular t h a t h e was n o t Around February issues." C.B.D.'s C.B.D.'s B.D. s a i d he messages C.B.D.'s through pornographic messages B.D. hold and on h i s 11-year-old about the t e x t and 2009, o f B.D.'s daughter. a b l e t o l o o k a t C.B.D.'s t e l e p h o n e . real that u n t i l h e a r r i v e d b u t t h a t when h e a r r i v e d , told telephone B. D. said and became c o n c e r n e d telephoned asked telephone father, at h i s stepson's, stepdaughter and however, t h e document. B.D., he Shellhouse, of the search, i . e . ,the that the evidence s h o u l d be any r e a l suppressed evidence o r any t e s t i m o n y a s t o w h a t was c o n t a i n e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i t , " b u t 12 CR-10-0640 only "general 65.) C.B.D. appellate the into also brief State granting testimony asked the juvenile he h a d p r e v i o u s l y had appealed the motion evidence. reiterated that as t o w h a t ' s done i n most c a s e s . " filed the juvenile to suppress, In court to consider the this when with court's and t h a t h i s previously Court initial brief filed was to effectuate a return a u t o m a t i c a l l y mandated of the evidence an seized, i n State prejudiced of i s no allegedly issued the search 1245, by followed." (C.B.D.'s present in to establish 13 a the i f the judge that cause f o r the issuance brief he "[w]ithout had probable i t s previously evidence that to effectuate i n case filed t o do of the no. CR-08- a l l the cases brief from h i s case and d i d n o t a u t h o r i z e parol expressly argued said, C.B.D. f u r t h e r a r g u e d t h a t State distinguishable to warrant procedures a t 11.) he warrant suppression Court He a l s o to determine the lawful were the way this of the State because, there warrant supra. by t h e f a i l u r e the warrant and t h a t argument v . C.B.D., affidavit so C.B.D. of the search accompanying a f f i d a v i t return admitted brief, and was order t h e a r g u m e n t made i n h i s s e c o n d m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s the failure rejected (R. cited were the State the contents of a CR-10-0640 search an warrant and accompanying a f f i d a v i t argument C.B.D., The that and that supra. j u v e n i l e court able affidavit established warrant[.]" denied Court i n State the motion to suppress, had proven the e x i s t e n c e accompanying not r e j e c t e d by t h i s lost, v. 4 the State were was a l s o t h a t had been and affidavit, to recall search the contents and t h a t word warrant, of the search "although f o r word the of the lost finding the what State warrant witnesses was i n the substantially affidavit and search (R. 7 0 . ) " I n r e v i e w i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o suppress, this Court reviews the t r i a l court's findings of fact under an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. 'When e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d o r e tenus t o the t r i a l court, the court's f i n d i n g s of f a c t b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e a r e p r e s u m e d t o be c o r r e c t , ' E x p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 S o . 2 d 4 6 , 47 ( A l a . 1994); '[w]e i n d u l g e a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y r u l e d on t h e w e i g h t a n d p r o b a t i v e f o r c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e , ' B r a d l e y v . S t a t e , 494 S o . 2 d 7 5 0 , 7 6 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) , a f f ' d , 494 S o . 2 d 772 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; a n d we make ' " a l l t h e r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s and c r e d i b i l i t y c h o i c e s s u p p o r t i v e o f t h e decision of the t r i a l court."' Kennedy v. S t a t e , C.B.D. a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a d p r o p e r l y refused t o continue the hearing t o allow the State t o secure i t s m a i n w i t n e s s , who w a s o u t o f t o w n t h e d a y o f t h e i n i t i a l h e a r i n g because o f a f a m i l y emergency. B a s e d on t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n S t a t e v . C.B.D. a n d t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t o c c u r r e d i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a f t e r t h a t d e c i s i o n , t h a t argument i s now m o o t . 4 14 CR-10-0640 640 S o . 2 d 2 2 , 26 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) , quoting B r a d l e y , 494 S o . 2 d a t 7 6 1 . ' [ A ] n y c o n f l i c t s i n t h e testimony or c r e d i b i l i t y of witnesses during a s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g i s a m a t t e r f o r r e s o l u t i o n by the trial court Absent a gross abuse of discretion, a trial c o u r t ' s r e s o l u t i o n o f [such] conflict[s] should n o t be r e v e r s e d on appeal.' S h e e l y v . S t a t e , 629 S o . 2 d 2 3 , 29 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1993) (citations omitted). However, '"[w]here t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t was u n d i s p u t e d t h e ore tenus r u l e i s i n a p p l i c a b l e , and t h e [ a p p e l l a t e ] C o u r t w i l l s i t i n j u d g m e n t o n t h e e v i d e n c e de n o v o , indulging no p r e s u m p t i o n i n favor of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o those facts."' S t a t e v . H i l l , 690 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 1 , 1 2 0 3 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , q u o t i n g S t i l e s v . B r o w n , 380 S o . 2 d 7 9 2 , 794 ( A l a . 1980). '"'[W]hen t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y a p p l i e s t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s , no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . ' " ' Ex p a r t e Jackson, 88 6 S o . 2 d 1 5 5 , 159 ( A l a . 2004 ) , quoting H i l l , 690 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 0 3 , q u o t i n g i n t u r n E x p a r t e A g e e , 669 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 , 104 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . A trial c o u r t ' s u l t i m a t e l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n on a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s b a s e d on a g i v e n s e t o f f a c t s i s a q u e s t i o n of law that i s reviewed de n o v o o n a p p e a l . See S t a t e v . S m i t h , 785 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 9 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 200 0)." State v. Hargett, 2005). With 935 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 3 - 0 4 these C.B.D.'s c l a i m s principles i n mind, we ( A l a . Crim. App. address each of i n turn. A. C.B.D. predicate contents contends that the State f o r the admission of the a f f i d a v i t of parol and warrant. 15 failed to l a y a evidence (Issue proper to prove the I I I i n C.B.D.'s CR-10-0640 brief.) Specifically, present search sufficient Our was n e v e r did object evidence warrant regarding documents. in engaged that i tshould ruling the record in C.B.D. that court. to of the a f f i d a v i t search argued C.B.D. the parol and for the not consider the State's p a r o l evidence to suppress on t h e g r o u n d that the on of questions 716 i s limited to review raised at t r i a l . " (Ala. Crim. App. review an a l l e g e d objection specific C.B.D. objections. 5 did Newsome v . S t a t e , 1989). erroneous m u s t b e made grounds lost juvenile f o r i t s admission. timely search to establish p r o p e r p r e d i c a t e had n o t been l a i d appeal this to the on t h e m o t i o n never diligent he s a y s , i s indicates hearing diligent to evidence. to the juvenile suppression failed a which, t h a t the State had f a i l e d Likewise, 5 i t conducted of parol the contents on t h e g r o u n d i t had court of the the State and a f f i d a v i t presented at that that to the admission argument that warrant examination not argues evidence f o r the lost a prerequisite he "In order admission several 16 hearsay and 570 S o . 2 d 7 0 3 , of evidence, f o r the objection should lodge properly for this to the introduction "Review court to a timely of the evidence, be stated and and a relevancy CR-10-0640 ruling on the objection Goodson v. S t a t e , must be made 540 S o . 2 d 7 8 9 , 791 by the t r i a l court." ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1988), abrogation on o t h e r g r o u n d s r e c o g n i z e d b y C r a i g v . S t a t e , So. 2 d 274 (Ala. Crim. at the time issue this of the admission i s not preserved State, issue "When a t i m e l y of the evidence for this 629 S o . 2 d 4 3 , 47 Court's (Ala. Crim. was n o t p r o p e r l y Moreover, is App. 1998). even had t h i s preserved 719 objection i s n o t made, t h e review." App. 1993). Ziglar Therefore, f o r appellate i s s u e been p r o p e r l y v. review. preserved, i t meritless. "Whether o r n o t s u f f i c i e n t p r e l i m i n a r y proof concerning the loss o f a document i s shown i s l a r g e l y a m a t t e r o f j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n and need only be p r o v e n to the t r i a l court's reasonable satisfaction. P o w e l l v . S t a t e , 288 A l a . 4 66, 262 So. 2 d 2 8 9 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; C. G a m b l e , M c E l r o y ' s Alabama E v i d e n c e , § 214.01 (3d e d . 1977). Because d i r e c t proof of loss i s normally not a v a i l a b l e , i ti s u s u a l l y shown b y t h e f a c t t h a t a d i l i g e n t b u t f u t i l e s e a r c h was c o n d u c t e d . J.R. W a t k i n s Co. v . G o g g a n s , 242 A l a . 2 2 2 , 5 S o . 2 d 472 ( 1 9 4 2 ) . " Spellman In v. S t a t e , Lipscomb the Alabama 500 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 , 113 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 98 6 ) . v. T a y l o r , 294 A l a . 2 4 6 , 314 S o . 2 d 840 Supreme C o u r t explained: "'"'If the instrument i s lost, the party i s required to give some e v i d e n c e that such a paper once e x i s t e d , though slight evidence i s sufficient for this 17 (1975), CR-10-0640 p u r p o s e , and t h a t a bona f i d e and d i l i g e n t s e a r c h h a s b e e n u n s u c c e s s f u l l y made f o r i t i n t h e p l a c e w h e r e i t was m o s t l i k e l y t o be found, i f the nature of the case admits such p r o o f . What d e g r e e o f d i l i g e n c e i n the s e a r c h i s n e c e s s a r y i t i s not easy to d e f i n e , as e a c h c a s e d e p e n d s much on i t s p e c u l i a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; and t h e q u e s t i o n whether the loss of the instrument i s sufficiently proved to admit secondary evidence of i t s contents is to be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e c o u r t and n o t by the jury. B u t i t seems t h a t , i n g e n e r a l t h e p a r t y i s e x p e c t e d t o show t h a t he h a s i n good faith exhausted, in a reasonable d e g r e e , a l l t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n and means o f , d i s c o v e r y w h i c h t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c a s e w o u l d n a t u r a l l y s u g g e s t and w h i c h were a c c e s s i b l e to him.'"'" 294 A l a . a t 257, e m p h a s i s and McElroy's In 314 So. citations 2 d a t 850 omitted). Alabama Evidence Lipscomb, (some e m p h a s i s a d d e d ; the See § 214.01 Court a l s o C h a r l e s W. (6th ed. upheld the sufficient testified received that i t t h a t he either was represented produce, predicate had the kept the had been laid admission when s i g n e d t h e c o n t r a c t and original or in office the defendants, the defendants and and, their 18 a copy in of of Gamble, 2009). evidence to e s t a b l i s h the contents of a c o n t r a c t , a some response parol finding the that plaintiff t h a t he the the of had not contract but attorneys to who motions to attorneys denied having the CR-10-0640 original c o n t r a c t or a copy o f t h e c o n t r a c t . Spellman, evidence that supra, this Court to establish a sufficient presented from upheld the admission the contents o f two p r e d i c a t e had been a witness that the witness disappeared house. 2d Finally, 103 (1953), evidence finding after to that had read when t e s t i m o n y was been the to the defendant, and t h a t mother by letters come had the to her the the Court sufficient contents admission of a returned the to testified of search p r e d i c a t e had been laid who o b t a i n e d a n d e x e c u t e d about the warrant warrant upheld the testified clerk the l e t t e r s , told 27 A l a . A p p . 1 1 8 , 66 S o . law-enforcement o f f i c e r circuit finding i n Thomas v . S t a t e , establish a letters, when t h e the warrant and i t s e x e c u t i o n and s a i d the that circuit he clerk's h a d no the court f i l e attorneys, was n o t i n t h e c o u r t and t h e w a r r a n t of the defendant's trial. 19 t h a t he office, recollection t h a t had been r e t u r n e d i n t o parol warrant, warrant being returned but customarily placed search time parol had she the defendant's of in laid defendant's mother t h a t the l e t t e r s belonged that Similarly, the of the warrants accessible to local file at the CR-10-0640 In this Rafferty but Rafferty lost there was t h a t he h a d s e a r c h e d had been warrant case, unable specific f o r the warrant t o l o c a t e them. a n d I n v . Yeomans and s p e c i f i c a l l y or destroyed testimony testified said In addition, affidavit both Sgt. to the existence that they the warrant and by S g t . had not p u r p o s e f u l l y and accompanying T h i s t e s t i m o n y was much s t r o n g e r t h a n of the affidavit. the testimony presented i n Lipscomb, Spellman, o r T a y l o r , s u p r a , a n d was s u f f i c i e n t establish the proper predicate evidence regarding the accompanying f o r the admission contents of the to of parol warrant and affidavit. B. C.B.D. sufficient warrant brief.) the evidence He a r g u e s witness who that on a p p e a l , failed the contents affidavit. (Issue to present of the search I V i n C.B.D.'s t h a t J u d g e M e n d h e i m h a d no r e c o l l e c t i o n testified Yeomans." the State establishing and accompanying Initially, brief contends and accompanying warrant [Inv.] also about affidavit the contents (C.B.D.'s b r i e f , we n o t e that, and t h a t of "[t]he only of the warrant was a t 38.) as t h e S t a t e p o i n t s o u t i n i t s C.B.D.'s a r g u m e n t i n t h i s 20 r e g a r d i n c l u d e s no CR-10-0640 citation to legal requires that an authority. Rule 28(a)(10), argument contain appellant/petitioner with respect the reasons other are therefor, with ( A l a . C r i m . App. any authority may neither relied f o r an affirm this 1991). on t h e judgment Court's duty o n . " "[W]e fails a particular as t o t h a t Realty Inv. C o . , 722 S o . 2 d 7 4 7 , 752 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . comply with issue 486 presented. (Ala. argument it deemed S e e , e . g . , Hamm v . S t a t e , Crim. i n this App. regard for i t C i t y o f Birmingham v. has been 2002). Therefore, i s an Business Failure to a waiver of the 913 S o . 2 d 4 6 0 , because does n o t comply w i t h this to perform legal 28(a)(10) to cite issue, issue, appellant's Rule legal 594 S o . 2 d 2 3 1 , nor i t s function research." they are to relevant "When a n a p p e l l a n t argument and statutes, m a t t e r s on a p p e a l u n l e s s Z a s a d i l v. C i t y o f Montgomery, 231 Court to the cases, and argued i n b r i e f w i t h c i t a t i o n s authority." of the to the issues presented, of the record not required to consider presented "the contentions citations a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s A l a . R. A p p . P., Rule C.B.D.'s 28(a)(10), i s deemed t o be w a i v e d . Moreover, meritless. even First, i f this issue the fact that 21 was Judge not waived, Mendheim i ti s d i d not CR-10-0640 remember t h e specifics affidavit submitted itself the and and to warrant we conclusion that the to establish judge none, who form issued of See, S . E . 2 d 442 (2011) was contents of the e.g., contents the contents of warrant. from later affidavit lost was the no a search form of the officer State, ( t e s t i m o n y of o f f i c e r but of of a l o s t the does not cited To B a p t i s t e v. to s i g n e d or is that and testimony contrary, parol affidavit who 288 sufficient may be drafted Ga. the 653, that unsigned submitted from 70 6 copy of i n support of to establish affidavit). by the record. the contents out above i n d e t a i l , of parol warrant the to t e s t i f y r e g a r d i n g the contents of the search belied lend affidavit S e c o n d , C.B.D.'s a s s e r t i o n t h a t I n v . Y e o m a n s was person the authority, proposition i n the the contents identical warrant for he that warrant C.B.D. h a s m u s t be testimony affidavit. affidavit the affidavit to e s t a b l i s h the search proven. found evidence in of were not accompanying search warrant i n support have evidence the of the the warrant of the and Sgt. Rafferty search warrant, was sufficient and his testimony, accompanying a f f i d a v i t . 22 warrant also t e s t i f i e d to e s t a b l i s h the Briefly only about as set contents summarized CR-10-0640 and v i e w e d i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e ruling, Sgt. affidavit the submitted sisters testimony nude photographs and send them t o C.B.D., the included that h i s minor of himself that court's that warrant t h a t C.B.D. h a d r e q u e s t e d take C.B.D. b a s e d established i n support of the search following facts: stepbrother the Rafferty's to the juvenile and h i s minor DHR was i n v e s t i g a t i n g on a l l e g a t i o n s made b y o t h e r c h i l d r e n , and t h a t i n v e s t i g a t i o n of those a l l e g a t i o n s l e d t o the b e l i e f that C.B.D. was t r a n s m i t t i n g p o r n o g r a p h y t h r o u g h e l e c t r o n i c m e d i a . Although against of neither the specific C.B.D. made b y o t h e r the information nature the that Sgt. Rafferty affidavit. 6 a l l of that In the allegations c h i l d r e n nor the s p e c i f i c received disclosed at the suppressed hearing, established of t h e CAC w e r e Sgt. R a f f e r t y ' s information addition, from details was a l s o Sgt. Rafferty's testimony included i n testimony A s e x p l a i n e d i n n o t e 3 , s u p r a , t h e S t a t e a t t e m p t e d to p r e s e n t t e s t i m o n y f r o m S g t . R a f f e r t y r e g a r d i n g e x a c t l y what wha i n f o r m a t i o n h e h a d r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e CAC, b u t C.B.D. o b j e c t e d on h e a r s a y g r o u n d s a n d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a g r e e d w i t h C.B.D. and prohibited any testimony regarding the specific information Sgt. R a f f e r t y had received. In addition, State attempted t o present testimony regarding t h e nature of t h e o t h e r c h i l d r e n ' s a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t C.B.D., b u t C.B.D. a g a i n o b j e c t e d on h e a r s a y g r o u n d s , a n d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t again agreed with C.B.D. and p r o h i b i t e d any testimony r e g a r d i n g t h e n a t u r e o f t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s . C.B.D.'s h e a r s a y 6 t 23 h e CR-10-0640 established that residence where affidavit and the specifically specific C.B.D. warrant, was specifically storing the type telephones, of and listed that the and l o t number were living i . e . , the described, warrant address included place both hard drives, the in the searched be the electronic information being computers, to of was affidavit media sought capable -- cameras, the items to be searched for were of cellular scanners, p r i n t e r s , p o r t a b l e m u s i c / v i d e o p l a y e r s , and gaming c o n s o l e s i.e., and -¬ specifically described. Although contents of Sgt. the Rafferty affidavit c o u l d not and remember warrant, such verbatim the word-for-word o b j e c t i o n s , however, were b a s e l e s s , and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s r u l i n g s were i n c o r r e c t . See, e.g., W a s h i n g t o n v. S t a t e , 922 So. 2 d 145 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ( p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r w a r r a n t may b e b a s e d o n h e a r s a y f r o m r e l i a b l e s o u r c e ) ; Woods v . S t a t e , 789 S o . 2 d 896 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) (hearsay testimony a d m i s s i b l e a t s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g ) , a f f ' d , 789 So. 2d 941 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; a n d T i e r c e v . S t a t e , 396 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 0 , 1 0 9 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1981) ("Hearsay t e s t i m o n y , however, i s o f c o u r s e , admissible at a s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g f o r the purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g p r o b a b l e c a u s e . " ) . C.B.D. c a n n o t f a u l t t h e S t a t e for not p r e s e n t i n g evidence of the exact i n f o r m a t i o n Sgt. R a f f e r t y r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e CAC t h a t was i n c l u d e d i n the a f f i d a v i t when he, h i m s e l f , s u c c e s s f u l l y p r e v e n t e d t h e S t a t e from d o i n g so. Such a t a c t i c i s , by d e f i n i t i o n , invited error. See, e.g., F o u n t a i n v . S t a t e , 58 6 So. 2d 2 7 7 , 282 (Ala. C r i m . A p p . 1991) ("A d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t i n v i t e e r r o r b y h i s c o n d u c t and l a t e r p r o f i t by t h e e r r o r . " ) . 24 CR-10-0640 recitation of the contents required. See, So. 663, the 664 (1901) [exact] state 189 e.g., language 94, necessary instrument should v. B l a c k w e l l , 128 of a lost paper, i f remembered."); 97-98, t h a t the Laster ("Though a w i t n e s s may i t s substance, Md. of a l o s t document i s g e n e r a l l y not 54 A.2d testimony be able 326, he may be 143, to (1947) ("It who i t s exact is read language, not a lost but sufficient i f i t proves to the matter i n c o n t r o v e r s y . " ) ; W a l k e r v . D r o g m u n d , 101 525, 74 necessary of the being and [lost] lost not to who it instrument sufficient of v. instruments, be have expected read the 1236 (1937) should with be able absolute to tell verbal 5 C a l . 467, w h e r e no that c o p y has witnesses i t is sufficient paper, 469 understood precision."). 25 can (1855) the Colo. accuracy, i t substance."); ("In its i f intelligent i t s object not contents the been p r e s e r v e d , recite i t i t relates ("Ordinarily, i t i s i f they are able to s t a t e i t i n Rassette, f o r word; -- with 1235, that witnesses Posten word P.2d f a r as to Kostens, is 521, as has 30 recall allowed v. 328 i t s substance unable Barranco of a witness to give be Ala. and case i t is contents, witnesses, can state CR-10-0640 Rather, of evidence t h e document substantially i s a l l Commonwealth v. O c a s i o , (2001) n o t be d e p r i v e d against So. through lost, the State means (when a n a f f i d a v i t only 164 M i s s . and search prove reliably the defendant t o mount a and Boyd v. S t a t e , 4 6 9 , 473 c a n be ... t h e n o f any o p p o r t u n i t y must See, e.g., 1, 5, 7 4 6 N . E . 2 d of the warrant secondary the warrant."); 6 1 8 , 619 ( 1 9 3 3 ) i s necessary. 434 M a s s . ("If a l l t h e terms established will that e s t a b l i s h i n g the contents challenge 6 1 0 , 145 warrant are "substantially their contents"). Therefore, all credibility ruling, State making a l l reasonable choices i n favor a s we m u s t , we a g r e e w i t h substantially warrant established and accompanying i n f e r e n c e s and r e s o l v i n g of the juvenile the j u v e n i l e court the contents court's that the of the search affidavit. C. C.B.D. effectuate says, also contends that State's failure to a r e t u r n o f t h e w a r r a n t p r e j u d i c e d h i m b e c a u s e , he he was u n a b l e t o c h a l l e n g e affidavit. the (Issue the warrant I I i n C.B.D.'s brief.) and accompanying Specifically, C.B.D. a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e t h e w a r r a n t a n d a f f i d a v i t 26 were n o t CR-10-0640 returned and were evidence as t o t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e any a f f i d a v i t , " not challenge lost and because, the contents (C.B.D.'s b r i e f , a t 35.) as n o t e d i n P a r t he s a y s , " [ t ] h e r e of the warrant This I.B. o f t h i s and the State affidavit to challenge and t h e manner could affidavit. because, sufficiently proved t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e warrant and a f f i d a v i t . C.B.D.'s a b i l i t y he argument i s m e r i t l e s s opinion, was no Therefore, t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e warrant and i n which t h e w a r r a n t was i s s u e d a n d e x e c u t e d was n o t c o m p r o m i s e d . D. C.B.D. f u r t h e r to issue the search warrant. argues the contends that the only that information sister photographs were e v e r constitute child establish in and was t h a t f o r nude photographs such A request f o r items that would C.B.D. to believe pornography. 27 that but C.B.D. h a d no pornography, possession of child asking stepsister, found. p r o b a b l e cause He known t o l a w e n f o r c e m e n t a t t i m e t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t was o b t a i n e d h i s half cause ( I s s u e I i n C.B.D.'s b r i e f . ) sent t e x t messages t o h i s b r o t h e r of t h e r e was no p r o b a b l e that concludes, does not someone i s a c t u a l l y CR-10-0640 Section warrant 1 5 - 5 - 3 , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t c a n o n l y be i s s u e d affidavit describing naming or on p r o b a b l e describing cause, the person t h e p r o p e r t y a n d t h e p l a c e t o be "[a] search s u p p o r t e d b y an and particularly searched." " ' " F o r a s e a r c h w a r r a n t t o be s u f f i c i e n t a n d s a t i s f y the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirement of probable c a u s e , t h e a f f i d a v i t upon w h i c h i t i s b a s e d must s t a t e s p e c i f i c f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g of probable cause." C a r t e r v . S t a t e , 405 So. 2 d 9 5 7 , 959 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 405 So. 2 d 962 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . ' C a l l a h a n v . S t a t e , 557 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 2 , 1304 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , a f f i r m e d , 557 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 1 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , [ 4 9 8 ] U.S. [881], 111 S . C t . 2 1 6 , 112 L . E d . 2 d 176 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . 'Probable c a u s e t o s e a r c h a r e s i d e n c e e x i s t s when " t h e r e i s a f a i r p r o b a b i l i t y that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." I l l i n o i s v . G a t e s , 462 U.S. [ 2 1 3 ] a t 2 3 8 , 103 S . C t . [ 2 3 1 7 ] a t 2 3 3 2 [ , 76 L . E d . 2 d 527 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ] . ' United S t a t e s v . J e n k i n s , 901 F . 2 d 1 0 7 5 , 1080 ( 1 1 t h C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , [ 4 9 8 ] U.S. [ 9 0 1 ] , 111 S . C t . 2 5 9 , 112 L . E d . 2 d 216 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . ... [ T ] h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t o f a ' s h o w i n g t h a t s u c h a b e l i e f be c o r r e c t o r more l i k e l y true than f a l s e . A " p r a c t i c a l , n o n t e c h n i c a l " p r o b a b i l i t y that incriminating evidence i s involved is a l l that i s required.' T e x a s v . B r o w n , 460 U.S. [730,] 742, 103 S.Ct. [1535,] 1543 [(1983)]. Additionally, '[w]here a magistrate has found probable cause, the c o u r t s should not i n v a l i d a t e the warrant by interpreting the affidavit in a h y p e r t e c h n i c a l r a t h e r t h a n a commonsense manner, and should r e s o l v e d o u b t f u l or marginal cases a c c o r d i n g to t h e p r e f e r e n c e t o be accorded to warrants.' M a d d o x v . S t a t e , 502 S o . 2 d 7 7 9 , 785 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) , a f f i r m e d i n p a r t , r e m a n d e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 502 S o . 2 d 786 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 479 U.S. 9 3 2 , 107 S . C t . 4 0 4 , 93 L . E d . 2 d 357 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . " 28 CR-10-0640 Poole v. State, 596 So. 2d 632 , 641 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1 992). Indeed, " ' [ p ] r o b a b l e cause deals with p r o b a b i l i t i e s , not legal technicalities. I t i s grounded upon t h o s e p r a c t i c a l , f a c t u a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of everyday life u p o n w h i c h r e a s o n a b l e a n d p r u d e n t men a c t . B r i n e g a r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 338 U.S. 1 6 0 , 69 S . C t . 1 3 0 2 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1948).' C a r t e r v . S t a t e , 405 So. 2d 9 5 7 , 959 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 405 So. 2 d 962 ( A l a . 1981). ' P r o b a b l e cause does not r e q u i r e an o f f i c e r t o c o m p i l e an a i r t i g h t c a s e a g a i n s t a suspect.' W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 440 So. 2 d 1 1 3 9 , 1145 (Ala. C r . App. 1 9 8 3 ) . ' I t merely r e q u i r e s that the f a c t s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e o f f i c e r w o u l d " w a r r a n t a man of r e a s o n a b l e c a u t i o n i n the b e l i e f " t h a t certain i t e m s may be c o n t r a b a n d '" Mewbourn v. S t a t e , 570 So. 2d 8 0 5 , 808 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1990). " ' P r o b a b l e c a u s e m u s t be d e t e r m i n e d b y an analysis of "the totality of the circumstances." Illinois v. G a t e s , 462 U.S. 2 1 3 , 238 , 103 S . C t . 2317, 2332, 76 L . E d . 2 d 527 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . I n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r to issue a search warrant, the issuing magistrate is to make a practical, common-sense d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r , given a l l the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and b a s i s of knowledge of the person s u p p l y i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n , there i s a fair probability that contraband or e v i d e n c e o f a c r i m e w i l l be f o u n d i n a particular place.'" Loggins v. State, 1999), aff'd, State, 575 So. 771 2d 771 So. 611, So. 2d 2d 1070 , 10 80 1093 ( A l a . 2000) 614-15 (Ala. Crim. 29 (Ala. Crim. ( q u o t i n g Marks App. 1990)). App. v. "An CR-10-0640 issuing judge's determination that sufficient probable existed to support the warrant i s ' e n t i t l e d to great and v. i s conclusive State, United i n the absence of a r b i t r a r i n e s s . ' " v. P i k e , 523 F . 2 d 734 ( 5 t hC i r . Here, t h e evidence a t t h e suppression that the a f f i d a v i t supplied submitted sufficient he included investigation, C.B.D.'s facts father. As he explained must in testimony the that from h i s and above, choices the when based on an C.B.D. made b y o t h e r allegations transmitting children. established pornography that through 30 as t h e y ruling, f a c t s were relating from a l l reasonable court's summoned interview CAC are resolved, the following was Judge testified juvenile Sgt. Rafferty to support Sgt. R a f f e r t y S g t . R a f f e r t y ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and thus, Shellhouse those of established affidavit. against favor warrant from gathered and a l l c r e d i b i l i t y be, established a l l the facts i n the a f f i d a v i t which (quoting 1975)). hearing and c i r c u m s t a n c e s inferences during Wamble i n support of the search Mendheim's f i n d i n g o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e . that deference 593 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 , 110 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) States cause obtained included to to the the i n the CAC by allegations An i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o C.B.D. was electronic involved media. in In CR-10-0640 addition, cellular C.B.D.'s telephone requesting that photographs of father used had by B.E. t a k e of himself, whom w e r e u n d e r found text h i s stepson, and then from on C.B.D. t o C.B.D. and h i s h a l f a nude sister, a l l C.B.D.'s s p e c i f i c request for p o r n o g r a p h i c photographs of h i s underage s i b l i n g s , coupled with t h e age o f 17. B.E., transmit his sister, messages the ongoing i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f C.B.D. b y DHR t h a t involved C.B.D.'s t r a n s m i s s i o n o f p o r n o g r a p h y t h r o u g h e l e c t r o n i c was sufficient believe to warrant that pornography electronic issuance there would form. be a was man fair a found of reasonable probability i n C.B.D.'s Therefore, there was media, caution that residence probable to child i n some cause f o r of the search warrant. E. Finally, C.B.D. contends that the search " o v e r l y b r o a d " b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h e o n l y s p e c i f i c law enforcement h a d on w h i c h t o base warrant was information the warrant was from C.B.D.'s f a t h e r r e g a r d i n g C.B.D.'s t e x t m e s s a g e s s e e k i n g c h i l d pornography. (Issue argues that, search C.B.D.'s V i n C.B.D.'s although there cellular may have telephone, 31 brief, been there a t 39.) C.B.D. p r o b a b l e cause t o was no probable CR-10-0640 cause t o search f o r c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y on a n y o t h e r electronic we n o t e out i n i t s media. Initially, brief to this juvenile Court, court. As limited to review trial." Newsome App. 1989). validity this as t h e S t a t e issue noted was above, of questions v. S t a t e , points never presented "[r]eview properly the 570 S o . 2 d 7 0 3 , 716 warrant alleged that and affidavit, the warrant was none overly may State, not expand 591 So. 2d those 5 4 7 , 550 statement of s p e c i f i c not specified, grounds 880, (Ala. court at t r i a l . " 882 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . Crim. raised at (Ala. Crim. to the of App. those broad. stated at appeal." f o r appellate will "A trial Griffin 1991). v. "The n o t be p u t i n e r r o r on Ex p a r t e Therefore, this Frith, 526 S o . 2 d i s s u e was n o t p r o p e r l y review. Moreover, even i f t h i s it on i s grounds of o b j e c t i o n waives a l l grounds and t h e t r i a l not assigned preserved grounds to the appeal challenges defendant i s bound by t h e grounds o f o b j e c t i o n and on and t i m e l y A l t h o u g h C.B.D. l o d g e d s e v e r a l of challenges that, i s s u e had been p r o p e r l y preserved, i s meritless. "The purpose of p a r t i c u l a r i t y requirement 32 the Fourth i s to prevent Amendment '[g]eneral CR-10-0640 exploratory searches.' P a l m e r v . S t a t e , 426 S o . 2 d 950, 952 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1983). 'General e x p l o r a t o r y searches and s e i z u r e s , w i t h o r w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t , c a n n e v e r be j u s t i f i e d a n d a r e f o r b i d d e n and condemned.' Id. (citing Marron v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 2 7 5 U.S. 1 92 , 48 S . C t . 74 , 72 L . E d . 2 3 1 (1927)). I n E x p a r t e J e n k i n s , 26 S o . 3 d 4 6 4 , 474 (Ala. 2009), t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d that 'the requirements of p a r t i c u l a r i t y [of a search w a r r a n t ] a r e met i f t h e s u b s t a n c e t o b e s e i z e d i s described with reasonable p a r t i c u l a r i t y which, i n t u r n , i s t o be e v a l u a t e d i n l i g h t o f t h e r u l e s o f practicality, necessity, and common sense.' ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n s and q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . " Green v. S t a t e , In 61 S o . 3 d 3 8 6 , 3 9 0 - 9 1 S t a t e v . J e n k i n s , 26 S o . 3 d 458 aff'd, 26 S o . 3 d 464 ( A l a . 2009), ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010). ( A l a . Crim. this A p p . 2007 ) , Court e x p l a i n e d : "'The specific command of the Fourth Amendment t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d States i s t h a t no w a r r a n t s shall issue except those " p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i b i n g the ... t h i n g s t o b e s e i z e d . " "'However, t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h i n g s t o be s e i z e d c o n t a i n e d i n t h e w a r r a n t u n d e r review i s not so broad that the authorization constitutes a general exploratory search. Certainly, "an otherwise unobjectionable description of t h e o b j e c t s t o be s e i z e d i s d e f e c t i v e i f i t i s b r o a d e r t h a n c a n be j u s t i f i e d by t h e p r o b a b l e cause upon w h i c h t h e w a r r a n t i s based." V o n d e r [ A ] h e v . H o w l a n d , 508 F . 2 d 364 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) ; W. L a F a v e , 2 S e a r c h and S e i z u r e , S e c t i o n 4.6, n . 1 1 (1978) (hereinafter Search). 33 CR-10-0640 is of "'However, a l e s s p r e c i s e d e s c r i p t i o n r e q u i r e d of p r o p e r t y which i s , because i t s p a r t i c u l a r character, contraband. "'"'If the purpose of the search i s to f i n d a s p e c i f i c item of property, i t should be so particularly described in the warrant as to preclude the possibility of the officer seizing the wrong property; w h e r e a s , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f the purpose i s to s e i z e not a specific property, but any property of a specified c h a r a c t e r , w h i c h by r e a s o n o f i t s character is i l l i c i t or contraband, a s p e c i f i c p a r t i c u l a r description of the p r o p e r t y is unnecessary and i t may be described generally as to i t s n a t u r e or c h a r a c t e r . ' " "'2 Search, Schmidt, 172 (1970).' " P a l m e r v. S t a t e , App. 1983)." 26 So. 3d at Part I.D. of the search obtained from So. 2d 950 , t o C.B.D.'s c o n t e n t i o n , in child 426 People P.2d 952 v. 698 (Ala. Crim. 463. Contrary contain p. 101, citing Colo. 285, 473 of t h i s opinion, probable warrant for pornography, the CAC and there was, as cause f o r the a l l e l e c t r o n i c media based DHR. on In 34 explained the facts a d d i t i o n , as issuance that Sgt. could Rafferty explained in CR-10-0640 Part I.B. o f suppression the items this hearing opinion, that t o be s e i z e d . the State the warrant Therefore, established particularly at the described the search warrant was n o t overbroad. II. C.B.D. a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t to warrant State a d j u d i c a t i n g him delinquent failed possessed brief.) to prove the child that he actually pornography. Specifically, because, or (Issue evidence he s a y s , t h e constructively VI in C.B.D.'s he a r g u e s t h a t he was n o t i n e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e i m a g e s a n d / o r v i d e o s b e c a u s e t h e c o m p u t e r on which t h e images and/or room o f t h e r e s i d e n c e living his videos were found was i n the living and a c c e s s i b l e by t h e t h r e e a d u l t s a l s o i n the residence -- h i s m o t h e r , h i s grandmother, and grandfather. Section adjudication reasonable A l a . Code of delinquency 1975, r e q u i r e s be s u p p o r t e d by "proof that an beyond a doubt, b a s e d upon competent, m a t e r i a l , and r e l e v a n t evidence." evidence 12-15-65(e), In to adjudication, determining sustain a "'a r e v i e w i n g whether there conviction or court 35 must i s a accept sufficient delinquency as true a l l CR-10-0640 evidence introduced legitimate a light State, inferences most 720 2d v. favorable to 1033, 471 2d the the 1034 471 So. State, therefrom, State, 1984), a f f ' d , determining the favorable So. Faircloth conviction by 2d found Nunn v. 485, sufficiency of i s whether, viewing the the defendant State, 697 ( q u o t i n g O'Neal v. 2d State, beyond So. "'The evidence 4 97 , 4 98 602 v. 1998) evidence a rational guilty So. in (Ala. (Ala. 1985)). 2d (quoting Crim. to sustain i n the Crim. a light most fact could a reasonable 462, App. t e s t used i n f i n d e r of (Ala. a l l Ballenger App. 488 State a l l evidence prosecution.'" So. 493 the consider (Ala. Crim. to the p r o s e c u t i o n , have and accord doubt.'" App. 1997 ) 464 (Ala. Crim. App. 1975, provides that 1992)). Section "[a]ny p e r s o n who contains years engaged other Ala. in d e p i c t i o n of any act of conduct shall a person obscene matter under sado-masochistic sexual excitement, sexual Code k n o w i n g l y p o s s e s s e s any a visual intercourse, or 13A-12-192(b), masturbation, be 36 guilty the age abuse, genital of a C l a s s C that of 17 sexual nudity, felony." CR-10-0640 I n Ward v. State, Court explained pornography, 994 the So. 2d 293 concept of in pertinent part, ( A l a . C r i m . App. "possession" as 2007), i n terms of follows: " ' C h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y has gone h i g h technology, a n d t h e r e i s no s i g n o f t h e t r e n d a b a t i n g . ' Don't C a c h e Out Y o u r C a s e : P r o s e c u t i n g C h i l d P o r n o g r a p h y P o s s e s s i o n L a w s B a s e d on I m a g e s L o c a t e d i n T e m p o r a r y Internet Files, 19 B e r k e l e y Tech. L . J . at 1228. Computer images of c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y f a l l w i t h i n the d e f i n i t i o n o f ' o b s c e n e m a t t e r , ' as t h a t t e r m i s u s e d i n § 13A-12-192, A l a . Code 1975. In R u t l e d g e v. S t a t e , 745 So. 2 d 912 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999), t h i s Court held that '§ 13A-12-192, A l a . Code 1975, p r o h i b i t s t h e p o s s e s s i o n and d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f c h i l d pornography by any means, including visual depictions of children engaged in sexual acts d i s p l a y e d on c o m p u t e r s , c o m p u t e r d i s k e t t e s , a n d t h e Internet.' ... " I n S t a t e v . M o b l e y , 129 Wash. A p p . 378, 118 P.3d 413 (2005), the Washington Court of Appeals s t a t e d t h a t the i s s u e of p o s s e s s i o n i n the context of computer images concerns whether the defendant ' r e a c h e d out f o r and e x e r c i s e d d o m i n i o n and c o n t r o l ' over the images. It stated: "'When s y n t h e s i z e d w i t h W a s h i n g t o n ' s constructive possession law, the core q u e s t i o n s e e m s t o be w h e t h e r t h e totality of the circumstances establishes that a d e f e n d a n t r e a c h e d out f o r and exercised d o m i n i o n and c o n t r o l over the images at issue. See i d . [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Perez, 2 47 F . S u p p . 2 d 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2 0 0 3 ) ] ; see a l s o [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v . ] T u c k e r , 305 F. 3d [ 1 1 9 3 ] 1204 [ ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ] ; [ S t a t e v.] C a l l a h a n , 77 W a s h . 2 d [27] a t 2 9 , 459 P.2d 37 this child CR-10-0640 400 [ ( 1 9 6 9 ) ] . T h i s a p p r o a c h r e c o g n i z e s a n d promotes t h e purposes behind Washington's child pornography statute, to protect children by d i s c o u r a g i n g their sexual exploitation f o r commercial gain and personal satisfaction. S e e RCW 9 . 6 8 A . 0 0 1 . Therefore, evidence o f "reaching out f o r " and " c o n t r o l l i n g " c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h i c images i s i n c r i m i n a t i n g ,while i n a d v e r t e n t viewing questions are l e f t to the fact finder.' "129 Wash. A p p . a t 3 8 5 , 118 P . 3 d a t 4 1 6 . In United S t a t e s v . Romm, 4 5 5 F . 3 d 9 9 0 , 998 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) , the c o u r t s t a t e d : " ' H e r e , we h o l d Romm e x e r c i s e d d o m i n i o n a n d c o n t r o l over t h e images i n h i s cache by e n l a r g i n g them on h i s s c r e e n , a n d s a v i n g them t h e r e f o r f i v e m i n u t e s b e f o r e d e l e t i n g them. W h i l e t h e images were d i s p l a y e d on Romm's s c r e e n a n d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s t o r e d i n h i s l a p t o p ' s h a r d d r i v e , he h a d t h e a b i l i t y to copy, p r i n t , o r e m a i l t h e images t o others. T h u s , t h i s e v i d e n c e o f c o n t r o l was s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e j u r y t o f i n d t h a t Romm possessed and r e c e i v e d t h e images i n h i s cache.' "Alabama's child-pornography statute, § 13A-12-192, A l a . Code 1975, does not define 'possess' b u t Alabama has long recognized that p o s s e s s i o n may b e e i t h e r a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e . " ' " C o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n e x i s t s when the d e f e n d a n t e x e r c i s e s , o r has t h e power to e x e r c i s e , dominion and c o n t r o l over t h e i t e m . " U n i t e d S t a t e s v . L a u g h m a n , 618 F . 2 d 1067, 1077 ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. P h i l l i p s , 496 F . 2 d 1395, 1397 ( 5 t h C i r . 1974), c e r t . denied, 422 U.S. 1 0 5 6 , 95 S.Ct. 2 680, 45 L.Ed.2d 70 9 (1 9 7 5 ) . " C o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n may b e d e t e r m i n e d 38 CR-10-0640 by weighing those f a c t s which tend to support the defendant's necessary c o n t r o l over the substance against those facts which demonstrate a l a c k of dominion and control." R o b e r t s [ v . S t a t e ] , 349 So. 2 d [ 8 9 , ] 91 [ ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1977)].' "German v . S t a t e , 42 9 So. 2d App. 1 9 8 2 ) . The G e r m a n C o u r t 1 1 3 8 , 1140 ( A l a . Cr. further stated: "'"The possession vital to the c o n v i c t i o n s u n d e r r e v i e w may, in familiar l a n g u a g e , be e i t h e r a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e . I t t h u s i s u n n e c e s s a r y t o show t h a t the accused had the drug on h i s p e r s o n or w i t h i n h i s immediate r e a c h ; i t i s enough t h a t he 'was k n o w i n g l y i n a p o s i t i o n o r h a d t h e r i g h t t o e x e r c i s e d o m i n i o n and c o n t r o l over' i t , either directly or through others. P o s s e s s i o n i n t h a t sense s u f f i c e s t h o u g h i t i s j o i n t l y s h a r e d , a n d i t may be e s t a b l i s h e d by c i r c u m s t a n t i a l as w e l l as direct evidence. "'"We a r e a w a r e o f c r i t i c i s m s -on grounds of imprecision -of the constructive-possession doctrine, thus formulated, as a measure of the legal sufficiency of evidence to demonstrate drug-possession. We t h i n k , h o w e v e r , t h a t this adjudicative standard becomes a c c e p t a b l e when i t i s r e a l i z e d t h a t the c r i t i c a l i n q u i r y f o r judges i s whether the f a c t f i n d e r can r e a s o n a b l y c o n c l u d e from the proof that the accused likely had some a p p r e c i a b l e a b i l i t y to guide the d e s t i n y of the drug. Even were we free to do o t h e r w i s e , we w o u l d a d h e r e t o t h a t c o n c e p t in preference to artificial rules r e s t r i c t i n g e v i d e n c e - s u f f i c i e n c y -- r u l e s that would inevitably invade the t r a d i t i o n a l p r o v i n c e of the j u r y to assess 39 CR-10-0640 the significance of circumstantial evidence, and t o determine whether i t eliminates a l l r e a s o n a b l e doubt as t o whether t h e a c c u s e d had t h a t power."' "429 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 4 1 - 4 2 , q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S t a t e n , 5 8 1 F . 2 d 8 7 8 , 8 8 2 - 8 8 5 ( U . S . A p p . D.C. 1 9 7 8 ) . "After considering Alabama's definition of possession i n relation t o computer images, we believe that the question becomes: Did the defendant specifically seek out the p r o h i b i t e d images a n d d i d he h a v e t h e a b i l i t y to exercise dominion and c o n t r o l over those images? "Here, the record shows that the child p o r n o g r a p h y was s a v e d a s t e m p o r a r y I n t e r n e t f i l e s on Troy U n i v e r s i t y ' s computer. B e c a u s e Ward p l e a d e d g u i l t y , we do n o t know w h e t h e r W a r d was a w a r e t h a t t h e Web p a g e s w e r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y s a v e d . However, a f o r e n s i c e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e computer showed that Ward 'reached o u t ' f o r 288 images of child pornography. Though t h e f a c t u a l b a s i s i s s i l e n t as t o w h e t h e r Ward c o p i e d , p r i n t e d , e - m a i l e d , o r s e n t the i m a g e s t o h i s home c o m p u t e r , a n d t h e r e i s no o t h e r 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 he d i d s o , W a r d h a d t h e a b i l i t y t o do s o when h e was v i e w i n g t h e downloaded Web p a g e s . A l s o , we n o t e t h a t W a r d ' s home c o m p u t e r was s e i z e d a n d f o u n d t o c o n t a i n c h i l d pornography. Applying the broad definition of c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n r e c o g n i z e d i n Alabama, we f i n d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t Ward e x e r c i s e d d o m i n i o n a n d c o n t r o l o v e r t h e c h i l d pornography a n d t h u s was i n p o s s e s s i o n o f c h i l d pornography." 994 So. 2d a t 296-302. Here, a l t h o u g h t h e computer t h e images and/or v i d e o s w e r e f o u n d was a c c e s s i b l e b y p e o p l e o t h e r t h a n C.B.D., 40 on w h i c h CR-10-0640 C.B.D. also had access t o t h e computer, a n d he a d m i t t e d t o S g t . R a f f e r t y t h a t he o f t e n v i e w e d a n d d o w n l o a d e d pornography, including In addition, child pornography, on t h a t C.B.D. a d m i t t e d t o S g t . R a f f e r t y pornography t o h i s c e l l u l a r that that computer. he o f t e n telephone. e-mailed Therefore, i ti s clear C.B.D. " r e a c h e d o u t " f o r t h e c h i l d pornography f o u n d on the computer and e x e r c i s e d dominion and c o n t r o l over i t . evidence finding was that sufficient C.B.D. was to warrant such the juvenile This court's delinquent. III. Finally, denying C.B.D. c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n h i smotion petitions on t h e g r o u n d C.B.D.'s b r i e f . ) adjudications violated opinion 2002), 1975, of double jeopardy. he a r g u e s (Issue that of double v. S t a t e , jeopardy under 8 8 3 S o . 2 d 714 V I Ii n h i s multiple o f d e l i n q u e n c y f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f obscene i n Girard this matter Court's ( A l a .Crim. App. 883 S o . 2 d 717 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . Girard, possession a l l b u t one o f t h e d e l i n q u e n c y Specifically, principles aff'd, In to dismiss the defendant of obscene was c h a r g e d matter under a n d was c o n v i c t e d with § 13A-12-192(b), o f 10 o f t h o s e c o u n t s . 41 26 c o u n t s o f A l a . Code The b a s i s o f CR-10-0640 the c h a r g e s and c o n v i c t i o n s were numerous images and v i d e o s o f child pornography holding count this that found on the defendant the defendant's could o f p o s s e s s i o n o f obscene Court explained, be matter i n relevant computer. convicted under § only o f one 13A-12-192(b), part: " T h i s i s n o t a c a s e w h e r e t h e same a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l a t i o n o f two d i s t i n c t statutory provisions. See B l o c k b u r g e r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 284 U.S. 2 9 9 , 52 S . C t . 1 8 0 , 7 6 L . E d . 306 (1932). Rather, this i s a case where Girard's conduct has y i e l d e d an i n d i c t m e n t i n w h i c h t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f each f i l e o f obscene m a t e r i a l has been c h a r g e d a s a s e p a r a t e c r i m e u n d e r t h e same s t a t u t e . The p e r t i n e n t i n q u i r y i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t h i s i s acceptable i n the face of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l guarantees a g a i n s t d o u b l e j e o p a r d y t h e n becomes d e f i n i n g t h e correct unit of prosecution. B e l l v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 349 U.S. 8 1 , 75 S . C t . 6 2 0 , 99 L . E d . 905 ( 1 9 5 5 ) . "'"A s i n g l e c r i m e c a n n o t b e d i v i d e d into two o r more o f f e n s e s a n d t h e r e b y subject the perpetrator to multiple c o n v i c t i o n s f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . Const. o f 1 9 0 1 , A r t . I , § 9; U.S. C o n s t . Amend. V." E x p a r t e D a r b y , 516 S o . 2 d 78 6, 787 (Ala. 1987). Such question of double j e o p a r d y i s determined by t h e f o l l o w i n g principles: " ' " I t has been a p t l y noted t h a t 'the B l o c k b u r g e r [ v. U n i t e d States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932),] test i s insufficient where ... the concern i s not multiple charges under s e p a r a t e s t a t u t e s , but rather s u c c e s s i v e p r o s e c u t i o n s f o r c o n d u c t t h a t may 42 In CR-10-0640 constitute the same act or transaction.' Rashad v. Burt, 108 F . 3 d 677 (6th C i r . 1997). T h i s i s b e c a u s e when 'a d e f e n d a n t is convicted for violating one s t a t u t e m u l t i p l e t i m e s , t h e same evidence test will never be satisfied.' S t a t e v . A d e l , 136 Wash.2d 629, 965 P.2d 1072 (1998). The 'appropriate inquiry' i n such a case 'asks what " u n i t o f p r o s e c u t i o n " was intended by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e as the punishable act. ... The i n q u i r y r e q u i r e s us t o l o o k t o the language and p u r p o s e o f t h e statutes, t o see whether they speak d i r e c t l y t o the i s s u e o f the appropriate unit of p r o s e c u t i o n , a n d i f t h e y do n o t , to a s c e r t a i n t h a t u n i t , keeping i n mind t h a t any a m b i g u i t y that arises i n the process must be resolved, under the rule of lenity, in the defendant's favor.' Commonwealth v. Rabb, 431 M a s s . 1 2 3 , 725 N . E . 2 d 1 0 3 6 (2000) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t a l l e g e d l y m u l t i p l e drug possessions j u s t i f y multiple charges i f the possessions are sufficiently d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by time, p l a c e o r intended purpose, the case here regarding defendant's possession of drugs at h i s residence f o r immediate s a l e and h i s p o s s e s s i o n of drugs at motel for future sales)." "'4 Wayne R. LaFave et a l . , Criminal P r o c e d u r e § 1 7 . 4 ( b ) , 2 0 0 1 P o c k e t P a r t n.66 (2d ed. 1999). See also Project, 43 CR-10-0640 "Twenty-Ninth A n n u a l Review of Criminal P r o c e d u r e , " 88 Geo. L . J . 8 7 9 , 1293 (2000) ("when t h e g o v e r n m e n t s e e k s t o p r o v e t h a t a s i n g l e act or occurrence results in m u l t i p l e v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e same s t a t u t e , the rule of lenity requires only one punishment unless legislative intent to impose m u l t i p l e punishments i s shown").' " T o w n s e n d v . S t a t e , 823 So. 2d 7 1 7 , App. 2001) (footnote omitted). 722 (Ala. Crim. "The a c t r e n d e r e d i l l e g a l b y t h e s t a t u t e -- t h e possession of any obscene matter, even i f the possession i s of m u l t i p l e p i e c e s of obscene matter -- i s s i m u l t a n e o u s a n d i n s e p a r a b l e , m o r e l i k e the simultaneous, single act of transportation or i m p o r t a t i o n of m u l t i p l e p i e c e s of obscene m a t t e r , see United States v. Meyer, 602 F.Supp. 1480 (S.D.Cal. 1985), than the separate transactions i n v o l v e d i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of m u l t i p l e p i e c e s of o b s c e n e m a t t e r , s e e K i n g v . S t a t e , 674 So. 2d 1381 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 995). Thus the unit of prosecution i s the simultaneous possession of a c o l l e c t i o n of obscene m a t e r i a l ; i n t h i s case, there was b u t one possession." 883 So. 2d at 715-17 (footnote However, i n 2006, the 12-190, Ala. Code 1975, subsection (16), which individual less than division [which separate offense A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e amended § by, provides 17 includes omitted). years § among other that "[t]he of age 13A-12-192] things, shall of violates Thus, an this constitute f o r each s i n g l e v i s u a l d e p i c t i o n . " 44 adding depiction that 13A- a the CR-10-0640 legislature 2002, has clearly prosecution, i.e., each offense now, u n l i k e when t h i s spoken and to determined image and/or of possession of superseded t h i s Court's unit to of p r o s e c u t i o n § that each of each video, the Girard in proper individual unit This § 13A-12-192. on Code 11 1975, separate amendment counts Therefore, C.B.D. has proper pursuant was of possession of depiction, constitutes a obscene matter. Ala. delinquent issue decided h o l d i n g i n G i r a r d r e g a r d i n g the under 13A-12-190(16), adjudicated the Court properly of obscene matter. Based court on the foregoing, the judgment of the juvenile i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Welch, P.J., and Windom, B u r k e , 45 and Joiner, J J . , concur.

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.