David Phillip Wilson v. State of Alabama
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 03/23/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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, 2011-2012 CR-07-0684 David P h i l l i p Wilson v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t Court (CC-04-1120; CC-04-1121) On R e t u r n t o Remand WINDOM, P r e s i d i n g David Phillip Judge. Wilson c o n v i c t i o n s and sentences one count of capital appeals h i s two c a p i t a l - m u r d e r o f death. W i l s o n was c o n v i c t e d o f murder f o r t a k i n g Walker d u r i n g t h e course of a robbery, the l i f e see § o f Dewey 13A-5-40(a)(2), CR-07-0684 Ala. Code taking 1975, and life of the a second Dewey count capital during Walker of the murder course b u r g l a r y , see § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975. for of a By a v o t e o f 1 0 - 2 , t h e j u r y recommended t h a t W i l s o n be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h . The circuit court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Wilson to death. After failed April to Walker, t o show up a 6 4 - y e a r - o l d man f o r work for several 2004, h i s s u p e r v i s o r , check on him. unsuccessful, After two trips and Department Officer responded Rhett to doors, a of wooden Watkins noticed missing. She 1 in went t o h i s house 1 t o check on W a l k e r were the On A p r i l 13, O f f i c e r L y n n Davis call of and the Dothan conducted a Police "welfare house. During the w e l f a r e the back days Jimmy W a l k e r s p o k e w i t h W a l k e r ' s n e i g h b o r , and check" at Walker's to from c a n c e r , consecutive Jimmy W a l k e r , the n e i g h b o r t e l e p h o n e d the p o l i c e . Watkins suffering check, O f f i c e r Watkins walked the house. door that and The a back of t h e house sliding-glass the door knob door. around had Officer t o t h e wooden d o o r e n t e r e d t h r o u g h t h a t doorway and f o u n d two was herself J i m m y W a l k e r was n o t r e l a t e d t o t h e v i c t i m , Dewey W a l k e r . 2 CR-07-0684 i n a storage panel of area, drywall. bedroom. The I t appeared created the drywall on hole the that, Wilson. to the i n her had outside floor. hole a hole opinion, O f f i c e r W a t k i n s and because the hole the was W a l k e r ' s body was found near discovered blood droplets discovered that the the testified at enough search kitchen h i s head. body, In a d d i t i o n Investigator the multiple were p r i e d house. He bedrooms, also which i n t h e w a l l s o f s e v e r a l rooms. I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker testified that someone as though f o r something hidden i n the had there been 2 few d a y s l a t e r , I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r r e t u r n e d t o t h e s c e n e and f o u n d a h i d d e n p a n e l above t h e f i r e p l a c e . Behind t h e p a n e l were two s u i t c a s e s c o n t a i n i n g j e w e l r y and a l a r g e 2 A walls. that Luker were h o l e s appeared open and to had i t locked, to for Dothan P o l i c e Department throughout doors had broken found i n the surrounding a apparently searching been Walker's to entered large to i n v e s t i g a t e Walker's death. blood was O f f i c e r Davis conducted a a l a r g e amount o f d r i e d b l o o d assigned She a someone there drywall. I n v e s t i g a t o r Tony L u k e r o f t h e was that O f f i c e r Watkins i n the by in i t leading O f f i c e r Watkins from the of Walker's r e s i d e n c e . with wall bedroom bedroom t h r o u g h trial s e p a r a t e d from the p r i m a r y r e s i d e n c e 3 CR-07-0684 I n t h e k i t c h e n , I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r r e c o v e r e d an extension c o r d and a computer-mouse w i t h t h e a t t a c h e d c o r d snapped i n t o two marks on pieces, which, n e c k and the used strangle to based dried blood screwdriver and on on ligature the Walker. a portion the cords, a p p e a r e d t o have b e e n Investigator of the Walker's Luker also found computer-mouse c o r d in a the refrigerator. I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r a l s o n o t i c e d t h a t Walker's custom replete with was led stereo missing. A search investigators interviewed Michael equipment e s t i m a t e d to Matthew M a r s h , and Jackson. f o r the van and Marsh. then i n t e r v i e w e d These i n t e r v i e w s t o be the van, w o r t h $20,000, stereo equipment Investigator Catherine Luker Corley l e d I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker and to Wilson. Officers a r r i v e d a t W i l s o n ' s home i n t h e hours of A p r i l to the rights, 14. W i l s o n v o l u n t a r i l y went w i t h t h e Dothan P o l i c e Department. Wilson gave a statement A f t e r waiving to 3 coins. M i r a n d a v. A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. 4 436 (1966). morning officers his Investigator Sergeant Mike E t r e s s . number o f early Miranda Luker 3 and CR-07-0684 Wilson t o l d the o f f i c e r s a r o u n d 3 p.m. on A p r i l 6. t h a t he went t o W a l k e r ' s W a l k e r was to h i m a b o u t W a l k e r ' s son C h r i s . a few hours later. Wilson home, and W i l s o n spoke Wilson l e f t , said house that the b u t came b a c k front door was p a r t i a l l y open when he r e t u r n e d , so he w a l k e d i n t o t h e h o u s e . Walker was n o t home when W i l s o n a r r i v e d . inside Walker's house, he received a While Wilson telephone call Marsh, a s k i n g him t o s t e a l the keys t o W a l k e r ' s van. was from Wilson e x p l a i n e d t o t h e o f f i c e r s t h a t he, M a r s h , J a c k s o n , and C o r l e y h a d p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d " h i t t i n g Mr. W a l k e r and k n o c k i n g h i m out and t a k i n g t h e k e y s . " went t o M a r s h ' s According (C. 517.) W i l s o n t o o k t h e k e y s and house. t o W i l s o n , he returned t o W a l k e r ' s house next e v e n i n g t o s t e a l a l a p t o p computer. of t h e house and e n t e r e d t h e s t o r a g e a r e a . t h e r e was with him Walker's dog. because, 4 Once according inside, he Wilson stated that Wilson took a metal b a s e b a l l to him, he was again received scared 5 of a telephone At t r i a l , I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker t e s t i f i e d t h a t Walker's a two-pound Chihuahua. 4 was He went t o t h e b a c k a s m a l l c r a c k i n t h e w a l l and t h a t he made i t l a r g e enough t o e n t e r t h e main h o u s e . bat the dog CR-07-0684 call from Marsh a s k i n g him t o s e a r c h f o r items i n a d d i t i o n t o the laptop that would be w o r t h stealing. Wilson used a s c r e w d r i v e r t o p r y open s e v e r a l d o o r s i n t h e h o u s e . A f t e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 m i n u t e s , W a l k e r r e t u r n e d home a n d went t o t h e k i t c h e n . W i l s o n assumed t h a t b e c a u s e he p i c k e d up a k n i f e . Walker from b e h i n d w i t h disarm Walker by 5 heard him W i l s o n s a i d t h a t he a p p r o a c h e d the baseball striking Walker him b a t and a t t e m p t e d t o on h i s right shoulder. A c c o r d i n g t o W i l s o n , he m i s s e d a n d a c c i d e n t a l l y s t r u c k W a l k e r i n t h e back o f h i s head. his head, but stood Walker f e l l back up. into the wall, Wilson grabbed a cutting nearby computer-mouse c o r d a n d w r a p p e d i t a r o u n d W a l k e r ' s n e c k i n an attempt cord t o make W a l k e r snapped, Wilson Walker's stated neck drop so W i l s o n that he and h e l d the knife. grabbed wrapped The computer-mouse a nearby extension the extension i t until Walker cord passed e s t i m a t e d t h a t he c h o k e d W a l k e r f o r s i x m i n u t e s . cord. around out. He Wilson t o l d t h e o f f i c e r s t h a t he t h r e w t h e e x t e n s i o n c o r d down i n f r o n t o f t h e r e f r i g e r a t o r a n d p l a c e d t h e computer-mouse c o r d i n s i d e t h e I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r f o u n d two k n i v e s -- a p o c k e t k n i f e a n d a c a r p e t k n i f e -- i n W a l k e r ' s h o u s e . N e i t h e r were l o c a t e d i n t h e k i t c h e n n e a r W a l k e r ' s b o d y , b u t r a t h e r i n a bedroom. 5 6 CR-07-0684 refrigerator. W i l s o n was s c a r e d , s o he l e f t t h e h o u s e , w i t h him Walker's Wilson further ambulance taking l a p t o p a n d one o f W a l k e r ' s b a s e b a l l indicated f o r Walker that because he he was d i d not hats. telephone i n a state an of panic. A c c o r d i n g t o W i l s o n , W a l k e r was s t i l l b r e a t h i n g when he l e f t . W i l s o n went b a c k t o Marsh's house where h e , M a r s h , a n d C o r l e y u n s u c c e s s f u l l y attempted t o l o g i n t o Walker's passwordprotected laptop. The t h r e e individuals Walker's house i n o r d e r t o s t e a l t h e van. t h e n went b a c k t o During their first a t t e m p t t o t a k e t h e v a n , h o w e v e r , t h e a l a r m on t h e v a n went off, so t h e y Wilson left. made similar attempts to steal Walker's v a n on T h u r s d a y a n d F r i d a y , b u t was f o i l e d b o t h t i m e s b y t h e a l a r m on the van. alarm W i l s o n spoke systems, about with Corley, disabling who was f a m i l i a r the alarm with i n Walker's van. W i l s o n r e t u r n e d t o t h e v a n on S u n d a y m o r n i n g . He l i f t e d t h e hood and t h e a l a r m again o f t h e van t o access t h e alarm system, sounded. Wilson l e f t minutes before r e t u r n i n g . and drove around f o r about 20 When he r e t u r n e d , he was a b l e t o d i s a b l e t h e a l a r m s y s t e m b y c u t t i n g two w i r e s . W i l s o n drove t o M a r s h ' s h o u s e , p i c k e d up M a r s h , a n d d r o v e b a c k t o W a l k e r ' s 7 CR-07-0684 house. Wilson house, they drove removed the van the s p l i t i t among W i l s o n , hid the van on 6 t o Marsh's house. stereo equipment Marsh, Jackson, Marsh's property At from Marsh's the and C o r l e y . van and Then t h e y located outside the city of Walker's death l i m i t s of Dothan. Dr. was a K a t h l e e n E n s t i c e , who forensic at the time pathologist with the Alabama F o r e n s i c S c i e n c e s , performed Walker's autopsy. the autopsy conflicted with Wilson's a c c i d e n t a l blow t o Walker's head. W a l k e r had account of r e s u l t s of a single, that f r e s h d e f e n s i v e wounds on h i s hands and arms. She c o n t u s i o n s and on W a l k e r ' s b o d y , 32 o f w h i c h were on h i s h e a d . had The of Dr. E n s t i c e t e s t i f i e d gave a c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e o f 114 Walker Department multiple skull l a c e r a t i o n s on h i s s c a l p . fractures Additionally, three separate Walker a l s o s u f f e r e d e i g h t broken r i b s and a f r a c t u r e t o h i s s t e r n u m . p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t these and abrasions injuries a s i n g l e b l o w t o t h e h e a d and Dr. E n s t i c e r u l e d out c o u l d have b e e n s u s t a i n e d by a subsequent fall. While executing a search warrant at Wilson's o f f i c e r s r e c o v e r e d a p o r t i o n of the s t e r e o equipment. 6 8 the home, CR-07-0684 Standard Because Wilson has of Review been s e n t e n c e d to death, must s e a r c h t h e r e c o r d f o r " p l a i n e r r o r . " App. P. Rule 45A Rule this 45A, Court Ala. R. states: "In a l l c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y has been imposed, the C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s s h a l l n o t i c e any p l a i n e r r o r o r d e f e c t i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s under review, whether or not brought to the a t t e n t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e a c t i o n by r e a s o n t h e r e o f , w h e n e v e r s u c h e r r o r has o r p r o b a b l y has a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of the a p p e l l a n t . " (Emphasis added.) "[T]he plain-error contemporaneous-objection solely in exception is to circumstances those rule in which 1, 152, 15 163 (1985) n.14 "The of 470 S t a t e s v. standard a c l a i m under the p l a i n - e r r o r a the t r i a l 113, 121 standard, the indisputable Crim. App. appellant 1999). must error occurred, H a l l v. and 9 Under establish he 456 U.S. i n reviewing doctrine i s stricter c o u r t o r on a p p e a l . " (Ala. Frady, of review s t a n d a r d u s e d i n r e v i e w i n g an i s s u e t h a t was in sparingly, miscarriage (quoting United (1982)). 'used the U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Young, j u s t i c e would otherwise r e s u l t . ' " U.S. be to than the properly raised S t a t e , 820 the that So. 2d plain-error an must e s t a b l i s h obvious, that the CR-07-0684 error aversely parte Walker, that affected t h e outcome o f t h e t r i a l . 972 So. 2d 737, 752 the appellant has ( A l a . 2007) the burden r e l a t i n g t o an i s s u e b e i n g See Ex (recognizing to establish prejudice r e v i e w e d f o r p l a i n e r r o r ) ; Thomas v. S t a t e , 824 So. 2d 1, 13 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) (recognizing t h a t t o r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f p l a i n e r r o r , an e r r o r must have affected the outcome g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e of Carter, the trial), overruled on (Ala. 2004). 889 So. 2d 528 other That i s , t h e a p p e l l a n t must e s t a b l i s h t h a t an a l l e g e d e r r o r , " ' " n o t only seriously rights,' the affect[ed] [the a p p e l l a n t ' s ] b u t ... a l s o h a [ d ] an u n f a i r p r e j u d i c i a l jury's deliberations."'" 938 ( A l a . 2008) (Ala. 209 ( A l a . Crim. ... Ex p a r t e i m p a c t on Brown, 11 So. 3d 933, ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B r y a n t , 951 So. 2d 724, 727 2002), q u o t i n g egregious 'substantial i n t u r n Hyde v. S t a t e , App. that 1998)). Only [ i t ] seriously when 778 So. 2d 199, an affects error the i s "so fairness, i n t e g r i t y or p u b l i c reputation of j u d i c i a l proceedings," r e v e r s a l be a p p r o p r i a t e parte under the p l a i n - e r r o r d o c t r i n e . P r i c e , 725 So. 2d 1063, 1071-72 c i t a t i o n s and q u o t a t i o n s o b j e c t does n o t p r e c l u d e omitted). ( A l a . 1998) will Ex (internal Although the " f a i l u r e to [appellate] review i n a c a p i t a l case, 10 CR-07-0684 it does weigh Kennedy, 472 S t a t e , 431 the United against So. So. 2d claim 1106, 2d 563, States any 565 1111 unpreserved Supreme C o u r t Puckett United v. error United States v. prejudice. " ( A l a . 1985) (1983)) b u r d e n t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t he an of parte ( c i t i n g Bush v. (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) . has noted, the As appellant's i s e n t i t l e d to r e v e r s a l based "is difficult, States, Ex 556 U.S. 'as 129, Dominguez B e n i t e z , 542 i t 135 should (2009) U.S. 74, on be.'" (quoting 83, n. 9 (2004)). I. Wilson strikes first argues t h a t the State i n a r a c i a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y manner i n v i o l a t i o n B a t s o n v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 85 n o t r a i s e d a t t r i a l ; t h e r e f o r e , i t was plain error only. On used i t s peremptory November 5, R u l e 45A, 2010, A l a . R. (1986). This initially App. issue was reviewed for P. t h i s Court stated: " H e r e , b o t h W i l s o n and t h e S t a t e a s k t h i s C o u r t t o remand t h i s c a u s e t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o p r o v i d e t h e S t a t e w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p l a i n i t s r e a s o n s for s t r i k i n g African-American veniremembers. This Court's 'review of the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i f the d e f e n s e had f i l e d a B a t s o n m o t i o n a t t r i a l r a i s i n g t h e a r g u m e n t s he now r a i s e s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t w o u l d have b e e n o b l i g a t e d t o r e q u i r e t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o state the reasons f o r each of i t s peremptory c h a l l e n g e s . ' W h a t l e y v. S t a t e , So. 3d , 11 of CR-07-0684 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . B e c a u s e W i l s o n d i d n o t r a i s e a B a t s o n o b j e c t i o n a t t r i a l , t h e S t a t e d i d n o t have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e s p o n d t o h i s a l l e g a t i o n s o r t o provide i t s reasons f o r s t r i k i n g African-American veniremembers. F u r t h e r , the c i r c u i t c o u r t i s i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o e v a l u a t e the p a r t i e s ' arguments and t o r u l e on t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e S t a t e ' s r e a s o n s for striking African-Americans because i t was p r e s e n t d u r i n g the j u r y - s e l e c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . " Wilson v. , State, [Ms. CR-07-0684, Nov. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 5, 2010] So. 3d 2010). "Thus, i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ' r e q u e s t , t h i s C o u r t remand[ed] t h i s c a u s e t o t h e circuit court f o r that court to hold a hearing during which i t [was] t o r e q u i r e t h e S t a t e t o p r o v i d e i t s r e a s o n s for striking African-American veniremembers and [was] t o p r o v i d e W i l s o n w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y to ' o f f e r evidence showing t h a t the [State's] reasons o r e x p l a n a t i o n s a r e m e r e l y a sham o r p r e t e x t . ' " Wilson, 2d 161, On hearing March So. 166 3d a t ( A l a . C r i m . App. February in 15, (quoting Preachers 23, accordance 2011, the 2011, circuit circuit court this Court's instructions. court issued a conducted detailed S p e c i f i c a l l y , the c i r c u i t found: " t h a t the State a r t i c u l a t e d clear s p e c i f i c and legitimate reasons for each peremptory strike e x e r c i s e d by t h e S t a t e t o s t r i k e an A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n 12 a On order not used i t s peremptory s t r i k e s remove j u r o r s b a s e d on r a c e . So. 2006)). the with f i n d i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e had v. S t a t e , 963 to court CR-07-0684 veniremember. Further, the Court finds that [ W i l s o n ] has n o t p r o v e n p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r a c e n e u t r a l r e a s o n s g i v e n by t h e S t a t e f o r e a c h p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e u s e d t o remove e a c h o f t h e i d e n t i f i e d A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n v e n i r e m e m b e r s was m e r e l y a p r e t e x t o r sham f o r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . " (C. on remand a t 40.) On r e t u r n t o remand, W i l s o n a r g u e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t erroneously found t h a t the State met i t s burden to court provide v a l i d r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons f o r s t r i k i n g p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s J.D., and D.W. S p e c i f i c a l l y , Wilson 7 argues t h a t the r e a s o n f o r s t r i k i n g p o t e n t i a l j u r o r J.C. tough for him to recommend a sentence p r e t e x t u a l because the p r o s e c u t o r with leading questions sentence of death. a Law white also argues Enforcement T r a c k i n g System j u r o r s who next argues juror D.W. 7 they that -- had death t h a t he was African-Americans i s a suspect that the -- he was State's young State's r e a s o n and b e c a u s e had 14 reason traffic other Wilson for striking potential violations W i l s o n o n l y c h a l l e n g e s the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s r e l a t e t o o n l y p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s J.C., J.D., 13 and ("LETS") r e c o r d -- were t r a f f i c t i c k e t s were n o t s t r u c k . the -- be r e g a r d i n g t h e i r a b i l i t y t o recommend a Wilson p r e t e x t u a l b e c a u s e age State's t h a t i t would of targeted r e a s o n s f o r s t r i k i n g p o t e n t i a l j u r o r J.D. had -- J.C., and a LETS findings and D.W. as CR-07-0684 record tickets was p r e t e x t u a l b e c a u s e w h i t e were n o t s t r u c k a n d b e c a u s e question D.W. regarding argues t h a t the c i r c u i t a history of r a c i a l D i s t r i c t Attorney's In be h i s LETS j u r o r s who h a d t r a f f i c the prosecutor record. court erroneously d i d not Finally, failed Wilson to consider d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by t h e Houston County Office. e v a l u a t i n g a Batson claim, a three-step process followed. in Miller-El As e x p l a i n e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme v. C o c k r e l l , 537 U.S. 322 must Court (2003): " F i r s t , a d e f e n d a n t must make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t a p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e h a s b e e n e x e r c i s e d on the b a s i s of race. [ B a t s o n v. K e n t u c k y , ] 476 U.S. [79,] 96-97, 106 S. C t . 1 7 1 2 [ , 1723 (1986)]. Second, i f that showing has been made, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n must o f f e r a r a c e - n e u t r a l b a s i s f o r s t r i k i n g the juror i n question. I d . , a t 97-98. Third, i n l i g h t of the p a r t i e s ' submissions, the t r i a l c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s shown p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . I d . , a t 98." 537 U.S. a t 328-29. R e c e n t l y , i n Thompson v . S t a t e , [Ms. CR-05-0073, F e b . 17, 2012) So. 3d , ( A l a . Crim. App. 2 0 1 2 ) , t h i s explained: " ' " A f t e r a prima f a c i e case is established, there is a presumption t h a t the peremptory challenges were used to discriminate against black 14 Court CR-07-0684 jurors. B a t s o n [v. Kentucky], 476 U.S. [79,] 97, 106 S. Ct. [1712,] 1723 [ ( 1 9 8 6 ) ] . The S t a t e then has the burden of articulating a clear, specific, and l e g i t i m a t e reason f o r the c h a l l e n g e which r e l a t e s t o the p a r t i c u l a r c a s e t o be t r i e d , and which is nondiscriminatory. Batson, 476 U.S. a t 97, 106 S. Ct. at 1723. However, this showing need not rise to the l e v e l of a c h a l l e n g e f o r cause. Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , [516 So. 2d 768 (Ala. 1986)]." " 'Ex parte Branch, (Ala. 1987). 526 So. 2d 609, Within the context of Batson, a ' race-neutral' e x p l a n a t i o n 'means an e x p l a n a t i o n b a s e d on s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e race of the j u r o r . At t h i s step of the i n q u i r y , the i s s u e i s the facial validity of the prosecutor's explanation. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's e x p l a n a t i o n , the reason o f f e r e d will be deemed r a c e n e u t r a l . ' H e r n a n d e z v. New Y o r k , 500 U.S. 352, 360, 111 S. C t . 1859, 1866, 114 L. Ed. 2d 395 (1991). 'In e v a l u a t i n g the r a c e - n e u t r a l i t y of an attorney's explanation, a court must determine whether, assuming the p r o f f e r e d reasons f o r the peremptory c h a l l e n g e s are t r u e , the c h a l l e n g e s v i o l a t e the Equal P r o t e c t i o n Clause as a matter of law.' Id. II I III 15 623 CR-07-0684 ' [ E ] v a l u a t i o n of the p r o s e c u t o r ' s s t a t e o f m i n d b a s e d on demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y l i e s " p e c u l i a r l y within the trial judges's province."' H e r n a n d e z , 500 U.S. a t 365, 111 S. C t . a t 1869."' " ' A l l e n v. S t a t e , 659 C r i m . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . ' " M a r t i n v. S t a t e , C r i m . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . 62 So. So. 3d 2d 135, 1050, 147 (Ala. 1058-59 (Ala. "'"When r e v i e w i n g a trial court's r u l i n g on a B a t s o n m o t i o n , t h i s c o u r t g i v e s deference to the t r i a l c o u r t and will reverse a t r i a l court's decision only i f the r u l i n g i s c l e a r l y erroneous." Yancey v. S t a t e , 813 So. 2d 1, 3 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001). "A t r i a l c o u r t i s i n a f a r b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t h a n a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t t o r u l e on i s s u e s of c r e d i b i l i t y . " Woods v. S t a t e , 789 So. 2d 896, 915 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) . "Great c o n f i d e n c e i s p l a c e d i n our trial judges i n the s e l e c t i o n of j u r i e s . Because they deal on a daily basis with the attorneys i n their respective counties, they are b e t t e r able to determine whether discriminatory patterns exist in the s e l e c t i o n o f j u r i e s . " P a r k e r v. S t a t e , 571 So. 2d 381, 384 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . Deference to t r i a l court findings on the issue of discriminatory intent makes p a r t i c u l a r sense i n t h i s c o n t e x t b e c a u s e , as we n o t e d i n B a t s o n , the f i n d i n g w i l l 'largely turn on e v a l u a t i o n of credibility' 476 U.S., a t 98, n.21. In the t y p i c a l c h a l l e n g e i n q u i r y , the decisive question will be 16 CR-07-0684 whether counsel's race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge should be b e l i e v e d . There will seldom be much e v i d e n c e b e a r i n g on t h a t i s s u e , and t h e b e s t e v i d e n c e o f t e n w i l l be t h e demeanor o f t h e a t t o r n e y who e x e r c i s e s t h e c h a l l e n g e . " " ' H e r n a n d e z v. New Y o r k , 500 U.S. 352, 365 (1991).' " D o s t e r v. S t a t e , App. 2010) . 72 So. 3d 50, 73-74 (Ala. Crim. "'[W]hen more t h a n one r e a s o n was g i v e n f o r s t r i k i n g some v e n i r e m e m b e r s , we n e e d o n l y f i n d one r a c e n e u t r a l r e a s o n among t h o s e a s s e r t e d t o f i n d t h a t t h e s t r i k e was r a c e - n e u t r a l ; we n e e d n o t a d d r e s s any accompanying reasons that might be suspect. See P o w e l l v. S t a t e , 608 So. 2d 411 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ; D a v i s v. S t a t e , 555 So. 2d 309 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . " "Zumbado v. S t a t e , 615 So. 2d 1223, 1231 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993). '"So l o n g as t h e r e i s a n o n - r a c i a l reason f o r the challenge, the p r i n c i p l e s of Batson are not v i o l a t e d . " ' J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 686 So. 2d 429, 430 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1996) ( q u o t i n g Z a n d e r s v. A l f a Mut. I n s . Co., 628 So. 2d 360, 361 (Ala. 1993)). "'Once t h e p r o s e c u t o r has a r t i c u l a t e d a r a c e n e u t r a l r e a s o n f o r t h e s t r i k e , t h e moving p a r t y can then o f f e r evidence showing t h a t those reasons a r e m e r e l y a sham o r p r e t e x t . ' Ex p a r t e B r a n c h , 526 So. 2d 609, 624 ( A l a . 1987) . 'A d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g a moving p a r t y ' s showing of i n t e n t t o d i s c r i m i n a t e u n d e r B a t s o n i s "'a p u r e i s s u e o f f a c t s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w u n d e r a d e f e r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d . ' " A r m s t r o n g v. S t a t e , 710 So. 2d 531, 534 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , 17 CR-07-0684 q u o t i n g H e r n a n d e z v . New Y o r k , 500 U.S. 352, 365 (1991).' W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 55 So. 3d 366, 371 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) . 'The t r i a l c o u r t i s i n a better position than the appellate court to d i s t i n g u i s h bona f i d e r e a s o n s f r o m sham e x c u s e s . ' H e a r d v. S t a t e , 584 So. 2d 556, 561 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991)." Thompson, So. 3d a t With Wilson's these . principles i n mind, this Court turns to arguments. A. Wilson first argues prima f a c i e showing potential juror prosecutor's that the State f a i l e d t o rebut the of r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n with respect to J.C. reason Specifically, for striking he argues potential that the J.C. was juror p r e t e x t u a l ; t h e r e f o r e , he i s e n t i t l e d t o a new trial. The p r o s e c u t o r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s t r u c k J.C. b e c a u s e J.C. s t a t e d t h a t i t w o u l d be t o u g h f o r h i m t o recommend a s e n t e n c e of death. that The c i r c u i t c o u r t found, the prosecutor's p r o f f e r e d neutral. M a s h b u r n v. S t a t e , App. 2007); Hocker App. 2002). v. S t a t e , Thus, t h e b u r d e n and t h i s reason Court i s facially agrees, race- 7 So. 3d 453, 461 ( A l a . Crim. 840 So. 2d 197, 210 ( A l a . Crim. s h i f t e d to Wilson to e s t a b l i s h 18 CR-07-0684 t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r ' s 526 So. 2d 609, 624 r e a s o n was pretextual. ( A l a . 1987). Wilson argues t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r ' s because the questions addressing Ex p a r t e B r a n c h , prosecutor targeted r e a s o n was pretextual African-Americans r e g a r d i n g t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n to the death p e n a l t y . t h i s argument, the circuit court found: "[Wilson] argues t h a t the S t a t e ' s q u e s t i o n i n g or addressing directly seven out of the eight African-Americans on t h e v e n i r e p a n e l d u r i n g v o i r d i r e as o p p o s e d t o o n l y a d d r e s s i n g f i v e out of t h i r t y - e i g h t whites with regard to t h e i r a b i l i t y to impose death indicates disparate treatment of A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n veniremembers. Further, [Wilson] a r g u e s t h a t s u c h d i r e c t q u e s t i o n i n g i s an i n d i c a t o r that veniremember number 13, [J.C.], received d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t b e c a u s e he was s t r u c k b a s e d on h i s r e s p o n s e t h a t i t w o u l d be t o u g h t o r e n d e r a death p e n a l t y recommendation. According to the testimony of [the prosecutor], no white veniremembers indicated that they would have d i f f i c u l t y i n imposing the death p e n a l t y . However, the State proffered testimony that i t struck [B.S.C.], a seventy-two year white female v e n i r e m e m b e r , b e c a u s e L t . L u k e r p e r s o n a l l y knew h e r and t h o u g h t she w o u l d be weak. L a s t l y , the Court f i n d s no m e r i t i n [ W i l s o n ' s ] a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e f o r m of the q u e s t i o n s posed to i n d i v i d u a l veniremembers with regard their ability t o impose t h e death p e n a l t y somehow c o n s t i t u t e s d i s p a r a t e treatment. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t [ W i l s o n ' s ] a r g u m e n t i s w i t h o u t m e r i t and t h e S t a t e ' s r e a s o n s f o r s t r i k i n g [J.C.] [were] r a c e n e u t r a l . " 19 with In CR-07-0684 (C. on remand a t 38-39.) cannot say that Based the c i r c u i t on t h e r e c o r d , court's finding this were Court clearly erroneous. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r asked the e n t i r e v e n i r e w h e t h e r t h e r e was anyone who " j u s t d o [ e s n o t ] b e l i e v e in the death questioned penalty." (R. 93-94.) the f i v e Caucasians, The p r o s e c u t o r seven A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s , and one A s i a n r e g a r d i n g t h e i r f e e l i n g s t o w a r d (R. 93-104). The record i s unclear i n d i c a t e d some n o n v e r b a l r e s p o n s e s question regarding prompting Wilson jurors their the prosecutor belief the death whether penalty. these i n the death jurors penalty, t o q u e s t i o n them f u r t h e r . some 8 to the prosecutor's general h a s n o t o f f e r e d any e v i d e n c e d i d not take then action to establish to indicate thus However, that a these possible o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e death p e n a l t y and, t h e r e f o r e , prompted t h e prosecutor's Furthermore, posed direct about the death penalty. t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n s t o white Two o f t h e Court that they being questioned A m e r i c a n ' s young death p e n a l t y . 8 questions potential jurors about the death penalty A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s had a l r e a d y informed the opposed t h e death p e n a l t y , prompting their a b o u t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , a n d one A f r i c a n age p r o m p t e d h i s b e i n g q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t t h e 20 CR-07-0684 differed materially from those jurors. Therefore, prosecutor targeted African-Americans the death penalty. Wilson posed has not to African-American established that with his questions the about B e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d does n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r targeted African-Americans penalty, t h i s Court cannot say t h a t the c i r c u i t court erred i n finding that with Wilson establish that the State's striking J.C. was questions had facially pretextual. e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f on t h i s about n o t met the clearly h i s burden race-neutral Therefore, death to reason f o r Wilson i s not issue. B. Wilson next argues that the State failed t o rebut the prima f a c i e showing of r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s J.D. a n d D.W. the State's reasons D.W. were pretextual; Specifically, for striking therefore, he a r g u e s potential jurors he i s entitled that J.D. and to a new trial. The p r o s e c u t o r had a LETS r e c o r d . individuals' t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s t r u c k J.D. b e c a u s e J.D. According criminal to the prosecutor, histories. 21 The LETS t r a c k s prosecutor also CR-07-0684 testified that traffic tickets he struck D.W. use of 1275, 416, 1283 Wilson ( A l a . C r i m . App. to establish pretextual. Wilson who W e l c h v. circuit 1992) . that the to s t r i k e had J.D. and D.W. allowed three white at one least (Wilson b r i e f argument, the and court D.W.'s c r i m i n a l State, 63 State's 3d So. 2d Thus, t h e b u r d e n s h i f t e d to prosecutor's So. 2d a t was reasons r e l i a n c e on c r i m i n a l p r e t e x t u a l because i n d i v i d u a l s to serve as were 624. many as on remand, a t 13.) five In on the the traffic addressing c i r c u i t c o u r t f o u n d as f o l l o w s : " [ W i l s o n ] ... a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e r e l i e d upon the [ c r i m i n a l ] r e c o r d of c e r t a i n b l a c k veniremembers as a p r e t e x t i n s t r i k i n g them. The S t a t e i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t r e l i e d upon t h e r e c o r d , i n w h o l e o r p a r t , o f the f o l l o w i n g veniremembers i n r e a c h i n g i t s d e c i s i o n to strike them: v e n i r e m e m b e r number 73, [D.W.], v e n i r e m e m b e r number 14, [J.D.,] and veniremember number 41, [B.L.] W i t h r e g a r d t o v e n i r e m e m b e r number 73, [D.W.], t h e S t a t e s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l i e d upon h i s LETS r e c o r d and f o u r t e e n s p e e d i n g citations. In r e a c h i n g t h e d e c i s i o n t o s t r i k e v e n i r e m e m b e r number 14, [ J . D . ] , t h e S t a t e s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l i e d upon h i s 22 14 So. argues t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r ' s violations." this received 2 0 1 0 ) ; Thomas v. S t a t e , 611 Ex p a r t e B r a n c h , 526 "prosecution jury The t h a t J.D.'s and strikes. ( A l a . C r i m . App. histories had were a f a c i a l l y r a c e - n e u t r a l r e a s o n f o r t h e i t s peremptory 418 D.W. and a l s o had a LETS r e c o r d . f o u n d , and t h i s C o u r t a g r e e s , histories because CR-07-0684 LETS record. The State relied c o n v i c t i o n o f v e n i r e m e m b e r number making the d e c i s i o n to s t r i k e her. upon the DUI 41, [B.L.], i n " [ W i l s o n ] f u r t h e r argues t h a t the S t a t e engaged in disparate treatment of African-American v e n i r e m e m b e r s who had some t y p e o f r e c o r d by not s t r i k i n g w h i t e v e n i r e m e m b e r s who had s i m i l a r r e c o r d s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , [Wilson] argues t h a t the S t a t e d i d not s t r i k e v e n i r e m e m b e r number 36, [ C . K . ] , who had a s p e e d i n g t i c k e t , v e n i r e m e m b e r number 67, [ S . T . ] , who had a s p e e d i n g t i c k e t and a [ t i c k e t f o r ] f a i l u r e t o s t o p , and v e n i r e m e m b e r number 42, [ R . L . ] , who had two s p e e d i n g t i c k e t s and a n o - s e a t b e l t v i o l a t i o n . In r e s p o n s e , [ t h e p r o s e c u t o r ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t have any i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n s f o r those veniremembers. "The State actually struck certain white v e n i r e m e m b e r s b a s e d i n w h o l e o r p a r t , on their records, specifically, veniremember number 54, [A.P.], veniremember number seven, [C.M.B], v e n i r e m e m b e r number 58, [ D . E . S . ] , J r . , v e n i r e m e m b e r number 9, [G.C.], and veniremember number 18, [ C . L . G . ] . The S t a t e r e l i e d upon [A.P.'s] c o n v i c t i o n f o r d r i v i n g w h i l e l i c e n s e d r e v o k e d and s e v e n DUI c h a r g e s , w h i c h he d i d n o t d i s c l o s e d u r i n g v o i r d i r e , i n m a k i n g i t s d e c i s i o n t o s t r i k e him. Regarding [C.M.B.], t h e S t a t e r e l i e d upon a DUI c o n v i c t i o n w h i c h she d i d n o t d i s c l o s e . W i t h r e g a r d t o [ D . E . S . ] , t h e S t a t e r e l i e d upon h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r u n l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n of a c o n t r o l l e d substance. With regard to [G.C.] t h e S t a t e r e l i e d upon h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r DUI. Although the S t a t e d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y a p a r t i c u l a r crime or t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n f o r [C.L.G.], i t d i d r e l y upon t h e f a c t t h a t she had a r e c o r d i n reaching i t s d e c i s i o n to s t r i k e her. A further a n a l y s i s o f t h e S t a t e ' s use o f p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s t o remove veniremembers with criminal convictions r e v e a l s t h a t v e n i r e m e m b e r 41, [ B . L . ] , had a DUI c o n v i c t i o n and w h i t e v e n i r e m e m b e r 54, [A.P.], 7, [C.B.] and 18, [ C . L . G . ] , h a d DUI c o n v i c t i o n s . With 23 CR-07-0684 r e g a r d t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a r e c o r d as a b a s i s f o r striking veniremembers, the State's reason for striking veniremember number 73, [D.W.], and v e n i r e m e m b e r 14, [ J . D . ] , who a r e African-Americans, was b a s e d i n w h o l e o r p a r t on t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a LETS r e c o r d and v e n i r e m e m b e r number 18, [ C . L . G . ] , a w h i t e f e m a l e , was s t r u c k f o r the e x i s t e n c e of a r e c o r d w h i c h was n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d . The f a c t t h a t t h e S t a t e s t r u c k w h i t e v e n i r e m e m b e r s w i t h t h e same o r s i m i l a r r e c o r d s as t h e A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n v e n i r e m e m b e r s c l e a r l y r e b u t s t h e argument by [ W i l s o n ' s ] counsel that the State's r e l i a n c e on the records of A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s as b a s i s t o s t r i k e them was m e r e l y a pretext. A c c o r d i n g l y , the Court f i n d s t h a t the S t a t e d i d n o t engage i n d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t of A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n v e n i r e m e m b e r s who had some s o r t o f r e c o r d , w h e t h e r i t was a LETS r e c o r d , traffic v i o l a t i o n , or other c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y . " (C. on remand supported by Wilson, erred the The however, argues that J.D. and circuit court's findings D.W. that the circuit the prosecutor's were n o t p r e t e x t u a l . court and D.W.'s LETS records and traffic p r e t e x t u a l because the S t a t e d i d not s t r i k e who had t r a f f i c t i c k e t s . improperly p o s s e s s any for argues r e l i a n c e on tickets was three white juror He t h e n a r g u e s t h a t " t h e t r i a l court c r e d i t e d the p r o s e c u t i o n ' s information clearly reasons F i r s t , he t h a t the r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r ' s J.D.'s are record. determining by striking 36-38.) about these 24 excuse t h a t i t d i d [white] not juror's t r a f f i c CR-07-0684 violations." (Wilson's b r i e f on remand, a t 14.) This Court disagrees. It Batson i s well motion settled depends on D o u g l a s v. S t a t e , 740 (citing 1991)). of Smith and province, circumstances, court]." 2d 485, So. and [this Thompson, court's ruling 487 ... ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 388, 390 Court] So. l i e peculiarly in the absence defer[s] 3d a t to ( A l a . Crim. App. determinations within a of trial exceptional the [the In o t h e r words, t h i s Court court's r u l i n g great deference, a 1999) trial (internal citations and " w i l l give a and we w i l l r u l i n g only i f i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous." at on determinations." "recognized that these demeanor quotations omitted). trial So. T h i s C o u r t has trial its credibility v. S t a t e , 590 credibility judge's t h a t "[a] reverse i t s D o u g l a s , 740 So. 2d 487. Here, the p r o s e c u t o r testified t h a t he d i d n o t have any i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the three white j u r o r s ' t r a f f i c t i c k e t s . The circuit reasons c o u r t b e l i e v e d the prosecutor f o r f a i l i n g to s t r i k e those white and credited his jurors. Thus, the c i r c u i t c o u r t f o u n d t h a t W i l s o n had n o t e s t a b l i s h e d d i s p a r a t e treatment. Nothing i n the r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t the 25 circuit CR-07-0684 court's credibility determination was clearly erroneous; t h e r e f o r e , W i l s o n i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f on t h i s Second, credited Wilson argues t h a t the the p r o s e c u t o r ' s r e l i a n c e trial on court issue. improperly J.D.'s LETS r e c o r d t o s t r i k e h i m b e c a u s e t h e p r o s e c u t o r f a i l e d t o s p e c i f y what t y p e of crime J.D. may have c o m m i t t e d . While the p r o s e c u t o r d i d n o t s p e c i f y what c r i m e o r c r i m e s were r e f l e c t e d on J.D.'s LETS r e c o r d , he d i d t e s t i f y t h a t LETS c o v e r s p e o p l e who have b e e n charged that had w i t h a l l types of crimes. a LETS r e c o r d s i s f a c i a l l y Thus, t h e fact race-neutral, and s h i f t e d t o W i l s o n t o show t h a t t h e r e a s o n was p a r t e Branch, Third, 526 So. Wilson 2d a t argues the J.D. burden a pretext. Ex court should not 624. t h a t the circuit have c r e d i t e d t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s r e a s o n s f o r s t r i k i n g b o t h and D.W. because the prosecutor evidence of those i n d i v i d u a l s ' held that "[t]here is no establish evidentiary case...." H a l l v. S t a t e , d i d not LETS r e c o r d s . requirement support 816 admit for So. 2d 80, 85 documentary This Court that every a strike Wilson had to establish 26 that in (Ala. Crim. Rather, d u r i n g the t h i r d step i n the Batson burden the has prosecutor 1999). the J.D. every App. process, prosecutor's CR-07-0684 r e a s o n was a p r e t e x t . However, when hearing, Wilson regarding Ex p a r t e cross-examining failed the prosecutor's ( A l a . Crim. App. the 526 So. 2d a t 624. prosecutor t o ask the p r o s e c u t o r D.W.'s c r i m i n a l r e c o r d s . 1278 Branch, records during any relating the questions t o J.D.'s a n d See W e l c h v. S t a t e , 63 So. 3d 1275, 2010) (recognizing that the burden i s t o o f f e r f a c i a l l y r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons, State's a f t e r which the burden s h i f t s t o the defendant " t o o f f e r evidence showing that those Wilson reasons failed t h a t those So. are merely a sham t o meet h i s b u r d e n " t o o f f e r showing W e l c h , 63 3d a t 1278. the State struck similarly potential jurors. As t h e c i r c u i t the struck a number o f w h i t e State court juror based prosecutor's jurors who an unspecified use o f i t s peremptory were s i m i l a r l y against Wilson's circuit on situated found i n i t s order, criminal strikes record. The t o remove white s i t u a t e d t o J.D. a n d D.W. judgment. 27 had The S t a t e a l s o s t r u c k c l a i m o f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and court's white j u r o r s because they t r a f f i c t i c k e t s and o t h e r c o n v i c t i o n s . the Thus, evidence r e a s o n s a r e m e r e l y a sham o r p r e t e x t . " Finally, one or p r e t e x t " ) . See H a l l , weighs supports 816 So. 2d a t 86 CR-07-0684 (holding jurors that of "comparable both discriminatory black races intent treatment tends to of similarly rebut any i n the prosecutor's situated inference strikes of against jurors"). For the foregoing reasons, Wilson failed burden t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t the prosecutor's J.D. and D.W. was a p r e t e x t . the court's circuit Therefore, t o meet h i s reason f o r s t r i k i n g F u r t h e r , b a s e d on t h e r e c o r d , 9 ruling was not clearly erroneous. W i l s o n i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f on t h i s i s s u e . C. Wilson failed support to next consider his Attorney's argues seven argument Office that court that struck the c i r c u i t opinions the J.C., Houston J.D., and court that erroneously he County D.W. asserts District for racial B e c a u s e t h e S t a t e ' s u s e o f J.D.'s c r i m i n a l r e c o r d was a r a c e - n e u t r a l reason f o r h i s removal, t h i s Court w i l l not a d d r e s s W i l s o n ' s c h a l l e n g e t o t h e S t a t e ' s u s e o f J.D.'s age as a reason for striking him. Thompson v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-05-0073, F e b . 17, 2012] So. 3d , ("[W]hen more t h a n one r e a s o n was g i v e n f o r s t r i k i n g some v e n i r e m e m b e r s , we n e e d o n l y f i n d one r a c e n e u t r a l r e a s o n among t h o s e a s s e r t e d t o f i n d t h a t t h e s t r i k e was r a c e - n e u t r a l ; we n e e d n o t a d d r e s s any a c c o m p a n y i n g r e a s o n s t h a t m i g h t be s u s p e c t . " ) . However, t h i s C o u r t n o t e s t h a t t h e S t a t e s t r u c k b o t h w h i t e and A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n ' s b a s e d on a g e . Further, nothing i n the record i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s r e a s o n was p r e t e x t u a l . 9 28 CR-07-0684 reasons. Specifically, should have State, 93-cv-215 Wilson considered (M.D. M c C r a y v. State, A s h l e y v. S t a t e , 651 So. So. 7) S t a t e , 593 County to Wilson, District Initially, circuit court thus the "raise[d] Attorney's an circuit has 3) App. 1994); 4) 1993); 5) 1992); 6) ( A l a . Crim. 141 cases these App. ( A l a . Crim. establish Office is has a unclear cases. hearing App. history that a the history Houston of racial considered. as to i t was Houston of whether the not going that County discrimination court was aware of 29 Therefore, the fact the circuit to Wilson District against j u r o r s and i n s u p p o r t o f t h a t argument (C. on remand 39.) and 1991) . t h a t the Although that 1992); App. i t s t a t e d i n i t s order argument African-American seven cases." the cases, Office 1998; ( A l a . C r i m . App. 140 2d record stated during 2) s h o u l d have b e e n court considered consider Wilson's the these Attorney's d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and 1996)(unpublished); ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 82 So. v. (Ala. Crim. 2d 1095 So. court Grimes 1096 1) (Ala. Crim. 2d 137, S t a t e , 620 cases: 911 2d So. W i l l i a m s v. According 2d So. Andrews v. S t a t e , 624 R o g e r v. following A l a . June 12, 738 B u s h v. S t a t e , 615 the argues t h a t the c i r c u i t cited i t appears t h a t that convictions CR-07-0684 s e c u r e d by t h e H o u s t o n C o u n t y D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e b e e n r e v e r s e d on B a t s o n In circuit any event, cited, A l a . R. App. t h i s Court times. without deciding, that s h o u l d have, c o n s i d e r e d the f i n d s any e r r o r harmless. the cases Rule 45, P. I n M c C r a y v. 3d assuming, court d i d not, but Wilson So. grounds seven had , State, [Ms. CR-06-0360, Dec. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 17, 2010] 2010), t h i s Court s t a t e d : "[T]o the e x t e n t t h a t the Houston County D i s t r i c t Attorney's Office has a history of racial discrimination, that history i s attenuated. 'The o p i n i o n s r e v e r s i n g the Houston C i r c u i t Court on B a t s o n g r o u n d s d a t e f r o m 1991, [ o v e r 20] y e a r s ago. The most r e c e n t o f t h o s e o p i n i o n s was p u b l i s h e d i n 1998, [ o v e r 12] y e a r s ago.' F l o y d [ v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-05-0935, S e p t . 28, 2007] So. 3d (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ] ( o p i n i o n on r e t u r n t o remand) (Welch, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . See M c C r a y v. S t a t e , 738 So. 2d 911, 914 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1998) ( r e v e r s i n g the judgment of the Houston County C i r c u i t C o u r t b a s e d on a B a t s o n v i o l a t i o n ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , a l t h o u g h the Houston County D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e ha[d] a h i s t o r y o f u s i n g i t s p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s i n an i m p r o p e r manner, t h i s f a c t o r , b a s e d on t h e p a s s a g e o f t i m e , does n o t e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f racia l discrimination." In addition significance to of the the passage history of of time attenuating discrimination, c o u n s e l c o n c e d e d a t t h e h e a r i n g t h a t "one the Wilson's of the f a c t o r s t h a t i s j u s t a f a c t o r i n t h i s c a s e -- i t ' s a v e r y , v e r y s m a l l p a r t 30 CR-07-0684 of our case -- i s t h a t t h e C o u r t history discrimination." As discussed i s supposed to look (R. on remand 66; e m p h a s i s added.) above, the State gave valid reasons f o r s t r i k i n g p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s J.C., J.D., a n d D.W. attenuated significance the Houston that case, County the h i s t o r y this of the h i s t o r y District holds consider Wilson's that very B a s e d on t h e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by Attorney's was "a v e r y , Court to a Office and t h e f a c t small p a r t " of Wilson's i f the c i r c u i t court d i d not seven cases, t h a t e r r o r d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e outcome o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g a n d , t h u s , any e r r o r was harmless. R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P.; H i n k l e v. S t a t e , 67 So. 3d 161, 166 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) ( f i n d i n g an e r r o r h a r m l e s s " n o t a f f e c t t h e outcome o f t h e t r i a l , or otherwise p r e j u d i c e a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of the [appellant]"). i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f on t h i s when i t d i d Therefore, Wilson issue. II. Wilson next argues t h a t d u r i n g c l o s i n g arguments i n t h e g u i l t p h a s e , t h e p r o s e c u t o r i m p r o p e r l y q u e s t i o n e d h i m a f t e r he had exercised Specifically, closing his Fifth Wilson argument, Amendment asserts that the prosecutor 31 right during "directly not t o testify. the guilt-phase questioned Mr. CR-07-0684 Wilson i n front of the jury According to Wilson, jury ... silent." the violated ( W i l s o n ' s b r i e f , a t 25.) [he h a d powerless "direct invoked t o respond, [his] right at a not t o t e s t i f y e x p l o i t e d Mr. W i l s o n ' s Crim. that time and] was decision not to (Wilson's This Court notes t h a t Wilson d i d not o b j e c t t o the p r o s e c u t o r ' s will remain W i l s o n f u r t h e r argues c o n f r o n t a t i o n o f [him], his right to take t h e s t a n d " and c o n s t i t u t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . b r i e f , a t 26.) a t 8.) " [ b ] y q u e s t i o n i n g [him] i n f r o n t o f t h e [the prosecutor] prosecutor's when (Wilson's b r i e f , be r e v i e w e d statements for plain at t r i a l ; error therefore, this only. Rule issue 45A, A l a . R. P. Wilson bases h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r directly q u e s t i o n e d a n d c o n f r o n t e d h i m a f t e r he h a d i n v o k e d h i s r i g h t to remain closing s i l e n t on t h e f o l l o w i n g p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s argument: " T h i s i s t h e b a c k o f h i s h e a d , good p e o p l e , t h a t was c r u s h e d w i t h t h e l a c e r a t i o n s where t h e b l e e d i n g came f r o m t h e s c a l p f r o m t h e b a c k where he was h i t . you "Oh, e x c u s e me. From t h e s t a t e m e n t , Mr. W i l s o n , s a i d you h i t him a c c i d e n t a l l y . Accidentally. "What p a r t o f y o u r b o d y t e l l s y o u t o t a k e t h i s b a t a n d s w i n g i t a n d h i t somebody? I t ' s t h e b r a i n . The b r a i n t e l l s t h e b o d y -- i t r u n s down t h r o u g h t h e 32 CR-07-0684 nerves bat. a n d t h e hands "Accidentally. and t e l l s you t o swing that Accidentally." (R. 606.) This Court prosecutor's argument closing explained argument, that " [ i ] n judging the standard a i s whether the 'so i n f e c t e d t h e t r i a l w i t h u n f a i r n e s s as t o make t h e resulting State, has c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f due p r o c e s s . " P h i l l i p s v. 65 So. 3d 971, 1033 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) and q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . (citations F u r t h e r , "[a] p r o s e c u t o r ' s statement must be v i e w e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e presented and i n t h e c o n t e x t jury." o f the complete c l o s i n g arguments t o t h e I d . ( 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 ) . t h e p r o p r i e t y o f argument of counsel "Questions of are l a r g e l y w i t h i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n ... [and t h i s C o u r t ] w i l l n o t r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s t h e r e h a s been an abuse of t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . " I d . ( 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 ) . The C o u r t h a s f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d : "'A comment on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y i s t o be " s c r u p u l o u s l y a v o i d e d . " A r t h u r v. S t a t e , 575 So. 2d 1 1 6 5 , 1186 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 575 So. 2d 1191 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . "Every time a prosecutor stresses a f a i l u r e to present t e s t i m o n y , t h e f a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s must 33 CR-07-0684 be c l o s e l y e x a m i n e d t o s e e w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t has been violated." W i n d s o r v. S t a t e , 593 So. 2d 87, 91 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , q u o t i n g P a d g e t t v. S t a t e , 45 A l a . App. 56, 223 So. 2d 597, 602 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . " I n a c a s e where t h e r e has b e e n o n l y an i n d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e t o a defendant's f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y , i n order f o r t h e comment t o c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r , t h e r e must be a c l o s e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t as t h e p e r s o n who d i d n o t become a w i t n e s s . " W i n d s o r v. S t a t e , s u p r a , q u o t i n g , Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m s , 461 So. 2d 852 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . "'"'Alabama law clearly holds t h a t "[w]here t h e r e i s the p o s s i b i l i t y that a prosecutor's comment c o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d b y t h e j u r y as r e f e r e n c e t o f a i l u r e of the defendant t o t e s t i f y , A r t . I, § 6 [Const. o f Alabama o f 1901], i s v i o l a t e d . " ' Ex p a r t e W i l s o n , 571 So. 2d 1251, 1262 (Ala. 1990) . However, "a p r o s e c u t o r may l e g i t i m a t e l y b a s e h i s argument on t h e e v i d e n c e o f the a p p e l l a n t ' s statement" t o the police. H e r e f o r d v. S t a t e , 608 So. 2d 439, 442 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992) . See a l s o H e n d e r s o n v. S t a t e , 584 So. 2d 841, 855 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) ; S m i t h v. S t a t e , 588 So. 2d 5 6 1 , 570 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ; K i m b l e v . S t a t e , 545 So. 2d 228, 230 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) ; B r i n k s v. S t a t e , 500 So. 2d 1 3 1 1 , 1314-15 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986). "Argument by the prosecution concerning omissions and inconsistencies in the defendant's v e r s i o n o f t h e case 34 CR-07-0684 is not improper." S a l t e r v. State, 578 So. 2d 1092, 1096 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , cert. d e n i e d , 578 So. 2d 1097 ( A l a . 1991)."'" Phillips, 2d 65 So. 3d a t 1033 ( q u o t i n g T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 808 So. 1148, 1185-87 Mosely v. 1993)). Crim. ( A l a . Crim. 628 State, App. 1041, 1042 So. 2d 2000), quoting i n part ( A l a .Crim. App. See a l s o B u r g e s s v . S t a t e , 827 So. 2d 134, 168 ( A l a . App. 1998) Burgess's right ( " I t was n o t an i m p e r m i s s i b l e to remain silent comment on f o r the prosecutor to q u e s t i o n Burgess's t r u t h f u l n e s s i n making h i s s t a t e m e n t . " ) . Contrary to Wilson's assertions, the prosecutor d i d not q u e s t i o n o r c o n f r o n t him d u r i n g c l o s i n g arguments. the p r o s e c u t o r addressed a p o r t i o n which Wilson accidentally Specifically, told told after the o f f i c e r s of Wilson's statement i n law-enforcement h i t Walker that officers i n t h e head w i t h acknowledging he it a n d h i t somebody?" he the baseball bat. f o r the jury accidentally that that Wilson h i t Walker, prosecutor asked the j u r y the f o l l o w i n g r h e t o r i c a l "What p a r t o f y o u r b o d y t e l l s Instead, the question: you t o t a k e t h i s b a t and swing (R. 606.) Thereafter, i n arguing that W i l s o n d i d have t h e r e q u i s i t e i n t e n t , t h e p r o s e c u t o r a n s w e r e d 35 CR-07-0684 his question saying, " I t ' s the b r a i n . " Id. I n o t h e r words, t h e p r o s e c u t o r d i d n o t i m p r o p e r l y q u e s t i o n W i l s o n a f t e r he h a d invoked his right not to t e s t i f y . p e r m i s s i b l y argued in which murder Instead, that the jury could i n f e r W a l k e r was m u r d e r e d t h a t W i l s o n the prosecutor f r o m t h e manner had the i n t e n t t o Walker. Because W i l s o n has n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s argument was i m p r o p e r , plain error. on t h i s he h a s n o t met h i s b u r d e n t o e s t a b l i s h T h e r e f o r e , W i l s o n i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f issue. III. Wilson allowed argues the State police. meet next voluntarily recorded. t o admit Specifically, i t s burden given that to the c i r c u i t into Wilson evidence argues establish because From t h e r e , W i l s o n the erroneously h i s statement that the State that his statement argues court cannot statement was to not t h a t h i s statement was fully was i n v o l u n t a r y because the i n v e s t i g a t o r d i d not r e c o r d e v e r y t h i n g t h a t was said. Wilson then argues t h a t because the e n t i r e s t a t e m e n t was n o t r e c o r d e d , a d m i s s i o n o f t h e r e c o r d e d p o r t i o n was error because i t was "unreliable," 36 i t "prevent[ed] the CR-07-0684 j u r y from a c h i e v i n g a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e statement," and i t " d i s t o r t [ e d ] significance." raise these (Wilson's b r i e f , t h e c o n f e s s i o n ' s meaning and a t 31-32.) arguments i n t h e c i r c u i t Wilson d i d not court; therefore, this C o u r t w i l l r e v i e w these arguments f o r p l a i n e r r o r o n l y . 45A, 1 0 Rule A l a . R. App. P. D u r i n g t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g and a t t r i a l , Investigator L u k e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a n d O f f i c e r J e f f L i n d s e y , a t r a n s p o r t o f f i c e r , went t o W i l s o n ' s m o b i l e home a n d a s k e d W i l s o n t o come with them t o t h e p o l i c e incident. Wilson agreed, the p o l i c e s t a t i o n . station t o be i n t e r v i e w e d a b o u t an a n d he r o d e w i t h O f f i c e r L i n d s e y t o O f f i c e r Lindsey d i d not question Wilson d u r i n g t h e d r i v e b e t w e e n W i l s o n ' s m o b i l e home a n d t h e p o l i c e station. A f t e r they a r r i v e d a t the p o l i c e s t a t i o n , O f f i c e r Lindsey e s c o r t e d Wilson t o the " d e t e c t i v e bureau" L u k e r a n d S e r g e a n t E t r e s s were w a i t i n g . where Investigator (R. 13.) W i l s o n was W i l s o n d i d move t o s u p p r e s s h i s s t a t e m e n t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t was n o t v o l u n t a r i l y g i v e n ; h o w e v e r , he d i d n o t a r g u e t h a t the State's f a i l u r e t o f u l l y r e c o r d the statement rendered the statement i n v o l u n t a r y or untrustworthy. See D a v i s v. S t a t e , 42 So. 3d 162, 168 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009) ("The s t a t e m e n t o f s p e c i f i c g r o u n d s o f o b j e c t i o n w a i v e s a l l grounds n o t s p e c i f i e d " ) . 1 0 37 CR-07-0684 then taken conference into the conference room. At that time, room was n o t e q u i p p e d w i t h v i d e o e q u i p m e n t the capable of p r o d u c i n g v i s u a l r e c o r d i n g s . B e f o r e W i l s o n was a s k e d any q u e s t i o n s , I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r read Wilson h i s Miranda rights form Wilson appeared r i g h t s , a n d he went o v e r a w a i v e r - o f - with Wilson. waiver-of-rights Investigator According t o understand form Luker and further t o I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker, each of the r i g h t s voluntarily explained signed that the Wilson on t h e waiver. d i d not a p p e a r t o be u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a l c o h o l o r d r u g s when he waived that h i s Miranda rights. no one o f f e r e d W i l s o n I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker any p r o m i s e s also stated or inducements t o w a i v e h i s r i g h t s a n d t h a t he was n o t t h r e a t e n e d i n any manner. According t o I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker, Wilson understood h i s r i g h t s and v o l u n t a r i l y w a i v e d those rights. I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker s t a t e d t h a t Wilson signed the waiverof-rights 5:02 f o r m a t 4:12 a.m. a.m., murder. Wilson outlined T h e r e a f t e r , b e t w e e n 4:12 a.m. a n d the events surrounding Walker's A c c o r d i n g t o I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r , he d i d n o t know what W i l s o n was g o i n g interview. t o s a y , so he d i d n o t i n i t i a l l y record the Thus, t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n 4:12 a.m. a n d 5:02 38 CR-07-0684 a.m. was n o t r e c o r d e d . made incriminating However, statements, recorded Wilson's statement. recording a t 5:02 a.m., Investigator after Wilson Luker audio- A f t e r I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker began t h e s t a t e m e n t , W i l s o n s t a t e d t h a t he h a d b e e n r e a d his rights, t h a t he u n d e r s t o o d t h o s e r i g h t s , v o l u n t a r i l y waived them. He f u r t h e r s t a t e d a n d t h a t he h a d t h a t he h a d n o t been t h r e a t e n e d , c o e r c e d , o r p r o m i s e d a n y t h i n g i n e x c h a n g e f o r his statement. I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker t e s t i f i e d that although the beginning of the statement statement recording Wilson not recorded, made d i d not d i f f e r statement. before from I n o t h e r words, incriminating Wilson was repeat Investigator statement, his Luker Investigator Wilson Investigator further explained began of the made h i s i n i t i a l Luker while of the Luker the recorded portion after statement the portion immediately had tape-recording that during i t . the i n t e r v i e w , t h e t a p e t h e y were u s i n g t o r e c o r d W i l s o n r a n o u t without I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker n o t i c i n g . failed to turn Thus, I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r t h e tape over and d i d n o t r e c o r d minutes of the i n t e r v i e w . the l a s t 10 I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker s t a t e d that the r e c o r d e d p o r t i o n o f W i l s o n ' s statement d i d n o t d i f f e r from t h e 39 CR-07-0684 p o r t i o n s t h a t were n o t r e c o r d e d . 10 S t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y , the minutes of W i l s o n ' s statement d i d not d i f f e r i n g d e t a i l s of the provide any last new or crime. A. To the extent erroneously statement Wilson allowed the that s t a t e m e n t was the State the because establish argues State "It facie has been involuntary confession cannot may be meet he has of his burden its to given n o t met law that a when the h i s burden to confession inadmissible, admitted recording court occurred. the and circuit voluntarily not f u l l y recorded, long the to admit the s t a t e m e n t was establish that plain error that and i n t o evidence, that is prima before a t h e b u r d e n i s upon t h e S t a t e t o e s t a b l i s h v o l u n t a r i n e s s and a M i r a n d a p r e d i c a t e . " W a l d r o p v. S t a t e , 859 (citing App. J a c k s o n v. 1990)). C r i m . App. proper statement' 2d 1138, State, In W i l k e r s o n 562 1155 So. 2d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1373, v. S t a t e , 70 So. 1380 2000) (Ala. Crim. 3d 442, 460 (Ala. 2011), t h i s Court e x p l a i n e d t h a t " [ t ] o e s t a b l i s h a Miranda a c c u s e d was So. predicate, the State must prove i n f o r m e d of h i s Miranda r i g h t s b e f o r e and that 'the accused 40 voluntarily and that 'the he made t h e knowingly CR-07-0684 waived h i s Miranda (quoting Jones App. 2 0 0 6 ) ) . whether rights v. S t a t e , before making his 987 So. 2d 1156, 1164 This Court also e x p l a i n e d that an statement.'" individual "voluntarily, ( A l a . Crim. i n determining knowingly, and i n t e l l i g e n t l y " w a i v e d h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s , c o u r t s must c o n s i d e r "the totality of the circumstances surrounding interrogation, i n c l u d i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s the c o n d i t i o n s of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n , law-enforcement Wilkerson, officials "'[t]o and t h e conduct ( q u o t i n g F o l d i v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. Similarly, of the accused, of the i n conducting the i n t e r r o g a t i o n . " 70 So. 3d a t 460 2d 414, 421 the 861 So. 2002)). prove [the] v o l u n t a r i n e s s [of the c o n f e s s i o n ] , t h e S t a t e must e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t "made an i n d e p e n d e n t a n d i n f o r m e d c h o i c e o f h i s own f r e e w i l l , he p o s s e s s e d t h e c a p a b i l i t y t o do s o , a n d t h a t h i s w i l l not o v e r b o r n e by p r e s s u r e s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s s w i r l i n g him."'" 914 Lewis 1988)). was around W i l k e r s o n , 70 So. 3d a t 460 ( q u o t i n g E g g e r s v. S t a t e , So. 2d 883, 898-99 turn, that v. S t a t e , ( A l a . Crim. App. 535 So. 2d 228, 235 2004), quoting i n (Ala. " [ A ] c o n f e s s i o n , o r any i n c u l p a t o r y Crim. App. statement, i s i n v o l u n t a r y i f i t i s e i t h e r coerced through force or induced t h r o u g h an e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d p r o m i s e 41 of leniency." McLeod CR-07-0684 v. State, 718 So. 2d 727, 729 (Ala.1998) U n i t e d S t a t e s , 168 U.S. 532 ( 1 8 9 7 ) . waiver, (citing Bram v. Like reviewing a Miranda "when d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a c o n f e s s i o n i s v o l u n t a r y , ... c o u r t [ s ] must c o n s i d e r t h e t o t a l i t y surrounding the confession." (quoting Maxwell v. S t a t e , of the circumstances W i l k e r s o n , 70 So. 3d a t 460 828 So. 2d 347, 354 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2 0 0 0 ) ) . Although read t h e S t a t e must e s t a b l i s h the Miranda rights, that that a defendant he v o l u n t a r i l y waived was those r i g h t s , a n d t h a t he v o l u n t a r i l y gave t h e s t a t e m e n t , t h e S t a t e i s n o t , as W i l s o n a r g u e s , r e q u i r e d t o p r o d u c e a f u l l recording of the defendant's statement t o e s t a b l i s h these p r e r e q u i s i t e s to the admission of the statement into evidence. To t h e c o n t r a r y , t h i s C o u r t has h e l d : "'"'The s t a t e i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e a l l t h a t t h e a c c u s e d s a i d when he c o n f e s s e d b e c a u s e t h e a c c u s e d h i m s e l f has t h e r i g h t t o prove t h e remainder o f h i s s t a t e m e n t . ' [C. Gamble,] M c E l r o y [ ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e ] , § 200.17 a t 446 [ ( 3 r d e d . 1 9 7 7 ) ] . ' " Sneed v. S t a t e , 1 So. 3d 104, 126 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , Sneed v. A l a b a m a , [555 U.S. 155 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ] , q u o t i n g , B a r r o w v. S t a t e , 494 So. 2d 834, 840 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . Furthermore, the f a i l u r e t o r e c o r d a p o r t i o n o f an i n t e r v i e w i s a m a t t e r t o be c o n s i d e r e d as a f f e c t i n g t h e w e i g h t t o be accorded the statement rather than i t s admissibility. See C e n t o b i e v . S t a t e , 861 So. 2d 1111, 1120 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001) ( p a r t o f s t a t e m e n t was n o t r e c o r d e d b e c a u s e t h e t a p e was i n s e r t e d i n 42 CR-07-0684 the wrong direction; however the tape was admissible). S m i t h v. S t a t e , 756 So. 2d 892, 931 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997) (where t h e o f f i c e r f a i l e d t o record a p o r t i o n of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n when he a d v i s e d Smith of h i s Miranda r i g h t s would not render t h e s t a t e m e n t i n a d m i s s i b l e , b u t w o u l d be t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e j u r y i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e w e i g h t and c r e d i b i l i t y t o a s s i g n t o t h e o f f i c e r ' s t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g the a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n f e s s i o n ) . " J o h n s o n v. State, , [Ms. (Ala. CR-99-1349, O c t . Crim. App. 2, 2009). 2009] "[T]he videotaped recording d[oes] not i n c l u d e the does not recording inadmissible; fact a f f e c t s only render the the g i v e n by t h e j u r y . " C r i m . App. (Ala. 2000) weight the (citations on other the [rather,] So. 2d 707, grounds, 780 statement. The rights. form W i l s o n 2d Wilson signed 43 signed stated the Investigator 796 W i l s o n d i d not the that State Luker Investigator t o be u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a l c o h o l o r d r u g s and form. So. (Ala. prerequisites W i l s o n gave h i s s t a t e m e n t , Luker read Wilson h i s Miranda r i g h t s . his 735 be omitted). admission of Wilson's understand that should the t o t a l i t y of the circumstances, t e s t i f i e d that before a e n t i r e statement p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t evidence to e s t a b l i s h the to 3d that fact recording M i n o r v. S t a t e , 780 1999), r e v e r s e d Considering that So. appear appeared to waiver-of-rights he had read his CR-07-0684 rights, that he u n d e r s t o o d h i s rights, and t h a t t h o s e r i g h t s w i t h o u t b e i n g o f f e r e d any p r o m i s e s any t h r e a t s . that (C. 428.) he or r e c e i v i n g I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker f u r t h e r no one o f f e r e d W i l s o n a n y p r o m i s e s before or during Wilson's waived testified o r made a n y t h r e a t s statement. In a d d i t i o n t o I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker's t e s t i m o n y , t h i s has l i s t e n e d to the recorded portion On t h e r e c o r d i n g , Wilson states of Wilson's statement. t h a t he was r e a d h i s r i g h t s and t h a t he u n d e r s t o o d t h o s e r i g h t s . W i l s o n does n o t s o u n d as t h o u g h he was u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a n y i n t o x i c a n t . Wilson states Finally, that Wilson threatened him he h a s v o l u n t a r i l y w a i v e d states i n an that no attempt Court one made to force Further, h i s rights. any p r o m i s e s or him t o give h i s statement. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g was read h i s Miranda v o l u n t a r i l y waived evidence warnings, h i s Miranda indicating that that rights, make a s t a t e m e n t w i t h o u t any p r o m i s e s he understood any e r r o r , plain e n t i t l e d t o no r e l i e f or otherwise. on t h i s claim. 44 and a n d t h a t he c h o s e t o o r t h r e a t s , W i l s o n has not e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e admission of h i s statement in Wilson Therefore, resulted Wilson i s CR-07-0684 B. To t h e e x t e n t Wilson argues that the recording of h i s c o n f e s s i o n was u n r e l i a b l e a n d m i s l e a d i n g b e c a u s e t h e s t a t e m e n t was n o t f u l l y This recorded, t h i s argument i s a l s o w i t h o u t C o u r t has h e l d that omissions merit. i n a recording of a s t a t e m e n t do n o t r e n d e r t h e r e c o r d i n g i n a d m i s s i b l e u n l e s s t h e omitted "'portions recording were "so substantial as a w h o l e u n t r u s t w o r t h y . " ' " CR-06-0454, J a n . 13, 2011] as to render v. S t a t e , Revis So. 3d the [Ms. , ( A l a . Crim. App. 2011) ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. G r e e n f i e l d , 574 F.2d 305, 307 (5th C i r . 1978), q u o t i n g i n turn United 443 F.2d 792, 795 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) ) . S t a t e s v. A v i l a , See B l a n t o n v. S t a t e , 886 So. 2d 850, 868 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) ( h o l d i n g t h a t i n a u d i b l e or missing portions of a recording will not render the r e c o r d i n g i n a d m i s s i b l e when t h e m i s s i n g p o r t i o n s do n o t a p p e a r to a f f e c t "the accuracy of the substance of the or o t h e r w i s e d e t r a c t from the purpose f o r which the a u d i o t a p e s were a d m i t t e d " ) . statement will inadmissible conversations so The f a i l u r e not render long as to record a part or parts of a the recording the recorded of the portion statement "include[s] ' s u b s t a n t i a l l y ' a l l of the 'pertinent conversations.'" 45 Revis, CR-07-0684 So. 3d a t November 14, ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v. H e s t e r 2006) (No. A-7130-03T4, (N.J.Super.A.D.2006) (not r e p o r t e d in A.2d)). Here, Wilson Investigator made b e f o r e the recorded of Additionally, Wilson's merely repeated to Luker. stopped this as Court statement, is and compared has meaning of to what i s no established that confession. the was established that r e s u l t e d from a d m i t t i n g not recorded. has portions error, t h a t he b e l i e v e s or distorts Wilson of much the recording. e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f on t h i s 46 of F i n a l l y , Wilson Consequently, omitted any explained the the r e n d e r e d t h e s t a t e m e n t , as a w h o l e , u n t r u s t w o r t h y not he h a d i n d i c a t i o n that u n r e l i a b l e , untrustworthy, the portion l i s t e n e d to the recording there from materially different after t o any p o r t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d i n g inaccurate, statement information recording i s u n r e l i a b l e or untrustworthy. not p o i n t e d the I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker a l s o d i d not say anything recording that That i s , d u r i n g the r e c o r d e d the statement, Wilson that Wilson testified L u k e r began r e c o r d i n g d i d n o t d i f f e r statement. already provided the Luker less not statement and t h u s has plain Therefore, issue. has the error, Wilson i s CR-07-0684 IV. W i l s o n next argues t h a t h i s c o n f e s s i o n and t h e e v i d e n c e s e i z e d f r o m h i s m o b i l e home s h o u l d be s u p p r e s s e d as t h e f r u i t o f an i l l e g a l was arrest. Specifically, Wilson asserts a r r e s t e d i n h i s m o b i l e home w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t . t h a t he According to W i l s o n , " [ a ] b s e n t consent, o n l y e x i g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s can justify a warrantless (Wilson's b r i e f , failed to arrest a t 33.) present of a person i n h i s home." Wilson next a l l e g e s that the State any evidence establishing c i r c u m s t a n c e s f o r h i s in-home, w a r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t ; exigent therefore, h i s c o n f e s s i o n , w h i c h he gave a f t e r t h a t a r r e s t , i s t h e f r u i t o f an i l l e g a l a r r e s t a n d s h o u l d have b e e n s u p p r e s s e d . Wilson a l s o a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e h i s i l l - g o t t e n c o n f e s s i o n was u s e d t o obtain the search evidence warrant from h i s m o b i l e that justified the seizure home, t h a t e v i d e n c e s u p p r e s s e d as t h e f r u i t o f an i l l e g a l a r r e s t . raised in the circuit court numerous of s h o u l d a l s o be Although Wilson grounds f o r the s u p p r e s s i o n o f h i s statement and t h e e v i d e n c e s e i z e d from h i s mobile home, he d i d n o t a r g u e that h i s arrest was illegal because t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h e x i g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Therefore, t h i s i s s u e w i l l be r e v i e w e d f o r p l a i n e r r o r o n l y . 47 CR-07-0684 See D a v i s v. S t a t e , ("The s t a t e m e n t 42 So. 3d 162, 168 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009) of s p e c i f i c grounds o f o b j e c t i o n waives a l l g r o u n d s n o t s p e c i f i e d . . . . " ) ; R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing i n d i c a t e s t h a t e a c h o f W i l s o n ' s a c c o m p l i c e s gave s t a t e m e n t s t o law-enforcement o f f i c e r s i n which they confessed. to Catherine N i c o l e Corley[,] a c o - d e f e n d a n t [ , ] W i l s o n was t o get h a l f o f t h e audio equipment from had taken murder." "According a l l o f t h e chances [ W a l k e r ' s ] v a n b e c a u s e he i n [the] burglary, t h e f t and (C. 419.) After obtaining statements from Wilson's accomplices i m p l i c a t i n g W i l s o n i n Walker's murder, I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker and O f f i c e r L i n d s e y went t o W i l s o n ' s m o b i l e home. t h e m o b i l e home on A p r i l Luker knocked At that They a r r i v e d a t 14, 2004, a t 3:50 a.m. Investigator on t h e d o o r , a n d W i l s o n ' s m o t h e r a n s w e r e d . t i m e , W i l s o n was a s l e e p i n h i s bedroom, s o h i s m o t h e r awakened h i m . When W i l s o n came o u t o f h i s bedroom, I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r a s k e d W i l s o n " i f he w o u l d come w i t h to t a l k Luker, [them] ... a b o u t an i n c i d e n t , " a n d a c c o r d i n g t o I n v e s t i g a t o r Wilson " v o l u n t a r i l y agree[d] I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker e x p l a i n e d t o come." (R. 12.) t h a t W i l s o n was n o t a r r e s t e d a t 48 CR-07-0684 t h a t p o i n t b e c a u s e he v o l u n t a r i l y a g r e e d t o come t o t h e p o l i c e station, b u t i f he h a d n o t a g r e e d t o come to the p o l i c e s t a t i o n , he w o u l d have b e e n a r r e s t e d . Wilson and was rode w i t h escorted bureau." Wilson to a (R. 13.) handcuffs. Officer Lindsey conference A t some to the p o l i c e room point, station i n the "detective Wilson was p l a c e d i n As d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , once i n t h e c o n f e r e n c e was r e a d h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s , and he v o l u n t a r i l y c o n f e s s e d he w a i v e d t h o s e room, rights, t o h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Walker's murder. It i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t a law-enforcement o f f i c e r consistent with the Fourth C o n s t i t u t i o n , execute o f f i c e r has p r o b a b l e has 411, (recognizing to the United cause t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e person a r r e s t e d See U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Watson , 423 U.S. New Y o r k v . H a r r i s , 495 U.S. 14, 18 that States a w a r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t i n p u b l i c when t h e committed a crime. 423 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ; Amendment may, " i tha[s] long been settled (1990) that a w a r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t i n a p u b l i c p l a c e was p e r m i s s i b l e as l o n g as t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r h a d p r o b a b l e Moore, 538, 553 U.S. 164, 173 546 ( A l a . C r i m . (2008); c a u s e ...") ; V i r g i n i a v. B u s h v. S t a t e , 523 So. 2d App. 1 9 8 8 ) ; § 15-10-3, A l a . Code 1975. 49 CR-07-0684 B a s e d on t h e s a n c t i t y o f home, h o w e v e r , t h e F o u r t h Amendment gives See greater protection P a y t o n v . New Y o r k , that from in-home w a r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t s . 445 U.S. 573, 588-602 greater protection, (1980). "a w a r r a n t l e s s a n d Under nonconsensual e n t r y i n t o a s u s p e c t ' s home f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f e f f e c t u a t i n g a f e l o n y a r r e s t i s ... u n r e a s o n a b l e a n d p r o h i b i t e d b y t h e F o u r t h Amendment unless the State proves exigent circumstances." 158-59 both probable cause and W a s h i n g t o n v . S t a t e , 922 So. 2d 145, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; see a l s o Payton, 445 U.S. a t 587-88; K i r k v. L o u i s i a n a , 536 U.S. 635, 638 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , M i n n e s o t a v. O l s o n , 495 U.S. 91, 95 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , W e l s h v. W i s c o n s i n , 466 U.S. 740 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , Ex p a r t e M o f f i t , Thus, i f warrantless, law-enforcement in-home arrest 844 So. 2d 5 3 1 , 533 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . officers with cannot consent justify or both c a u s e a n d e x i g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e n any e v i d e n c e or obtained inside the defendant's a probable collected home d u r i n g t h a t illegal a r r e s t must be s u p p r e s s e d u n d e r t h e e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e adopted by t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . See P a y t o n , 445 U.S. a t 587-88. Of c o u r s e , a p e r s o n may v o l u n t a r i l y accompany o f f i c e r s t o the police station and t h a t "person's 50 decision [ w i l l not] CR-07-0684 support a conclusion that that 762, So. 768 i s under arrest [for M a r s h a l l v. S t a t e , F o u r t h Amendment p u r p o s e s ] . " person 992 So. 2d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007) 2d 503, 529 (citing Smith v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . I t follows 797 that a p e r s o n may a l s o v o l u n t a r i l y l e a v e t h a t p e r s o n ' s home a n d e n t e r a public Fourth area where Amendment, that be See S t a t e may, consistent with without arrested p r o b a b l e cause alone. 465 person a warrant based v. S o l b e r g , on 861 P.2d 460, (Wash. 1993) ( " P o l i c e may make a w a r r a n t l e s s suspect, the a r r e s t of a i f i t i s b a s e d upon p r o b a b l e c a u s e , when t h e s u s p e c t v o l u n t a r i l y e x i t s h i sor her residence t o s p e a k t o o f f i c e r s on an u n e n c l o s e d f r o n t p o r c h o f a home."). Even when an i n d i v i d u a l home and exigent the i s arrested circumstances, exclusion arrest. (1978) by does law-enforcement ("declin[ing] States obtained t o adopt a l i v e - w i t n e s s testimony, as a r e s u l t v. C e c c o l i n i , without 435 U.S. of that 268, 276 ' p e r se o r " b u t f o r " t h a t w o u l d make i n a d m i s s i b l e any e v i d e n c e , chain of causation officers exit his t h e e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e does n o t r e q u i r e of a l l evidence See U n i t e d not v o l u n t a r i l y rule' whether t a n g i b l e or w h i c h somehow came t o l i g h t t h r o u g h a t h a t b e g a n w i t h an i l l e g a l 51 arrest"). For CR-07-0684 instance, the i n New Y o r k v. H a r r i s , U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t r u l e a p p l i e d i n Payton, 495 U.S. 14, 17-21 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , held that theexclusionary 445 U.S. a t 587-88, does n o t r e q u i r e t h e s u p p r e s s i o n o f a c o n f e s s i o n made o u t s i d e o f t h e home b y a d e f e n d a n t who was a r r e s t e d i n t h e home upon p r o b a b l e c a u s e b u t without exigent circumstances i n violation Court e x p l a i n e d that the requirement warrant or probable imposed t o p r o t e c t police gathered cause and e x i g e n t The t h e p o l i c e have a circumstances " i s t h e home, a n d a n y t h i n g i n c r i m i n a t i n g t h e from arresting r a t h e r than elsewhere...." when o f f i c e r s that of Payton. effectuate [a d e f e n d a n t ] Harris, i n h i s home, 495 U.S. a t 20. Thus, a w a r r a n t l e s s , in-home a r r e s t with p r o b a b l e c a u s e b u t no e x i g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e e x c l u s i o n a r y rule operates only t o exclude evidence during the unlawful a r r e s t . 663 So. 2d 999, 1002-03 there had been defendant's evidence have b e e n no in-home] o b t a i n e d i n t h e home I d . ; s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e R i e b e r , ( A l a . 1995) ( s t a t i n g exigent arrest, circumstances h i s statement, d i s c o v e r e d as a r e s u l t a d m i s s i b l e under stated "even i f surrounding [the as w e l l of h i s statement the rule 52 that ... as t h e would i n New Y o r k v. CR-07-0684 Harris"); App. Williams v. S t a t e , 830 So. 2d 45, 50 (Ala. Crim. 2001). Here, Investigator Wilson f o r Walker's 903, 906 Luker murder. ( A l a . 1991) 11 had p r o b a b l e See ("Probable cause to arrest D i x o n v. S t a t e , 588 So. 2d cause exists i f facts and c i r c u m s t a n c e s known t o t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o warrant a person suspect has of reasonable committed a caution crime."). to believe Prior to that the Investigator Luker's c o n t a c t w i t h W i l s o n , each o f W i l s o n ' s a c c o m p l i c e s had confessed, and one of I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker t h a t his accomplices had informed " W i l s o n was t o g e t h a l f o f t h e a u d i o e q u i p m e n t f r o m t h e v a n b e c a u s e he h a d t a k e n a l l o f t h e c h a n c e s in [the] b u r g l a r y , t h e f t and murder." accomplice's confession Investigator Luker Walker's (Ala. murder. 1977) accomplice (C. 419.) i m p l i c a t i n g Wilson had p r o b a b l e cause B a s e d on t h e i n t h e murder, to a r r e s t Wilson f o r See V i n c e n t v . S t a t e , 349 So. 2d 1145, 1146 (holding that i s a sufficient the uncorroborated basis testimony of f o r a f i n d i n g of probable cause). W i l s o n r i g h t l y does n o t a r g u e t h a t I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r l a c k e d p r o b a b l e cause t o a r r e s t him; i n s t e a d , W i l s o n argues only that the State f a i l e d to e s t a b l i s h exigent circumstances t o j u s t i f y h i s w a r r a n t l e s s , in-home a r r e s t . 1 1 53 CR-07-0684 Further, a s s u m i n g t h a t W i l s o n was a r r e s t e d a t some p o i n t before h i s confession, arrested, place he v o l u n t a r i l y where alone. the record indicates that before he could left be he was h i s home a n d was i n a p u b l i c arrested See S t a t e v. S o l b e r g , based on p r o b a b l e cause 861 P.2d 460, 465 (Wash. 1993) ( " P o l i c e may make a w a r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t of a suspect, i fi t i s b a s e d upon p r o b a b l e c a u s e , when t h e s u s p e c t v o l u n t a r i l y his or her residence t o speak t o o f f i c e r s f r o n t p o r c h o f a home."). on an u n e n c l o s e d I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker t e s t i f i e d he a s k e d W i l s o n " i f he w o u l d come w i t h ... a b o u t an i n c i d e n t . " exits [theo f f i c e r s ] I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker that to talk further stated t h a t W i l s o n " v o l u n t a r i l y a g r e e [ d ] t o come" (R. 1 2 ) , a n d t h a t Wilson because was not arrested at that point v o l u n t a r i l y a g r e e d t o come t o t h e p o l i c e Because had probable the record establishes cause arrest to that Wilson he had station. Investigator and that Luker Wilson v o l u n t a r i l y l e f t h i s home a n d e n t e r e d a p u b l i c a r e a where he could cause arrest be a r r e s t e d was Therefore, not Wilson based in on p r o b a b l e violation cannot of establish the that alone, Fourth Wilson's Amendment. any e r r o r occurred from t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o suppress h i s statement and 54 CR-07-0684 other e v i d e n c e as t h e f r u i t o f an i l l e g a l W a l k e r , 972 So. 2d 737, 753 ( A l a . 2007) arrest. Ex p a r t e (holding that to r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f p l a i n e r r o r , t h e e r r o r "must be o b v i o u s on t h e face of the record"). Moreover, even i f W i l s o n was i l l e g a l l y home b a s e d on p r o b a b l e c a u s e a l o n e , arrested in his P a y t o n , 445 U.S. a t 587¬ 88, t h e e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e w o u l d n o t r e q u i r e s u p p r e s s i o n confession because station as o p p o s e d Harris, 495 U.S. h i s confession was g i v e n t o i n h i s home. a t 21, t h e U n i t e d of his at the p o l i c e As s t a t e d States above, i n Supreme Court l i m i t e d P a y t o n a n d h e l d t h a t "where t h e p o l i c e have p r o b a b l e cause t o a r r e s t a suspect, the of State's t h e e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e does n o t b a r u s e o f a s t a t e m e n t made b y t h e d e f e n d a n t h i s home, e v e n though the statement i s taken a r r e s t made i n t h e home i n v i o l a t i o n o f P a y t o n . " parte Rieber, 50. Because suppression error, the 663 So. 2d a t 1002-03; W i l l i a m s , the exclusionary rule does outside a f t e r an See a l s o Ex 830 So. 2d a t not require the o f W i l s o n ' s s t a t e m e n t , no e r r o r , much l e s s plain r e s u l t e d from t h e a d m i s s i o n o f W i l s o n ' s c o n f e s s i o n o r evidence Therefore, collected Wilson as a result of that confession. i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a n y r e l i e f on t h i s i s s u e . 55 CR-07-0684 V. Wilson next argues that the circuit court erroneously a l l o w e d t h e S t a t e t o i n t r o d u c e e x h i b i t s and t e s t i m o n y f r o m Dr. E n s t i c e , t h e f o r e n s i c p a t h o l o g i s t , r e l a t i n g t o an a u t o p s y she performed the State on Walker. failed to Specifically, establish a relating the to State the to autopsy argues that proper chain of circuit W a l k e r ' s body; t h e r e f o r e , t h e permitted Wilson court should exhibits or introduce performed on custody Walker. for not have testimony This Court disagrees. The 918 A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ( A l a . 1991), addressed i n Ex p a r t e H o l t o n , the requirements 590 So. 2d for a chain of custody: " P r o o f o f [an] u n b r o k e n c h a i n o f c u s t o d y i s r e q u i r e d i n order to e s t a b l i s h s u f f i c i e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e i t e m and c o n t i n u i t y o f p o s s e s s i o n , so as t o assure the a u t h e n t i c i t y of the item. [Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m s , 548 So. 2d 518, 520 ( A l a . 1989)] I n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h a p r o p e r c h a i n , t h e S t a t e must show t o a 'reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the o b j e c t i s i n the same c o n d i t i o n a s , and n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m , i t s c o n d i t i o n a t t h e commencement o f the c h a i n . ' M c C r a y v. S t a t e , 548 So. 2d 573, 576 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) . " 590 So. (Ala. 2d a t 919-20. 2002), the L a t e r , i n Ex p a r t e H a l e , Supreme Court 56 reexamined 848 So. 2d 224 i t s holding in CR-07-0684 Holton after t h e 1995 c o d i f i c a t i o n 1975. o f § 12-21-13, A l a . Code The Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d : " S e c t i o n 12-21-13, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : " ' P h y s i c a l evidence connected w i t h or c o l l e c t e d i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a crime s h a l l n o t be e x c l u d e d f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n by a j u r y o r c o u r t due t o a f a i l u r e t o p r o v e the chain of custody of the evidence. Whenever a w i t n e s s i n a c r i m i n a l trial i d e n t i f i e s a p h y s i c a l piece of evidence connected with or collected i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a crime, the evidence s h a l l be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y o r c o u r t f o r w h a t e v e r w e i g h t t h e j u r y o r c o u r t may deem p r o p e r . The t r i a l c o u r t i n i t s c h a r g e t o t h e j u r y s h a l l e x p l a i n any b r e a k i n t h e chain of custody concerning the p h y s i c a l evidence.' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) T h i s s t a t u t e , by i t s terms, a p p l i e s only t o ' [ p ] h y s i c a l evidence connected w i t h or c o l l e c t e d i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f ' t h e c h a r g e d crime. To i n v o k e t h e s t a t u t e t h e p r o p o n e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e must f i r s t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e p r o f f e r e d p h y s i c a l evidence i s i n f a c t the very evidence 'connected w i t h or c o l l e c t e d i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . ' Moreover, " ' [ i ] n L a n d v. S t a t e , 678 So. 2d 201 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , a f f ' d , 678 So. 2d 224 (Ala. 1996), a case which appears t o r e l y on § 12-21-13, t h i s c o u r t r u l e d t h a t where a w i t n e s s can s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y the e v i d e n c e , and i t s c o n d i t i o n i s n o t an i s s u e i n the case, then the State i s not r e q u i r e d to e s t a b l i s h a complete c h a i n o f c u s t o d y i n o r d e r f o r t h e e v i d e n c e t o be a d m i t t e d i n t o evidence. We s t a t e d : "The e y e g l a s s e s were admissible without e s t a b l i s h i n g a chain of 57 CR-07-0684 c u s t o d y because [the t e s t i f y i n g o f f i c e r ] was a b l e t o s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y them, and t h e i r c o n d i t i o n was n o t an i s s u e i n t h e c a s e . " L a n d , 678 So. 2d a t 210.'" 848 So. 2d a t 228 Initially, Walker's i t does body counsel (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) . was read an not appear issue from at cases t o show, as p a r t the evidence substantially he d i d not the end of had not Instead, presented s u f f i c i e n t which the chain at the not counsel State's custody, the in was is in substantially argued that performed that beginning, the evidence to e s t a b l i s h autopsy of Wilson's the of i t was a r g u e t h a t W a l k e r ' s b o d y was same c o n d i t i o n . upon Although of a c h a i n the condition mention same c o n d i t i o n as the body at the trial. that responsibility physical that State that was, in the fact, W a l k e r ' s body. Contrary to counsel's argument at trial, the p r e s e n t e d more t h a n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o i d e n t i f y body as physical murder. Officer officers who (R. that collected in Walker's connection to L y n n W a t k i n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t she and t h e discovered 245-46.) testified evidence State the body d i d n o t I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r , who except for being 58 d i s t u r b the l e d the rolled onto his other scene. investigation, i t s side for a CR-07-0684 photograph, changed the victim's i n any way. body was (R. 290.) n o t marked, Robert Byrd, altered, or the coroner, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r e t r i e v e d W a l k e r ' s body f r o m t h e c r i m e s c e n e and transported Sciences did i t t o t h e Alabama ("DFS"). not a l t e r (R. 534.) Department of Forensic Byrd further t e s t i f i e d o r change t h e b o d y i n any manner. t h a t he (R. 535.) B y r d l e f t W a l k e r ' s body a n d a r e c e i p t i n a s e c u r e d f a c i l i t y a t t h e DFS. J o n Thomas t e s t i f i e d t h a t on A p r i l 14, 2004, he was w o r k i n g f o r t h e D o t h a n DFS f a c i l i t y , t h a t he t o o k t h e v i c t i m ' s body f r o m t h e s e c u r e d f a c i l i t y where B y r d h a d l e f t i t , t h a t he did not a l t e r office t h e body, a n d t h a t he t r a n s p o r t e d i n M o b i l e where he r e c e i v e d (R. 546, 547, 549-50.) a receipt Dr. E n s t i c e r e c e i v e d t h e body on A p r i l testified establish autopsy the that State presented Walker's was p e r f o r m e d f o r t h e body. that t h e DFS 14, 2004, f r o m J o n Thomas a n d t h a t she was a s s i g n e d t o p e r f o r m t h e a u t o p s y . Because i t t o t h e DFS body was (R. 4 7 2 - 7 3 ) . sufficient t h e body evidence upon to which the c o l l e c t e d i n connection with W a l k e r ' s m u r d e r a n d b e c a u s e t h e c o n d i t i o n o f W a l k e r ' s body was not a t i s s u e , under § 12-21-13, A l a . Code 1975, t h e S t a t e was 59 CR-07-0684 not required Therefore, this However, apply, this occurred. to establish complete issue i s without even i f § Court When a the § hold 12-21-13, of custody. merit. 12-21-13, would chain Ala. that Ala. a p p l y , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has Code no 1975, did reversible Code 1975, error does explained: "[T]he S t a t e must e s t a b l i s h a c h a i n o f custody without breaks i n order to lay a sufficient predicate f o r admission of evidence. Ex parte W i l l i a m s , 548 So. 2d 518, 520 ( A l a . 1989) . P r o o f o f t h i s unbroken c h a i n of custody i s r e q u i r e d i n order to e s t a b l i s h s u f f i c i e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the item and c o n t i n u i t y o f p o s s e s s i o n , so as t o a s s u r e t h e authenticity of the item. Id. In order to e s t a b l i s h a p r o p e r c h a i n , t h e S t a t e must show t o a 'reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the o b j e c t i s i n the same c o n d i t i o n a s , and n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from, i t s c o n d i t i o n a t t h e commencement o f the chain.' M c C r a y v. S t a t e , 548 So. 2d 573, 576 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1988) . B e c a u s e t h e p r o p o n e n t o f t h e i t e m o f d e m o n s t r a t i v e e v i d e n c e has t h e b u r d e n o f s h o w i n g t h i s r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y , we r e q u i r e t h a t t h e p r o o f be shown on t h e r e c o r d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e v a r i o u s elements d i s c u s s e d below. "The c h a i n o f c u s t o d y i s composed o f ' l i n k s . ' A ' l i n k ' i s anyone who h a n d l e d t h e i t e m . The S t a t e must i d e n t i f y e a c h l i n k f r o m t h e t i m e t h e i t e m was seized. I n o r d e r t o show a p r o p e r c h a i n o f c u s t o d y , the r e c o r d must show e a c h link and also the f o l l o w i n g w i t h r e g a r d t o each l i n k ' s p o s s e s s i o n of t h e i t e m : '(1) [ t h e ] r e c e i p t o f t h e i t e m ; (2) [ t h e ] u l t i m a t e d i s p o s i t i o n of the item, i . e . , t r a n s f e r , destruction, or retention; and (3) [the] safeguarding and handling of the item between receipt and disposition.' Imwinklereid, The 60 not not CR-07-0684 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of O r i g i n a l , L. Rev. 145, 159 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . R e a l E v i d e n c e , 61 M i l . "If the State, o r any other proponent of demonstrative evidence, f a i l s to i d e n t i f y a l i n k or f a i l s t o show f o r t h e r e c o r d any one o f t h e t h r e e c r i t e r i a as t o e a c h l i n k , t h e r e s u l t i s a ' m i s s i n g ' l i n k , and t h e i t e m i s i n a d m i s s i b l e . I f , however, the S t a t e has shown e a c h l i n k and has shown a l l t h r e e c r i t e r i a as t o e a c h l i n k , b u t has done so w i t h c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , as o p p o s e d t o t h e d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y o f t h e ' l i n k , ' as t o one o r more c r i t e r i a or as t o one o r more l i n k s , t h e r e s u l t i s a 'weak' link. When t h e l i n k i s 'weak,' a q u e s t i o n o f c r e d i b i l i t y and w e i g h t i s p r e s e n t e d , n o t one o f admissibility." Ex p a r t e H o l t o n , 590 So. 2d 918, 919-20 ( A l a . 1991). As shown a b o v e , t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d an u n b r o k e n c h a i n o f c u s t o d y f o r W a l k e r ' s body f r o m t h e t i m e i t was retrieved at the s c e n e o f t h e m u r d e r u n t i l t h e a u t o p s y was p e r f o r m e d . the e x c e p t i o n o f Dr. E n s t i c e , who p e r f o r m e d t h e a u t o p s y , e a c h link her testified disposal With t o h i s o r h e r r e c e i p t o f t h e body and h i s o r o f t h e body. t h a t he o r she d i d n o t a l t e r Further, each w i t n e s s o r change t h e b o d y . 12 testified Finally, W i l s o n argues t h a t there i s a m i s s i n g l i n k because " R o b e r t [ B y r d ] , t h e c o r o n e r who removed t h e v i c t i m ' s body f r o m t h e s c e n e o f t h e c r i m e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r e c e i v e d t h e b o d y f r o m ' [ e ] i t h e r M i k e E t r e s s o r Tony L u k e r . ' " ( W i l s o n ' s r e p l y b r i e f , a t 18 ( c i t i n g R. 5 3 7 ) . ) A c t u a l l y , B y r d t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t was " [ e ] i t h e r M i k e E t r e s s o r Tony L u k e r , " who " i d e n t i f i e d Mr. W a l k e r ' s [body] as Mr. W a l k e r " when B y r d a r r i v e d a t t h e scene. (R. 537.) 1 2 61 CR-07-0684 a comparison at the s c e n e w i t h p h o t o g r a p h s t a k e n o f W a l k e r ' s body j u s t b e f o r e the autopsy of photographs taken i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e body was of Walker's i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same c o n d i t i o n a t t h e end o f t h e c h a i n as i t was Based on these facts, this presented s u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r W a l k e r ' s body. body Court at the holds beginning. that the to e s t a b l i s h a c h a i n of Therefore, Wilson State custody i s not e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f on t h i s i s s u e . VI. Wilson next argues that the State m i s c o n d u c t when i t made i n f l a m m a t o r y arguments. T h i s C o u r t has engaged in illegal remarks d u r i n g closing explained: "The f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s u s e d when r e v i e w i n g c l a i m s of improper p r o s e c u t o r i a l argument: '"'The r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e prosecutor's comments "so infected the trial w i t h u n f a i r n e s s as t o make the resulting conviction a d e n i a l of due process."' D a r d e n v. W a i n w r i g h t , 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S. C t . 2464, 2471, 91 L. Ed. 2d 144 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. D e C h r i s t o f o r o , 416 U.S. 637, 94 S. Ct. 1868, 40 L. Ed. 2d 431 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . Comments made by t h e p r o s e c u t o r must be e v a l u a t e d i n the c o n t e x t of the whole t r i a l . Duren v. S t a t e , 590 So. 2d 360, 364 ( A l a . C r . App 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f ' d , 590 So. 2d 369 / A l a . 11991) , So 2d 369 ( A l a 991) cert. 1594, d e n i e d , 503 U.S. 118 L. Ed. 2d 310 62 974, 112 (1992).'" S. Ct. CR-07-0684 " B o n n e r v. S t a t e , 921 So. 2d 469, 473 App. 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g Simmons v. S t a t e , 1134, 1162 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . " Brown v. With State, 11 So. these p r i n c i p l e s 3d 866, 907 (Ala. Crim. 797 So. 2d (Ala. Crim. i n mind, t h i s App. 2007). Court turns to Wilson's arguments. A. W i l s o n argues purpose fear t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r made comments f o r t h e of a r o u s i n g the j u r o r s ' p e r s o n a l h o s t i l i t y of Wilson. Because Wilson d i d not object a l l e g e d i n s t a n c e s of misconduct, this for A l a . R. App. p l a i n error only. First, during referenced Wilson R u l e 45A, opening claim w i l l arguments, returning to Walker's toward to be and these reviewed P. the prosecutor house with Corley b e c a u s e she w a n t e d t o see W a l k e r ' s body and r e f e r e n c e d W i l s o n j o k i n g w i t h h i s a c c o m p l i c e s about f a i l i n g Walker's van. incorporated Wilson inadmissible asserts t o s t e a l the keys t o that those prior-bad-acts statements and character evidence. As will statements be d i s c u s s e d i n P a r t X I I of c i t e d by W i l s o n do not this constitute opinion, "other crimes, w r o n g s , o r a c t s " p r o h i b i t e d by R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. E v i d . 63 the The CR-07-0684 statements t o which Wilson now o b j e c t s were based on h i s s t a t e m e n t t o p o l i c e and c o n s t i t u t e d e v i d e n c e o f t h e c r i m e f o r w h i c h he was b e i n g t r i e d . Therefore, the statements at issue were n o t i n s t a n c e s o f p r o s e c u t o r i a l "'so infect[] the trial with misconduct unfairness as r e s u l t i n g c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f due p r o c e s s . ' " U.S. a t 181, q u o t i n g D o n n e l l y , 416 U.S. and d i d n o t to make Darden, the 477 a t 643. Second, d u r i n g c l o s i n g arguments, t h e p r o s e c u t o r r e f e r r e d t o W i l s o n as a " c o w a r d , " " d e a t h and d e s t r u c t i o n , " and a " c o l d , calculated, 613.) depraved, Wilson prosecutorial evil, argues misconduct wicked that the because person." statements (R. 607, constituted t h e y were i n f l a m m a t o r y constituted outright character assaults. " T h i s C o u r t has r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r may r e f e r t o an a c c u s e d i n u n f a v o r a b l e t e r m s , so l o n g as t h e e v i d e n c e w a r r a n t s t h e u s e o f s u c h t e r m s . E.g., N i c k s v. S t a t e , 521 So. 2d 1018, 1022-23 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 7 ) , a f f i r m e d , 521 So. 2d 1035 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S. C t . 2916, 101 L. Ed. 2d 948 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; B a r b e e v. S t a t e , 395 So. 2d 1128, 1134-35 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 1 ) , and c a s e s cited therein. See a l s o S t a t e v. W i l s o n - B e y , 21 Conn. App. 162, 572 A.2d 372, c e r t . d e n i e d , 215 Conn. 806, 576 A.2d 537 (1990) ( c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f a c c u s e d as ' p e d d l i n g d e a t h ' b o r n e o u t by t h e e v i d e n c e ) ; S t a t e v. W i l e s , 59 O h i o S t . 3 d 71, 571 N.E.2d 97, 117 (1991) ( r e f e r e n c e t o t h e a c c u s e d as an ' o g r e , ' a 'man-eating monster,' a 'hideous b r u t i s h p e r s o n , ' and an ' a n i m a l ' were s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e ) . 64 612, and CR-07-0684 While we do not condone the remarks, c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e a p p e l l a n t as ' d e a t h ' ' d e a t h and d e s t r u c t i o n ' were amply s u p p o r t e d by evidence." M c N a i r v. State, 653 So. 2d 320, 341 the and the ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992). Further, " ' Q u e s t i o n s o f t h e p r o p r i e t y o f argument o f counsel are largely within the trial court's d i s c r e t i o n , M c C u l l o u g h v. S t a t e , 357 So. 2d 397, 399 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , and t h a t c o u r t i s g i v e n b r o a d discretion in determining what is permissible a r g u m e n t . H u r s t v. S t a t e , 397 So. 2d 203, 208 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 397 So. 2d 208 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . M o r e o v e r , t h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t i t w i l l not r e v e r s e u n l e s s t h e r e has b e e n an a b u s e o f t h a t discretion. M i l l e r v. S t a t e , 431 So. 2d 586, 591 ( A l a . C r . App. 1983).'" P i e r c e v. (quoting App. State, 576 B a n k h e a d v. So. 2d State, 236, 585 249 So. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 97, (Ala. Crim. 1989)). Here, the e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t W i l s o n a 105 1990) frail, 64-year-old with a b a s e b a l l bat. estimate o f 114 man contusions when t h e from cancer, F u r t h e r , Dr. E n s t i c e gave a o f w h i c h were on h i s h e a d . c o r d and, suffering attacked Walker, and abrasions Wilson from conservative on W a l k e r ' s b o d y , 65 32 a l s o u s e d a computer-mouse computer-mouse c o r d s n a p p e d , an cord to s t r a n g l e Walker. behind extension CR-07-0684 While t h i s Court has v i e w e d w i t h d i s f a v o r s i m i l a r uses o f the language like t h a t used by the p r o s e c u t o r here, i t has a l s o c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t when s u c h l a n g u a g e i s s u p p o r t e d b y the evidence, error. i t does not r i s e Because t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s to the l e v e l of reversible c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of Wilson were s u p p o r t e d b y t h e r e c o r d , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n , much l e s s commit p l a i n e r r o r , i n a l l o w i n g t h e prosecutor's Third, brandished the jury Wilson c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of Wilson. during closing arguments, the prosecutor a b a s e b a l l b a t , swung t h e b a s e b a l l b a t , a n d a s k e d how argues long i t would take t o swing that the prosecutor's "theatrical tirade." (Wilson's b r i e f , i t 114 demonstration times. was 1 3 a a t 41-42.) I n a f o o t n o t e , W i l s o n a p p e a r s t o r a i s e an argument t h a t i t was e r r o r t o a l l o w t h e S t a t e t o s u g g e s t t h a t W i l s o n h i t W a l k e r 114 t i m e s . Wilson argues t h a t the evidence d i d not s u p p o r t s u c h a s u g g e s t i o n b e c a u s e , when a s k e d i f W a l k e r ' s i n j u r i e s were s u s t a i n e d s e p a r a t e l y , D r . E n s t i c e s t a t e d t h a t "some c o u l d have o c c u r r e d a t t h e same t i m e . " (R. 498.) 1 3 B o t h t h e S t a t e a n d t h e d e f e n s e have t h e r i g h t t o a r g u e every l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e from t h e evidence. B r o a d n a x v. S t a t e , 825 So. 2d 134, 179 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . Dr. E n s t i c e ' s s t a t e m e n t was n o t d e f i n i t i v e , b u t r a t h e r a l l o w e d f o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t some i n j u r i e s c o u l d have o c c u r r e d a t t h e same t i m e . M o r e o v e r , a c c o r d i n g t o Dr. E n s t i c e , h e r e s t i m a t e o f 114 c o n t u s i o n s a n d a b r a s i o n s was c o n s e r v a t i v e . (R. 497.) Thus, t h e S t a t e ' s i n f e r e n c e was a l e g i t i m a t e one. To t h e e x t e n t W i l s o n r a i s e s t h i s argument, i t i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . 66 CR-07-0684 " T h e r e i s no r u l e o f l a w w h i c h l i m i t s c o u n s e l i n d e b a t e t o mere a r t i c u l a t i o n . Argument by means o f i l l u s t r a t i o n , s u c h as e x h i b i t i n g t o t h e j u r y m o d e l s , t o o l s , weapons, i m p l e m e n t s , and the l i k e , is a m a t t e r o f e v e r y day p r a c t i c e , and t h e abuse o f t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of such i l l u s t r a t i o n i s a matter f o r the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n , n o t t o be i n t e r f e r e d w i t h unless t h e r e has b e e n an abuse o f discretion. A c c o r d i n g l y , i t has b e e n r e c o g n i z e d t h a t an a t t o r n e y may e m p l o y d e m o n s t r a t i o n s d u r i n g h i s o r h e r argument i f t h e y a r e r e a s o n a b l y s u s t a i n e d by t h e evidence, and i n a number o f c a s e s a d e m o n s t r a t i o n by c o u n s e l d u r i n g c l o s i n g argument has b e e n h e l d p r o p e r . " J a c o b S t e i n , S t e i n C l o s i n g A r g u m e n t s § 1:68 (footnotes omitted). permitted or G o b b l e v. State, , and "Demonstrations prohibited in [Ms. (footnotes It was 2010) prosecutor's court's 5, discretion." 2010] So. ( q u o t i n g W i l l i a m A. undisputed and that there was contains Wilson contusions sufficient demonstration attacked testimony 3d Schroeder (3d ed. 2006) Walker f r o m Dr. with Enstice and a b r a s i o n s . evidence to sustain a that Thus, the d u r i n g c l o s i n g arguments. For the f o r e g o i n g reasons, to are omitted)). W a l k e r s u s t a i n e d a t l e a s t 114 record experiments and ed.) H o f f m a n , A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 12:25 b a s e b a l l bat, the trial CR-05-0225, Feb. ( A l a . C r i m . App. Jerome A. the (2011-2012 show t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s Wilson has n o t met h i s burden comments "so i n f e c t e d t h e 67 trial CR-07-0684 w i t h u n f a i r n e s s as t o make t h e r e s u l t i n g c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f due p r o c e s s " o r r e s u l t e d i n p l a i n e r r o r . Brown, 11 So. 3d a t 907 ( c i t a t i o n s a n d q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ; R u l e App. P. these Therefore, Wilson i s not e n t i t l e d 45A, A l a . R. t o any r e l i e f on issues. B. Wilson appeals also to argues the that the prosecutor jurors' sympathies made toward improper Walker. S p e c i f i c a l l y , W i l s o n c i t e s i n s t a n c e s when t h e S t a t e a s k e d t h e j u r o r s t o i m a g i n e how W a l k e r f e l t d u r i n g t h e a t t a c k . 16, 624.) Wilson argues that the State's most (R. 614¬ extreme argument was: "And Dewey w o u l d have b e e n a b l e i f he were a l i v e t o g e t on t h i s w i t n e s s s t a n d a n d s a y , t h a t ' s t h e man t h a t came i n a n d r o b b e d a n d b u r g l a r i z e d my own home, b u t I c a n ' t g e t up h e r e a n d s p e a k t o y o u , good p e o p l e , b e c a u s e he s p l a t t e r e d me a l l t h e way t o e t e r n i t y a n d b a c k a n d t o r t u r e d me a n d b e a t me a n d s t r u c k me a n d r a n a r o u n d , as I l a i d on t h e g r o u n d , I was i n my h o u s e -- why a r e y o u d o i n g t h i s ? Quit h i t t i n g me. L e a v e me a l o n e . I am e l d e r l y . What do you want f r o m me?" (R. 607-08.) Initially, Wilson appellate review. statements d i d not preserve this issue f o r A l t h o u g h W i l s o n d i d o b j e c t t o some o f t h e a t i s s u e , he d i d n o t do so on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e 68 CR-07-0684 S t a t e was making improper appeals to the j u r o r s ' sympathies. (R. 614-16.) statement grounds 608, o b j e c t i o n waives 695 So. R. App. be of specific a l l grounds not s p e c i f i e d . 2d 209, issue w i l l The 224 ( A l a . C r i m . App. C l i c k v. 1996). of State, Therefore, this R u l e 45A, Ala. reviewed f o r p l a i n e r r o r only. P. F u r t h e r , t h i s C o u r t has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t a p p e a l s t o j u r o r s , a s k i n g them t o i m a g i n e how a victim felt, do n o t rise to t h e l e v e l o f p l a i n e r r o r so l o n g as t h o s e a p p e a l s a r e b a s e d on the evidence. (Ala. 61 C r i m . App. See (Ala. State, 695 So. 2d 70, 135-36 1 9 9 5 ) ; D a n i e l s v. S t a t e , 650 So. 2d 544, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 333-35 B u s h v. 1994); McNair App. 1992). Crim. v. State, Here, 653 the So. 2d 560¬ 320, prosecutor's s t a t e m e n t r e g a r d i n g what W a l k e r m i g h t s a y i s b a s e d on e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t W i l s o n a t t a c k e d Walker an See attempt t o f o r c e Walker into Part V I I of t h i s o p i n i o n , 06-0360, Dec. 2010) 17, (holding relaying statements to the 2010] that jury contained no error what relinquishing see So. and t o r t u r e d h i m i n M c C r a y v. S t a t e , 3d , therein 69 victim are [Ms. ( A l a . Crim. o c c u r r e d by the his property. the might based on CRApp. prosecutor's say the when the evidence CR-07-0684 presented at trial). Because b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e , error. the statements at issue were the statements d i d not c o n s t i t u t e p l a i n A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n t o any relief. VII. Wilson next interjected argues penalty-phase phase c l o s i n g argument. prosecutor that improperly the prosecutor considerations during S p e c i f i c a l l y , Wilson improperly his guilt- argues t h a t argued to the j u r y t h a t Wilson the tortured W a l k e r and c a u s e d him a g r e a t d e a l o f p a i n b e f o r e W a l k e r d i e d . A c c o r d i n g t o Wilson, v i c t i m - i m p a c t evidence i n the form of the l e v e l o f p a i n W a l k e r s u f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e m u r d e r was i n the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l . prosecutor improperly informed t h a t t h i s was To the improperly relating a l s o argues t h a t to a death-penalty case. extent argues the In So. the the j u r y d u r i n g the g u i l t phase Wilson that the prosecutor i n j e c t e d i n t o the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l disagrees. 2010] Wilson irrelevant 3d pain McCray , Wilson v. State, caused [Ms. Walker, r e j e c t e d the premise u n d e r l y i n g Wilson's 70 this CR-06-0360, ( A l a . C r i m . App. issues Court Dec. 2010), t h i s 17, Court argument -- t h a t the CR-07-0684 pain a capital-murder victim suffers is irrelevant i n a d m i s s i b l e d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of a c a p i t a l - m u r d e r and trial. Specifically, t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t " [ t ] h e p a i n and s u f f e r i n g of the v i c t i m i s a circumstance circumstance 2d 788, t h e m u r d e r -- a t h a t i s r e l e v a n t and a d m i s s i b l e d u r i n g t h e g u i l t phase of a c a p i t a l So. surrounding 812 trial." Id. (citing ( A l a . Crim. court's questioning witness App. S m i t h v. S t a t e , 2000) (no e r r o r was capital-murder d e s p i t e a p p e l l a n t ' s argument t h a t t h e number o f wounds r e l e v a n t only t o the penalty-phase m u r d e r was e s p e c i a l l y h e i n o u s , More "describe family" importantly, 808, 821 i s s u e of whether the a t r o c i o u s , or c r u e l ) ) . victim-impact statements typically [ o n l y ] t h e e f f e c t o f t h e c r i m e on t h e v i c t i m and h i s and, although relevant i n a d m i s s i b l e i n the g u i l t - p h a s e . (1991). However, phase of a c r i m i n a l t r i a l to the Payne v. T e n n e s s e e , 501 "are admissible are U.S. during the g u i l t ... i f t h e s t a t e m e n t s a r e r e l e v a n t a m a t e r i a l i s s u e of the g u i l t phase." So. 2d 125, 126 penalty-phase, statements r e l a t i n g to the e f f e c t o f t h e c r i m e on t h e v i c t i m to trial r e g a r d i n g t h e number o f wounds on t h e m u r d e r v i c t i m ' s body d u r i n g g u i l t p h a s e o f trial in 795 ( A l a . 1993) Ex p a r t e Crymes, (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) ; 71 630 see a l s o CR-07-0684 G i s s e n d a n n e r v. State, 949 So. 2d 2006) ( h o l d i n g t h a t v i c t i m - i m p a c t 956, 965 (Ala. Crim. App. type evidence i s admissible i n the g u i l t phase i f i t i s r e l e v a n t t o g u i l t - p h a s e i s s u e s ) . R u l e 401, [ i s any] any A l a . R. Evid., provides evidence having fact that i s of that "'[r]elevant evidence' any t e n d e n c y t o make t h e e x i s t e n c e consequence to the determination a c t i o n more p r o b a b l e o r l e s s p r o b a b l e t h a n i t w o u l d be the of the without evidence." Here, the State's theory of broke i n t o Walker's house, a t t a c k e d the case him, was and that h i s g u i l t - p h a s e c l o s i n g argument, the p r o s e c u t o r jury that Wilson that great that the the of a burglary. proved Wilson deal of p a i n . relevant and During c h a r g e d w i t h murder committed d u r i n g was i t had establishing in reminded c o u r s e o f a r o b b e r y and argued Wilson t o r t u r e d him an a t t e m p t t o f o r c e W a l k e r t o r e l i n q u i s h h i s p r o p e r t y . was of 1 4 the force The prosecutor element t o r t u r e d Walker and Because the p a i n W i l s o n admissible to show the of then robbery caused him by a caused Walker force Wilson used T h i s C o u r t has e x p l a i n e d t h a t t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n "under § 13A-5-40(a)(2) f o r c a p i t a l robbery-murder," the S t a t e must p r o v e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t u s e d " v i o l e n c e o r i n t i m i d a t i o n " i n an a t t e m p t t o t a k e t h e v i c t i m ' s p r o p e r t y . See C o n n e l l v. S t a t e , 7 So. 3d 1068, 1089-90 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . 1 4 72 CR-07-0684 a g a i n s t Walker d u r i n g the robbery, the prosecutor's argument d i d not c o n s t i t u t e e r r o r . To the improperly guilt extent injected relief. case, argues penalty-phase p h a s e when he i n f o r m e d death-penalty any Wilson this that the prosecutor considerations into the the jury that t h e case was a argument does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n t o The comment o f w h i c h W i l s o n complains reads as follows: " I t o l d you on v o i r d i r e . Look a t t h e e v i d e n c e . I t o l d you you w o u l d l o o k a t me a n d s a y , V a l e s k a , you are the prosecution. The b u r d e n i s b e y o n d a reasonable doubt. I t ' s t h e same as a s h o p l i f t i n g case. Come on, V a l e s k a , t h i s i s a d e a t h p e n a l t y case. You a r e a s k i n g us t o c o n v i c t h i m o f c a p i t a l murder. T h e r e a r e two o f f e n s e s c h a r g e d . " (R. 618-19.) First, i t does n o t a p p e a r t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s was an a t t e m p t guilt phase. to i n j e c t penalty-phase Instead, i t appears comment considerations into the that the prosecutor was a t t e m p t i n g , a l t h o u g h somewhat i n a r t f u l l y , t o e x p l a i n t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s b u r d e n i n a c a p i t a l - m u r d e r c a s e i s t h e same as i n any c r i m i n a l c a s e -- b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. This Court finds no e r r o r i n t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s e x p l a i n i n g t h e S t a t e ' s b u r d e n o f proof. 73 CR-07-0684 M o r e o v e r , e v e n i f t h i s comment were i m p r o p e r , would not find reversible error. T h i s C o u r t has this Court explained: "'In j u d g i n g a p r o s e c u t o r ' s c l o s i n g argument, the s t a n d a r d i s w h e t h e r t h e a r g u m e n t "so i n f e c t e d t h e t r i a l w i t h u n f a i r n e s s as t o make t h e resulting c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f due p r o c e s s . " ' B a n k h e a d [ v. S t a t e ] , 585 So. 2d [97,] 107 [ ( A l a . Crim. App. 1 9 8 9 ) , ] q u o t i n g D a r d e n v. W a i n w r i g h t , 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S. C t . 2464, 2471, 91 L. E d . 2 d 144 (1986) ( q u o t i n g D o n n e l l y v. D e C h r i s t o f o r o , 416 U.S. 637, 94 S. Ct. 1868, 40 L. Ed. 2d 431 (1974)). 'A p r o s e c u t o r ' s s t a t e m e n t must be v i e w e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d and i n t h e c o n t e x t of the complete c l o s i n g arguments t o the jury.' R o b e r t s v. S t a t e , 735 So. 2d 1244, 1253 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 735 So. 2d 1270 (Ala.), cert. d e n i e d , 538 U.S. 939, 120 S. C t . 346, 145 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1999). Moreover, 'statements of c o u n s e l i n argument t o t h e j u r y must be v i e w e d as d e l i v e r e d i n the heat of debate; such statements are u s u a l l y v a l u e d by t h e j u r y a t t h e i r t r u e w o r t h and a r e n o t e x p e c t e d t o become f a c t o r s i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e verdict.' B a n k h e a d , 585 So. 2d a t 106. 'Questions o f t h e p r o p r i e t y o f argument o f c o u n s e l a r e l a r g e l y w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n , M c C u l l o u g h v. S t a t e , 357 So. 2d 397, 399 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , and that court i s given broad discretion in determining what is permissible argument.' B a n k h e a d , 585 So. 2d a t 105. We w i l l n o t r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s t h e r e has b e e n an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . Id." F e r g u s o n v. State, 814 So. 2d 925, 945-46 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2000). Here, being "a the death prosecutor's penalty F u r t h e r , t h e j u r y was reference case" (R. to Wilson's 618-19) was case isolated. w e l l aware f r o m t h e o u t s e t o f t h i s 74 as trial CR-07-0684 t h a t t h e S t a t e had c h a r g e d W i l s o n w i t h two murder and that the More i m p o r t a n t l y , the case might involve t h e p r o s e c u t o r was counts of the capital death p e n a l t y . not a t t e m p t i n g to tell j u r y what s e n t e n c e W i l s o n s h o u l d r e c e i v e ; i n s t e a d , he merely reminding involved. (Ala. the jury of Cf^ Stallworth Crim. App. 2001) v. the type State, (finding no 868 of case the 2d 1128, So. reversible error Because the aware, prosecutor's and "should guilt-phase statement d i d not the t r i a l relate t o what with unfairness sentence as t o make t h e c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f due p r o c e s s . " 945. Therefore, this was t h e j u r y o f a f a c t o f w h i c h i t was Wilson s h o u l d r e c e i v e , t h i s C o u r t h o l d s t h a t t h e comment d i d n o t infect[] 1157 chair"). i s o l a t e d , merely reminded already trial i n the p r o s e c u t o r ' s g u i l t - p h a s e argument t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t f a c e Alabama's e l e c t r i c was issue does n o t Ferguson, entitle 814 "so resulting So. 2d a t Wilson to any relief. VIII. Wilson during alleges the i t s penalty-phase s t a t e and f e d e r a l p r o s e c u t o r made closing law. 75 argument improper comments in violation of CR-07-0684 "'The prosecutor's duty in a criminal p r o s e c u t i o n i s t o seek j u s t i c e , and a l t h o u g h t h e p r o s e c u t o r s h o u l d p r o s e c u t e w i t h v i g o r , he o r she should not use improper methods c a l c u l a t e d t o produce a wrongful c o n v i c t i o n . ' S m i t h v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-97-1258, December 22, 2000] So. 2d , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , a f f ' d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , [Ms. 1010267, M a r c h 14, 2003] So. 2d ( A l a . 2003). 'In r e v i e w i n g a l l e g e d l y i m p r o p e r p r o s e c u t o r i a l comments, c o n d u c t , and q u e s t i o n i n g o f w i t n e s s e s , t h e t a s k o f t h i s C o u r t i s t o c o n s i d e r t h e i r impact i n the context of the p a r t i c u l a r t r i a l , and n o t t o view t h e a l l e g e d l y i m p r o p e r a c t s i n t h e a b s t r a c t . ' B a n k h e a d v. S t a t e , 585 So. 2d 97, 106 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , remanded on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 585 So. 2d 112 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f ' d on r e t u r n t o remand, 625 So. 2d 1141 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 625 So. 2d 1146 (Ala. 1993). ' " P r o s e c u t o r i a lmisconduct i s a b a s i s f o r r e v e r s i n g an a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n o n l y i f , i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e e n t i r e t r i a l a n d i n l i g h t o f any curative instruction, the misconduct may have p r e j u d i c e d the s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of the accused."' C a r r o l l v. S t a t e , 599 So. 2d 1253, 1268 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , a f f ' d , 627 So. 2d 874 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Reed, 887 F.2d 1398, 1402 (11th C i r . 1989). The r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s c o n d u c t 'so i n f e c t e d t h e t r i a l w i t h u n f a i r n e s s as t o make t h e r e s u l t i n g c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f due p r o c e s s . ' D o n n e l l y v. D e C h r i s t o f o r o , 416 U.S. 637, 643 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . " Minor In v. S t a t e , 914 So. 2d 372, 415 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . addition: "'In j u d g i n g a p r o s e c u t o r ' s c l o s i n g argument, t h e s t a n d a r d i s w h e t h e r t h e a r g u m e n t "so i n f e c t e d t h e t r i a l w i t h u n f a i r n e s s as t o make t h e r e s u l t i n g c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f due p r o c e s s . " ' Bankhead[ v v. c'4--,4-^n coc o ^ r m n i m r/7\i-, A ^ 7\ S t a t e ] , 585 So. 2d [97,] 107 [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , ] q u o t i n g D a r d e n v. W a i n w r i g h t , 477 U.S. 168, 76 CR-07-0684 181, 106 S. C t . 2464, 2471, 91 L. E d . 2 d 144 (1986) ( q u o t i n g D o n n e l l y v. D e C h r i s t o f o r o , 416 U.S. 637, 94 S. C t . 1868, 40 L. Ed. 2d 431 (1974)). 'A p r o s e c u t o r ' s s t a t e m e n t must be v i e w e d i n t h e c o n t e x t of a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d and i n t h e c o n t e x t of the complete c l o s i n g arguments t o the j u r y . ' R o b e r t s v. S t a t e , 735 So. 2d 1244, 1253 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 735 So. 2d 1270 (Ala.), cert. d e n i e d , 538 U.S. 939, 120 S. C t . 346, 145 L. Ed. 2d 271 ( 1 9 9 9 ) . Moreover, 'statements of counsel i n argument t o t h e j u r y must be v i e w e d as d e l i v e r e d i n the heat of debate; such statements are u s u a l l y v a l u e d by t h e j u r y a t t h e i r t r u e w o r t h and a r e n o t e x p e c t e d t o become f a c t o r s i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e verdict.' B a n k h e a d , 585 So. 2d a t 106. 'Questions of t h e p r o p r i e t y o f argument o f c o u n s e l a r e l a r g e l y w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n , M c C u l l o u g h v. S t a t e , 357 So. 2d 397, 399 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , and that court i s given broad discretion in determining what is permissible argument.' B a n k h e a d , 585 So. 2d a t 105. We w i l l n o t r e v e r s e the j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s t h e r e has b e e n an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . Id." Ferguson v. State, 814 So. 2d 2 0 0 0 ) , a f f ' d , 814 So. 2d 970 court has concluded that p r o s e c u t o r i a l arguments evaluation of the claim 945-46 ( A l a . 2001). the ... 925, failure ( A l a . Crim. Moreover, to object s h o u l d be w e i g h e d on the merits to App. "'[t]his improper as p a r t o f o u r because of its s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n s e d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e comments i n q u e s t i o n t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y h a r m f u l . ' " 577 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f ' d , 577 So. 2d 531 So. 2d 474, 489 (Ala. ( q u o t i n g J o h n s o n v. W a i n w r i g h t , 778 F.2d n.6 1991) ( A l a . C r i m . App. K u e n z e l v. S t a t e , (11th C i r . 1985)). 77 623, 629 CR-07-0684 With t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s i n mind, t h i s C o u r t a d d r e s s e s each of W i l s o n ' s arguments i n t u r n . A. Wilson arguments that contends that during the penalty-phase the prosecutor impermissibly informed they had Specifically, a duty to impose a closing the jurors death sentence. the prosecutor stated: " I a s k y o u t o go b a c k t h e r e a n d go o v e r t h e e v i d e n c e as t h e j u d g e c h a r g e s y o u , a n d come b a c k i n l i k e I t o l d y o u on v o i r d i r e , have t h e c o u r a g e a n d t h e s t r e n g t h -- come b a c k i n h e r e a n d l o o k a t h i m and s a y , we, t h e j u r y , i n t h i s c a s e , t e l l y o u , [ J u d g e ] , o u r d e c i s i o n on b o t h o f t h e s e c a s e s i s d e a t h , f o r what t h e c r i m e y o u c o m m i t t e d a g a i n s t t h e p e a c e a n d d i g n i t y o f t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a a n d a 64y e a r - o l d man " (R. 795.) hard. Shortly thereafter, I t ' s not easy. what's r i g h t . " Wilson the prosecutor stated:" I t ' s But t h i s case calls f o r death. Do (R. 796.) contends these comments improperly informed the j u r y i t was i t s d u t y t o r e t u r n a d e a t h s e n t e n c e and t h a t t h e comments s u g g e s t e d t h a t v o t i n g f o r a d e a t h s e n t e n c e was b o t h courageous and v i r t u o u s . "severely undermined Wilson also the argues reliability of these comments Mr. Wilson's s e n t e n c i n g d e t e r m i n a t i o n , a n d a l s o d e n i e d h i m due p r o c e s s i n violation of the F i f t h , Sixth, 78 Eight[h], and Fourteenth CR-07-0684 Amendments to Constitution, the United States Constitution, and A l a b a m a l a w . " (Wilson's b r i e f , W i l s o n d i d not r a i s e t h e s e arguments a t t r i a l ; issue w i l l R. App. be r e v i e w e d f o r p l a i n e r r o r o n l y . the Alabama a t 49-50.) therefore, this R u l e 45A, A l a . P. When a d d r e s s i n g t h i s i s s u e p r e v i o u s l y , t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : "Of c o u r s e , a p r o s e c u t o r s e e k i n g a d e a t h p e n a l t y w i l l argue t h a t the a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o r s outweigh the m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d r e c e i v e t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . T h e r e i s no p l a i n e r r o r here." M c W h o r t e r v. S t a t e , 781 So. 2d 257, 321 ( A l a . C r i m . App. ( q u o t i n g S m i t h v. S t a t e , 727 So. 2d 147, 1998)). under to Further, 1999) 171 ( A l a . Crim. App. a p r o s e c u t o r ' s statement indicating that t h e l a w and t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e , t h e j u r y has a d u t y recommend a d e a t h s e n t e n c e i s n o t i m p e r m i s s i b l e b e c a u s e comment does n o t u r g e the j u r y to sentence the defendant death w i t h o u t r e g a r d f o r the f a c t s or law. State, 781 So. 2d 257, 321 the to C f . M c W h o r t e r v. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) . Rather, s u c h comments u r g e t h e j u r y t o a p p l y t h e f a c t s t o t h e l a w and to CR- impose a d e a t h s e n t e n c e . 05-1203, Aug. 2011) to 26, 2011] I d . ; Windsor So. 3d , v. S t a t e , [Ms. ( A l a . Crim. ( u p h o l d i n g p r o s e c u t o r ' s comment t h a t " [ t ] h e r i g h t do i s s e n t e n c e H a r v e y Lee W i n d s o r 79 to death"). App. thing CR-07-0684 Here, when the comments are read in context, the p r o s e c u t o r was n o t u r g i n g t h e j u r y t o s e n t e n c e W i l s o n t o d e a t h regardless of the f a c t s or the law. Instead, the prosecutor i n f o r m e d t h e j u r y t h a t when i t a p p l i e s t h e f a c t s t o t h e l a w , the a p p r o p r i a t e sentence be i s death. He t h e n u r g e d t h e j u r y t o c o u r a g e o u s a n d t o do t h e r i g h t t h i n g , w h i c h was a p p l y t h e f a c t s t o t h e law and sentence Wilson t o death. Because the p r o s e c u t o r d i d n o t urge the j u r y t o d i s r e g a r d the facts a n d t h e l a w when recommending a sentence, but i n s t e a d , argued t h a t a death sentence i s a p p r o p r i a t e under t h e f a c t s a n d t h e l a w , no e r r o r , much l e s s p l a i n e r r o r , Rule to 45A, A l a . R. App. P. any r e l i e f on t h i s Therefore, Wilson occurred. i s not e n t i t l e d issue. B. Wilson next a l l e g e s the p r o s e c u t o r i l l e g a l l y l e d the j u r y t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e made a j u d g m e n t t h a t d e a t h was t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e . contends Specifically, t h e f o l l o w i n g comments b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r reversible Wilson constitute error: "Dewey was a human b e i n g . Remember what Mr. W a l k e r s a i d a b o u t h i s e m p l o y e e ? He was a f r a i l man. Look at t h e p i c t u r e s . He t o o k m e d i c a t i o n f o r p a i n . He w o r k e d 12 h o u r s a d a y . And t h a t s i t s o v e r t h e r e a n d 80 CR-07-0684 d i d t h a t t o him. And t h e y s a y spare h i s l i f e ? No. No. T h e r e i s no more w o r s e c r i m e . . . . " (R. 785.) Additionally, Wilson contends No. that the f o l l o w i n g comment r i s e s t o t h e l e v e l o f r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r : " . . . [ t ] h i s i s a case t h a t c a l l s f o r the death p e n a l t y . " (R. 794.) f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h o u l d have Wilson immediately s t r u c k these remarks because i t i s improper f o r p r o s e c u t o r s t o state their Finally, personal Wilson opinions contends that during closing the State arguments. i s forbidden from l e a d i n g t h e j u r y t o b e l i e v e t h e S t a t e h a s made a j u d g m e n t t h a t a particular case c a p i t a l cases. the jurors predetermined jury's warrants the death penalty above other I n d o i n g so h e r e , W i l s o n a r g u e s t h e S t a t e gave the impression that the State t h e a p p r o p r i a t e outcome, w h i c h independent discretion. Wilson had already undermined the d i d not r a i s e these a r g u m e n t s a t t r i a l ; t h e r e f o r e , t h i s i s s u e w i l l be r e v i e w e d f o r p l a i n error only. Rule 45A, A l a . R. App. P. " ' " [ T ] h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y may c h a r a c t e r i z e the accused or h i s conduct i n language which, although i t consists of i n v e c t i v e or opprobrious terms, accords w i t h the evidence of the case."' H e n d e r s o n v. S t a t e , 584 So. 2d 841, 857 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1988) ( q u o t i n g N i c k s v. S t a t e , 521 So. 2d 1018, 1023 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) ) . I n N i c k s v. S t a t e , t h i s Court s t a t e d : 81 CR-07-0684 "'There i s a m u l t i t u d e o f r e p o r t e d c ases con ce rn ing de r o g a t o ry characterization o f an accused by a p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y i n c l o s i n g arguments. E x a m p l e s o f s u c h c a s e s c a n be f o u n d i n Watson v. S t a t e , 266 A l a . 4 1 , 44, 93 So. 2d 750, 752 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ; B a r b e e v. S t a t e , 395 So. 2d 1128, 1134 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 1 ) ; a n d t h e A l a b a m a D i g e s t . The g e n e r a l r u l e p e r t a i n i n g t o s u c h comments i s s e t o u t i n 23A C.J.S. C r i m i n a l Law § 1102 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , as f o l l o w s : "'"Comments b y t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y w h i c h r e f e r t o , a n d make u n f a v o r a b l e i n f e r e n c e s from, t h e conduct of accused i n the course o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n f o r w h i c h he i s on t r i a l , o r h i s c o n d u c t a t any o t h e r t i m e o r p l a c e , o r w h i c h r e f e r t o h i s c h a r a c t e r as shown by such conduct, or to h i s background, breeding, or associations, or to other d e t a i l s of h i s personal history or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e p r o p e r , where the p u r p o r t e d f a c t s r e f e r r e d t o by counsel are supported by competent e v i d e n c e i n t h e case, and where t h e i n f e r e n c e s and d e d u c t i o n s s o u g h t t o be made f r o m s u c h f a c t s a r e w i t h i n t h e bounds o f p r o p e r a r g u m e n t . On t h e o t h e r hand, remarks o r argument o f t h e prosecuting attorney concerning the c h a r a c t e r or conduct of accused, which i s not supported by t h e r e c o r d o r w h i c h exceeds t h e l i m i t s o f f a i r argument o r i n f e r e n c e i s improper. "'"In a prosecuting characterize proper case, the attorney may accused or h i s 82 CR-07-0684 conduct in language which, although i t c o n s i s t s of i n v e c t i v e or opprobrious terms, accords w i t h the evidence i n the case, and, where t h e e v i d e n c e w a r r a n t s the belief that accused is g u i l t y , t h e p r o s e c u t o r may e m p l o y terms a p p r o p r i a t e t o the n a t u r e or degree of t u r p i t u d e i n v o l v e d in the crime charged; but c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s not justified by t h e e v i d e n c e o r t h e charge which the evidence tends t o prove and hence m e r e l y abusive, or which are couched i n intemperate and i n f l a m m a t o r y l a n g u a g e a r e improper.'" "521 So. 2d a t 1022-23 ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . See M e l s o n v. S t a t e , 775 So. 2d 857, 889 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) (prosecutor r e f e r r e d to defendant as ' c o l d - b l o o d e d m u r d e r e r ' ) ; K i n a r d v. S t a t e , 4 95 So. 2d 705, 711 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986) (prosecutor r e f e r r e d t o d e f e n d a n t as '"an u n m i t i g a t e d l i a r and murderer"')." A l b a r r a n v. S t a t e , , [Ms. CR-07-2147, J u l y 29, 2011] ( A l a . C r i m . App. crime" was Rather, the crime. (R. 7 8 5 ) . not prosecutor The a statement was merely that of a " t h e r e i s no more personal opinion. characterizing Wilson's evidence i n d i c a t e d that Wilson struck W a l k e r i n t h e b a c k o f t h e h e a d w i t h a b a s e b a l l b a t and then s t r a n g l e d h i m t o d e a t h w i t h b o t h a computer-mouse c o r d and extension cord. 3d 2011). Here, the p r o s e c u t o r ' s statement worse So. B a s e d on the 83 evidence presented at an trial, CR-07-0684 this Court holds t h a t the prosecutor's not r i s e to the l e v e l of p l a i n e r r o r . P.; Albarran, Further, So. no 3d a t characterization did R u l e 45A, A l a . R. . error occurred when t h e prosecutor "This i s a case t h a t c a l l s f o r the death p e n a l t y . " T h i s C o u r t has App. stated: (R. 794.) held: " I n our a d v e r s a r i a l s y s t e m o f c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e , a prosecutor seeking a sentence of death may p r o p e r l y argue t o the j u r y t h a t a death sentence i s appropriate. See H a l l v. S t a t e , 820 So. 2d 113, 143 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . On t h e o t h e r hand, i t i s i m p e r m i s s i b l e f o r a p r o s e c u t o r to urge the j u r y to i g n o r e i t s p e n a l t y - p h a s e r o l e and s i m p l y r e l y on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e S t a t e has a l r e a d y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t death i s the a p p r o p r i a t e sentence. See [ G u t h r i e v. S t a t e , 616 So. 2d 914, 931-32 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993),] ( h o l d i n g t h a t a p r o s e c u t o r ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t '"[w]hen I f i r s t became i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e , f r o m the very day, the State of Alabama, the law e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s and e v e r y b o d y a g r e e d t h a t t h i s was a d e a t h p e n a l t y c a s e , and we s t i l l s t a n d on t h a t p o s i t i o n " ' improperly ' [ l e d ] the j u r y to b e l i e v e that the whole governmental establishment had a l r e a d y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e s h o u l d be d e a t h and [ i n v i t e d ] t h e j u r y t o a d o p t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f others, o s t e n s i b l y more q u a l i f i e d t o make the d e t e r m i n a t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n d e c i d i n g on i t s own.')." Vanpelt v. State, When v i e w e d 74 So. 3d 32, i n context, the 91 ( A l a . C r i m . App. prosecutor's 2009). statement not urge the j u r y t o i g n o r e i t s penalty-phase r o l e and rely determined on d e a t h was the fact t h a t the State has already the a p p r o p r i a t e sentence i n t h i s case. 84 did simply Instead, that the CR-07-0684 prosecutor law, p r o p e r l y a r g u e d t h a t , b a s e d on t h e f a c t s death was an appropriate sentence in and t h e this case. T h e r e f o r e , W i l s o n h a s n o t met h i s b u r d e n t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t any e r r o r , much l e s s p l a i n e r r o r , comment. Rule r e s u l t e d from t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s 45A, A l a . R. App. P. C. Wilson the jury alleges that the prosecutor that determination. mercy had no Specifically, place Wilson erroneously in the contends f o l l o w i n g comment b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r was i m p r o p e r : Wilson who w a n t s m e r c y -- I s u b m i t t o y o u m i t i g a t i n g circumstances, (R. 785). Wilson a i n ' t no e x c u s e s , asserts that informed sentencing that "... the David when t h e y s a y a justification." this statement is " f u n d a m e n t a l l y opposed t o c u r r e n t death p e n a l t y j u r i s p r u d e n c e " pursuant 1985). t o D r a k e v . Kemp, (Wilson's b r i e f , 762 F. 2d 1449, 1460 a t 52.) "'[I]mpeachment o f t h e e v i d e n c e matter of impairment of i t s weight argument o f c o u n s e l . . . . ' " (11th C i r . of a defendant and t h e are p r o p e r l y matters f o r B u r g e s s v. S t a t e , 827 So. 2d a t 162 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1998) ( q u o t i n g M o s l e y v . S t a t e , 241 A l a . 132, 136, 1 So. 2d 593, 595 ( 1 9 4 1 ) ) . " F u r t h e r , ' [ a ] p r o s e c u t o r may present an a r g u m e n t to the jury 85 regarding the appropriate CR-07-0684 weight to afford defendant.'" Mullin, 426 prosecutor, the mitigating Vanpelt, F.3d as 74 1241, an So. 1257 3d factors at 90 offered may argue to M i t c h e l l v. So.3d Storey, error , 40 S.W.3d 898, as [Ms. the jury that i t CR-06-0827, Aug. ( A l a . C r i m . App. resulted mitigation State, from 910-11 the 2 0 1 0 ) ; see (Mo. 2001) or 27, 2010] also State no of i s not required agree w i t h the defendant t h a t the e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d d u r i n g penalty phase is sufficiently mitigating i m p o s i t i o n of the death sentence[, and] the the i n context, jury give should w e i g h t and not that Wilson the Wilson's d i d not, to the d e s e r v e the j u r y ' s mercy i n s e n t e n c i n g . are appropriate justice, properly in "our adversarial [where a] p r o s e c u t o r argue to the appropriate." Vanpelt, argued system f a c t s and that 3d a t 91. 86 a death that any the These comments of criminal seeking a sentence of death jury 74 So. preclude m i t i g a t i o n evidence law, the all"). prosecutor b a s e d on to State i s free to argue t h a t the evidence i s not m i t i g a t i n g at H e r e , when r e a d v. that "State (holding no characterization prosecutor's excuses because the v. That i s , "the should g i v e the defendant's m i t i g a t i n g evidence l i t t l e weight." the (quoting Malicoat (10th C i r . 2005)). advocate, by sentence Consequently, may is Wilson CR-07-0684 has n o t shown t h a t any e r r o r , much l e s s p l a i n e r r o r , from the p r o s e c u t o r ' s statement. Rule 45A., resulted A l a . R. App. P. IX. Wilson next i n evidence argues t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r not d u r i n g h i s c l o s i n g argument i n t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e . Specifically, Wilson prosecutor's complains statement W a l k e r ' s m i l k and that house, of prosecutor's of the Wilson or following: an 1) accomplice the drank a t e h i s c a n d y b a r a f t e r t h e m u r d e r ; 2) prosecutor's statement, his argued f a c t s his the "remember t h e p i c t u r e s on t h e w a l l s o f wife statement and his "that Dr. children"; Enstice t h o u s a n d a u t o p s i e s i n m u r d e r c a s e s , and had ... and 3) the done over she c o n c l u d e d a the i n j u r i e s Mr. W a l k e r s u f f e r e d were up t h e r e a t t h e t o p c o m p a r e d to other cases she had o b s e r v e d . " ( W i l s o n ' s b r i e f , a t 53-54) ( c i t a t i o n s and quotations omitted.) t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s comments were n o t evidence Wilson in the d i d not record. o b j e c t to the t h e y were u n s u p p o r t e d should review Crim. P. The The by S t a t e concedes t h a t specifically State, however, statements the evidence; them f o r p l a i n State The on 87 that Rule the by argues that ground that therefore, this error only. f u r t h e r argues the supported 45A, Court Ala. R. prosecutor's CR-07-0684 misstatements d i d not have an adverse affect on the jury's d e l i b e r a t i o n s ; t h e r e f o r e , Wilson cannot e s t a b l i s h p l a i n e r r o r . Rule 45A, A l a . R. App. P. This Court agrees. Again, "'In j u d g i n g a p r o s e c u t o r ' s c l o s i n g argument, t h e s t a n d a r d i s w h e t h e r t h e a r g u m e n t "so i n f e c t e d t h e t r i a l w i t h u n f a i r n e s s as t o make t h e r e s u l t i n g c o n v i c t i o n a d e n i a l o f due p r o c e s s . " ' B a n k h e a d [ v. S t a t e ] , 585 So. 2d [97,] 107 [ ( A l a . Crim. App. 1 9 8 9 ) , ] q u o t i n g D a r d e n v. W a i n w r i g h t , 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S. C t . 2464, 2471, 91 L. E d . 2 d 144 (1986) ( q u o t i n g D o n n e l l y v. D e C h r i s t o f o r o , 416 U.S. 637, 94 S. Ct. 1868, 40 L. Ed. 2d 431 (1974)). 'A p r o s e c u t o r ' s s t a t e m e n t must be v i e w e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d and i n t h e c o n t e x t of the complete c l o s i n g arguments t o the jury.' R o b e r t s v. S t a t e , 735 So. 2d 1244, 1253 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 735 So. 2d 1270 (Ala.), cert. d e n i e d , 538 U.S. 939, 120 S. C t . 346, 145 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1999). Moreover, 'statements of c o u n s e l i n argument t o t h e j u r y must be v i e w e d as d e l i v e r e d i n the heat of debate; such statements are u s u a l l y v a l u e d by t h e j u r y a t t h e i r t r u e w o r t h and a r e n o t e x p e c t e d t o become f a c t o r s i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e verdict.' B a n k h e a d , 585 So. 2d a t 106. 'Questions o f t h e p r o p r i e t y o f argument o f c o u n s e l a r e l a r g e l y w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n , M c C u l l o u g h v. S t a t e , 357 So. 2d 397, 399 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , and that court i s given broad discretion in determining what is permissible argument.' B a n k h e a d , 585 So. 2d a t 105. We w i l l n o t r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s t h e r e has b e e n an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . Id." F e r g u s o n v. 2000), a f f ' d , State, 814 814 So. So. 2d 970 2d 925, 945-46 ( A l a . 2001). 88 ( A l a . Crim. App. CR-07-0684 Moreover, " ' " [ t ] o claimed rise e r r o r must n o t 'substantial prejudicial rights,' to the only level seriously but i t must of p l a i n e r r o r , affect also a defendant's have an unfair i m p a c t on t h e j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s . " ' " Ex Brown, 11 So. Bryant, 951 So. 2d 724, v. S t a t e , 778 3d So. 933, 938 727 2d 199, (Ala. 2008) the (quoting parte Ex parte ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n , Hyde 209 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1998)). Thus, " ' [ t ] h e p l a i n - e r r o r e x c e p t i o n to the contemporaneous-objection r u l e i s t o be "used s p a r i n g l y , s o l e l y i n those circumstances i n which a m i s c a r r i a g e of j u s t i c e would otherwise result."'" Ex States parte Brown, Young, 470 v. F r a d y , court has U.S. 456 11 So. 1, 15 U.S. 163, that p r o s e c u t o r i a l arguments evaluation suggestion of the at 938 (quoting United (1985)), quoting i n t u r n , U n i t e d 152, concluded 3d n. 14 the ... claim (1982). failure 2d 474, on the merits t h a t the defense d i d not 489 W a i n w r i g h t , 778 (Ala. Crim. F.2d 623, object to States "'[t]his improper s h o u l d be w e i g h e d as p a r t o f 629 App. n.6 89 because of our its c o n s i d e r t h e comments i n q u e s t i o n t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y h a r m f u l . ' " So. to Further, v. 1990) Kuenzel v. S t a t e , (quoting (11th C i r . Johnson 1985)). 577 v. CR-07-0684 First, improperly Wilson told correctly the jury C o r l e y went i n t o W i l s o n ' s argues that after that evidence was attempting I n making to show a c c o m p l i c e s were " c o l d a n d c a l l o u s . " is no e v i d e n c e Wilson's i n the record that Wilson's that m i l k , and statement, Wilson that anyone t h e r e i s ample the and h i s (R 785.) A l t h o u g h behavior or i snot supported this indicating m i l k o r a t e h i s candy b a r , establishing Wilson k i t c h e n , drank Wilson's i n the record. prosecutor prosecutor t h e murder, a t e W i l s o n ' s candy b a r because t h a t statement by the there drank evidence and h i s a c c o m p l i c e s ' b e h a v i o r d u r i n g a n d a f t e r t h e m u r d e r were u n u s u a l , c o l d , and callous. The broke evidence into presented at t r i a l e s t a b l i s h e d that Wilson W a l k e r ' s home a n d v i c i o u s l y baseball bat, a t t a c k e d him w i t h a a computer-mouse c o r d , a n d an e x t e n s i o n cord. D u r i n g t h e a t t a c k , W a l k e r s u s t a i n e d : 1) m u l t i p l e f r a c t u r e s t o t h e s k u l l b o n e s ; 2) e i g h t b r o k e n r i b s ; 3) a f r a c t u r e d s t e r n u m ; 4) l i g a t u r e marks on h i s n e c k ; a n d 5) a c o n t u s i o n on h i s l u n g . After viciously a t t a c k i n g Walker, f l o o r o f h i s house t o d i e . Wilson left W a l k e r on t h e L a t e r , W i l s o n and h i s r e t u r n e d t o W a l k e r ' s h o u s e many t i m e s . 90 During accomplices one o f t h o s e CR-07-0684 t i m e s , he and C o r l e y went i n t o W a l k e r ' s h o u s e b e c a u s e C o r l e y w a n t e d t o see W i l s o n ' s b o d y . e x c i t e d by and Based a little on this According to Wilson, Corley t h r i l l e d w i t h s e e i n g W a l k e r ' s body. evidence, the aware t h a t W a l k e r ' s m u r d e r was evidence, jury must been well Further, vicious. have from this t h e j u r y must have i n f e r r e d t h a t b o t h W i l s o n ' s h i s a c c o m p l i c e s ' b e h a v i o r a f t e r t h e m u r d e r was and c a l l o u s . from which B e c a u s e t h e r e was the jury unusual, more t h a n s u f f i c i e n t c o u l d have inferred crime f o r which the p r o s e c u t o r ' s improper the had an deliberations." 2008) "unfair Ex (citations prejudicial parte Brown, omitted). Wilson 45A, correctly aspect impact on So. 933, A l a . R. argues cold, of the comment was d i r e c t e d 3d Therefore, e s t a b l i s h e d p l a i n e r r o r . Rule Second, 11 and evidence t o show, t h i s C o u r t c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s comment was the Wilson App. that improper jury's 938 (Ala. has not P. the prosecutor s h o u l d n o t have s a i d , "[R]emember t h e p i c t u r e s on t h e w a l l s o f h i s h o u s e , o f h i s w i f e and h i s c h i l d r e n , " b e c a u s e t h e r e was no evidence on establishing t h a t the people i n the photographs W a l k e r ' s w a l l s w e r e , i n f a c t , h i s w i f e and c h i l d r e n . However, viewing evidence this comment in conjunction 91 with a l l the CR-07-0684 presented an at t r i a l ; t h i s C o u r t c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e comment h a d "unfair prejudicial Ex p a r t e It i m p a c t on t h e j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s . " Brown, 11 So. 3 d a t 938 ( c i t a t i o n s i s important omitted). t o n o t e t h a t t h e j u r y was i n f o r m e d W a l k e r h a d h a d a w i f e who h a d p a s s e d away b e f o r e that h i s murder. F u r t h e r , t h i s Court has reviewed the v i d e o o f t h e crime scene. During a small p o r t i o n of that video, are v i s i b l e family-type on t h e w a l l s o f W a l k e r ' s h o u s e . photographs The p h o t o g r a p h s d e p i c t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , an a d u l t woman a n d s m a l l c h i l d r e n . A l t h o u g h t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t t h e p e o p l e i n t h e p h o t o g r a p h s were W a l k e r ' s w i f e a n d c h i l d r e n , a inference reasonable from t h e f a c t t h a t Walker had photographs o f these p e o p l e on h i s w a l l i s t h a t t h e y were p e o p l e f o r whom W a l k e r cared. Thus, t h e f a c t t h a t he h a d f a m i l y - t y p e p h o t o g r a p h s o f p e o p l e on h i s w a l l e s t a b l i s h e s t h e p o i n t the prosecutor attempting "was n o t a t o make, i.e., that Wilson was 'human i s l a n d , ' b u t a u n i q u e i n d i v i d u a l whose m u r d e r h a d i n e v i t a b l y had 2d a p r o f o u n d i m p a c t on [ o t h e r s ] . " 999, 1005-06 Ex p a r t e R i e b e r , ( A l a . 1995). B e c a u s e t h e j u r y must have b e e n w e l l aware t h a t was 663 So. Walker n o t a human i s l a n d , b u t i n s t e a d w o u l d be m i s s e d b y o t h e r s , 92 CR-07-0684 t h i s Court cannot say t h a t the prosecutor's "aversely State, affected t h e outcome [Ms. CR-06-0360, improper of the t r i a l . " Dec. 17, 2010] McCray So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; See a l s o Ex p a r t e W a l k e r , 972 So. 2d (recognizing that the appellant burden prejudice reviewed f o r p l a i n e r r o r ) ; relating v. , 737, 752 ( A l a . 2007) to establish comment t o an Thomas v . S t a t e , has t h e issue being 824 So. 2d 1, 13 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t t o r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f p l a i n e r r o r , an e r r o r must have a f f e c t e d t h e outcome o f t h e trial). Therefore, prosecutor's Wilson has not e s t a b l i s h e d comment r e s u l t e d i n p l a i n e r r o r . that the R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. Finally, Wilson argues that the prosecutor should not have s t a t e d t h a t D r . E n s t i c e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d done o v e r 1,000 a u t o p s i e s injuries other Mr. W a l k e r cases compared i n murder cases s u f f e r e d were she h a d o b s e r v e d . the and t h a t prosecutor's " a t t h e t o p " compared t o (R. 765.) statement minor correct; differences however, the Court C o u r t has Dr. Enstice's s t a t e m e n t was n o t i s convinced i n the prosecutor's 93 This with t e s t i m o n y and agrees t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s entirely she c o n c l u d e d t h e statement that the a n d Dr. CR-07-0684 E n s t i c e ' s t e s t i m o n y d i d n o t have an " u n f a i r p r e j u d i c i a l on t h e j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s . " 938 (citations points omitted). out t h a t that she had For Dr. E n s t i c e o v e r 1,000 a u t o p s i e s done over autopsies Enstice never s t a t e d t h a t there observed." instance, never 1,000 those up Brown, stated 11 So. 3d a t Wilson that correctly she h a d done i n m u r d e r c a s e s ; h o w e v e r , she d i d t e s t i f y whether were Ex p a r t e impact autopsies involved a (Wilson murder. "the i n j u r i e s a t t h e t o p compared brief, at without Further, Mr. W a l k e r to other 54.) specifying suffered cases However, Dr. she had when asked w h e t h e r t h e number o f i n j u r i e s W a l k e r h a d r e c e i v e d was large o r s m a l l when compared t o t h e number o f i n j u r i e s she h a d s e e n during other autopsies, "seen s e v e r a l o t h e r Dr. E n s t i c e t e s t i f i e d that c a s e s and a c t u a l l y performed autopsies c a s e s where t h e r e were l a r g e numbers o f i n j u r i e s [ , ] Walker c e r t a i n l y 531.) Dr. had a v e r y Enstice also testified consistent the with on (R. many of Walker's statement was not totally testimony, the gist of h i s painful. prosecutor's Dr. that has [ a ] n d ... l a r g e number o f i n j u r i e s . " i n j u r i e s w o u l d have been v e r y Although she Enstice's s t a t e m e n t was c o r r e c t -- t h a t Dr. E n s t i c e was e x p e r i e n c e d and 94 CR-07-0684 Walker suffered Because the and that many j u r y was on prosecutor's testimony Walker, "aversely error 13 So. 2010] say Dr. of So. very that the Enstice's the trial." 3d a t ; See (recognizing that the r e v i e w e d f o r p l a i n e r r o r ) ; Thomas, 824 must Therefore, experienced the burden to e s t a b l i s h p r e j u d i c e r e l a t i n g to have affected W i l s o n has not the 2d at an outcome of established that comment r e s u l t e d i n p l a i n e r r o r . R u l e 45A, the the So. an l e v e l of p l a i n e r r o r , ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t to r i s e to the error cannot outcome attack. number o f recounting 2d a t 752 the was large Court the 17, during Enstice very in affected a l s o Ex p a r t e W a l k e r , 972 issue being a this CR-06-0360, Dec. a p p e l l a n t has Dr. inflicted slight M c C r a y , [Ms. injuries aware t h a t had injuries painful Wilson painful trial). prosecutor's A l a . R. App. court erred P. X. Wilson preventing life character; was argues that the circuit W i l s o n ' s mother from a s k i n g during mother's next the request penalty to the phase. jury t h e r e f o r e , i t was admissible i n the p e n a l t y the Wilson would have j u r y to spare h i s contends gone to that 95 his Wilson's a relevant mitigating factor phase. in and CR-07-0684 The following is the mother's t e s t i m o n y d u r i n g relevant the p e n a l t y excerpt from Wilson's phase: Defense: "And you understand t h a t the only two punishments t h a t he can get are life w i t h o u t p a r o l e or the death sentence; i s that correct?" Witness: "Yes, s i r . " Defense: "And I am g o i n g t o a s k t h i s i n a l e a d i n g way. I t h i n k i t w o u l d be f a i r t o say t h a t you w o u l d a s k t h e j u r y t o s p a r e h i s l i f e ? " State: Defense: " I can State: "I object, Court: "I w i l l Defense: (R. "Objection. I " A l l r i g h t . J u s t a second. I have, Your Honor." ask her. s u s t a i n the objection." That's a l l 736-37.) was life. a s k e d w h e t h e r she "Leading e x a m i n a t i o n of questions a witness, t h e y be a l l o w e d . " allow the I mean -- " Judge." H e r e , W i l s o n ' s m o t h e r was she object." leading circuit wanted the j u r y to spare should be and not u s e d on e x c e p t when j u s t i c e Rule 611(c), questions court, u n d e r d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n when lies only A l a . R. E v i d . w i t h i n the a 96 flagrant Wilson's the direct requires The that d e c i s i o n to sound d i s c r e t i o n violation of of that CR-07-0684 discretion will create [CR-06-0360, Dec. App. 2010). violation 17, This of the leading question Moreover, reversible error. 2010] Court So. holds circuit during even direct i f the 3d that court's M c C r a y v. , State, ( A l a . Crim. i t was not a d i s c r e t i o n to flagrant disallow examination. question were not leading, c i r c u i t c o u r t c o r r e c t l y p r e v e n t e d W i l s o n ' s mother from the asking t h e j u r y t o recommend a s e n t e n c e o f l i f e i n p r i s o n w i t h o u t p o s s i b i l i t y of p a r o l e . T h i s C o u r t has repeatedly held the "that the o p i n i o n of the f r i e n d s or r e l a t i v e s of the defendant the defendant should not be sentenced relevant m i t i g a t i n g circumstance the penalty App. f o r the phase of a c a p i t a l admissible. See to So. 2d 36, a l s o D o t c h v. S t a t e , 67 So. C r i m . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; B a r b e r v. C r i m . App. 2005). State, Because the 952 death So. therefore, 51-35 is a at not 3d 936, 997 (Ala. 2d 393, 450 (Ala. o p i n i o n o f f r i e n d s and r e l e v a n t i n the p e n a l t y phase, the not (Ala. Crim. r e g a r d i n g what s e n t e n c e a c a p i t a l d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d not is that j u r y to consider c a s e " and, T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 666 1994) a circuit family receive i s court d i d not abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n by p r e v e n t i n g W i l s o n ' s m o t h e r f r o m a s k i n g the jury to sentence Wilson to 97 life in prison without the CR-07-0684 possibility of parole. Accordingly, this issue does not e n t i t l e W i l s o n t o any r e l i e f . XI. Wilson next argues victim-impact evidence Specifically, Wilson argues supervisor, indicating: died; made a decent retirement. irrelevant testimony Jimmy W a l k e r , from n o t have Walker's was 2) t h a t W a l k e r ' s w i f e h a d a reliable salary to employee; and would Wilson, have this sympathies a n d 4) Rule that qualified for testimony was and s e r v e d o n l y t o on t h e t r a g e d y o f Mr. W a l k e r ' s d i d n o t o b j e c t t o Jimmy W a l k e r ' s testimony; t h e r e f o r e , t h i s Court w i l l review these claims f o r p l a i n only. trial. should to the m a t e r i a l issues at t r i a l , Wilson elicited 1) t h a t W a l k e r h a d c a n c e r , t h a t he h a d According focus the j u r o r s ' death. improperly that the State and t h a t he was f r a i l ; 3) t h a t W a l k e r Walker the State d u r i n g t h e g u i l t phase o f t h e been a l l o w e d t o e l i c i t l o s t weight, that error 45A, A l a . R. App. P. To t h e e x t e n t W i l s o n a r g u e s t h a t Jimmy W a l k e r ' s testimony r e l a t i n g t o W a l k e r ' s i l l n e s s , h i s f r a i l t y , and h i s r e l i a b i l i t y constituted disagrees. improper As victim-impact stated in Part 98 evidence, VII of this this Court opinion, CR-07-0684 "victim-impact statements effect crime of although the relevant on 821. guilt the victim So. 3d a t of and his [only] the family' and, ( q u o t i n g Payne, 501 However, s u c h s t a t e m e n t s phase 'describe to the penalty-phase, are i n a d m i s s i b l e the g u i l t phase." at typically a criminal relevant to a material Crymes, 630 So. 2d 125, 126 v. S t a t e , 949 So. 2d 956, ... of the g u i l t i f i t i s relevant Ala. R. statements phase." ( A l a . C r i m . App. that v i c t i m - i m p a c t type evidence phase i f the ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; see a l s o 965 U.S. "are a d m i s s i b l e d u r i n g the trial issue in are Ex p a r t e Gissendanner 2006) (holding i s a d m i s s i b l e i n the Rule 401, [is any] e v i d e n c e h a v i n g any t e n d e n c y t o make t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any fact Evid., to guilt-phase issues). guilt provides: "'Relevant evidence' t h a t i s o f c o n s e q u e n c e t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n more probable or less probable than i t would be without the evidence." Here, having Jimmy cancer, e m p l o y e e was establish Walker's as being testimony frail, a d m i s s i b l e i n the the events and guilt describing as being Walker a phase of the reliable trial t h a t l e d to the d i s c o v e r y of the and t h e d i s c o v e r y o f W a l k e r ' s b o d y . 99 See G i s s e n d a n n e r , as to crime 949 So. CR-07-0684 2d a t 965. Jimmy W a l k e r testified that that lost and he he had testified weight, t h a t W a l k e r was that was had cancer, frail. a r e l i a b l e employee. Jimmy W a l k e r , b e c a u s e W a l k e r was ill, Walker He also According to a r e l i a b l e employee who was when W a l k e r d i d n o t show up f o r work, Jimmy W a l k e r went to Walker's house twice t o check d o o r and l o o k i n g i n a window. getting no on h i m by from inside visit, Jimmy W a l k e r spoke with police were Walker's house, the Jimmy W a l k e r s t a t e d t h a t a f t e r response telephoned. k n o c k i n g on Walker's Walker's While Jimmy house on either n e i g h b o r , and Walker was the still at t h e p o l i c e came, e n t e r e d W a l k e r ' s h o u s e , and f o u n d h i s body. Because f a c t s e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t W a l k e r was sick, frail, and r e l i a b l e were r e l e v a n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e v e n t s t h a t l e d t o t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t h e c r i m e and t h e d i s c o v e r y o f W a l k e r ' s body, W i l s o n has n o t e s t a b l i s h e d any e r r o r , much l e s s p l a i n e r r o r . See G i s s e n d a n n e r , 949 So. 2d a t 965. e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f on t h i s To Therefore, Wilson i s not issue. the e x t e n t W i l s o n argues that the State improperly a d m i t t e d t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t W a l k e r ' s w i f e had died, t h a t he made a d e c e n t s a l a r y , and t h a t he w o u l d have q u a l i f i e d 100 CR-07-0684 for r e t i r e m e n t , any e r r o r was P., and Rule (Ala. and c e r t a i n l y d i d not 45A, A l a . R. App. P. harmless, rise In to the Rule level 45, A l a . R. of p l a i n Ex p a r t e R i e b e r , 1 9 9 5 ) , A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t addressed 663 So. a similar App. error. 2d issue held: "We a g r e e w i t h R i e b e r t h a t Mr. C r a i g ' s t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g Ms. C r a i g ' s c h i l d r e n , t h e i r a g e s , and t h e s t a t u s o f t h e i r c u s t o d y a f t e r t h e m u r d e r was not r e l e v a n t w i t h r e s p e c t to the q u e s t i o n of h i s g u i l t or innocence and, therefore, that i t was i n a d m i s s i b l e i n the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l . The o n l y i s s u e b e f o r e the j u r y d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of t h e t r i a l was w h e t h e r R i e b e r had r o b b e d and k i l l e d Ms. C r a i g . However, i n Ex p a r t e Crymes, 630 So. 2d 125 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , a p l u r a l i t y o f t h i s C o u r t h e l d i n a c a p i t a l m u r d e r c a s e i n w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t was sentenced to l i f e - i m p r i s o n m e n t without p a r o l e that a j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n can be u p h e l d i f t h e r e c o r d c o n c l u s i v e l y shows t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e v i c t i m impact evidence d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e outcome o f t h e t r i a l o r o t h e r w i s e p r e j u d i c e a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of the defendant. See, a l s o , G i l e s v. S t a t e , 632 So. 2d 568 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , a f f ' d , 632 So. 2d 577 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , [512] U.S. [ 1 2 1 3 ] , 114 S. C t . 2694, 129 L. Ed. 2d 825 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; Ex p a r t e P a r k e r , 610 So. 2d 1181 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , [509] U.S. [929], 113 S. C t . 3053, 125 L. Ed. 2d 737 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ; Lawhorn v. S t a t e , [581 So. 2d 1159 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f ' d , 581 So. 2d 1179 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ] ; Hooks v. S t a t e , 534 So. 2d 329 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) , a f f ' d , 534 So. 2d 371 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 488 U.S. 1050, 109 S. C t . 883, 102 L. Ed. 2d 1005 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ; and Ex p a r t e W h i s e n h a n t , [555 So. 2d 235 (Ala. 1989)], a p p l y i n g a harmless e r r o r a n a l y s i s i n death p e n a l t y cases. Our r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t R i e b e r ' s a t t o r n e y s d i d n o t o b j e c t t o Mr. Craig's 101 999 CR-07-0684 b r i e f r e f e r e n c e s t o Ms. C r a i g ' s c h i l d r e n o r a s k h i m any q u e s t i o n s on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . The t r i a l c o u r t clearly instructed the jury that i t had t o d e t e r m i n e , b a s e d on a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e , w h e t h e r R i e b e r h a d r o b b e d a n d k i l l e d Ms. C r a i g . The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i t c o u l d n o t f i n d R i e b e r g u i l t y unless the p r o s e c u t o r had e s t a b l i s h e d h i s g u i l t beyond a reasonable doubt. The j u r y was a l s o i n s t r u c t e d n o t t o l e t sympathy o r p r e j u d i c e a f f e c t its verdict. We c a u t i o n p r o s e c u t o r s that the i n t r o d u c t i o n of v i c t i m impact evidence d u r i n g t h e g u i l t phase o f a c a p i t a l murder t r i a l can r e s u l t i n reversible error i f the record indicates that i t probably d i s t r a c t e d t h e j u r y and kept i t from performing i t s duty of determining the g u i l t or i n n o c e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t b a s e d on t h e a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e a n d t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w . However, a f t e r e x a m i n i n g t h e r e c o r d i n i t s e n t i r e t y , we c o n c l u d e that the aforementioned p o r t i o n s o f Mr. C r a i g ' s testimony, although they should n o t have been p e r m i t t e d , d i d n o t o p e r a t e t o deny R i e b e r a f a i r trial. I t i s p r e s u m e d t h a t j u r o r s do n o t l e a v e t h e i r common s e n s e a t t h e c o u r t h o u s e d o o r . I t would e l e v a t e f o r m o v e r s u b s t a n c e f o r us t o h o l d , b a s e d on the r e c o r d before us, t h a t Rieber d i d not r e c e i v e a f a i r t r i a l s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e j u r o r s were t o l d what t h e y p r o b a b l y h a d a l r e a d y s u s p e c t e d -- t h a t Ms. C r a i g was n o t a 'human i s l a n d , ' but a unique individual whose m u r d e r had i n e v i t a b l y had a p r o f o u n d i m p a c t on h e r c h i l d r e n , s p o u s e , p a r e n t s , f r i e n d s , o r dependents (paraphrasing a p o r t i o n o f J u s t i c e S o u t e r ' s o p i n i o n c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e judgment i n Payne v. T e n n e s s e e , 501 U.S. 808, 838, 111 S. C t . 2597, 2 6 1 5 , 115 L. E d . 2d 720 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ) . " 663 So. 2d a t 1005-06. Here, t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t Walker's w i f e had d i e d , t h a t he made a d e c e n t s a l a r y , a n d t h a t he w o u l d have q u a l i f i e d for r e t i r e m e n t was i r r e l e v a n t 102 t o Wilson's guilt. However, CR-07-0684 after reviewing the testimony otherwise the did r e c o r d as a w h o l e , t h i s C o u r t h o l d s not a f f e c t the prejudice testimony was Wilson's b r i e f and had a f a m i l y and not a job. of substantial to the p o i n t . e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t W a l k e r was had outcome the trial rights. A t most, t h e Further, the or The testimony a "human i s l a n d " b u t Id. that instead trial court p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y t h a t i t s h o u l d base i t s d e c i s i o n on the evidence presented "bias or sympathy concerning the to trial prejudice and which should reasons, Wilson the e n t i t l e him level t o any of plain relief. has not error; allow have 636.) For (R. shown t h a t therefore, R u l e 45A, not might [it] either side" a f f e c t that decision. foregoing rises or during A l a . R. this issue i t does App. not P. XII. Wilson allowed next argues hearsay and ( W i l s o n ' s b r i e f , a t 59.) in the circuit court erroneously the State t o i n t r o d u c e p o r t i o n s of h i s statement t h a t contained circuit that court which: accomplices; should 1) he improper "prior bad S p e c i f i c a l l y , Wilson have e x c l u d e d indicated that acts argues t h a t p o r t i o n s of h i s he evidence." associated statement with 2) he s t a t e d t h a t C o r l e y w a n t e d t o go b a c k t o 103 the his the CR-07-0684 s c e n e and Walker's that body; accomplices, property argue she that and said that said she 3) he was thrilled stated had these see that Marsh, one of his r i d of some o f the s t o l e n from Walker. portions e x c i t e d to gotten t h a t M a r s h had they or of the Wilson statement did not constituted i n a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e of p r i o r bad a c t s ; t h e r e f o r e , t h a t i s s u e will be Crim. reviewed for plain error only. Rule 45A, Ala. R. P. A. W i l s o n a r g u e s t h a t e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he with h i s accomplices, t h a t he and C o r l e y r e t u r n e d t o t h e s c e n e so she c o u l d see W a l k e r ' s b o d y , and seeing the Court b o d y was associated improper t h a t she prior-bad-act was thrilled evidence. disagrees. Rule 404(b), A l a . R. Evid., provides: "Evidence of other crimes, 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 person i n o r d e r t o show a c t i o n i n c o n f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h . I t 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 o f m i s t a k e o r a c c i d e n t , p r o v i d e d t h a t upon r e q u e s t by t h e a c c u s e d , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e s h a l l p r o v i d e r e a s o n a b l e n o t i c e i n advance of t r i a l , or d u r i n g t r i a l i f the c o u r t excuses p r e t r i a l n o t i c e on g o o d c a u s e shown, o f t h e g e n e r a l n a t u r e o f any such evidence i t i n t e n d s to i n t r o d u c e at t r i a l . " 104 by This CR-07-0684 The Alabama rule Supreme C o u r t "'has held that [ c o n t a i n e d i n R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. the e x c l u s i o n a r y Evid.,] prevents the S t a t e from u s i n g e v i d e n c e of a d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i o r bad a c t s t o p r o v e t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s b a d c h a r a c t e r and, t h e r e b y , p r o t e c t s t h e defendant's r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l . ' " 3d 323, 334 295, 302 language, Ex p a r t e B e l i s l e , 11 So. ( A l a . 2008) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e D r i n k a r d , 777 So. ( A l a . 2000) (emphasis a d d e d ) ) . Rule 404(b) operates However, by i t s p l a i n to exclude " o t h e r c r i m e s , wrongs, or a c t s . " 2d only evidence of Thus, R u l e 404(b) does n o t r e q u i r e the c i r c u i t c o u r t t o e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e of bad a c t s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e a p a r t of the crime f o r which the defendant i s on trial. Here, the evidence t h a t W i l s o n argues s h o u l d have e x c l u d e d u n d e r R u l e 404(b) as e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r b a d a c t s a c t u a l l y e v i d e n c e o f t h e c r i m e f o r w h i c h he was Because the evidence W i l s o n argues being been was tried. s h o u l d have b e e n e x c l u d e d u n d e r R u l e 404(b) a c t u a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h e f a c t s o f t h e c r i m e for which he was on t r i a l , o c c u r r e d by i t s a d m i s s i o n . no e r r o r , much l e s s p l a i n R u l e 45A, 105 A l a . R. App. P. error, CR-07-0684 B. Wilson excluded next argues the following confession: that the c i r c u i t statements court should Wilson made have during h i s 1) t h a t C o r l e y w a n t e d t o go t o t h e s c e n e t o s e e W a l k e r ' s b o d y a n d s h e s a i d s h e was t h r i l l e d b y o r e x c i t e d b y seeing Walker's gotten r i d o f some Wilson, these body; a n d 2) t h a t of Walker's portions Marsh said property. of Wilson's that he h a d According to statement constituted i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a r s a y u n d e r R u l e s 801 a n d 802, A l a . R. E v i d . It of i swell settled that "[t]he question of a d m i s s i b i l i t y evidence i s generally l e f t court, will and 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 n o t be r e v e r s e d e x c e p t upon a c l e a r s h o w i n g o f abuse o f discretion." 2000). made to the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l Ex p a r t e L o g g i n s , 771 So. 2d 1093, 1103 ( A l a . F u r t h e r , "'[h]earsay' i s a statement, by the declarant while testifying o t h e r t h a n one at the t r i a l or h e a r i n g , o f f e r e d i n evidence t o prove the t r u t h of the matter asserted." for R u l e 8 0 1 ( c ) , A l a . R. E v i d . "A s t a t e m e n t offered a reason other than t o e s t a b l i s h the t r u t h of the matter asserted t h e r e i n i s not hearsay." D e a r d o r f f v. S t a t e , 3d 1205, 1216 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2004) 106 (citing 6 So. Smith v. S t a t e , CR-07-0684 795 So. 2d 788, 814 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ) . R u l e 802, A l a . R. E v i d . , p r o v i d e s t h a t " h e a r s a y i s n o t a d m i s s i b l e e x c e p t as provided rules, by these Supreme Court hearsay statement 802, o f Alabama [Ms. o r by rules statute." i s admissible i t i s admissible prove the t r u t h o r by other under as s u b s t a n t i v e However, an e x c e p t i o n evidence of the matter asserted.'" 1101398, Dec. 2, 2011] adopted by t h e So. 3d " i f a t o Rule -- i . e . , ' t o M.L.H. v. S t a t e , , ( A l a . 2011) ( q u o t i n g R u l e 8 0 1 ( c ) , A l a . R. E v i d . ) . To the extent Wilson argues that the p o r t i o n of h i s c o n f e s s i o n i n w h i c h he s a i d t h a t M a r s h t o l d h i m t h a t M a r s h h a d gotten r i d o f some of Walker's property hearsay, t h i s Court disagrees. During Investigators, what property, they discussed was inadmissible h i s conversation happened to Walker's and t h e f o l l o w i n g o c c u r r e d : Officer: "Where i s a l l t h a t p r o p e r t y Wilson: "Most o f i t ' s t h e r e i n M a t t [ M a r s h ' s , ] I d o n ' t know what he d i d w i t h i t c a u s e I l e f t h i s s t u f f a t h i s house." Officer: "Most o f i t ' s t h e r e at?" where?" " A t , w e l l we l e f t i t a l l a t M a t t ' s h o u s e c a u s e he g o t , he p u t i t i n some b o x e s . We a l l was a t h i s h o u s e . I was [ g o i n g t o ] t a k e f o u r s p e a k e r s a n d some amps b u t I t o l d 107 with CR-07-0684 h i m I was l i k e naw j u s t l e a v e i t a t y o u r house. So he s a i d f i n e . And t h e n t h e n e x t day I a s k e d h i m i f he w o u l d b r i n g i t o v e r t o my h o u s e and t h e n t h a t n i g h t I t a l k e d t o h i m he was l i k e he g o t r i d o f i t . I don't know where he p u t i t a t . He s a i d he h i d i t somewhere t h a t ' s a l l I know." Officer: "Where i s t h e laptop?" Wilson: " I have no c l u e -- he p u t i t somewhere. And t h e n t h e n e x t day I saw h i m [and] a s k e d h i m where was, where was t h e TV, t h a t was T u e s d a y i t was y e s t e r d a y , I a s k e d h i m where t h e TV was. He s a i d he g o t r i d o f i t . " (C. 531-32.) Here, W i l s o n ' s s t a t e m e n t i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Marsh had g o t t e n r i d o f some o f W a l k e r ' s p r o p e r t y was not o f f e r e d to prove the t r u t h of the m a t t e r a s s e r t e d , i . e . , t h a t Marsh got r i d of the property. I n s t e a d , t h e s t a t e m e n t was made t o t h e o f f i c e r s o f f e r e d t o t h e j u r y t o show why p r o p e r t y was Therefore, this Next, Because not o f f e r e d to prove the t r u t h of the m a t t e r a s s e r t e d , i t was 1216. W i l s o n d i d n o t know where t h e l o c a t e d at the time of h i s i n t e r v i e w . W i l s o n ' s s t a t e m e n t was not hearsay. D e a r d o r f f , 6 So. 3d a t issue i s without merit. W i l s o n argues that the c i r c u i t c o u r t s h o u l d have e x c l u d e d as h e a r s a y t h e p o r t i o n o f h i s s t a t e m e n t i n w h i c h e x p l a i n e d t h a t when he and and C o r l e y went b a c k 108 t o see he Walker's CR-07-0684 b o d y , C o r l e y s a i d she was with i t . " This issue i s l i k e w i s e without As (C. 526.) stated p r o v i d e d by exception above, these e x c i t e d and "hearsay rules "got i s not a little admissible R u l e 802, thrilled merit. except A l a . R. Evid. as One to the hearsay p r o h i b i t i o n i s : "A s t a t e m e n t o f t h e d e c l a r a n t ' s t h e n e x i s t i n g s t a t e of mind, e m o t i o n , s e n s a t i o n , or p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n ( s u c h as i n t e n t , p l a n , m o t i v e , d e s i g n , m e n t a l f e e l i n g , p a i n , and b o d i l y h e a t h ) , b u t not i n c l u d i n g a s t a t e m e n t o f memory o r b e l i e f t o p r o v e t h e f a c t remembered o r b e l i e v e d u n l e s s i t r e l a t e s t o the e x e c u t i o n , r e v o c a t i o n , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , or terms of d e c l a r a n t ' s w i l l . " Ex p a r t e B a k e r , 906 803(3), ... a A l a . R. So. 2d 277, Evid.). statement of the 283 ( A l a . 2004) Under " R u l e declarant's 803(3), then (quoting Rule A l a . R. existing Evid., state of mind, emotion, s e n s a t i o n , or p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n i s a d m i s s i b l e as r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e . " McClain v. (Ala. (citing Charles C r i m . App. 2009) Alabama E v i d e n c e , "[a] statement 2 6 1 . 0 3 ( 2 ) and directly or (5) S t a t e , 26 W. So. 3d 491, Gamble, ( 5 t h ed. 495 McElroy's 1996)). Thus, circumstantially indicating the e x i s t e n c e i n t h e d e c l a r a n t o f an e m o t i o n s u c h as l o v e , h a t r e d , fear, malice, mental pain or under the p r e s e n t e x c e p t i o n . " their opposites, C h a r l e s W. 109 is admissible Gamble and R o b e r t J . CR-07-0684 Goodwin, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 261.03(5) (6th ed. 2009). Here, I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r and W i l s o n were d i s c u s s i n g what h a p p e n e d when W i l s o n and C o r l e y went b a c k t o t h e c r i m e to see W a l k e r ' s body. During that conversation, Investigator Luker asked Wilson i f C o r l e y c a l l e d Walker, and W i l s o n scene anyone t o come and help responded: "She, she was, she was k i n d o f I d o n ' t know what was her, what h e r , she seem l i k e she s a i d she g o t a l i t t l e t h r i l l e d w i t h i t o r some something l i k e that. She s a i d she g u e s s she was e x c i t e d I d o n ' t [know] what was up w i t h h e r . " (C. 526.) C o r l e y ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t she was " t h r i l l e d " and "excited" by s e e i n g W a l k e r ' s d e a d body a p p e a r s t o have b e e n a s t a t e m e n t of her then "then e x i s t i n g 8 0 3 ( 3 ) , A l a . R. E v i d . was describing of ... emotion." Rule In r e l a y i n g C o r l e y ' s e x p r e s s i o n , W i l s o n and C o r l e y Further, the statement " d i r e c t l y t h e e x i s t e n c e i n t h e d e c l a r a n t o f an e m o t i o n " excitement. McElroy's state t h e e v e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d w h i l e he were i n W a l k e r ' s h o u s e . indicat[es] ... Charles Alabama W. Gamble Evidence, § and Robert 261.03(5) (6th J. ed. ... -¬ Goodwin, 2009). T h e r e f o r e , t h i s C o u r t cannot say t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t abused 110 CR-07-0684 its d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o e x c l u d e t h i s p o r t i o n o f W i l s o n ' s confession. XIII. Wilson remove a r g u e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d by for cause impartial. jurors Specifically, T.H., selection 60.) K.L., that victimization j u d g e Mr. j u r o r s who, and their would Wilson's in his Wilson S.W. argues "each personal opinion, s u b s t a n t i a l l y impair case objectively." Because Wilson d i d not c h a l l e n g e could that expressed experiences failing R. App. during with their jury crime and ability to brief, at (Wilson's these j u r o r s f o r cause, P. "'To j u s t i f y a c h a l l e n g e f o r cause, t h e r e must be a p r o p e r s t a t u t o r y g r o u n d o r "'some m a t t e r w h i c h i m p o r t s a b s o l u t e b i a s or favor, and leaves nothing to the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . ' " C l a r k v. S t a t e , 621 So. 2d 309, 321 ( A l a . C r . App. 1992) ( q u o t i n g N e t t l e s v. S t a t e , 435 So. 2d 146, 149 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 3 ) ) . This Court has h e l d t h a t "once a j u r o r i n d i c a t e s i n i t i a l l y t h a t he o r she i s biased or p r e j u d i c e d o r has d e e p - s e a t e d i m p r e s s i o n s " a b o u t a c a s e , t h e j u r o r s h o u l d be removed f o r c a u s e . Knop v. M c C a i n , 561 So. 2d 229, 234 ( A l a . 1989) . The t e s t t o be a p p l i e d i n determining whether a j u r o r should be removed f o r c a u s e i s w h e t h e r t h e j u r o r can 111 be prospective t h i s Court reviews t h i s claim f o r p l a i n e r r o r only. Ala. not to Rule 45A, CR-07-0684 eliminate the influence of h i s previous f e e l i n g s and render a v e r d i c t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e e v i d e n c e a n d t h e l a w . Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , 666 So. 2d 73, 82 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . ... I n order t o j u s t i f y d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n , a j u r o r "'must have more t h a n a b i a s , o r f i x e d o p i n i o n , as t o t h e g u i l t o r i n n o c e n c e o f t h e a c c u s e d ' " ; " ' [ s ] u c h o p i n i o n must be so f i x e d ... t h a t i t w o u l d b i a s t h e v e r d i c t a juror would be r e q u i r e d to render.'" O r y a n g v. S t a t e , 642 So. 2 d 979, 987 ( A l a . C r . App. 1993) ( q u o t i n g S i e b e r t v . S t a t e , 562 So. 2d 586, 595 ( A l a . C r . App. 1989) ) . ' "Ex p a r t e D a v i s , 718 So. 2 d 1166, 1171-72 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 525 U.S. 1179, 119 S. C t . 1117, 143 L. E d . 2 d 112 ( 1 9 9 9 ) . " Whitehead 1999). v. S t a t e , 777 So. 2d 7 8 1 , 808 Wilson's claims regarding be a d d r e s s e d ( A l a . C r i m . App. the prospective jurors w i l l individually. A. During voir dire, T.H. s t a t e d that h i s home h a d b e e n b u r g l a r i z e d and v a n d a l i z e d s e v e r a l years e a r l i e r . by him the c i r c u i t i n this i t aside." court c a s e , T.H. r e p l i e d , h i s experience would a f f e c t "I'm n o t c e r t a i n I c o u l d s e t (R. 167.) The c i r c u i t c o u r t t h e n a s k e d T.H. i f he thought h i s experience evidence. i f he f e l t When a s k e d T.H. a g a i n w o u l d a f f e c t h i m w h i l e he w e i g h e d t h e r e s p o n d e d t h a t he was " n o t c e r t a i n [he] 112 CR-07-0684 could set i t aside." a s k e d T.H. any T.H. stating was that T.H. was that candid the State nor defense a b o u t h i s e x p e r i e n c e as a v i c t i m , was Such an uncertain, fixed opinion, Neither questions. he experience. (R. 168.) unsure i f he honest could he had set aside his merely response not t h a t indicated that "'more t h a n a b i a s , as t o t h e g u i l t o r i n n o c e n c e ' " o f W i l s o n , h i s opinion was "'so fixed ... that verdict 642 2d State, who 979, (Ala. Crim. 443 So. 2d 1287, 1289 App. 1993); ( A l a . C r i m . App. see 1983) the State, Clark ("A v. juror b r i n g s h i s t h o u g h t s o u t i n t o t h e open i n r e s p o n s e t o v o i r dire questions t o be may be t h e one who fair."); C r i m . App. already not c f ^ Williams 1996) a prospective was 987 O r y a n g v. or and i t would b i a s [he] w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o r e n d e r . ' " So. twice (trial j u r o r who v. court's later State, failure prospective error juror to 710 So. backwards' 2d 1276 t o sua sponte where remain f o r cause excuse the as an defendant alternate from the j u r y 113 foot and a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h allowed on the T h i s C o u r t f i n d s no p l a i n e r r o r i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s t o remove T.H. (Ala. h a d i n d i c a t e d t h a t she h a d "one o v e r " on a v e r d i c t o f g u i l t plain 'bends o v e r venire. the jury). failure CR-07-0684 B. Wilson next removed K.L. argues from the t h a t h i s f a t h e r had was 15 y e a r s o l d . that the venire. circuit K.L. told been murdered d u r i n g The court the should have circuit court a r o b b e r y when f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n then took Court: "How do you f e e l a b o u t t h a t ? Do you you c o u l d g i v e t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s a fair trial?" K.L.: "Probably so. c o n v i c t i o n s , you place: feel case I have p r e t t y strong know, a f t e r g o i n g t h r o u g h it." you f e e l you Court: "But K.L.: "Yes, Defense: " [ K . L . ] , i f t h e f a c t s came o u t t h a t t h i s was a b u r g l a r y and a r o b b e r y t h a t o c c u r r e d i n Mr. W a l k e r ' s h o u s e , a l l e g e d l y c o m m i t t e d by my c l i e n t , w o u l d t h e f a c t t h a t y o u r f a t h e r had d i e d i n s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s c l o u d y o u r j u d g m e n t when you t o o k a l o o k a t t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e ? " K.L.: "Probably Defense: "Okay. And a g a i n , probably not." K.L.: " I mean, I d o n ' t t h i n k s o . B u t , you know, you a s k e d t h e q u e s t i o n . I want t o r e s p o n d . I d o n ' t want t o come b a c k on some k i n d o f a p p e a l and s a y I was b i a s e d b e c a u s e I went I t h i n k -- c o u l d be yes, open-minded?" I believe so." not." 114 I appreciate you K.L. saying CR-07-0684 through the old." same t h i n g when I was Defense: K.L.: (R. " I don't t h i n k the could [or h e r ] 810 so." r e c o r d makes c l e a r , K.L. give Wilson open-minded. the what 168-70.) As he years decision, "Could i t affect your happened i n the p a s t ? " 15 a fair trial or o p i n i o n and evidence presented i n court." (citations that dispel the and that he believed could remain " I t i s s u f f i c i e n t i f t h e j u r o r can l a y a s i d e impression argues s t a t e d t h a t he and K.L.'s quotations "primary about h i s p o t e n t i a l b i a s . " render a v e r d i c t based on Whitehead, at omitted). objective appearance of b i a s , rather (Wilson's 777 So. Wilson, in voir was to forthright b r i e f , a t 63.) Nothing Consequently, t h i s e r r o r , much l e s s p l a i n e r r o r , i n t h e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o remove K.L. 2d however, dire t h a n t o be i n the r e c o r d supports W i l s o n ' s a s s e r t i o n . C o u r t f i n d s no his circuit f o r cause from the j u r y v e n i r e . C. Wilson removed S.W. next argues that the from the v e n i r e . a v i c t i m of a b u r g l a r y and circuit court should S.W. s t a t e d t h a t she a s s a u l t and t h a t her 115 had attacker have been had CR-07-0684 "left told [her] f o r dead i n t h e y a r d . " the c i r c u i t court Wilson a f a i r t r i a l . (R. 156.) A f t e r defense counsel explained circuit without court deciding that to f a i l t o sua sponte S.W. stated that she trial. i t was remove error S.W. f o r the f o r cause, t h a t e r r o r was h a r m l e s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . Ala. the R. App. P. failure R u l e 45, " [ T ] h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s h e l d that t o remove a j u r o r f o r c a u s e i s h a r m l e s s when t h a t j u r o r i s removed by t h e u s e o f a p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e . Springhill give to n o t b e l i e v e she c o u l d g i v e W i l s o n a f a i r Assuming initially t h a t she was u n s u r e i f she c o u l d what he e x p e c t e d t h e e v i d e n c e t o show, S.W. did S.W. Mem'l Hosp., 833 So. 2d 1 B e t h e a v. ( A l a . 2002)." Pace v. S t a t e , 904 So. 2d 331, 341 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) . B u t s e e Ex parte Colby, 41 So. 3d 1, multiple 7 ( A l a . 2009) denying harmless). Here, W i l s o n used a peremptory s t r i k e t o remove prospective juror harmless. therefore, f o r cause that erroneously S.W.; challenges (holding any e r r o r was i s not See P a c e , 904 So. 2d a t 341. XIV. Wilson revealed next argues to the e n t i r e that "[t]he [venire] 116 prosecutor panel inexplicably the c o n f i d e n t i a l v o i r CR-07-0684 dire responses discomfort (citing R.B. a n d J.W. with the death penalty." R. 94, 102.) improper dire of Jurors According "signaled (Wilson's t o Wilson, d i s c l o s u r e o f R.B.'s responses concerning brief, a n d J.W.'s c o n f i d e n t i a l v o i r t o the panel that, information with i f they embarrassing information c o u l d be a i r e d t o t h e e n t i r e p a n e l [ [that] undoubtedly l e s s than f o r t h r i g h t . " 65-66.) then accuses the c i r c u i t nothing" entire t o prevent venire the prosecutor "potentially shared the court, this and created] intimidated potential jurors i n t o being Wilson a t 65) the prosecutor's potentially a f e a r o f exposure their (Wilson's from embarrassing court brief, at of sharing "d[oing] with the information" and argues t h a t " [ t ] h e t r i a l court's f a i l u r e t o i n t e r v e n e v i o l a t e d [his] right t o an i m p a r t i a l j u r y . . . . " raise this objection at t r i a l ; this Id. Wilson t h e r e f o r e , t h i s Court issue f o r p l a i n error only. d i d not reviews R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. I n i t i a l l y , t h i s C o u r t n o t e s t h a t W i l s o n ' s e n t i r e argument i s b a s e d on a m i s r e a d i n g n o t , as W i l s o n The p r o s e c u t o r d i d a r g u e s , d i s c l o s e R.B.'s a n d J.W.'s c o n f i d e n t i a l v o i r d i r e responses. beginning of the record. Instead, the record reveals that at the o f v o i r d i r e , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a s k e d members o f t h e 117 CR-07-0684 v e n i r e who to have " m e d i c a l come f o r w a r d . forward. that R.B. he had informed ... may p r o b l e m s " or "judgment p r o b l e m s " (R. 26.) A t t h a t p o i n t , R.B. informed to eat the court every two t h a t he hours. and was (R. J.W. diabetic 27.) she J u r o r R.B. J.W. (R. responded,] 27.) The medication also informed the impose the d e a t h After problems, any the (R. court c o u r t t h a t she informed A sleepy. moments[, few the (R. moments court that 31.) She could not i s a m i n i s t e r and c i r c u i t court heard p o t e n t i a l j u r o r ' s could the asking the the venire a whole. The v e n i r e whether t h e r e were not recommend a possibility of as medical sentence parole and of life whether were any members who (R. 43.) and The circuit B o t h R.B. court then J.W. raised their continued questions. 118 to ask hands. the jury in there c o u l d n o t recommend a s e n t e n c e o f qualifying R.B. penalty. c o u r t b e g a n by without 27.) informed t h a t makes h e r i t began q u e s t i o n i n g members who prison Okay." a p p r o a c h e d t h e b e n c h and takes circuit also t h e c o u r t t h a t "on t h e m o r a l s i d e , I d o n ' t b e l i e v e i n c a p i t a l punishment." later, and He t h a t i t w o u l d " s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k a b o u t t h a t i n a few and came death. (R. 44.) general CR-07-0684 Once t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f i n i s h e d i t s q u e s t i o n s , i t a l l o w e d the p a r t i e s t o q u e s t i o n prosecutor whether questioned they could the venire. During t h i s period, the a number o f p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s recommend a sentence of regarding death and s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k e d w h e t h e r t h e r e was anyone t h a t " j u s t d o [ e s ] [not] believe i n the death penalty." (R. 93-104.) While q u e s t i o n i n g the v e n i r e about t h e i r b e l i e f i n o r o p p o s i t i o n t o the death penalty, their honesty positions. I and the prosecutor t h a n k e d R.B. said respected Specifically, appreciate your that the prosecutor honesty. fixed opinion that. You came up a n d t o l d (R. 94.) J.W.: against them for their t o l d R.B., You i n d i c a t e d t h a t the death penalty. The p r o s e c u t o r "Reverend he a n d J.W. f o r you have a I respect us. I appreciate "[R.B.], your you f o r honesty." t h e n made t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t t o [J.W.], I a p p r e c i a t e your honesty. And your r e s p o n s e was -- a n d you t o l d u s , h o n e s t l y , I c a n n o t [recommend a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h ] b e c a u s e o f my r e l i g i o n . you f o r that. Contrary not] And I a p p r e c i a t e t o Wilson's ... your honesty." I respect (R. 102.) assertions, "[t]he prosecutor [ d i d reveal[] to the e n t i r e [venire] panel v o i r d i r e r e s p o n s e s o f J u r o r s R.B. and J.W. 119 the c o n f i d e n t i a l concerning their CR-07-0684 d i s c o m f o r t w i t h the death p e n a l t y . " Rather, Court R.B. and asked c o u l d not the J.W. volunteered entire venire (Wilson's b r i e f , at that of p a r o l e prosecutor did not i n f o r m a t i o n when the there anyone who i n prison without the whether recommend a s e n t e n c e o f l i f e possibility was or a sentence of death. create a 65.) "fear[] of Further, exposure the [that] undoubtedly i n t i m i d a t e d p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s i n t o being l e s s than forthright." prosecutor (Wilson's t h a n k e d R.B. brief, and at J.W. 65-66.) the h o n e s t y and for their Instead, told them t h a t he r e s p e c t e d them f o r t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . Wilson's argument i s not Further, nothing supported by the Accordingly, record. i n the r e c o r d supports Wilson's blanket a s s e r t i o n t h a t f e a r of exposure " i n t i m i d a t e d p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s into being r i g h t t o an Instead, l e s s than forthright," impartial jury " thus, (Wilson's i t appears t h a t d u r i n g voir freely. Wilson Court record for disclosure not his of directed this assertion information that and brief, dire, answered the p a r t i e s ' q u e s t i o n s has "violat[ing] to I n any e v e n t , any because support were in jurors the feared "less f o r t h r i g h t , " t h i s i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n t o any 120 65-66.) potential jurors potential thus at [his] than relief. CR-07-0684 See Burgess v. S t a t e , 723 So. 2d 742, 757 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h i s C o u r t " w i l l n o t h o l d a t r i a l c o u r t i n e r r o r b a s e d on t h e b a r e , u n s u p p o r t e d s p e c u l a t i o n s a s s e r t e d i n an appellant's 123 brief"); Pressley ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) Finally, dire 1148, 1184 case, court." w i t h i n the T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 808 So. 2d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000) the d e c i s i o n whether of the v o i r i s a matter ( c i t i n g B e l l v. S t a t e , So. 2d 601 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 4 ) ) . rule, the conduct of the j u r y venire d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l 770 So. 2d 115, (same). " [ i ] n a capital examination v. S t a t e , Likewise, to voir 475 "[a]s a general dire prospective jurors i n d i v i d u a l l y o r c o l l e c t i v e l y i s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f the t r i a l court." W a l k e r v. S t a t e , 932 So. 2d 140, 156 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2004) ( q u o t i n g Haney v. S t a t e , 603 So. 2d 368 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , c i t i n g i n t u r n , W a l d r o p v. S t a t e , 462 So. 2d 1021, 1025 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1984)). shown t h e t h a t c i r c u i t c o u r t a b u s e d Here, Wilson i t s d i s c r e t i o n , much l e s s committed p l a i n e r r o r , by a l l o w i n g t h e p r o s e c u t o r the venire about the Therefore, as a w h o l e death regarding penalty. has n o t to question potential jurors' feelings Rule 45A, A l a . R. App. P. W i l s o n i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f on t h i s i s s u e . 121 CR-07-0684 XV. Wilson allowed next argues the State establishing to that that the elicit Walker circuit testimony felt pain court in erroneously the while guilt being phase murdered. S p e c i f i c a l l y , Wilson argues t h a t the State i m p r o p e r l y e l i c i t e d testimony his f r o m Dr. E n s t i c e s h o w i n g t h a t W a l k e r f e l t p a i n when bones during were b r o k e n the Wilson, " t h e p a i n Mr. W a l k e r may in question of at testimony sentencing, Mr. 67.) at Wilson's Wilson trial; arguments f o r p l a i n R. App. when he attack that resulted relevant brief, and received i n h i s death. entirely guilty not therefore, error only. or irrelevant object to Court to potentially innocence." this injuries According have f e l t , t h o u g h was did other to the (Wilson's Dr. Enstice's reviews these (R. 4 9 8 - 9 9 ) ; R u l e 45A, Ala. P. As d i s c u s s e d i n P a r t V I I , t h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t " [ t ] h e p a i n and s u f f e r i n g t h e m u r d e r -- of the v i c t i m a circumstance i s a circumstance t h a t i s r e l e v a n t and d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of a c a p i t a l t r i a l . " [Ms. CR-06-0360, C r i m . App. 2010) Dec. 17, surrounding 2010] ( c i t i n g S m i t h v. 122 So. admissible M c C r a y v. 3d S t a t e , 795 State, , So. 2d 788, (Ala. 812 CR-07-0684 (Ala. C r i m . App. witness body 2000) (no e r r o r i n t r i a l guilt phase of capital-murder a p p e l l a n t ' s argument t h a t t h e to the penalty-phase e s p e c i a l l y heinous, issue whether and t o r t u r e d him r e l e v a n t and relating to relevant murder was Furthermore, i n an a t t e m p t t o Because the admissible used a g a i n s t Walker d u r i n g the testimony despite the that Wilson broke i n t o Walker's Walker to r e l i n q u i s h h i s p r o p e r t y . c a u s e d W a l k e r was the a t r o c i o u s , or c r u e l ) ) . h o u s e , a t t a c k e d him, trial number o f wounds was S t a t e ' s t h e o r y o f t h e c a s e was Wilson questioning r e g a r d i n g t h e number o f wounds on t h e m u r d e r v i c t i m ' s during only court's the pain pain force Wilson t o show t h e robbery, Walker Dr. force Enstice's suffered did not constitute error. Moreover, even i f Dr. Enstice's W a l k e r ' s p a i n were i r r e l e v a n t , any harmless. apparently subsequent testimony e r r o r i n i t s admission I t i s well settled that "'[t]estimony inadmissible or prior may be rendered l a w f u l testimony to App. 2010) 5, 2010] So. 3d ( q u o t i n g Yeomans v. 123 State, 641 t h a t may was be innocuous by same e f f e c t the f r o m w h i c h t h e same f a c t s can be i n f e r r e d . ' " [Ms. CR-05-0225, Feb. regarding or G o b b l e v. , So. State, (Ala. Crim. 2d 1269, 1272 CR-07-0684 (Ala. C r i m . App. victim-impact of 1993)). evidence guilt phase a Court Addressing was capital a s i m i l a r i s s u e i n which improperly murder t r i a l , admitted the during Alabama explained: Supreme "We a g r e e w i t h R i e b e r t h a t Mr. C r a i g ' s t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g Ms. C r a i g ' s c h i l d r e n , t h e i r a g e s , and t h e s t a t u s o f t h e i r c u s t o d y a f t e r t h e m u r d e r was not r e l e v a n t w i t h r e s p e c t to the q u e s t i o n of h i s g u i l t or innocence and, therefore, that i t was i n a d m i s s i b l e i n the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l . The o n l y i s s u e b e f o r e the j u r y d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of t h e t r i a l was w h e t h e r R i e b e r had r o b b e d and k i l l e d Ms. C r a i g . However, i n Ex p a r t e Crymes, 630 So. 2d 125 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , a p l u r a l i t y o f t h i s C o u r t h e l d i n a c a p i t a l murder case i n w h i c h the d e f e n d a n t was sentenced to l i f e - i m p r i s o n m e n t without p a r o l e that a j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n can be u p h e l d i f t h e r e c o r d c o n c l u s i v e l y shows t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e v i c t i m impact e v i d e n c e d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e outcome o f t h e t r i a l o r o t h e r w i s e p r e j u d i c e a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of the defendant. See, a l s o , G i l e s v. S t a t e , 632 So. 2d 568 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , a f f ' d , 632 So. 2d 577 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , [512] U.S. [ 1 2 1 3 ] , 114 S. C t . 2694, 129 L. Ed. 2d 825 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; Ex p a r t e P a r k e r , 610 So. 2d 1181 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , [509] U.S. [929], 113 S. C t . 3053, 125 L. Ed. 2d 737 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ; Lawhorn v. S t a t e , [581 So. 2d 1159 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1990), a f f ' d , 581 So. 2d 1179 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ] ; Hooks v. S t a t e , 534 So. 2d 329 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) , a f f ' d , 534 So. 2d 371 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 488 U.S. 1050, 109 S. C t . 883, 102 L. Ed. 2d 1005 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ; and Ex p a r t e W h i s e n h a n t , [555 So. 2d 235 (Ala. 1989)], a p p l y i n g a harmless e r r o r a n a l y s i s i n death p e n a l t y cases. Our r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t R i e b e r ' s a t t o r n e y s d i d n o t o b j e c t t o Mr. Craig's b r i e f r e f e r e n c e s t o Ms. C r a i g ' s c h i l d r e n o r a s k him any q u e s t i o n s on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . The t r i a l c o u r t 124 the CR-07-0684 clearly i n s t r u c t e d the jury that i t had to d e t e r m i n e , b a s e d on a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e , whether R i e b e r had r o b b e d and k i l l e d Ms. C r a i g . The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i t c o u l d n o t f i n d R i e b e r g u i l t y u n l e s s the p r o s e c u t o r had e s t a b l i s h e d h i s g u i l t beyond a reasonable doubt. The j u r y was also i n s t r u c t e d not t o l e t sympathy or p r e j u d i c e a f f e c t its verdict. We caution prosecutors that the i n t r o d u c t i o n of v i c t i m impact evidence d u r i n g the g u i l t p h a s e o f a c a p i t a l m u r d e r t r i a l can r e s u l t i n r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i f the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t probably d i s t r a c t e d the j u r y and kept i t from performing i t s duty of d e t e r m i n i n g the g u i l t or i n n o c e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t b a s e d on t h e a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e and t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w . However, a f t e r e x a m i n i n g t h e r e c o r d i n i t s e n t i r e t y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d p o r t i o n s o f Mr. Craig's testimony, although they should not have been p e r m i t t e d , d i d n o t o p e r a t e t o deny R i e b e r a f a i r trial. I t i s p r e s u m e d t h a t j u r o r s do n o t leave t h e i r common s e n s e a t t h e c o u r t h o u s e d o o r . I t w o u l d e l e v a t e f o r m o v e r s u b s t a n c e f o r us t o h o l d , b a s e d on the r e c o r d b e f o r e us, t h a t R i e b e r d i d not r e c e i v e a f a i r t r i a l s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e j u r o r s were t o l d what t h e y p r o b a b l y had a l r e a d y s u s p e c t e d -- t h a t Ms. C r a i g was not a 'human i s l a n d , ' but a unique individual whose murder had inevitably had a p r o f o u n d i m p a c t on h e r c h i l d r e n , s p o u s e , p a r e n t s , f r i e n d s , or dependents (paraphrasing a p o r t i o n of J u s t i c e S o u t e r ' s o p i n i o n c o n c u r r i n g i n the judgment i n Payne v. T e n n e s s e e , 501 U.S. 808, 838, 111 S. C t . 2597, 2615, 115 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1991))." Ex p a r t e R i e b e r , 663 So. 2d 999, 1005-06 ( A l a . 1995). Here, the S t a t e p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d e v i d e n c e from which the jurors must death. The beaten w i t h have concluded State's that evidence a b a s e b a l l bat, Walker suffered established strangled with 125 that a a painful Walker was computer-mouse CR-07-0684 cord until cord cord. extension that snapped, The and also admitted the attack, Walker that, during others, the following injuries: skull; 2) broken l i g a t u r e marks on From this common s e n s e at ribs; h i s n e c k ; and evidence, the the courthouse in Rieber, the jurors with evidence received, 3) 5) a fractured a contusion among did sternum; on "not d o o r , " must have Id. his thoroughly the 4) lung. leave their known Additionally, like were an that 1) m u l t i p l e f r a c t u r e s t o j u r o r s , who Walker s u f f e r e d a p a i n f u l death. jurors strangled State established eight then that the instructed r e g a r d i n g the S t a t e ' s burden to e s t a b l i s h Wilson's g u i l t . The j u r o r s were a l s o i n s t r u c t e d n o t t o a l l o w s y m p a t h y o r p r e j u d i c e to i n f l u e n c e t h e i r d e c i s i o n . As the Supreme Court stated in Rieber, " [ i ] t would e l e v a t e f o r m o v e r s u b s t a n c e f o r [ t h i s C o u r t ] t o h o l d , b a s e d on the record trial us, that simply because the had a l r e a d y Id. before [Wilson] receive j u r o r s were t o l d what t h e y a fair probably [knew]" -- t h a t W a l k e r s u f f e r e d d u r i n g h i s m u r d e r . B a s e d on t h i s p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d a t t a c k and d i d not injuries instructions, this and the Court circuit holds 126 that evidence r e l a t i n g to court's error, guilt-phase i f any, in the jury the CR-07-0684 a d m i s s i o n o f D r . E n s t i c e ' s t e s t i m o n y was h a r m l e s s r i s e to the l e v e l of p l a i n error. Therefore, t h i s and d i d n o t R u l e 45A, A l a . R. C r i m . P. i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n t o any r e l i e f . XVI. Wilson allowing next Dr. comparisons argues Enstice of Walker's Specifically, State: that the c i r c u i t t o make injuries irrelevant to injuries Wilson c i t e s the following court and erred prejudicial i n other cases. testimony: "Of a l l t h e human b e i n g s y o u have a u t o p s i e s o n , how many human b e i n g s you s e e n l i k e Mr. W a l k e r a n d t h o s e injuries?" done have type Defense: " O b j e c t i o n , Y o u r Honor. This i s a capital murder case, which is i n d i v i d u a l not only t o the defendant i n the case, but a l s o t o the v i c t i m i n the case. I t i s n o t t o be c o m p a r e d w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e ' s i n j u r i e s t h a t she has s e e n . " Court: "Ground -- i s i t 8 o r 1 3 ? " State: "13, I b e l i e v e Court: "Overruled." i t is." State: "You c a n t e l l us, i n your o p i n i o n . " Witness: " I have s e e n a l a r g e number o f c a s e s where some -- a p e r s o n o r a v i c t i m was d e c e a s e d due to multiple different types of injuries, including strangulation, blunt force i n j u r i e s , a l li n the s e t t i n g of 127 by CR-07-0684 d e c o m p o s i t i o n , as w e l l . To p u t a number on i t , d o z e n s and d o z e n s . A g a i n , I d o n ' t know t h a t I c a n c l a r i f y t h a t much b e t t e r f o r you, b u t many, many t i m e s . " State: "Okay. The number o f i n j u r i e s , i n o t h e r w o r d s , t h a t he h a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e o t h e r s , i s t h i s l a r g e r o r s m a l l e r , I g u e s s i s what I'm a s k i n g ? " Witness: "These a r e -- t h i s i s d e f i n i t e l y a v e r y l a r g e number o f i n j u r i e s . And I have seen s e v e r a l o t h e r cases and a c t u a l l y p e r f o r m e d a u t o p s i e s on c a s e s where t h e r e were l a r g e numbers o f i n j u r i e s . And t h i s i s -- Mr. W a l k e r c e r t a i n l y h a d a v e r y l a r g e number o f i n j u r i e s t h a t c a n n o t be a c c o u n t e d f o r b y an a c c i d e n t a l manner o f d e a t h . " (R. 530-31.) B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , W i l s o n a r g u e s t h a t Dr. E n s t i c e ' s t e s t i m o n y was i r r e l e v a n t a n d p r e j u d i c i a l b e c a u s e she f a i l e d t o specify whether Wilson's case purpose on the other cases t o which involved intentional s h e was killings and comparing that the o f t h e t e s t i m o n y was t o d i s t r a c t t h e j u r y b y f o c u s i n g the s e v e r i t y o f t h e a t t a c k and t h e p a i n s u f f e r e d by t h e victim. " ' R e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e ' means e v i d e n c e h a v i n g any t o make t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any f a c t tendency t h a t i s of consequence t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n more p r o b a b l e o r l e s s p r o b a b l e than i t w o u l d be w i t h o u t the evidence." 128 Rule 401, A l a . R. CR-07-0684 Evid. " A l l relevant evidence i s admissible, except as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d by 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 S t a t e s o r t h a t o f t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , by s t a t u t e , by t h e s e by other rules applicable i n the courts of r u l e s , or this Evidence which i s not r e l e v a n t i s not a d m i s s i b l e . " Ala. R. E v i d . "Although State. R u l e 402, r e l e v a n t , e v i d e n c e may be e x c l u d e d i f i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d by t h e d a n g e r of u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e , c o n f u s i o n of the i s s u e s , or misleading t h e j u r y , o r by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f undue d e l a y , w a s t e o f t i m e , or needless Ala. R. p r e s e n t a t i o n of cumulative evidence." R u l e 403, Evid. "'The a d m i s s i o n o r e x c l u s i o n o f e v i d e n c e i s a m a t t e r w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l court.' T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 808 So. 2d 1148, 1191 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) . '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 o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and 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 upon a c l e a r s h o w i n g o f abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e L o g g i n s , 771 So. 2d 1093, 1103 ( A l a . 2000) ." Brown v. S t a t e , 56 So. 3d 729, 735 As d i s c u s s e d ( A l a . C r i m . App. i n Part V I I of t h i s opinion, 2009). the State's t h e o r y o f t h e c a s e was t h a t W i l s o n b r o k e i n t o W a l k e r ' s h o u s e , a t t a c k e d h i m , a n d t o r t u r e d h i m i n an a t t e m p t t o f o r c e W a l k e r to relinquish h i s property. Here, 129 Dr. E n s t i c e ' s testimony CR-07-0684 regarding t h e number o f i n j u r i e s Wilson inflicted was r e l e v a n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e S t a t e ' s t h e o r y . statement to accidentally the police, h i t Walker baseball bat during shoulder and t h a t an Wilson he w r a p p e d Further, i n h i s maintained i n the back attempt on W a l k e r to of that t h e head strike with Walker a computer-mouse he a i n the cord around W a l k e r ' s n e c k , b u t n o t so t i g h t l y t h a t i t w o u l d h u r t Walker. In Wilson's light of the State's statements, the testimony because her testimony by Walker supported Wilson's theory of the case and o f Dr. E n s t i c e was h i g h l y r e l e v a n t as t o t h e number o f i n j u r i e s the State's theory account of Walker's death. sustained and d i r e c t l y refuted Dr. E n s t i c e ' s c o m p a r i s o n t o o t h e r a u t o p s i e s she h a d p e r f o r m e d was a l s o r e l e v a n t b e c a u s e it gave t h e j u r y injuries context f o r h e r a n s w e r a b o u t t h e number o f s u s t a i n e d by Walker. Given the l i b e r a l t e s t a p p l i e d t o determine the relevancy of evidence, abused this Court i t s discretion Therefore, this cannot say that i n allowing the c i r c u i t Dr. E n s t i c e ' s i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n 130 court testimony. to r e l i e f . CR-07-0684 XVII. Wilson next argues that the circuit court erred by a d m i t t i n g c r i m e - s c e n e p h o t o g r a p h s , a u t o p s y p h o t o g r a p h s , and a video of the crime scene. this S p e c i f i c a l l y , Wilson contends evidence served " l i t t l e o r no p u r p o s e that except to arouse t h e p a s s i o n , p r e j u d i c e , o r s y m p a t h y o f t h e j u r y , " and t h a t t h e " t r u e p u r p o s e o f [ t h i s e v i d e n c e ] was t o , s h o c k t h e j u r o r s i n t o v o t i n g f o r a c o n v i c t i o n and d e a t h s e n t e n c e . " at 68-69.) State Wilson f i l e d from admitting prejudicial a motion into photographs. i n l i m i n e to p r e c l u d e the evidence (C. (Wilson's b r i e f , any 188-91.) gruesome The circuit d e n i e d W i l s o n ' s m o t i o n w i t h o u t an e x p l a n a t i o n . Alabama depicting courts have the crime scene r e l e v a n t and a d m i s s i b l e . 1128, 1151 that 319.) photographs are See S t a l l w o r t h v. S t a t e , 868 So. 2001) ( A l a . C r i m . App. have r e p e a t e d l y recognized court and t h e wounds o f t h e v i c t i m s ( A l a . C r i m . App. So. 2d 201, 207 state long (C. and held ( q u o t i n g L a n d v. S t a t e , 1995)) ("The that photographs courts that of 2d 678 this accurately d e p i c t t h e c r i m e s c e n e and t h e n a t u r e o f t h e v i c t i m ' s wounds are admissible cumulative."); despite t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y may Ward v. S t a t e , 814 So. 2d 899, 131 be gruesome o r 906 ( A l a . Crim. CR-07-0684 App. (Ala. 2000) ( q u o t i n g S i e b e r t v. S t a t e , 562 So. 2d 586, 599 C r i m . App. 1989)) ("The same r u l e a p p l i e s t o v i d e o t a p e s [that a p p l i e s to] photographs ...."). So. 2d 380, 393 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , I n B r o o k s v. S t a t e , 973 t h i s Court e x p l a i n e d : " ' G e n e r a l l y , photographs are admissible into evidence i n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n " i f they tend t o p r o v e o r d i s p r o v e some d i s p u t e d o r m a t e r i a l i s s u e , t o i l l u s t r a t e o r e l u c i d a t e some o t h e r r e l e v a n t f a c t or e v i d e n c e , o r t o c o r r o b o r a t e o r d i s p r o v e some o t h e r e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d o r t o be o f f e r e d , a n d t h e i r a d m i s s i o n i s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge."' B a n k h e a d v. S t a t e , 585 So. 2d 97, 109 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , remanded on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 585 So. 2d 112 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f ' d on r e t u r n t o remand, 625 So. 2d 1141 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , r e v ' d , 625 So. 2d 1146 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , q u o t i n g Magwood v. S t a t e , 494 So. 2d 124, 141 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1985), aff'd, 494 So. 2d 154 ( A l a . 1986). ' P h o t o g r a p h i c e x h i b i t s a r e a d m i s s i b l e even though t h e y may be c u m u l a t i v e , d e m o n s t r a t i v e o f u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s , o r gruesome.' W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 506 So. 2d 368, 371 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . In a d d i t i o n , ' p h o t o g r a p h i c e v i d e n c e , i f r e l e v a n t , i s a d m i s s i b l e even i f i t has a tendency t o i n f l a m e t h e minds o f t h e j u r o r s . ' Ex p a r t e S i e b e r t , 555 So. 2d 780, 784 ( A l a . 1989) . 'This c o u r t has h e l d t h a t autopsy photographs, although gruesome, are admissible t o show t h e e x t e n t of a victim's injuries.' F e r g u s o n v . S t a t e , 814 So. 2d 925, 944 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , a f f ' d , 814 So. 2d 970 ( A l a . 2001). '"[A]utopsy photographs depicting the c h a r a c t e r a n d l o c a t i o n o f wounds on a v i c t i m ' s b o d y are admissible even i f they are gruesome, c u m u l a t i v e , o r r e l a t e t o an u n d i s p u t e d m a t t e r . " ' J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 791 So. 2d 979, 1016 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g P e r k i n s v. S t a t e , 808 So. 2d 1041, 1108 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 808 So. 2d 1143 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , j u d g m e n t v a c a t e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 132 CR-07-0684 536 U.S. 953 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , (Ala. 2002)." This Court has on remand t o , 851 So. 2d 453 reviewed the crime-scene photographs, a u t o p s y p h o t o g r a p h s , and t h e c r i m e - s c e n e v i d e o , and h o l d s t h a t t h e y were crime relevant and the photographs and and a d m i s s i b l e extent video of the depicting t o show t h e s c e n e victim's the that Wilson t o r t u r e d Walker during gruesome. of The Walker's the State's theory t h e r o b b e r y and W i l s o n ' s c l a i m t h a t he s t r u c k W a l k e r o n l y once w i t h Further, injuries. extent i n j u r i e s were p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t g i v e n of the the baseball bat. a l t h o u g h u n p l e a s a n t , t h e p h o t o g r a p h s were n o t u n d u l y Therefore, the c i r c u i t court d i d n o t commit e r r o r i n a l l o w i n g t h e p h o t o g r a p h s and v i d e o any t o be a d m i t t e d a t trial. XVIII. W i l s o n next argues t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d by g i v i n g erroneous and Specifically, prejudicial he a r g u e s t h a t penalty-phase the c i r c u i t court instructions. e r r e d b y : a) a l l o w i n g the j u r y to b e l i e v e i t could not consider l e a d i n g the j u r y to b e l i e v e i t could not consider circumstance unless m e r c y ; b) a mitigating t h e e n t i r e j u r y a g r e e d upon t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e ; and c) d i m i n i s h i n g t h e j u r y ' s 133 CR-07-0684 r o l e i n the p e n a l t y phase. the alleged instructions object errors in constituted to these W i l s o n a l s o appears t o argue the circuit cumulative court's error. i n s t r u c t i o n s ; therefore, w i l l be r e v i e w e d f o r p l a i n e r r o r o n l y . that penalty-phase Wilson d i d not these i n s t r u c t i o n s R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. A. Wilson argues t h a t the c i r c u i t court erroneously allowed t h e j u r y t o b e l i e v e i t c o u l d n o t c o n s i d e r m e r c y when i t s t a t e d that the jury prejudice o r any o t h e r This Court, "should argument State, also has been 393, court's ( A l a . Crim. 482 So. 2d 1225, 1235-36 App. 1984) passion, and of passion, (R. 808.) rejected by this i n s t r u c t i o n s on p a s s i o n See V a n p e l t v. v. S t a t e , 473 App. 2005); Whisenhant ( A l a . C r i m . App. So. 2d 1100, 1103 and State, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; B a r b e r v. S t a t e , 450-53 Jefferson influence addressed have been u p h e l d as p r o p e r . 74 So. 3d 32, 93 2d any arbitrary factor." and t h e c i r c u i t prejudice So. avoid 1982); 952 v. see ( A l a . Crim. ( f a i l u r e t o i n s t r u c t j u r y t o a v o i d any i n f l u e n c e o f prejudice f o r new s e n t e n c i n g or other hearing). arbitrary factor required remand W i l s o n has n o t o f f e r e d t h e C o u r t 134 CR-07-0684 any has compelling not reason to r e v i s i t theses cases. shown e r r o n e o u s and that i s not the circuit court's e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f Therefore, instruction on this he was claim. B. Next, Wilson argues that the circuit court l e a d i n g the j u r y to b e l i e v e i t c o u l d not c o n s i d e r factor unless the entire jury agreed W i l s o n does n o t a s s e r t t h a t t h e j u r y was that i t could not consider a circuit court unanimous because jury led the the jury circuit to court a mitigating existence. improperly instructed factor unless the r a t h e r , he a r g u e s that believe failed i t had to to be instruct the otherwise. "As we s t a t e d i n T y s o n v. S t a t e , 784 So. 2d 328 (Ala. C r i m . A p p . ) , a f f ' d , 784 So. 2d 357 (Ala. 2000): "'The a p p e l l a t e courts of t h i s s t a t e have c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d , s i n c e t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n M i l l s [v. M a r y l a n d , 486 U.S. 367 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ] , t h a t as l o n g as t h e r e i s no " r e a s o n a b l e l i k e l i h o o d or p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the j u r o r s b e l i e v e d that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any p a r t i c u l a r m i t i g a t i n g circumstances," there is no error in the trial court's i n s t r u c t i o n on m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. Freeman [v. S t a t e ] , 776 So. 2d [160] a t 195 [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999)]. See a l s o Ex 135 by its mitigating e n t i r e j u r y a g r e e d upon i t s e x i s t e n c e ; the upon erred CR-07-0684 p a r t e M a r t i n , 548 So. 2d 496 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 493 U.S. 970, 110 S. C t . 419, 107 L. Ed. 2d 383 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ; W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 710 So. 2d 1276 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1 9 9 6 ) , a f f ' d , 710 So. 2d 1350 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 524 U.S. 929, 118 S. C t . 2325, 141 L. Ed. 2d 699 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ; Brown v. S t a t e , 686 So. 2d 385 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 5 ) ; R i e b e r v. S t a t e , 663 So. 2d 985 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 4 ) , a f f ' d , 663 So. 2d 999 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 516 U.S. 995, 116 S. C t . 531, 133 L. Ed. 2d 437 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ; H o l l a d a y v. S t a t e , 629 So. 2d 673 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 510 U.S. 1171, 114 S. C t . 1208, 127 L. Ed. 2d 555 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . ' "784 Calhoun So.2d a t 351." v. S t a t e , 932 W i l s o n has So. 2d 923, f a i l e d t o c i t e any argument t h a t t h e c i r c u i t instruct the j u r y mitigation. the c i r c u i t ( A l a . C r i m . App. authority t h a t i t need not be court in finding instructions, stated: to find an aggravating f i n d i t unanimously, beyond A mitigating circumstance f o r you t o c o n s i d e r i t . And m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e has S t a t e by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of 814.) 136 his affirmatively unanimous Moreover, d u r i n g i t s penalty-phase 2005) . to support court i s required to "So in order c i r c u m s t a n c e , you must a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. m e r e l y has t o be r a i s e d t h e -- any d i s p u t e on a t o be d i s p r o v e d by t h e the evidence." (R. 972 CR-07-0684 T h i s Court has r e v i e w e d on mitigating the c i r c u i t circumstances and court's holds that instructions there i s no "reasonable l i k e l i h o o d or p r o b a b i l i t y that the j u r o r s b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e y were r e q u i r e d t o a g r e e u n a n i m o u s l y on t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any p a r t i c u l a r m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " 2d a t 972. court's entitle Therefore, there instructions. Wilson was C a l h o u n , 932 So. no e r r o r Accordingly, i n the this issue circuit does not t o any r e l i e f . C. Finally, diminishing stated: Wilson the j u r y ' s "And generally argues t h a t the c i r c u i t the i n the same role i n the penalty sentencing as c o u r t e r r e d by i n the phase, guilt when i t the procedure phase, s e n t e n c i n g p h a s e i s n o t n e a r as i n v o l v e d . " Taken i n c o n t e x t , t h e c i r c u i t phase except is the (R. 690.) c o u r t was m e r e l y informing the j u r y t h a t the penalty-phase w o u l d n o t be as l e n g t h y as t h e guilt d i d n o t , as W i l s o n phase. diminish This the j u r y ' s responsible than statement role i n a way i t should that made f o r sentencing. suggests, i t feel There was less no e r r o r , p l a i n or otherwise, i n the c i r c u i t court's i n s t r u c t i o n . Therefore, this i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e 137 Wilson t o any r e l i e f . CR-07-0684 D. To t h e e x t e n t W i l s o n circuit court's argues t h a t cumulative instructions require errors i n the reversal, this Court disagrees. "The c o r r e c t r u l e i s t h a t , w h i l e , u n d e r t h e f a c t s o f a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , no s i n g l e e r r o r among m u l t i p l e e r r o r s may be s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l u n d e r R u l e 45, [ A l a . R. App. P . , ] i f t h e accumulated errors have 'probably injuriously a f f e c t e d s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s , ' then the cumulative e f f e c t o f t h e e r r o r s may r e q u i r e reversal." Ex p a r t e J o h n s o n , 820 So. 2d 883, 885 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . Wilson court's has failed to show i n s t r u c t i o n s ; thus, cumulative Therefore, effect this of he any those i n the circuit failed has error t o show that errors require i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n a reversal. t o any r e l i e f . XIX. Wilson sentencing next argues that the him t o death without presentence-investigation report. circuit first court obtaining erred by an a d e q u a t e S p e c i f i c a l l y , Wilson t h a t t h e p r e s e n t e n c e - i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t was o f m i n i m a l argues value because i t d i d n o t r e f e r t o a p r e v i o u s l y completed competency exam o r y o u t h f u l - o f f e n d e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , nor d i d i t contain notes from t h e e v a l u a t o r . 138 CR-07-0684 The record does not show t h a t Wilson objected to the contents of the p r e s e n t e n c e - i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s Court reviews Ala. R. App. Court 689 of h i s argument, W i l s o n 1996), 935 ( A l a . C r i m . App. Guthrie's sentence presentence-investigation took i s s u e w i t h lack of section. and any Rule r e l i e s on 2d So. reversed personal- See 45A, P. In support State, this issue for plain error. the report. l a c k of recent social-history information In G u t h r i e , based on Guthrie i n which an s e c t i o n of the i n Guthrie's this insufficient Specifically, information v. this in Court Guthrie's r e p o r t , and i t s evaluation-of-offender t h i s Court held: "This presentence report's cursory and incomplete treatment of G u t h r i e t r o u b l e s us, because it may have hamstrung the trial court's consideration of the full mosaic of Guthrie's b a c k g r o u n d and c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e f o r e d e t e r m i n i n g t h e proper sentence. As s u c h , t h i s p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t r i s k e d f o i l i n g the purpose of § 13A-5-47(b)[, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] . We f i n d t h a t t h e i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h i s r e p o r t r e q u i r e s a remand f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o reconsider Guthrie's sentence with a sufficient presentence report." 689 So. In 2d a t Jackson 948. v. State, 791 So. 2d 979, 2000), t h i s Court d i s t i n g u i s h e d G u t h r i e , 139 Ala. stating: Crim. App. CR-07-0684 " I n s u p p o r t o f h i s a r g u m e n t , J a c k s o n r e l i e s on G u t h r i e v. S t a t e , 689 So. 2d 935 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1 9 9 6 ) , a f f ' d , 689 So. 2d 951 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 522 U.S. 848, 118 S. C t . 135, 139 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1997), i n which t h i s court reversed Guthrie's s e n t e n c e and remanded t h e c a s e f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t 'to r e c o n s i d e r G u t h r i e ' s s e n t e n c e w i t h a s u f f i c i e n t presentence report.' 689 So. 2d a t 947. ... " "'The purpose of the presentence investigation report is to aid the s e n t e n c i n g judge i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the j u r y ' s a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t i s p r o p e r and i f n o t , what t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e s h o u l d be.' Ex p a r t e H a r t , 612 So. 2d 536, 539 (Ala. 1 9 9 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 508 U.S. 953, 113 S. C t . 2450, 124 L. Ed. 2d 666 (1993). " U n l i k e the c o u r t i n G u t h r i e , the t r i a l c o u r t in t h i s c a s e had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n s i d e r t h e ' f u l l m o s a i c o f [ J a c k s o n ' s ] b a c k g r o u n d and circumstances' before sentencing him. In Guthrie, we were concerned with the cursory presentence report b e c a u s e G u t h r i e had n o t p r e s e n t e d any mitigating evidence d u r i n g the s e n t e n c i n g hearings b e f o r e the j u r y o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t and s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s t r u c t e d h i s a t t o r n e y n o t t o a r g u e any m i t i g a t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e f a c t t h a t h i s r o l e i n t h e c r i m e was as an a c c o m p l i c e ; b e c a u s e G u t h r i e ' s p e r s o n a l and social h i s t o r y c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e p o r t had b e e n t a k e n f r o m an i n t e r v i e w t h a t was c o n d u c t e d a t l e a s t f i v e y e a r s b e f o r e h i s s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g and no a t t e m p t had b e e n made t o u p d a t e t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n ; and b e c a u s e , a l t h o u g h t h e r e p o r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t no p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e p o r t s were a v a i l a b l e , t h e r e c o r d showed t h a t G u t h r i e had been i n c a r c e r a t e d a t T a y l o r H a r d i n Secure M e d i c a l F a c i l i t y i n 1988. 140 CR-07-0684 "Although we agree w i t h Jackson that the presentence report in this c a s e was virtually i d e n t i c a l to the y o u t h f u l o f f e n d e r r e p o r t prepared o v e r a y e a r b e f o r e J a c k s o n ' s t r i a l , and, l i k e t h e r e p o r t i n G u t h r i e , i n d i c a t e d t h a t no p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e p o r t s were on f i l e when, i n f a c t , J a c k s o n had b e e n e v a l u a t e d both at the T a y l o r Hardin Secure M e d i c a l F a c i l i t y a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x months b e f o r e t r i a l and by h i s own e x p e r t o n l y a week b e f o r e t r i a l , we f i n d t h a t t h e d e f i c i e n c y i n t h e r e p o r t i n t h i s c a s e does n o t c a u s e t h e same p r o b l e m as t h e d e f i c i e n c y i n Guthrie. " I n G u t h r i e , t h e c o u r t was f a c e d w i t h s e n t e n c i n g Guthrie without any c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n on his background. Here, however, Jackson presented e x t e n s i v e m i t i g a t i n g evidence about h i s background and c h i l d h o o d , a t b o t h t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e j u r y and b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t . In a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t had b e f o r e i t b o t h Dr. G o f f ' s and Dr. Smith's p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n s containing extensive i n f o r m a t i o n about Jackson's l i f e , his s c h o o l i n g , and h i s m e n t a l h i s t o r y . Finally, the t r i a l court i n d i c a t e d i n i t s sentencing order that it had considered this m i t i g a t i n g evidence in reaching i t s decision. C l e a r l y , the t r i a l court h e r e was n o t ' h a m s t r u n g ' i n t o d e t e r m i n i n g J a c k s o n ' s s e n t e n c e w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f 'the f u l l m o s a i c ' o f J a c k s o n ' s b a c k g r o u n d and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . See, e.g., W i l s o n v. S t a t e , 777 So. 2d 856 ( A l a . C r . App. 1999). Therefore, we find no error, plain or o t h e r w i s e , as t o t h i s c l a i m . " 791 (Ala. So. 2d a t 1033-34. See C r i m . App. C r i m . App. As "the v. S t a t e , 898 2 0 0 1 ) ; J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 820 So. So. 2d 2d 842 790 (Ala. 2000). i n Jackson, full a l s o Lee t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t h e r e was mosaic" of Wilson's b a c k g r o u n d and 141 presented with circumstances. CR-07-0684 During the p e n a l t y phase, Wilson presented testimony m o t h e r , who t e s t i f i e d a t l e n g t h a b o u t W i l s o n ' s from a childhood willingness worker. So. that who testified childhood, about t o a i d h e r i n h e r c a p a c i t y as a 2d evaluated , ( A l a . 2011) adequacy of the in isolation"). complains investigation Wilson's disaster-relief should report (expressly refusing to hold presentence In addition, have b e e n p a r t -- report the reports of the t h e competency-exam should the c i r c u i t appeal. court's file and a r e p a r t (C. 29, 47-53; 1 s t Supp. C. Because Wilson p r e s e n t e d presentence- report and t h e were report, not this referenced Court holds presentence-investigation that report on 18-24.) m i t i g a t i o n testimony i n the part of the record p e n a l t y p h a s e and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t h a d a c c e s s that be that y o u t h f u l - o f f e n d e r - i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t -- w e r e , i n f a c t , of and See Ex p a r t e W a s h i n g t o n , [Ms. 1071607, A p r . 15, 2011] "the Wilson neighbor, from h i s during the to the reports presentence-investigation any inadequacy d i d not in constitute the plain e r r o r . R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P.; S h a r i f i v. S t a t e , 993 So. 2d 907, plain 947-49 error ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2008) i n the incomplete 142 ( c o n c l u d i n g t h e r e was presentence report as "no i tis CR-07-0684 clear that the information"). Wilson circuit court Accordingly, had this access issue to the omitted does not entitle t o any r e l i e f . XX. Wilson denying next his argues that application the for circuit court youthful-offender erred by status. 1 5 S p e c i f i c a l l y , Wilson asserts that the c i r c u i t court "accepted without probation officer's ignored Wilson's assertions independent youthful-offender o f why analysis" investigation, youthful-offender the s t a t u s was conclusory statement that youthful." (Wilson's brief, Wilson's appropriate, crime was and made a "not very a t 76-77.) " I n Duke v. S t a t e , 889 So. 2d 1, 17 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) , we s t a t e d : "'"In determining whether t o t r e a t a d e f e n d a n t as a y o u t h f u l offender, the t r i a l court has nearly absolute discretion. Morgan v. S t a t e , 363 So. 2d 1013 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978); see, a l s o , Ex p a r t e F a r r e l l , 591 So. 2d 444, 449-50, n. 3 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . There i s no s e t method f o r c o n s i d e r i n g a motion requesting such treatment. Edwards v. S t a t e , 294 A l a . 358, 317 So. 2d 512 (1975). However, the 1 5 Wilson was 20 y e a r s o l d a t t h e time of Walker's murder. 143 CR-07-0684 Y o u t h f u l O f f e n d e r A c t , § 15-19-1, A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e court conduct a factual i n v e s t i g a t i on into the defendant's background. Ware v. S t a t e , 432 So. 2d 555 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1983) . G e n e r a l l y , t h e t r i a l court considers the nature of the crime charged, any prior c o n v i c t i o n s , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s age, and any other matters deemed r e l e v a n t by t h e c o u r t . Clemmons v. S t a t e , 294 A l a . 746, 321 So. 2d 238 (1975). Moreover, the t r i a l c o u r t need not a r t i c u l a t e on t h e r e c o r d i t s r e a s o n s f o r denying the defendant youthful offender status. Garrett v. S t a t e , 440 So. 2d 1151, 1152-53 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1983), cert. denied ( A l a . 1983). Accord, G o o l s b y v. S t a t e , 492 So. 2d 635 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . ' " "'Reese v. S t a t e , 677 So. (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . ' 2d 1239, 1240 "'When d e c i d i n g whether to grant youthful offender s t a t u s , i t i s expected t h a t the nature of the crime charged, along w i t h p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s of t h e d e f e n d a n t , w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d , as w e l l as any other matters deemed relevant by the court.' G o o l s b y v. S t a t e , 492 So. 2d 635, 636 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986) . 'The Y o u t h f u l O f f e n d e r A c t v e s t s i n t h e t r i a l judge almost a b s o l u t e d i s c r e t i o n t o g r a n t or deny y o u t h f u l offender status after making an appropriate investigation.' Morgan v. S t a t e , 363 So. 2d 1013, 1015 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 8 ) . " Flowers v. State, 922 So. 2d 938, 2005). 144 944-45 ( A l a . Crim. App. CR-07-0684 Parole O f f i c e r Chris Robertson's youthful-offender report i n c l u d e d t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e o f f e n s e and had b e e n e n g a g e d t o be school, and had had employed. Robertson's opinion that Wilson s h o u l d not At he t h a t he been offender that married, indicated that status i n this the case. (C. youthful-offender Wilson completed It was high Officer receive youthful- 47-53.) hearing, the circuit court stated: " I am g o i n g t o deny y o u t h f u l o f f e n d e r t r e a t m e n t . I t ' s n o t o n l y t h i s a s p e c t o f l i v i n g as an a d u l t , b u t t h e -- you c a n n o t deny y o u t h f u l o f f e n d e r f o r t h e nature of the crime, j u s t because i t ' s c a p i t a l murder. B u t t h e way t h e t h i n g was c a r r i e d o u t and the cold-bloodedness l a t e r -- t h i s g r o u p o f p e o p l e j u s t g o i n g b a c k and s t e a l i n g t h i n g s , j u s t l i k e i t i s r o u t i n e , l e a v i n g t h e man t h e r e j u s t d e a d i n h i s home i s not v e r y y o u t h f u l . T h i s man a c t e d -- he may be l i v i n g as an a d u l t , b u t he s u r e a c t e d as an a d u l t i n the days f o l l o w i n g t h i s crime. So y o u t h f u l o f f e n d e r i s denied." (Supp. R. 6-7.) Based court's on Officer stated Robertson's f i n d i n g s , there is report no and the indication c i r c u i t c o u r t abused i t s broad d i s c r e t i o n i n denying application for Farrell, So. nature 591 of the youthful-offender 2d 444, 449 status. ( A l a . 1991) See circuit that Wilson's Ex parte ("[W]e h o l d t h a t f a c t s i t u a t i o n on w h i c h a c h a r g e i s b a s e d 145 the the may, CR-07-0684 a l o n e , be a s u f f i c i e n t status."). any reason Therefore, t h i s f o r denying youthful offender i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n t o relief. XXI. Wilson next argues t h a t h i s sentence of death must be v a c a t e d i n l i g h t o f R i n g v . A r i z o n a , 536 U.S. 584 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , a n d state and f e d e r a l law. Court of the United He f u r t h e r States's argues decision t h a t t h e Supreme i n Ring invalidated A l a b a m a ' s c a p i t a l - s e n t e n c i n g scheme. In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t any f a c t t h a t i n c r e a s e s t h e maximum p u n i s h m e n t must be p r e s e n t e d t o a j u r y a n d p r o v e n beyond a reasonable d e a t h - p e n a l t y cases Here, the jury doubt. This h o l d i n g was specifically found beyond circumstances penalty. See 1975. made a reasonable o f f e n s e was c o m m i t t e d w h i l e W i l s o n was c o m m i t t i n g t h e o f f e n s e s o f b u r g l a r y and r o b b e r y . A l a . Code to i n R i n g v. A r i z o n a . doubt t h a t t h e c a p i t a l 49(4), extended The Wilson finding eligible Therefore, the requirements a l s o Annot., A p p l i c a t i o n of these to receive o f R i n g were of Apprendi 146 See § 13A-5aggravating the death satisfied. v . New J e r s e y , 530 CR-07-0684 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. A r i z o n a , 536 U.S. to 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 584, 122 S.Ct. ( 2 0 0 0 ) , and R i n g v. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 S t a t e D e a t h P e n a l t y P r o c e e d i n g s , 110 A.L.R. 5 t h Wilson's argument that Ring invalidated c a p i t a l - s e n t e n c i n g scheme i s a l s o w i t h o u t m e r i t . Waldrop, 859 So. 2d 1181 ( A l a . 2002), the 1 (2002) (2003). Alabama's I n Ex p a r t e Alabama Supreme Court h e l d : "[W]hen a d e f e n d a n t i s f o u n d g u i l t y o f a c a p i t a l offense, 'any a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e w h i c h the v e r d i c t c o n v i c t i n g the defendant e s t a b l i s h e s was p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t a t t r i a l s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d as p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t f o r purposes of the s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g . ' A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(e) "Because the j u r y c o n v i c t e d Waldrop of two c o u n t s o f murder d u r i n g a r o b b e r y i n the first degree, a violation of Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(2), the statutory aggravating circumstance of committing a c a p i t a l offense w h i l e e n g a g e d i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a r o b b e r y , A l a . Code 1975, § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 4 ) , was ' p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e doubt.' A l a . Code 1975, § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( e ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-50. O n l y one a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e must e x i s t i n o r d e r t o impose a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h . Ala. Code 1975, § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( f ) . Thus, i n W a l d r o p ' s c a s e , t h e j u r y , and n o t t h e t r i a l j u d g e , d e t e r m i n e d the e x i s t e n c e of the 'aggravating circumstance necessary f o r i m p o s i t i o n of the death p e n a l t y . ' R i n g [v. A r i z o n a ] , 536 U.S. [466,] 609, 122 S. C t . [2348,] 2443 [ ( 2 0 0 2 ) ] . Therefore, the findings reflected i n the jury's verdict alone exposed W a l d r o p t o a r a n g e o f p u n i s h m e n t t h a t had as i t s maximum t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . T h i s i s a l l R i n g and 147 CR-07-0684 Apprendi [v. require." 859 So. 2d at New 1188 Jersey, (footnote 931 Here, So. as determined a 466 The (2000),] Alabama Supreme i n Ex p a r t e W a l d r o p i n Ex parte ( A l a . 2004). the jury, reasonable existed. satisfied. Wilson 770 i n Waldrop, beyond circumstances were 2d 759, U.S. omitted). Court r e a f f i r m e d i t s holding Martin, 530 the doubt Therefore, Accordingly, not the this circuit that aggravating requirements issue court, does not of Ring entitle to r e l i e f . XXII. Wilson next argues failing to give offense of murder. reasonably h i s requested Wilson concluded b u r g l a r y and r o b b e r y . the that the argues the Wilson lesser included theory from the parte that offense court erred lesser-included the jury m u r d e r was could distinct have from the does n o t a s s e r t f r o m w h i c h f a c t s made s u c h a only where there determination. t o a c h a r g e on is a 698 So. 2d 507 So. 2d 580 148 162, 177 (Ala. 1997) ( A l a . C r . App. a reasonable evidence t h a t would support such a State, by the murder d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d Trawick, A n d e r s o n v. circuit charge of j u r y c o u l d have r e a s o n a b l y "A c a p i t a l Ex that charge." (citing 1987)). At CR-07-0684 trial, however, W i l s o n would support a charge evidence failed to present any evidence on n o n c a p i t a l m u r d e r , and t h e d i d not support such a that State's charge. A c c o r d i n g to Wilson's statement, h i s purpose f o r e n t e r i n g W a l k e r ' s h o u s e was t o t a k e W a l k e r ' s l a p t o p , and, once he was i n s i d e , M a r s h t e l e p h o n e d h i m and t o l d W i l s o n t o "see what e l s e he could find." (R. 520.) I t was W a l k e r a r r i v e d home and was t h e p o l i c e t h a t he Walker. "No during this search Wilson m u r d e r e d by W i l s o n . that told l e f t w i t h t h e l a p t o p a f t e r h i s a s s a u l t on reasonable interpretation of the evidence c o n t a i n e d i n the r e c o r d would c o n t r a d i c t [Wilson]'s c o n f e s s i o n and support distinct an from inference the that [ h i s murder burglary]." Trawick, 698 of Walker So. 2d at was 177. A c c o r d i n g l y , the c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d not e r r i n r e f u s i n g to g i v e Wilson's this requested charge of n o n c a p i t a l murder. i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n t o any Therefore, relief. XXIII. Wilson next argues that the circuit court erred by allowing u n q u a l i f i e d expert testimony regarding blood-spatter evidence. Luker "was Specifically, able Wilson to t e s t i f y on 149 asserts such that Investigator matters as low-velocity CR-07-0684 v e r s u s h i g h - v e l o c i t y b l o o d s p l a t t e r [ s i c ] and t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of blood 'pooling,' (Wilson's brief, blood at 'trailing,' and b l o o d droplets." Wilson d i d not object 84.) I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r ' s t e s t i m o n y on t h i s g r o u n d ; t h e r e f o r e , i s s u e w i l l be r e v i e w e d f o r p l a i n e r r o r o n l y . to this R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r gave t h e f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y the presence o f b l o o d regarding a t the scene: State: "Now, could you t e l l t h e l a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n o f t h e j u r y t h e p o s i t i o n Mr. W a l k e r was i n d i d you s e e any s u b s t a n c e s around h i s body?" Witness: "Yes, s i r , I d i d . " State: "What c o l o r ? ... T e l l t h e p a n e l , i f you c o u l d , p l e a s e , ... what c o l o r s u b s t a n c e you saw a r o u n d hii s b o d y . " h s Witness: "Red." State: "Now, d i d y o u s e e a s m a l l amount o r a l a r g e 4- O amount?"II Witness: "A l a r g e State: "Now, d i d y o u i n s p e c t t h e h o u s e l o o k i n g f o r any o t h e r e v i d e n c e ? " Witness: "Yes, State: " C o u l d you make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n i f there were any other areas that had r e d substances d i f f e r e n t i n p o s i t i o n of the amount." sir." 150 CR-07-0684 body he was e x a c t l y i n -- c o n n e c t e d body o r c o m i n g f r o m h i s b o d y ? " to h i s Witness: "Yes, s i r . " State: "How Witness: "Looking State: "What's a b l o o d d r o p l e t ? D e s c r i b e what we are t a l k i n g about. A r e we t a l k i n g a b o u t the s i z e of a pinhead or b i g g e r ? " Witness: "No, s i r . They were b i g g e r . Looking at t h e b l o o d , you know, you can t e l l i f i t ' s a d r o p -- s t r a i g h t down, you have g o t h i g h v e l o c i t y , low v e l o c i t y , b l o o d s p l a t t e r , you know, t h e p o o l s -- t h e p o o l s o f b l o o d where t h e body was where i t s e e p e d o u t o f t h e body f o r m i n g a p o o l . B u t , t h e n , t h e r e were several other b l o o d d r o p l e t s or drops around throughout the house." State: "Okay. T h a t ' s what I want you t o t e l l t h e j u r y . You d e s c r i b e d t h e b l o o d y p o o l o r t h e p o o l o f b l o o d t h a t was coming from h i s b o d y . I n o t h e r w o r d s , were t h e r e b r e a k s i n t h a t , g e n e r a l l y , o r was i t a l l c o n n e c t e d where i t had r u n on e i t h e r s i d e o f h i s skull?" Witness: " T h e r e was b l o o d on e i t h e r s i d e . But, t h e n , t h e r e was o t h e r a r e a s t h a t were n o t c o n n e c t e d t o -- t o t h a t . " State: " T h a t ' s what I want t o a s k you a b o u t . Any d o u b t i n y o u r m i n d , t e l l t h e j u r y -- i n o t h e r w o r d s , i t c o u l d have r u n down t h e r e t o t h e o t h e r a r e a s -- w o u l d you have b e e n able to t e l l i t ? " Witness: "Yes, s i r . " c o u l d you do t h a t ? " a t t h e b l o o d d r o p l e t s -- " 151 CR-07-0684 State: "How c o u l d you tell that?" Witness: "Good going have there pools common s e n s e w o u l d t e l l you i f i t i s t o r u n t h a t way, you a r e g o i n g t o a t r a i l of blood to t h a t spot. I f was a v a c a n t p l a c e i n b e t w e e n t h e of b l o o d , then i t d i d n ' t run." State: "Okay. Now, t e l l t h e l a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n o f t h e j u r y , what o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e h o u s e red do you r e c a l l where you f o u n d any substance, any b l o o d , b e s i d e s where t h e the body was? In o t h e r w o r d s , t h e p o o l by h i s head?" Witness: "Away f r o m t h e body, t h e r e i n t h e k i t c h e n , I g u e s s , ll ii vv ii nn gg room a r e a , w h a t e v e r you up want t o c a l l i t , away f r o m t h e body up t o the w a l l , the corner of the w a l l , there a p o o l of b l o o d there w i t h b l o o d d r o p l e t s t h e r e . A l s o , i n t h e l i v i n g room a r e a , a l l t h e way down t h e l o n g h a l l w a y o f the r e s i d e n c e was b l o o d d r o p l e t s , a l s o . " w a s (R. 262-65.) T h i s C o u r t has held: "In general, blood-spatter analysis is the J process of examining the size, location, and c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f b l o o d s t a i n s a t a c r i m e s c e n e and using the general characteristics of blood to determine t h e d i r e c t i o n , a n g l e , and s p e e d o f t h e b l o o d b e f o r e i t i m p a c t s on a s u r f a c e i n o r d e r t o r e c r e a t e the circumstances of the crime. See generally Danny R. Veilleux, Annotation, A d m i s s i b i l i t y , i n C r i m i n a l P r o s e c u t i o n , of Expert Opinion Evidence as to 'Blood Spatter' I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , 9 A . L . R . 5 t h 369 ( 1 9 9 3 ) , and the cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . Blood-spatter analysis i s 152 CR-07-0684 t y p i c a l l y used t o determine the p o s i t i o n of the v i c t i m and t h e a s s a i l a n t a t t h e time o f a c r i m e . " G a v i n v. S t a t e , 891 So. 2d 907, 969 ( A l a . C r i m . App. Here, I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker s p a t t e r t o determine time analyze Rather, of blood h i s testimony a t t h e scene related from one blood area of the scene to h i s a n d h i s common-sense o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t t h e r e w o u l d be some i n d i c a t i o n flowed the t h e p o s i t i o n s o f Walker and W i l s o n a t t h e of the crime. identification d i d not 2003). to i f b l o o d had another. I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker d i d not o f f e r expert s c i e n t i f i c Thus, testimony, and t h e S t a t e was n o t r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s as an e x p e r t i n b l o o d - s p a t t e r a n a l y s i s . 551 So. 2d 1143, 1146 ( A l a . Crim. See L e o n a r d v. S t a t e , App. 1989) t h a t l a y w i t n e s s e s may i d e n t i f y a s u b s t a n c e 891 (reaffirmance as b l o o d ) ; G a v i n , So. 2d a t 967-70 ( h o l d i n g t h a t i t was n o t e r r o r t o a l l o w lay testimony away f r o m t h a t " t h e b l o o d f l o w coming from the area been s e a t e d i n " ) . of the seat that Accordingly, this t h e body r a n [defendant] would have i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n t o any r e l i e f . XXIV. Wilson next argues that the circuit court erred i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y t h a t i n t e n t i o n a l murder d u r i n g a 153 by second- CR-07-0684 d e g r e e b u r g l a r y was c a p i t a l murder but f a i l i n g t o p r o v i d e j u r y w i t h the elements f o r second-degree b u r g l a r y . to Wilson, the According by i n f o r m i n g t h e j u r y t h a t m u r d e r d u r i n g a s e c o n d - d e g r e e b u r g l a r y c o n s t i t u t e s c a p i t a l m u r d e r and by failing to i n s t r u c t the j u r y on t h e e l e m e n t s o f s e c o n d - d e g r e e b u r g l a r y , the court circuit Because Wilson reviewed did not the holds that State's object for p l a i n error only. T h i s C o u r t has and lowered reviewed Wilson's on burden this issue, R u l e 45A, of proof. i t will A l a . R. App. be P. 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 argument is without merit. circuit court informed the j u r y t h a t Wilson capital m u r d e r f o r an i n t e n t i o n a l murder committed d u r i n g first-degree burglary. law an intentional w o u l d a l s o be instructed murder occurred The murder during during circuit court capital offense jury a that during a second-degree Thereafter, to burglary, charged with Court then noted t h a t under c a p i t a l murder. the was The find Wilson i t must jury of murder d u r i n g follows: 154 court guilty of capital that the murder find on the burglary the c i r c u i t a first-degree burglary. i n s t r u c t e d the a Specifically, the element of a first-degree burglary the the as CR-07-0684 "[T]o convict, the State must p r o v e b e y o n d a reasonable doubt each o f t h e f o l l o w i n g elements. Number one, t h a t Dewey W a l k e r i s d e c e a s e d . Number two, t h a t D a v i d W i l s o n c a u s e d t h e d e a t h o f Dewey Walker by h i t t i n g him w i t h a b a s e b a l l b a t and/or s t r a n g l i n g h i m w i t h t h e mouse c o r d o r t h e e x t e n s i o n cord. Number t h r e e , t h a t i n c o m m i t t i n g t h e a c t s w h i c h c a u s e d t h e d e a t h o f Dewey W a l k e r , t h a t Mr. W i l s o n i n t e n d e d t o k i l l Mr. W a l k e r . A person acts i n t e n t i o n a l l y when i t i s h i s p u r p o s e t o c a u s e t h e d e a t h o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n . The i n t e n t t o k i l l must be r e a l and s p e c i f i c . The f o u r t h e l e m e n t i s t h a t t h e defendant knowingly and u n l a w f u l l y entered or r e m a i n e d u n l a w f u l l y i n t h e d w e l l i n g o f Dewey W a l k e r . And number f i v e , t h a t i n d o i n g s o , t h a t he a c t e d w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o commit a c r i m e , a n d i n t h i s c a s e , t h e c r i m e o f t h e f t . Number s i x , t h a t w h i l e i n t h e dwelling or i n the e f f e c t i n g entry thereto or i n the immediate f l i g h t therefrom, the defendant caused p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o Mr. W a l k e r , a n d t h a t Mr. W a l k e r was n o t a p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e c r i m e . Number s e v e n , t h a t t h e murder took p l a c e d u r i n g t h e b u r g l a r y . I n o t h e r w o r d s , n o t t h a t t h e m u r d e r h a p p e n e d one d a y , and t h e b u r g l a r y h a p p e n e d some t i m e e l s e n e x t week o r v i c e - v e r s a . The m u r d e r t a k e s p l a c e d u r i n g t h e b u r g l a r y o r -- t h e w o r d ' d u r i n g ' e n c o m p a s s e s t h e s u r r o u n d i n g times about t h e b u r g l a r y . " (R. a t 639-40.); see § 13A-7-5, A l a . Code 1975 (defining f i r s t - d e g r e e b u r g l a r y as f o l l o w s : "A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e of b u r g l a r y unlawfully i n the f i r s t enters d e g r e e i f he o r she k n o w i n g l y a n d or remains unlawfully i n a dwelling i n t e n t t o commit a c r i m e t h e r e i n , a n d , i f , i n e f f e c t i n g or while person i n dwelling or another or i n immediate participant 155 flight i n the crime therefrom, ... with entry the [c]auses CR-07-0684 p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o any p e r s o n who i s not a p a r t i c i p a n t i n the crime"). Here, the c i r c u i t c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y t h a t t o Wilson guilty of the burglary, i t had to burglary. Therefore, capital find offense that he of murder committed the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s find during a first-degree f a i l u r e to instruct t h e j u r y on c a p i t a l m u r d e r d u r i n g a s e c o n d - d e g r e e b u r g l a r y d i d not, as W i l s o n argues, l e s s e n the State's burden of proof. B e c a u s e W i l s o n ' s argument t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t the S t a t e ' s burden of proof is without error. 313, R u l e 45A, 320 and the relief not A l a . R. App. record on t h i s rise P.; 2007) to the level of McNabb v. S t a t e , 991 plain So. 2d (holding that a claim that i s i s without appellant to r e l i e f ) . t o any i s r e f u t e d by t h e t r i a l r e c o r d , i t does ( A l a . C r i m . App. r e f u t e d by the merit lessened merit Therefore, and does n o t entitle Wilson i s not entitled issue. XXV. Wilson failing next argues court erred by o f f e n s e o f f e l o n y m u r d e r c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g a r o b b e r y and first- thereby j u r y on circuit lesser burglary, the the every element of the degree to i n s t r u c t that lessening 156 the State's burden of CR-07-0684 proof. 1 6 Wilson d i d not object t o the c i r c u i t court's therefore, this c l a i m w i l l be r e v i e w e d charges; for plain error only. "'When reviewing a trial court's jury i n s t r u c t i o n s , we must v i e w them as a w h o l e , n o t i n b i t s and p i e c e s , and as a r e a s o n a b l e j u r o r would have i n t e r p r e t e d them.' J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 820 So. 2d 842, 874 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000) ( c i t i n g I n g r a m v. S t a t e , 779 So. 2d 1225 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ) . "'A t r i a l c o u r t h a s b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n when f o r m u l a t i n g i t s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s . See W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 611 So. 2d 1119, 1123 ( A l a . C r . App. 1992) . When r e v i e w i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s , "'the c o u r t ' s c h a r g e must be t a k e n a s a w h o l e , a n d t h e p o r t i o n s c h a l l e n g e d a r e n o t t o be i s o l a t e d therefrom or taken out of context, b u t rather considered together.'" S e l f v. S t a t e , 620 So. 2d 110, 113 ( A l a . C r . App. 1992) ( q u o t i n g P o r t e r v. S t a t e , 520 So. 2d 235, 237 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 7 ) ) ; s e e a l s o B e a r d v. S t a t e , 612 So. 2d 1335 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ; A l e x a n d e r v. S t a t e , 601 So. 2d 1130 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . ' " W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 795 So. 2d 753, 780 ( A l a . C r i m . App. -r n n 9 ) . 199 n -A n ^ , ^ "Moreover, "'"In s e t t i n g out the standard f o r p l a i n e r r o r review of jury i n s t r u c t i o n s , the c o u r t i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C h a n d l e r , 996 F.2d 1073, 1085, 1097 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) , c i t e d Boyde v. C a l i f o r n i a , 494 U.S. 3 7 0 , 380, 110 S. C t . 1190, 108 L. E d . 2d 316 W i l s o n does n o t s p e c i f y w h i c h e l e m e n t s he a l l e g e s t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o m i t t e d from i t s charge. 1 6 157 CR-07-0684 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t 'an e r r o r o c c u r s o n l y when t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e likelihood that the jury applied the instruction in an improper manner.' W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 710 So. 2d 1276, 1306 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , a f f ' d , 710 So. 2d 1350 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 524 U.S. 929, 118 S. C t . 2325, 141 L. Ed. 2d 699 (1998)."' " B r o a d n a x v. S t a t e , 825 So. 2d 134, 196 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000) ( q u o t i n g P i l l e y v. S t a t e , 789 So. 2d 870, 882-83 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ) . " Albarran , v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-07-2147, J u l y 29, 2011] ( A l a . C r i m . App. So. 3d 2011). A. A person commits felony murder during the course robbery i f : "He o r she commits o r a t t e m p t s t o commit ... r o b b e r y i n any d e g r e e ... and, i n t h e c o u r s e o f and i n f u r t h e r a n c e o f t h e [ r o b b e r y ] t h a t he o r she i s c o m m i t t i n g o r a t t e m p t i n g t o commit, o r i n i m m e d i a t e f l i g h t t h e r e f r o m , he o r s h e , o r a n o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t i f t h e r e be any, c a u s e s t h e d e a t h o f any p e r s o n . " § 13A-6-2(3), The A l a . Code j u r y was 1975. c h a r g e d as f o l l o w s on f e l o n y m u r d e r : "So I am g o i n g t o g i v e you t h e e l e m e n t s o f f e l o n y m u r d e r . A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f f e l o n y m u r d e r i f he commits o r a t t e m p t s t o commit a b u r g l a r y i n t h e f i r s t o r s e c o n d d e g r e e and he c a u s e s the death of another person. So t o c o n v i c t , t h e S t a t e must p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t -- t o c o n v i c t o f f e l o n y m u r d e r -- must p r o v e b e y o n d a 158 of a CR-07-0684 r e a s o n a b l e doubt each o f t h e f o l l o w i n g elements o f m u r d e r : Number one, t h a t Dewey W a l k e r i s d e c e a s e d . I t i s t h e s e same e l e m e n t s a g a i n , t h a t Mr. W i l s o n caused h i s death by b e a t i n g him w i t h a b a s e b a l l b a t and/or strangling h i m w i t h t h e mouse c o r d o r e x t e n s i o n c o r d , and t h a t , i n c o m m i t t i n g t h a t a c t w h i c h c a u s e d Mr. W a l k e r ' s d e a t h , t h a t Mr. W i l s o n was a c t i n g i n the course of or i n the furtherance of the crime o f b u r g l a r y i n t h e f i r s t degree o r t h e second degree. A n d I have d e s c r i b e d t o y o u a l i t t l e earlier i n a p r e v i o u s charge the elements of b u r g l a r y . Number f o u r , t h a t i n d o i n g t h e a c t s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e d t h e commission of t h e b u r g l a r y , d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f w h i c h t h e d e a t h o f Mr. W a l k e r was c a u s e d , t h a t he so c a u s e d h i s d e a t h . " (R. 641-42.) the elements The c i r c u i t court then i n s t r u c t e d of first-degree t h e j u r y on robbery: "Now, a p e r s o n commits a r o b b e r y i n t h e f i r s t degree i f , i n t h e course o f committing o r a t t e m p t i n g t o commit a t h e f t , he u s e s f o r c e a g a i n s t a p e r s o n o f t h e owner w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o overcome h i s p h y s i c a l resistance or p h y s i c a l power o f r e s i s t a n c e o r t h r e a t e n s t h e imminent use o f f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o f t h e owner w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o c o m p e l acquiescence to the taking or the escaping with the p r o p e r t y , and i n d o i n g so, causes s e r i o u s p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o another." (R. 644.) Transitioning murder, t h e c i r c u i t from i t s instructions on capital court stated: " I am n o t g o i n g t o go o v e r a l l t h o s e same definitions that I d i d before. But they a l l apply the same way, k n o w i n g l y and i n t e n t i o n a l l y and p h y s i c a l i n j u r y a n d d u r i n g a n d a l l o f t h o s e same d e f i n i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e c a p i t a l murder b u r g l a r y a p p l y t o c a p i t a l murder r o b b e r y . 159 CR-07-0684 " A f t e r w e i g h i n g a l l of the evidence i n the case i n r e g a r d t o the c a p i t a l murder d u r i n g the r o b b e r y , i f you a r e n o t c o n v i n c e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t Mr. W i l s o n i s g u i l t y o f t h a t c h a r g e , t h e n you would c o n s i d e r the l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of f e l o n y m u r d e r i n v o l v i n g t h e r o b b e r y . And i f n o t , t h e n t h e l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d offense of j u s t p l a i n robbery." (R. 646.) A l s o , the c i r c u i t c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d the jury: "Now t h e r e ' s a l s o t h e l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e i n t h e r o b b e r y s e r i e s o f f e l o n y m u r d e r . And c o n c e r n i n g t h a t l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d , a p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f f e l o n y m u r d e r i f he commits a r o b b e r y i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e , and w h i l e he i s d o i n g so -- o r d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y , he c a u s e s t h e d e a t h o f any p e r s o n . " (R. 664-65.) When t a k e n as a whole, addressed the elements the circuit court sufficiently o f a f e l o n y murder committed d u r i n g a r o b b e r y , and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t commit e r r o r , p l a i n otherwise, A l a . R. App. t o any in i t s instructions P. on f e l o n y murder. Rule or 45A, 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 W i l s o n relief. B. A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f f i r s t - d e g r e e b u r g l a r y i f : " [ H ] e o r she k n o w i n g l y and u n l a w f u l l y e n t e r s o r remains u n l a w f u l l y i n a d w e l l i n g w i t h i n t e n t to commit a c r i m e t h e r e i n , and, i f , i n e f f e c t i n g e n t r y or while i n dwelling or i n immediate flight therefrom, the person or another p a r t i c i p a n t i n the crime: 160 CR-07-0684 " "(2) C a u s e s p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o any i s not a p a r t i c i p a n t i n the crime who § 13A-7-5-(a), A l a . the j u r y on Code 1975. first-degree The burglary circuit as court person " instructed follows: "A p e r s o n commits a b u r g l a r y i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e i f he knowingly and unlawfully enters or remains u n l a w f u l l y i n a d w e l l i n g , and he does so w i t h the intent to commit a crime therein, and while e f f e c t i n g e n t r y or w h i l e i n the d w e l l i n g or i n the immediate flight therefrom, he causes physical i n j u r y t o a n o t h e r p e r s o n who i s n o t a p a r t i c i p a n t i n the crime. (R. 638.) "Of c o u r s e , I have g i v e n you t h e e l e m e n t s o f burglary i n the e a r l i e r charge. And b u r g l a r y is t h a t a p e r s o n k n o w i n g l y and u n l a w f u l l y e n t e r s o r remains u n l a w f u l l y i n the d w e l l i n g of another f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f c o m m i t t i n g a c r i m e . And t h a t a l l e g e d c r i m e i n t h i s c a s e was t h e f t . And t h e f i r s t d e g r e e , that w h i l e i n the dwelling or e f f e c t i n g entry thereto or immediate f l i g h t therefrom, that he caused p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o a p e r s o n not a p a r t i c i p a n t i n the crime." (R. 642-43.) The i n s t r u c t e d the thus, the record shows t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t j u r y on t h e e l e m e n t s o f f i r s t - d e g r e e circuit court did o t h e r w i s e , i n i t i n s t r u c t i o n s on 45A, A l a . R. W i l s o n t o any properly App. P. not commit 161 plain first-degree burglary. Therefore, t h i s relief. error, burglary; issue does n o t or Rule entitle CR-07-0684 XXVI. Wilson a r g u e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d by ensure a r e l i a b l e r e c o r d of the failing c a p i t a l proceedings. to Wilson p o i n t s t o two p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e c o r d t h a t , he a r g u e s , i n d i c a t e t h a t the " r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e has cast i n s e r i o u s doubt." Wilson first (Wilson's points to the brief, following r e c o r d i n w h i c h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t was i n s t r u c t i n g the j u r y on at ... 89.) portion of d i s c u s s i n g the i s s u e of "Anyway, t h e b o t t o m l i n e i s , what I j u s t mentioned i s , the i s s u e of not i n c l u d i n g t h e m a n s l a u g h t e r . And, [ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] , what s a y s t h e d e f e n s e ? " Defense: "Your Honor, [the prosecutor] and I d i s c u s s e d t h a t i n f r o n t of the Court. Of course, f o r the reasons t h a t I a r t i c u l a t e d t o you i n y o u r o f f i c e , we s t i l l f e e l t h a t manslaughter i s a l e g i t i m a t e charge under the case. And you h e a r d [ t h e p r o s e c u t o r ] g i v e h i s r e a s o n why i t was and why i t was not." (R. 597-98) i n the the court the manslaughter: Court: in been ( e m p h a s i s added.) judge's o f f i c e record. manslaughter. referenced However, i n s t r u c t e d the A t r a n s c r i p t of the as j u r y on (R. 660-61.) above does n o t Wilson the requested, appear to the be circuit lesser-included offense Accordingly, 162 discussion of any e r r o r i n f a i l i n g CR-07-0684 to t r a n s c r i b e a conversation why a beyond manslaughter a doubt. California, Wilson record i n s t r u c t i o n was reasonable Chapman v. also i n w h i c h W i l s o n gave h i s r e a s o n s 386 argues Rule U.S. that warranted 45, 18, the Ala. 24 was R. App. record State: on P. See of the (1967). following portion from c l o s i n g arguments s u g g e s t s a d d i t i o n a l from the harmless omissions appeal: "How much s u f f e r i n g d i d he go t h r o u g h ? How much p a i n , Dr. E n s t i c e , d i d t h i s v i c t i m -¬ d i d he s u f f e r ? " Defense: Court: (R. " J u d g e , I am g o i n g t o o b j e c t again. He i s t a l k i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y a b o u t p a i n , w h i c h i s what he t a l k e d a b o u t b e f o r e . " " I w i l l s u s t a i n the o b j e c t i o n . I objection. t h i n k we a r e g o i n g more i n t o t h e a r e a II we r e f e r r ^e ^d 4-t ^o . " 616)(emphasis record added.) lacks a discussion State's arguing o f f the the Wilson of the argues limits i s s u e of p a i n , t o be because placed d i s c u s s i o n took the on the record. However, W i l s o n ' s o b j e c t i o n the that, relating to pain appears r e f e r to h i s e a r l i e r o b j e c t i o n to the S t a t e ' s r e f e r e n c e closing assertion arguments that the to torture. (R. 614-15.) p a s s a g e above s u g g e s t s t h a t 163 place to during Wilson's a portion of CR-07-0684 t h e r e c o r d i s m i s s i n g i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d . event, his objection circuit Ala. App. R. the matter therefore, court; on any e r r o r was See Chapman v. s u s t a i n e d by harmless. California, 386 the Rule U.S. 45, 18, 24 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 W i l s o n t o (1967). P. was I n any any relief. XXVII. Wilson next argues that the State's evidence was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r m u r d e r made c a p i t a l b e c a u s e i t was committed d u r i n g the course of a robbery. u n d e r l y i n g offense of f i r s t - d e g r e e Wilson's t h e f t of Walker's van. statement Luker, to Investigator r o b b e r y was p r e d i c a t e d on Wilson argues, based that he The entered on h i s Walker's h o u s e t h e day b e f o r e W a l k e r ' s m u r d e r and t o o k t h e k e y s t o t h e van w i t h o u t u s i n g f o r c e a g a i n s t W a l k e r ; the murder, Walker's until i n entering the h o u s e was to steal l a p t o p ; and t h a t he d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o s t e a l t h e t h e f o l l o w i n g day. logical the his intent t h a t on t h e n i g h t o f Thus, W i l s o n a r g u e s , c o n n e c t i o n between Walker's van. 164 m u r d e r and van t h e r e was no the t h e f t of CR-07-0684 "'In sustain all determining the sufficiency a conviction, a reviewing evidence introduced light State, most favorable v. State, accord 471 the 2d sufficiency as t r u e Ballenger ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1998) So. to and c o n s i d e r a l l e v i d e n c e i n 485, 488 1 9 8 4 ) , a f f ' d , 471 So. 2d 493 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . determining evidence the State a l l to the prosecution.'" 720 So. 2d 1033, 1034 Faircloth the c o u r t must a c c e p t by t h e S t a t e , l e g i t i m a t e inferences therefrom, a of of v. (quoting ( A l a . Crim. App. "'The t e s t u s e d i n evidence to sustain a c o n v i c t i o n i s w h e t h e r , v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most favorable to the prosecution, a r a t i o n a l f i n d e r of f a c t have f o u n d t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e Nunn v. S t a t e , 697 So. 2d 497, 498 ( A l a . Crim. could doubt.'" App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g O'Neal v. S t a t e , 602 So. 2d 462, 464 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992)). "'When t h e r e i s legal evidence from which the j u r y c o u l d , by f a i r i n f e r e n c e , f i n d the defendant g u i l t y , t h e t r i a l court should case, this decision.'" App. 1998) submit court [the case] will t o t h e j u r y , and, i n s u c h a not disturb the trial court's F a r r i o r v. S t a t e , 728 So. 2d 691, 696 ( A l a . C r i m . ( q u o t i n g Ward C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) ) . v. S t a t e , 557 So. 2d 848, 850 ( A l a . "The r o l e of a p p e l l a t e courts s a y what t h e f a c t s a r e . Our r o l e 165 i s not t o ... i s t o j u d g e w h e t h e r t h e CR-07-0684 e v i d e n c e i s l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w s u b m i s s i o n o f an i s s u e for decision 1040, 1042 [by] t h e j u r y . " Ex p a r t e B a n k s t o n , 358 So. 2d ( A l a . 1978). Further, " ' " [ i ] n t e n t , ... b e i n g a s t a t e o r c o n d i t i o n of the mind, is rarely, i f ever, s u s c e p t i b l e of d i r e c t or p o s i t i v e p r o o f , and must u s u a l l y be i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e f a c t s testified to by witnesses and the circumstances as developed by the evidence." M c C o r d v. S t a t e , 501 So. 2d 520, 528-529 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 6 ) , q u o t i n g Pumphrey v. S t a t e , 156 A l a . 103, 47 So. 156 (1908).' " F r e n c h v. S t a t e , 687 So. 2d 202, 204 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , a f f ' d i n p a r t , r e v ' d i n p a r t on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 687 So. 2d 205 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . "'"The q u e s t i o n o f i n t e n t i s h a r d l y e v e r capable of d i r e c t p r o o f . Such q u e s t i o n s are n o r m a l l y q u e s t i o n s f o r the jury. McMurphy v. S t a t e , 455 So. 2d 924 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 4 ) ; C r a i g v. S t a t e , 410 So. 2d 449 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1981), cert. d e n i e d , 410 So. 2d 449 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . " L o p e r v. S t a t e , 469 So. 2d 707, 710 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 5 ) . ' "Oryang v. S t a t e , App. 1 9 9 4 ) . " 642 So. Renney v. S t a t e , 53 So. 3d 981, 2d 988 989, 994 ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a . C r i m . App. S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 8 - 4 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, 2010). provides: "A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f r o b b e r y i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e i f he v i o l a t e s S e c t i o n 13A-8-43 and he: 166 CR-07-0684 "(1) I s armed w i t h a d e a d l y weapon o r dangerous i n s t r u m e n t ; or "(2) C a u s e s s e r i o u s p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o another." S e c t i o n 13A-8-43(a), A l a . Code 1975, provides: "A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f r o b b e r y i n t h e degree i f i n the course of committing a t h e f t third he: "(1) Uses f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o f t h e owner o r any p e r s o n p r e s e n t w i t h i n t e n t t o overcome h i s p h y s i c a l r e s i s t a n c e o r p h y s i c a l power o f r e s i s t a n c e ; o r "(2) T h r e a t e n s t h e i m m i n e n t use o f f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o f t h e owner o r any p e r s o n p r e s e n t w i t h i n t e n t t o compel a c q u i e s c e n c e t o the t a k i n g of or escaping w i t h the p r o p e r t y . " Here, could the have State presented found beyond during a an evidence reasonable murdered Walker Although Wilson Walker's l a p t o p on t h e n i g h t o f W a l k e r ' s did state attempt to t h a t i t was the van" and about "going over him out and statements, t h a t he t h e r e and taking the a l t h o u g h t h e van jury may the and c o u l d have doubt take Wilson Walker's murder to van. steal (C. 5 2 0 ) , had W a l k e r and 516-17.) reasonably he and talked knocking From these inferred that, n o t have b e e n t a k e n t h e e v e n i n g 167 jury going over t h e r e Mr. (C. the that h i s codefendants hitting keys." which his intent a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e " o r i g i n a l p l a n was taking from Walker CR-07-0684 was m u r d e r e d , W i l s o n was when he m u r d e r e d a t t e m p t i n g t o rob Walker o f h i s van Walker. W i l s o n r e l i e s on h i s s t a t e m e n t t h a t he d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o s t e a l t h e van u n t i l t h e day a f t e r W a l k e r was m u r d e r e d and implication was during the misplaced, elements from t h a t statement course though, of a because o f r o b b e r y t o be t h a t Walker robbery. a not murdered Wilson's t h e f t need not the reliance occur for is the satisfied. " ' [ R ] o b b e r y ... i s a c r i m e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n ; i t does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t a t h e f t be a c c o m p l i s h e d f o r t h e e l e m e n t s o f r o b b e r y t o be e s t a b l i s h e d . ' Ex p a r t e V e r z o n e , 868 So. 2d 399, 402 ( A l a . 2003) . ' P r o o f o f an a c t u a l t a k i n g o f p r o p e r t y i s n o t required to s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n f o r robbery.' C r a i g v. S t a t e , 893 So. 2d 1250, 1256 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2004). '"[T]he former crime of attempted r o b b e r y now c o n s t i t u t e s r o b b e r y . " ' C a s e y v. S t a t e , 925 So. 2d 1005, 1006 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005) ( q u o t i n g P e t t y v. S t a t e , 414 So. 2d 182, 183 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 2 ) ) . " E v a n s v. , State, [Ms. CR-09-1806, S e p t . ( A l a . C r i m . App. Accordingly, the 30, 2011] So. 3d 2011). State's evidence was sufficient to s u s t a i n W i l s o n ' s c o n v i c t i o n f o r m u r d e r made c a p i t a l b e c a u s e i t occurred during the commission of a robbery. i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n t o any 168 relief. Therefore, t h i s CR-07-0684 XXVIII. Wilson allowing table the t r i a l . the c i r c u i t court erred determination, and p r e j u d i c e . Court w i l l by to s i t at the prosecution's Specifically, sentencing v i c t i m ' s presence Ala. that Wilson contends the o f the v i c t i m ' s b r o t h e r denied him a f a i r reliable passion argues the victim's brother during presence a next Wilson made i . e . , one no t r i a l and free objection from to the at the prosecution's table; therefore, t h i s review t h i s claim f o r plain error. See R u l e 45A, R. App. P. "At t h e r e q u e s t o f a p a r t y t h e c o u r t may o r d e r excluded so t h a t they cannot hear the testimony witnesses of w i t n e s s e s a n d i t may make t h e o r d e r o f i t s own m o t i o n . " other Rule 615, A l a . R. E v i d . T h i s r u l e , h o w e v e r , does n o t a u t h o r i z e t h e exclusion victim of "a of a criminal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a v i c t i m who i s u n a b l e offense t o a t t e n d , when t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e has been s e l e c t e d by t h e v i c t i m , guardian, or the the victim's or the v i c t i m ' s family." I d . Walker's representative. brother was present as the victim's See § 15-14-56, A l a . Code 1975 ( g r o u n d s f o r p e r m i t t i n g a v i c t i m ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o a t t e n d a r e : death of 169 CR-07-0684 the victim; disability; mental, or emotional hardship; incapacity; c o n d i t i o n ; age; physical, or other i n a b i l i t y ) . "In A l a b a m a , a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a v i c t i m has a s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o sit at counsel 1210 table." ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1975. this The 1 9 9 6 ) ; §§ v. State, 678 So. 2d See ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1197, 15-14-53, 15-14-56, A l a . Code f a c t t h a t W a l k e r ' s b r o t h e r t e s t i f i e d does n o t statutory right. 633-34 Grimsley J o h n s o n v. 1994) State, (holding 648 i t was So. not alter 2d 629, error to a l l o w v i c t i m ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e to t e s t i f y , d e s p i t e her presence at the less prosecution's plain brother error, table). for the Thus, circuit court to s i t at the p r o s e c u t i o n ' s i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e Wilson i t was to table. t o any not e r r o r , much allow Walker's Accordingly, this relief. XXIX. Wilson next argues that the circuit court a l l o w i n g the S t a t e to i n t r o d u c e u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d evidence of Wilson's motive. the circuit testify about hidden panel jewelry. court's his above Wilson Specifically, d e c i s i o n to allow discovery the of fireplace, suitcases, that by and i r r e l e v a n t Wilson r e f e r s to I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker found contained a r g u e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was 170 erred behind coins speculative, to a and and CR-07-0684 that i t was Wilson was highly aware prejudicial of and Because W i l s o n d i d not will be App. reviewed was searching object for plain because to t h i s error i t suggested for the suitcases. testimony, only. this 45A, issue P. 1 7 Rule that Ala. " ' R e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e ' means e v i d e n c e h a v i n g any t o make t h e existence o f any fact that i s of R. tendency consequence to the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n more p r o b a b l e o r l e s s p r o b a b l e than without i t w o u l d be Evid. " A l l relevant the evidence." evidence is Rule 401, R. except admissible, Ala. as otherwise provided by 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 S t a t e s or t h a t of the o f A l a b a m a , by or by other State rules applicable in s t a t u t e , by the courts these r u l e s , of this Evidence which i s not r e l e v a n t i s not a d m i s s i b l e . " A l a . R. E v i d . i t s probative " A l t h o u g h r e l e v a n t , e v i d e n c e may value of u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e , Rule of the issues, 402, be e x c l u d e d i f i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d by t h e confusion State. or danger misleading A l t h o u g h W i l s o n a s s e r t s i n h i s b r i e f t h a t he o b j e c t e d t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h i s e v i d e n c e , t h e r e c o r d does n o t s u p p o r t his contention. I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker t e s t i f i e d about h i s d i s c o v e r y of the s u i t c a s e s w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n . (R. 270-71.) W i l s o n ' s o b j e c t i o n was t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f p h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e c o i n s and j e w e l r y , w h i c h were o f f e r e d l a t e r a t t r i a l by t h e State. 1 7 171 CR-07-0684 t h e j u r y , o r by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s or n e e d l e s s p r e s e n t a t i o n Ala. of R. Evid. evidence value is The of c u m u l a t i v e e v i d e n c e . " determination vested on in the that trial issue c l e a r abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . 3d C r i m . App. 632, State, 638 717 2010) Although 2d 30, Wilson suitcases, discovery motive. Walker value the court's disturbed State, 72 So. absent 3d 50, 37 did 2009), q u o t i n g ( A l a . C r i m . App. not admit to suitcases was Walker's son, being effort testimony probative that he had 90 v. 1997)). aware of c o i n s or to p u t t i n g h o l e s Luker's a So. i n t u r n Hayes to locate regarding of the previously the i n the issue W i l s o n ' s s t a t e m e n t t o p o l i c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t he and 403, i t s prejudicial and be o f W a l k e r ' s h o u s e i n an the Rule ( q u o t i n g K i l l i n g s w o r t h v. S t a t e , 33 Investigator of not D o s t e r v. s u i t c a s e s f u l l o f j e w e l r y and interior walls by court, will ( A l a . C r i m . App. So. time, whether the p r o b a t i v e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed determination (Ala. o f undue d e l a y , w a s t e o f the his of knew visited W a l k e r ' s h o u s e , t h a t he had s e a r c h e d W a l k e r ' s home i m m e d i a t e l y before multiple the murder, rooms w i t h and that he a screwdriver. had forced From t h i s his evidence, j u r y c o u l d have r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r r e d t h a t W i l s o n was 172 way into the familiar CR-07-0684 with Walker's intent, and h i s valuables at l e a s t i n part, to enter valuables, coins. home probative that i t was his W a l k e r ' s h o u s e and l o c a t e i n c l u d i n g the s u i t c a s e s Accordingly, and filled with jewelry and I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r ' s t e s t i m o n y was h i g h l y o f W i l s o n ' s m o t i v e t o commit t h e c r i m e o f b u r g l a r y . Further, although I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker's testimony regarding h i s discovery evidence o f t h e s u i t c a s e s was against a defendant, indeed p r e j u d i c i a l , i t sprejudicial s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweigh the probative R u l e 403, A l a . R. Because discovery value d i d not i n t h i s case. See Evid. Investigator of value as i s a l l the Luker's suitcases testimony i n the wall regarding was the relevant W i l s o n ' s m o t i v e , no e r r o r , much l e s s p l a i n e r r o r , o c c u r r e d its admission. Rule 45A, A l a . R. App. i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n t o any P. Therefore, to by this relief. XXX. Wilson allowing next argues the State and that the i t s witness to the circuit t o make court erred by i r r e l e v a n t and prejudicial references confessions. W i l s o n a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s comments v i o l a t e d 173 codefendants and their CR-07-0684 his right to a fair and h i s r i g h t trial, to a reliable In g e n e r a l , h i s right sentencing 2d 964 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 4 ) , witnesses, determination. c o m m e n t i n g on a c o d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n f e s s i o n h a s b e e n h e l d t o be e r r o r . So. to confront conviction or I n S t o k e s v. S t a t e , 462 t h i s Court stated: "A s u r v e y o f t h e A l a b a m a c a s e s on t h i s p o i n t reveals that disclosure o f t h e outcome of a c o - d e f e n d a n t ' s case has been denounced whether i t o c c u r r e d i n a r g u m e n t , s e e K n o w l e s v. S t a t e , 44 A l a . App. 163, 204 So. 2d 506 (1967) (Prosecutor's statement t h a t other defendants had a l r e a d y p l e d g u i l t y ) ; B e l l v. S t a t e , 41 A l a . App. 5 6 1 , 140 So. 2d 295 (1962) ( P r o s e c u t o r ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t c o - d e f e n d a n t h a d c o n f e s s e d ) ; L o w e r y v. S t a t e , 21 A l a . App. 352, 108 So. 351 (1926) ( D i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y ' s comment t h a t one p e r s o n h a d a l r e a d y b e e n c o n v i c t e d ) ; F e l d e r v . State, 20 A l a . App. 603, 104 So. 444 (1925) (Prosecutor's comment t h a t , 'The o t h e r man h a d p l e a d e d g u i l t y ' ) , i n t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f , see W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 369 So. 2d 910 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1979) ( S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s a s k e d w h e t h e r he t e s t i f i e d i n c a s e when c o - d e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d ) ; Lane v. S t a t e , 40 A l a . App. 174, 109 So. 2d 758 (1959) (State asked co-indictee t h e outcome of h i s p r o s e c u t i o n ) ; E v a n s v. S t a t e , 39 A l a . App. 498, 105 So. 2d 831 (1958) (District attorney asked a c c o m p l i c e w h e t h e r he was g u i l t y o f same o f f e n s e w i t h w h i c h d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d ) , o r d u r i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n s e , s e e D i c k e n s v. S t a t e , 49 A l a . App. 480, 273 So. 2d 240 (1973) (Defendant questioned, on cross-examination, about c o - d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t y p l e a ) ; McGhee v. S t a t e , 41 A l a . App. 669, 149 So. 2d 1 (1962) ( D e f e n d a n t s o u g h t to present evidence of co-defendant's acquittal); H i l l v. S t a t e , 210 A l a . 2 2 1 , 97 So. 639 (1923) ( D e f e n d a n t c l a i m e d h i s own p r o s e c u t i o n s h o u l d be b a r r e d by a c c o m p l i c e ' s a c q u i t t a l ) . 174 CR-07-0684 "In a l l o f t h e Alabama cases c i t e d above, t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t s have d i s a p p r o v e d o f r e f e r e n c e t o the d i s p o s i t i o n of a co-defendant's c a s e on t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e outcome o f a n o t h e r ' s p r o s e c u t i o n i s simply i r r e l e v a n t t o the g u i l t or innocence of the d e f e n d a n t a n d may n o t be r e c e i v e d as s u b s t a n t i v e evidence at defendant's t r i a l . See, e . g . , H i l l v . S t a t e , 210 A l a . 2 2 1 , 97 So. 639 ( 1 9 2 3 ) . " 462 So. 2d a t 966-67. of The r e f e r e n c e s t o W i l s o n ' s w h i c h he c o m p l a i n s w i l l be a d d r e s s e d codefendants i n turn. A. Wilson f i r s t complains State during voir dire. o f s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s posed by t h e Wilson d i d not object to the q u e s t i o n s ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e s e q u e s t i o n s w i l l be e v a l u a t e d u n d e r a plain-error State: standard. "What I want t o make s u r e -- a n d I c a n ' t r e a d y o u r m i n d s , b u t y o u r h e a r t a n d s o u l -¬ by l o o k i n g a t you r i g h t now, p r o s p e c t i v e members o f t h e j u r y , do y o u t h i n k t h a t b e c a u s e D a v i d W i l s o n was 20 y e a r s o l d -¬ j u s t b e c a u s e o f h i s age, t h a t g i v e s h i m t h e r i g h t and o t h e r a l l e g e d co-defendants t o a l l e g e d l y commit c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s , r o b a n d b u r g l a r i z e a n d k i l l a 6 4 - y e a r - o l d man?" (R. 70.) State: "Now, I want t o c a l l o u t some o t h e r names r e a l q u i c k l y , i f you know t h e s e p e o p l e . These are alleged co-defendants also charged w i t h David Wilson. I e x p e c t Mr. D a v i d W i l s o n -- I w i l l g i v e you an a d d r e s s -- h a d l i v e d a t ... i n D o t h a n , A l a b a m a . T h a t i s t h e a d d r e s s where t h e y l i v e d . That 175 CR-07-0684 may j o g y o u r memory. I b e l i e v e he i s a b o u t f i v e - e l e v e n , 178 p o u n d s . Of c o u r s e , you see h i m h e r e a t t h e t a b l e . "Matthew M a r s h , one of the other co-defendants that was arrested and charged? Does anybody know M a t t h e w Lee M a r s h , who l i v e d a t ... , D o t h a n , A l a b a m a . And I b e l i e v e Mr. M a r s h h a d a b l u e -- l i g h t g r e e n , w h a t e v e r , Geo v e h i c l e t h a t he d r o v e a r o u n d w i t h a h a n d i c a p p e d t a g . Does t h a t j o g y o u r memory? I an a s k i n g you a b o u t t h e defendants. Or i f you know t h e i r p a r e n t s ? T h a t ' s one o f t h o s e h a r d q u e s t i o n s . You know, you d i d n ' t a s k me a b o u t h i s p a r e n t s . I know t h e p a r e n t s . I am s t a n d i n g up h e r e i n t h e open c o u r t r o o m . I am g i v i n g you t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' names. And i f you know them o r I g i v e you t h e a d d r e s s e s , you a r e g o i n g t o know who t h e p a r e n t s a r e , i f you know them i s what I'm a s k i n g . Okay. So I w o u l d l i k e t o know t h a t . I b e l i e v e Mr. M a r s h was five-ten, 240." "(Whereupon, venire.) State: no response from the jury "Catherine Nicole 'Kitty' Corley l i v e d at 1008 S o u t h B e l l S t r e e t . A n y b o d y know h e r ? Does t h a t r i n g a b e l l i n any manner o r fashion?" "(Whereupon, venire.) State: t h e r e was t h e r e was no response from the jury " M i c h a e l Ray Jackson, ... , Dothan, A l a b a m a . Anybody know M i c h a e l J a c k s o n ? I b e l i e v e Mr. J a c k s o n a l s o w o r k e d f o r t h e C i t y o f Dothan. S p e c i f i c a l l y , had a j o b working w i t h the l e i s u r e s e r v i c e s . He may be i n v o l v e d i n any a c t i v i t i e s o r w i t h 176 CR-07-0684 children Jackson?" (R. -- does anybody know Michael 1 8 87-89.) The foregoing questions comments on the codefendants. determine to the jury convictions Instead, whether or they any v e n i r e were confessions were potential questions jurors of Wilson's designed knew F o r t h e p u r p o s e o f o b t a i n i n g an i m p a r t i a l both certainly venire their are e n t i t l e d as t o w h e t h e r i t s members families. to question any jury, the know t h e c o d e f e n d a n t s jury or Thus, i t was n o t e r r o r , p l a i n o r o t h e r w i s e , for the c i r c u i t court to allow the questions. R. App. P. to Wilson's codefendants. parties not Therefore, t h i s R u l e 45A, A l a . i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n t o relief. B. Wilson next argues that the following the S t a t e and I n v e s t i g a t o r Luker exchange between c o n s t i t u t e d a comment on a codefendant's c o n f e s s i o n : State: 1 8 "So t h e v a n h a d been r e c o v e r e d a l r e a d y ? " S t r e e t a d d r e s s e s have been o m i t t e d . 177 CR-07-0684 Witness: " Y e s , s i r . When we i n t e r v i e w e d Mr. W i l s o n , i t had been r e c o v e r e d . We h a d t a l k e d t o Matthew Marsh and " State: "Not what Marsh?" Witness: "We t a l k e d t o M a r s h a n d t h e n was a b l e t o recover the van." (R. 281-82.) Investigator At most, Luker's he said, b u t d i d you t a l k the inference t o be to drawn from answer was t h a t M a r s h h a d k n o w l e d g e o f the whereabouts o f Walker's van. I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r ' s answer d i d n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t M a r s h h a d made a c o n f e s s i o n . Moreover, f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t M a r s h knew t h e w h e r e a b o u t s o f t h e v a n , i t c o u l d have r e a s o n a b l y b e e n i n f e r r e d t h a t t h e v a n was r e c o v e r e d from h i s p r o p e r t y . Crim. App. McNabb v. S t a t e , 887 So. 2d 929, 971 ( A l a . 2001) (holding that "testimony that may be i n a d m i s s i b l e may be r e n d e r e d h a r m l e s s b y p r i o r o r s u b s e q u e n t lawful facts testimony t o t h e same e f f e c t o r f r o m w h i c h c a n be i n f e r r e d " ) . Therefore, W i l s o n h a s n o t met h i s burden t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t p l a i n e r r o r occurred e n t i t l e d t o a n y r e l i e f on t h i s i s s u e . P. 178 t h e same and thus i s n o t R u l e 45A, A l a . R. C r i m . CR-07-0684 C. Wilson next argues that the following e x p l a n a t i o n from I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r as t o why he d i d n o t s u b m i t e v i d e n c e from the that c r i m e s c e n e f o r DNA t e s t i n g was a comment i n d i c a t i n g Wilson's codefendants had c o n f e s s e d : W i t n e s s : "We h a d Mr. W i l s o n ' s c o n f e s s i o n , as w e l l as the o t h e r c o - d e f e n d a n t s s a y i n g t h e same t h i n g t h a t Mr. W i l s o n " Defense: "Objection, to relevance." Court: "Sustained as to defendants s a i d . " what the co- (R. 295.) W i l s o n appears t o argue t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s u s t a i n e d h i s o b j e c t i o n , the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o give a curative instruction. curative instruction; for p l a i n error only. Assuming Wilson therefore, this d i d not request a i s s u e w i l l be r e v i e w e d R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. the c i r c u i t court erred by f a i l i n g to give a c u r a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n , any e r r o r was h a r m l e s s a n d t h u s d i d n o t rise to the l e v e l of p l a i n error. R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. H e r e , I n v e s t i g a t o r L u k e r made an i s o l a t e d r e m a r k a n d d i d n o t go into Giving any o f t h e d e t a i l s a curative of the codefendant's instruction statements. regarding the f l e e t i n g 179 remark CR-07-0684 may have Further, drawn more Wilson, himself, W a l k e r ' s m u r d e r , and house. that Under t h e the parte egregious court's ... 972 that 2d the 737, was the remark. found i n Wilson's case, t h i s failure affected So. to confessed to h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Walker's property aversely Walker, attention f a c t s of t h i s circuit instruction unwanted to give outcome 752 Court cannot (Ala. of a curative the 2007), [it] seriously affect[ed] trial, or the was P r i c e , 725 So. Consequently, 2d the 1063, 1071-72 circuit court's error, i f any, r e l i e f on this P. Therefore, Ex in Investigator L u k e r ' s remark d i d not r i s e t o the l e v e l of p l a i n e r r o r . A l a . R. App. "so ( A l a . 1998). f a i l i n g to give a c u r a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n regarding 45A, Ex fairness, i n t e g r i t y or p u b l i c r e p u t a t i o n of j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s . " parte say Rule W i l s o n i s not e n t i t l e d t o any issue. D. Wilson the also timing when c o n s t i t u t e d an State: argues that Jackson's the State's statement i m p r o p e r comment on question was Jackson's given regarding to police confession: "One o t h e r r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t q u e s t i o n . Let me show you i n my book -- f l i p o v e r t o a s t a t e m e n t t h a t was t a k e n f r o m M i c h a e l Ray Jackson. I ' l l show you my c o p y . " 180 CR-07-0684 Defense: "Your honor, relevance." I am g o i n g t o o b j e c t t o Court: "We State: "That's the l a s t q u e s t i o n I w i l l ask, Judge." Court: " F o r what i t ' s w o r t h . " are f u s s i n g over the times. State: Witness: " A p r i l t h e 1 4 t h , 2004." State: "Now, i n t h e u p p e r l e f t - h a n d c o r n e r , t h i s huge f i l e , c o m p u t e r g e n e r a t e d , what does i t show t h e d a t e a n d t h e t i m e t h i s was r u n ? " Witness: (R. "My q u e s t i o n t o y o u , t h e s t a t e m e n t t a k e n f r o m M i c h a e l Ray J a c k s o n , what was t h e time? The t i m e i t was t a k e n f r o m M i c h a e l Ray J a c k s o n , what was t h e d a t e a n d t i m e ? " 3/02/06 a t 1:13." 417.) Assuming, w i t h o u t d e c i d i n g , evidence establishing without divulging does not 386 U.S. a a reversal of (1967). error made a statement, Wilson's R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P.; 18, 24 i t was codefendant the content of that warrant sentences. that that to admit statement that error convictions and Chapman v. C a l i f o r n i a , As t h e r e c o r d makes c l e a r , the S t a t e nor i t s witness r e f e r r e d t o Jackson's neither statement as a c o n f e s s i o n . I n s t e a d , t h e q u e s t i o n and answer, w i t h o u t g o i n g into the content of that statement, 181 merely showed t h a t t h e CR-07-0684 police took Jackson Further, a statement made statement Jackson. to police The mere i n Walker's a t W i l s o n ' s house. 0225, F e b . 5, 2010] that confessed to h i s murder, and Walker's C f . Gobble So. 3d fact i s not incriminating. as s t a t e d a b o v e , W i l s o n , h i m s e l f , participation found a from p r o p e r t y was v. S t a t e , , [Ms. CR-05- ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e e r r o n e o u s a d m i s s i o n o f comments r e l a t i n g t o a codefendant's testified case, statement t o t h o s e same f a c t s ) . this Court holds testimony t o the e f f e c t was h a r m l e s s . to any was h a r m l e s s any e r r o r Rule the defendant on t h e f a c t s i n this i n the admission of that a codefendant Therefore, this relief. California, that Based when made a s t a t e m e n t i s s u e does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n 45, A l a . R. App. P.; Chapman v. 386 U.S. 18, 24 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . XXXI. W i l s o n next argues t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n double c o u n t i n g r o b b e r y a n d b u r g l a r y as b o t h e l e m e n t of the c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s a n d as a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e of the t r i a l . 1 9 Specifically, Wilson argues that, because T h i s Court has p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e o f double counting i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p e r m i s s i b l e . Brown v. S t a t e , 11 So. 3d 866 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . 1 9 182 CR-07-0684 robbery and b u r g l a r y were used as elements of the capital o f f e n s e s i n t h e g u i l t p h a s e and aggravating circumstances t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e , t h e S t a t e has f a i l e d to narrow the c l a s s of cases eligible Georgia, 428 f o r the U.S. In Vanpelt v. 2009), t h i s Court 153 death penalty. See, e.g., in Gregg v. (1976). S t a t e , 74 So. 3d 32, 89 ( A l a . Crim. r e j e c t e d a c h a l l e n g e to double counting follows: " C o n t r a r y t o V a n p e l t ' s a s s e r t i o n s , t h e r e i s no constitutional or statutory prohibition against d o u b l e c o u n t i n g c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s as b o t h an element of the offense and an aggravating circumstance. See § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975 ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t 'any a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e w h i c h t h e v e r d i c t c o n v i c t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t e s t a b l i s h e s was p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t a t t r i a l s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d as p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t f o r purposes of the sentence h e a r i n g ' ) . The United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , and t h i s c o u r t have a l l u p h e l d t h e p r a c t i c e o f d o u b l e counting. See L o w e n f i e l d v. P h e l p s , 484 U.S. 231, 241-46 (1988) ('The fact t h a t the aggravating c i r c u m s t a n c e d u p l i c a t e d one o f t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e c r i m e does n o t make t h i s s e n t e n c e constitutionally i n f i r m . ' ) ; T u i l a e p a v. C a l i f o r n i a , 512 U.S. 967, 972 (1994) ('The aggravating circumstance may be c o n t a i n e d i n the d e f i n i t i o n of the crime or i n a s e p a r a t e s e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r (or i n b o t h ) . ' ) ; Ex p a r t e Kennedy, 472 So. 2d 1106, 1108 (Ala. 1985) ( r e j e c t i n g a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenge to double c o u n t i n g ) ; Brown v. S t a t e , 11 So. 3d 866 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ; H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 2 So. 3d 880 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ; J o n e s v. S t a t e , 946 So. 2d 903, 928 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ; P e r a i t a v. S t a t e , 897 183 App. as CR-07-0684 So. 2d 1161, 1220-21 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ; C o r a l v. S t a t e , 628 So. 2d 954 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992); Haney v. S t a t e , 603 So. 2d 368 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). Because double c o u n t i n g i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p e r m i t t e d and s t a t u t o r i l y r e q u i r e d , V a n p e l t i s n o t entitled to any relief on this issue. § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975." 74 So. 3d a t 89. Because W i l s o n ' s p r e c e d e n t and to question not he the e n t i t l e him has arguments are contrary to established o f f e r e d t h i s C o u r t no p r i n c i p l e d r e a s o n validity t o any of that precedent, this issue does relief. XXXII. W i l s o n n e x t a r g u e s t h a t by d e a t h - q u a l i f y i n g t h e j u r y , c i r c u i t court impermissibly produced a conviction-prone the jury. W i l s o n argues t h a t d e a t h - q u a l i f y i n g the j u r y i s a "'procedure t h a t has the p u r p o s e and e f f e c t of b i a s e d i n f a v o r of c o n v i c t i o n . ' (2008) 97). (Stevens, obtaining a jury that B a z e v. R e e s , 553 U.S. J., concurring)." (Wilson's brief, 35, at is 84 96¬ W i l s o n d i d not o b j e c t to the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o death-qualify the j u r y (R. 1 0 ) ; reviewed for p l a i n e r r o r only. The United States therefore, this issue w i l l be See P. Supreme R u l e 45A, Court has c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of d e a t h - q u a l i f y i n g a j u r y . 184 A l a . R. App. upheld the See L o c k h a r t v. CR-07-0684 M c C r e e , 476 1148 U.S. 162 ( A l a . C r i m . App. claim favor of I n D a v i s v. State, 718 So. 2d 1 9 9 5 ) , t h i s C o u r t a d d r e s s e d an i d e n t i c a l t o W i l s o n ' s -- an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l in (1986). that death-qualifying juries results in c o n v i c t i o n because such j u r i e s are biased conviction. "A j u r y composed e x c l u s i v e l y o f j u r o r s who have b e e n death-qualified in accordance with the test e s t a b l i s h e d i n W a i n w r i g h t v. W i t t , 469 U.S. 412, 105 S. C t . 844, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , i s c o n s i d e r e d to be impartial even though i t may be more c o n v i c t i o n prone than a n o n - d e a t h - q u a l i f i e d jury. W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Cr. App. 1 9 9 6 ) . See L o c k h a r t v. M c C r e e , 476 U.S. 162, 106 S. C t . 1758, 90 L. Ed. 2d 137 (1986). Neither the f e d e r a l nor the s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n p r o h i b i t s the s t a t e f r o m ... d e a t h - q u a l i f y i n g jurors in capital c a s e s . I d . ; W i l l i a m s ; Haney v. S t a t e , 603 So. 2d 368, 391-92 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f ' d , 603 So. 2d 412 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 507 U.S. 925, 113 S. C t . 1297, 122 L. Ed. 2d 687 (1993)." D a v i s , 718 So. v. S t a t e , [Ms. C r i m . App. App. 2d a t 1157 (footnote CR-06-0360, Dec. 2 0 1 0 ) ; V a n p e l t v. 2009). The repeatedly held no much error, 17, State, omitted). See 2010] 74 So. So. 3d p r a c t i c e of d e a t h - q u a l i f y i n g constitutional. less plain to death-qualify the does n o t e n t i t l e W i l s o n t o any jury. 185 3d (Ala. (Ala. Crim. j u r i e s has Therefore, t h i s Court error, decision 32 a l s o McCray in the circuit Accordingly, relief. been finds court's this issue CR-07-0684 XXXIII. Wilson's decency final have argument rendered unconstitutional. i s that Alabama's Specifically, method standards of of execution W i l s o n argues t h a t Alabama's method o f e x e c u t i o n -- l e t h a l i n j e c t i o n to evolving -- has n o t b e e n found comply w i t h the s t a n d a r d s e s t a b l i s h e d i n Baze. Addressing [Ms. an CR-07-2147, C r i m . App. 2011), identical July 29, this Court argument i n A l b a r r a n v. 2011] So. 3d , State, (Ala. stated: " T h i s i s s u e has b e e n a d d r e s s e d by b o t h t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme Court. I n Ex p a r t e B e l i s l e , 11 So. 3d 323 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d : "'The Supreme Court upheld the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f K e n t u c k y ' s method o f e x e c u t i o n , B a z e [v. R e e s , 553 U.S. 35, 62,] 128 S. C t . [1520] 1538 [ ( 2 0 0 8 ) ] , and n o t e d t h a t "[a] S t a t e w i t h a l e t h a l injection protocol substantially similar to the p r o t o c o l we u p h o l d t o d a y w o u l d n o t c r e a t e a r i s k t h a t meets t h i s s t a n d a r d . " Baze, [553 U.S. a t 6 1 ] , 128 S. C t . a t 1537. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Souter d i s s e n t e d from the main o p i n i o n , a r g u i n g that "Kentucky's protocol lacks basic s a f e g u a r d s u s e d by o t h e r S t a t e s t o c o n f i r m that an inmate i s unconscious before i n j e c t i o n o f t h e s e c o n d and t h i r d d r u g s . " B a z e , [553 U.S. a t 1 1 4 ] , 128 S. C t . a t 1567 ( G i n s b u r g , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . The d i s s e n t i n g Justices recognized, however, that Alabama's p r o c e d u r e s , a l o n g w i t h p r o c e d u r e s 186 CR-07-0684 u s e d i n M i s s o u r i , C a l i f o r n i a , and Indiana "provide a degree of a s s u r a n c e - m i s s i n g from K e n t u c k y ' s p r o t o c o l -- t h a t t h e f i r s t d r u g had b e e n p r o p e r l y a d m i n i s t e r e d . " Baze, [553 U.S. at 121], 128 S. C t . a t 1571 (Ginsburg, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . "'The S t a t e a r g u e s , and we a g r e e , t h a t B e l i s l e , l i k e the inmates i n Baze, cannot meet h i s b u r d e n o f demonstrating that Alabama's l e t h a l - i n j e c t i o n p r o t o c o l poses a s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k o f harm by a s s e r t i n g t h e mere p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s o m e t h i n g may go w r o n g . " S i m p l y b e c a u s e an e x e c u t i o n method may r e s u l t i n p a i n , e i t h e r by a c c i d e n t o r as an i n e s c a p a b l e consequence of death, does n o t e s t a b l i s h t h e s o r t o f ' o b j e c t i v e l y i n t o l e r a b l e r i s k o f harm' t h a t q u a l i f i e s as c r u e l and u n u s u a l . " B a z e , [553 U.S. at 5 0 ] , 128 S. C t . a t 1531. Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t A l a b a m a ' s use o f l e t h a l i n j e c t i o n as a method o f e x e c u t i o n does n o t v i o l a t e t h e Eighth Amendment t o t h e United States Constitution." "11 So. 3d a t 339. See a l s o V a n p e l t v. S t a t e , 74 So. 3d 32, a t 90 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009) ( h o l d i n g t h a t l e t h a l i n j e c t i o n i s not u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ) . " B e c a u s e t h i s i s s u e has b e e n r a i s e d and r e j e c t e d by t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , t h e U n i t e d States Supreme C o u r t , and t h i s C o u r t , i t i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . " Albarran, So. Accordingly, 3d a t this . issue does n o t relief. 187 entitle Wilson to any CR-07-0684 XXXIV. Pursuant to § 13A-5-53, A l a . Code 1975, this h i s sentence of death. of, two counts of W i l s o n was capital murder f o r t a k i n g the robbery, of see capital course life murder record d e a t h was does or any 5 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code The circuit one count the life not reflect result other that of the arbitrary 5-49(4), committed capital course and of Walker Wilson's of one during i n f l u e n c e of factor. See court correctly the found t h a t while of passion, § 13A-5- the aggravating m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. the circuit court 1) t h a t t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was Code the 1975. 1975; Wilson was 2) that engaged 188 the the aggravating committed w h i l e capital i n the In found t h a t e n g a g e d i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a b u r g l a r y , see § Ala. a count sentence S t a t e proved the e x i s t e n c e of the f o l l o w i n g t h r e e W i l s o n was of 1975. determination, circumstances: convicted § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code outweighed circumstances making t h i s -- f o r , and of Walker d u r i n g f o r t a k i n g the i m p o s e d as t h e prejudice, murder and § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975, o f a b u r g l a r y , see The indicted is convictions r e q u i r e d to address the p r o p r i e t y of Wilson's Court 13A- offense commission was of a CR-07-0684 robbery, capital s e e § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975; a n d 3) t h a t t h e o f f e n s e was e s p e c i a l l y when compared t o o t h e r Ala. heinous, capital a t r o c i o u s , or c r u e l o f f e n s e s , see § 13A-5-49(4), Code 1975. Regarding mitigating circumstances, the c i r c u i t court s t a t e d t h a t i t had " c o n s i d e r e d a l l o f t h e s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s as w e l l as o t h e r s r a i s e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t . " 384.) The c o u r t t h e n found t h a t t h e defense e s t a b l i s h e dthe following statutory mitigating circumstances: had no s i g n i f i c a n t h i s t o r y o f p r i o r (C. 1) t h a t W i l s o n criminal activity, see § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 1 ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975; a n d 2) t h a t W i l s o n was a y o u n g e r adult 20 y e a r s 13A-5-51(7), following Wilson's o l d -- a t t h e t i m e A l a . Code nonstatutory 1975. The mitigating mother had attempted o f t h e o f f e n s e , see § court also found circumstances: 1) the that s u i c i d e when he was y o u n g ; 2) t h a t W i l s o n ' s p a r e n t s were d i v o r c e d ; 3) t h a t W i l s o n h a d b e e n s h u f f l e d between h i s p a r e n t s over the years; 4) t h a t Wilson t o o k m e d i c a t i o n as a c h i l d ; a n d 5) t h a t W i l s o n h a d v o l u n t e e r e d w i t h Red C r o s s that the Disaster Relief. circuit circumstances court The s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r properly weighed the and t h e m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s 189 shows aggravating and c o r r e c t l y CR-07-0684 sentenced Wilson t o death. court's findings. Section Court The r e c o r d s u p p o r t s t h e c i r c u i t to 13A-5-53(b)(2), reweigh mitigating the aggravating circumstances to sentence of death i s proper. aggravating A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e s circumstances determine whether this and t h e Wilson's A f t e r independently weighing the c i r c u m s t a n c e s and t h e m i t i g a t i n g circumstances, t h i s Court f i n d s that Wilson's death sentence i s a p p r o p r i a t e . As Court required must excessive by § 13A-5-53(b)(3), now determine or disproportionate imposed i n s i m i l a r of whether cases. when A l a . Code Wilson's compared offense Further, the c i r c u i t was especially M e l s o n v. S t a t e , to the penalty o f murder d u r i n g a heinous, atrocious, or A sentence crimes throughout this cruel when o f d e a t h has State. See 775 So. 2d 857, 863 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; W a s h i n g t o n v. S t a t e , Brown v. S t a t e , is c o u r t found t h a t the c a p i t a l compared t o o t h e r c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s . been imposed f o r s i m i l a r sentence W i l s o n was c o n v i c t e d o f one c o u n t m u r d e r d u r i n g a r o b b e r y a n d one c o u n t burglary. 1975, t h i s 922 So. 2d 145 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005); 11 So. 3d 866, 901 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007). 190 CR-07-0684 Therefore, this Court finds that the sentence was neither excessive nor d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e . Finally, any error this that C o u r t has s e a r c h e d may have the e n t i r e record f o r adversely affected s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s a n d h a s n o t f o u n d any. Wilson's See R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. Accordingly, Wilson's convictions and h i s sentence of death are affirmed. AFFIRMED. Burke and J o i n e r , J J . , concur. concur i n the r e s u l t . 191 Welch and K e l l u m , J J . ,
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
