Kenneth Adam McKinnis v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/29/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 CR-08-0592 K e n n e t h Adam McKinnis v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal KELLUM, from H o u s t o n C i r c u i t (CC-06-1431) Judge. Kenneth Adam McKinnis capital because robbery, a violation a of 10-2,the jury vote Court i t was was convicted committed during o f murder t h e course made of a o f § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . B y recommended that McKinnis be CR-08-0592 sentenced to death. recommendation and The In the evidence was in shot adduced and Dothan Stern, State Alabama testified right Belser's body, pelvic vein in and The body who and and b u l l e t was testified toward and "the a medical nicked in pain and following. Byron Dr. autopsy Lewis a strip Corrine examiner to bone, rest left for on the Belser, in to right across through right iliac nicked the and through traveled vein the the left left thigh. for forensic testing. the Dr. a r t e r i e s would have p e l v i c and difficulty the i t traveled As ureter, hip sent into the the t h a t the n i c k e d v e i n s and bleeding 2006, club"). upwards. right came death. 19, traveled left e x t r a c t e d and substantial resulting the jury's f r o m a s i n g l e g u n s h o t wound t o bullet the the Champagne L o u n g e , performed slightly the artery, died to August 2 0 0 6 was followed i n d i c a t e d the i n the bullet perforated area court trial of killed who thigh. artery, hours that Belser Belser's at (hereinafter Elizabeth of trial sentenced McKinnis e a r l y morning Belser club The abdominal breathing before iliac The Stern caused regions, Belser's death. E v i d e n c e was presented t h e n i g h t o f A u g u s t 18, that at approximately 2006, M c K i n n i s and 2 three 11:30 p.m. friends, Kyle CR-08-0592 McIntosh, club. Albert and Mark surveillance A video McLeod, system f o u r men w a l k i n g front entryway, through paying b e i n g p a t t e d down b y a s e c u r i t y dark-colored shorts f r a m e d s u n g l a s s e s ; he h a d f a c i a l only 20 y e a r s club. 2 and After o l d a t the time, that night, t e s t i f i e d draft beer, on A u g u s t McIntosh, McKinnis t-shirt, hair. Terri was Although and wearing a n d h a d on white- McKinnis t o t h e dance Burnett, the bartender was stage at the club t h a t she s o l d t h e group f o u r p i t c h e r s o f The v i d e o surveillance and h i s f r i e n d s s i t t i n g near and watching Newman l e f t a.m. f o r admission, he was p e r m i t t e d t o e n t e r t h e but nothing else. recorded McKinnis drinking charge e n t e r i n g , t h e f o u r men w e n t satat a table. at the door o f t h e c l u b i n t o t h e guard. and a white arrived at the club captured the 1 the front the cover Newman, the strippers f o rover t h e dance A few minutes and McLeod a l s o l e f t t h e c l u b . stage two h o u r s . t h e c l u b w i t h a woman a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 19, 2006. system later, 1:45 McKinnis, A few minutes after E x c e r p t s o f t h e v i d e o from t h e s u r v e i l l a n c e system t h e n i g h t o f t h e s h o o t i n g were i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l and p l a y e d f o r t h e j u r y . 1 A t t h e t i m e , Alabama l a w p r o h i b i t e d p e r s o n s under t h e age o f 21 f r o m b e i n g p r e s e n t i n a n e s t a b l i s h m e n t w h e r e a l c o h o l i c b e v e r a g e s were s o l d . 2 3 CR-08-0592 McKinnis and h i s friends l e f t , the c l u b , was s t a n d i n g with his girlfriend, Michael outside Shirah Conaway, t h e owner o f the front entrance of the club Robinson, a n d two o t h e r men when h e n o t i c e d a man, whom h e h a d s e e n i n s i d e t h e c l u b e a r l i e r a n d whom h e p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d a white automobile parked from the club that t h e man w a s w e a r i n g shirtless, face, his left hand. Conaway directly standing around a silver Conaway t h e bottom testified shorts, part approached the entrance t h e gun a n d s t a r t e d r a n f o r cover. and approach the club she c o u l d Conaway, s a i d t h a t when f o r cover. standing outside. Robinson t e s t i f i e d automobile entrance not identify testified, began, Conaway everyone that she, a everyone however, that the pistol; Robinson, approached t h e f r o n t door o f t h e c l u b , 4 of the across carrying t h e man. the shooting Robinson of h i s shooting t h a t he y e l l e d a n d p u s h e d R o b i n s o n a n d t h a t outside was or chrome-colored p i s t o l i n of people however, shooter the street of dark-colored s a w a man g e t o u t o f t h e w h i t e street ran a pair getout of l o t across the club. he r a i s e d a t t h e group testified toward A s t h e man said, as McKinnis, i n a parking had a r a g wrapped a n d was c a r r y i n g club, too, and walk at trial like outside as t h e she heard him CR-08-0592 say "I'm going Conaway and to get Robinson ... them niggers." that they heard stated (R. o u t s i d e and then h e a r d a d d i t i o n a l gunshots the that a.m. 1:00 of August the morning four fired the shots, Burnett o u t s i d e the floor shooting bar; a entryway Belser behind man drink just that and inside the s a i d , she being fired floor until the Belser shots three they were immediately said that being got before the were sitting at and Burnett served was the shots. visible from only laughed the Burnett the front told and told her At that moment, outside. not t o s i x a d d i t i o n a l , much l o u d e r , the club. s h o o t i n g ended cellular on man heard were five inside on h e r initial area, bar she after When s h e h e a r d t h e s h o t s , B u r n e t t heard shots front the Belser's location because e m e r g e n c y 911 another sometime The like Burnett before to get down, but Burnett sounded bar. left of the club. worry 1 9 , 2006. N o n e t h e l e s s , she the other testified the gunshots coming from she h e a r d g u n s h o t s said, club. began, Belser the Belser to several Both club. Burnett t e s t i f i e d or 556.) and Burnett then got stayed up, t e l e p h o n e , and w a l k e d o f t h e b a r where she saw bleeding. 5 Belser lying on on the telephoned around the to floor CR-08-0592 The video surveillance system recorded the p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e f r o n t entryway. running through 1:56 a.m. door opened pistol The v i d e o the f r o n t door t o the i n t e r i o r Just after again with the shooting t h e man ran into and McKinnis his left hand. of the club at the club had on s i m i l a r d a r k - c o l o r e d s h o r t s he h a d b e e n w e a r i n g c l u b , b u t he h a d no s h i r t and he had a After McKinnis to h i s right reached he then the bottom and continued his left McKinnis hand firing across was u n a b l e or e a r l i e r i n the part into a sunglasses, of h i s face. the club the counter t o open t h e cash hand as he to the cash r e g i s t e r , and turned around and ran out the f r o n t door of the c l u b . Dothan police officers arrived at the minutes of the shooting and secured the c l u b . summoned, a n d t h e y he firing t h e same on a n d was n o t w e a r i n g around front e n t e r e d , he swapped t h e gun f r o m h i s l e f t hand with register. rag tied s h o w s a man the c l u b , the entered McKinnis from later died. J o n Thomas, a crime-scene Department, found the four and b u l l e t holes both within P a r a m e d i c s were transported Belser to the h o s p i t a l , Dothan P o l i c e club scene shell eight casings technician with the shell inside casings outside the c l u b , several i n s i d e and o u t s i d e the c l u b , and three 6 where spent CR-08-0592 bullets bullet in inside According t o T h o m a s , t h e r e was o n e hole i n the outside of the front the f r o n t - d o o r frame, bar, two b u l l e t door, holes one b u l l e t i n the front hole of the two b u l l e t h o l e s i n t h e w a l l o f t h e d r e s s i n g room f o r t h e dancers, in the club. one b u l l e t h o l e i n t h e w a l l b e h i n d the front wall entryway, of the club. floor just from the In addition, i n front front a n d one b u l l e t hole Thomas f o u n d of the l e f t entryway) the cash corner where register i n the f a r l e f t a defect i n the o f t h e b a r (as v i e w e d one of the bullets had ricocheted. B a s e d on t h e l o c a t i o n the location of the various bullet was a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e club and t o determine went t h r o u g h f l o o r near of the three bullets the wall the l e f t the path o f those to the l e f t shots. inside the One o f the entryway, Thomas bullet struck the corner o f t h e b a r , r i c o c h e t e d , and e n t e r e d Thomas s a i d t h a t h e was unable r e c o v e r t h a t b u l l e t b e c a u s e i t h a d gone t o o d e e p l y i n t o t h e wall a n d he d i d n o t w a n t recover of and d e f e c t s , t h a t s i x shots had been f i r e d the f a r l e f t w a l l o f the c l u b . to holes r e c o v e r e d and the spent the dancers' bullet. t o s e v e r e l y damage Two b u l l e t s the business went t h r o u g h d r e s s i n g room i n t h e b a c k r i g h t 7 to the wall corner o f the CR-08-0592 club. One dressing o f t h o s e b u l l e t s was room, b u t the recovered s e c o n d was not other was one i n the Belser. that -- was on had not ricocheted was p o s i t i v e that the two the two h i t the b u l l e t s that through the and left behind the and the hit o f f of bar anything. b u l l e t s t h a t h i t the and the wall of the entryway, the far left wall entered bullets p o s i t i v e t h a t the bar, the Another b u l l e t bar. Thomas t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was h i t Belser floor the Two of Both of those b u l l e t s the f l o o r ice bin behind the f l o o r recovered. a l s o went t h r o u g h the f r o n t o f the b a r . were r e c o v e r e d on of He dressing bullet club also room, that ricocheted the bullet went off not had the hit Belser. Antonio Sheriff's Gonzalez, Department sergeant with shooting, minutes out the his vehicle approached him, Gonzalez had and the with the of trial time in to he a r r i v e d at Houston but the club to toward the the club, north and told a white Chevrolet the north of 8 the County a patrol time of the within a few Capt. Gonzalez s a i d t h a t headed pointed fled looked that shooting. of shooter at captain the Dothan P o l i c e Department at the testified of a as he a black him club and saw male that automobile. got the Capt. a white CR-08-0592 automobile turning onto pursued the v e h i c l e . vehicle, Chickasaw A l t h o u g h he Street. Capt. initially lost s i g h t of the Capt. Gonzalez r e e s t a b l i s h e d v i s u a l contact vehicle vehicle on Rebecca M c K i n n i s was Street. M c L e o d was i n the f r o n t passenger with the stopped on t h e M o n t g o m e r y H i g h w a y , a n d e v e n t u a l l y the Gonzalez the d r i v i n g the vehicle; s e a t ; a n d M c I n t o s h was in backseat. Becky Dothan Edwards, Police caliber Glock also a Department, brand found glove back with 10 compartment; seat; a black Edwards Katherine the Alabama she examined from B e l s e r ' s in on Richert, the 12 found i t ; $43 outside casings at the club, .40 9 the a .40 floorboard i n the glove i n cash in the s u n g l a s s e s on the seat; and back and t o o l m a r k s examiner with scarf. Sciences, found the near several the rag or of Forensic body, and t h e the the v e h i c l e , a firearms shell with vehicle on the d r i v e r ' s found a dark-colored Department spent b u l l e t s pistol of white-framed t-shirt Just the c a l i b e r magazine rounds a pair empty beer b o t t l e s . tire, live .40 technician inside semiautomatic behind the d r i v e r ' s s e a t ; a compartment crime-scene at spent testified the club, that the 3 b u l l e t recovered caliber Glock p i s t o l that was CR-08-0592 found i n the white spent bullets automobile. were .40 microscopic markings but sufficient microscopic Richert caliber that bullets none markings of stated, however, that the c l u b were f i r e d from the the white automobile. a "semi-automatic safeties on disengaged trigger fire. the or Richert pistol" i t , a l l of f o r the had spent .40 similar bullets determine caliber Glock shell casings pistol. found to the Glock p i s t o l 841) which at c a l i b e r Glock p i s t o l found i n had that would fire. have She three had to also as different have said been that the on t h e G l o c k p i s t o l r e q u i r e d s i x p o u n d s o f p r e s s u r e t o R i c h e r t t e s t i f i e d that the three spent b u l l e t s c l u b were somewhat damaged, as i f t h e y had p a s s e d h i t a hard Belser's object, b o d y was b u l l e t was the damaged spent at bullet a l l , even n o t m i s s h a p e n ; t h e b u l l e t was "whole b u l l e t . " the four that while not the with had described (R. pistol a l l four positively a l l 12 .40 that and the to whether t h e y had been f i r e d from the Richert said spent (R. bullets 829.) had "any She marks of a ricocheted b u l l e t . " 10 (R. the said that 858.) through recovered fully also found i n nose intact that were from of the and was none of consistent CR-08-0592 McKinnis's c o m m i t t e d was not defense not guilty, capital McKinnis indicating, t h a t he that Belser was not intend club. bullet and the the thigh. In was not of of was based club, the front location that McKinnis entryway of have been hit M c K i n n i s had 45A, no corner the by a the claimed club, R. bullet App. on to bar could thus the P., had pleaded his the the did inside the consumption location throughout Belser, w h e n he not night t h a t he shots in be of his right sitting from Belser ricocheted and Belser. provides: "In a l l cases i n which the death 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 shall 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 appropriate 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 , whenever such e r r o r has o r p r o b a b l y has adversely affected the 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 . " 11 the club; shot, seen of the was was i n d i c a t i n g that that i n t e n t to k i l l Ala. claimed he evidence club argued that Belser of crime presented on spread wound addition, McKinnis left fired shooting; the the shooter at the w h e n he the i n s i d e of front or Rather, McKinnis the Rule the that Although McKinnis claimed, defense location was murder. Belser night holes on near to k i l l trial never killed. McKinnis's alcohol at in a the must that CR-08-0592 As t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d C r i m . App. 1999), i n H a l l v. S t a t e , a f f ' d , 820 S o . 2 d 152 820 S o . 2 d 113 ( A l a . (Ala. 2001): "As i s t h e c a s e w i t h e v e r y d e a t h p e n a l t y c a s e , t h i s c o u r t i s o b l i g e d , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 45A, A l a . R. A p p . P., t o r e v i e w t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s f o r p l a i n e r r o r , w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e i s s u e was raised b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r on a p p e a l . Plain error i s d e f i n e d as e r r o r t h a t 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 . ' 'The standard of review i n reviewing a c l a i m under the p l a i n - e r r o r doctrine i s stricter than the standard used i n r e v i e w i n g a n i s s u e t h a t was p r o p e r l y r a i s e d i n t h e trial c o u r t o r on a p p e a l . As t h e U n i t e d States S u p r e m e C o u r t s t a t e d i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Y o u n g , 470 U.S. 1, 105 S . C t . 1 0 3 8 , 84 L . E d . 2 d 1 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , t h e p l a i n - e r r o r doctrine applies only i f the error i s 'particularly egregious' and i f i t 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of j u d i c i a l proceedings.' See Ex p a r t e P r i c e , 725 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 3 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 2 6 U.S. 1 1 3 3 , 119 S . C t . 1 8 0 9 , 143 L . E d . 2 d 1012 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ; B u r g e s s v . S t a t e , 723 S o . 2 d 742 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 723 S o . 2 d 770 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 2 6 U.S. 1 0 5 2 , 119 S . C t . 1 3 6 0 , 143 L . E d . 2 d 5 2 1 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ; J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 620 S o . 2 d 6 7 9 , 7 0 1 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) , r e v ' d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s , 620 So. 2 d 709 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , o n r e m a n d , 620 S o . 2 d 714 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 510 U.S. 9 0 5 , 114 S.Ct. 2 8 5 , 126 L . E d . 2 d 235 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . " 820 So. 2d a t 121-22. the claimed State, 778 rise e r r o r must n o t o n l y 'substantial prejudicial "To rights,' impact on to the l e v e l i t the jury's must also have deliberations." ( A l a . C r i m . App. 12 error, s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t a defendant's but S o . 2 d 1 9 9 , 209 of p l a i n 1998), an unfair Hyde v. aff'd, 778 CR-08-0592 So. 2 d 237 our duty under Rule error (Ala. 2000). that In reviewing the record pursuant to 4 5 A , A l a . R. A p p . P., we h a v e f o u n d requires reversal of McKinnis's plain conviction and sentence. McKinnis as was i n d i c t e d f o r c a p i t a l m u r d e r d u r i n g a robbery follows: "The Grand Jury o f s a i d county charge t h a t , b e f o r e the finding of this indictment, KENNETH ADAM M C K I N N I S , w h o s e name i s o t h e r w i s e unknown t o t h e Grand Jury, d i d i n t e n t i o n a l l y cause t h e death o f BYRON L E W I S B E L S E R , BY SHOOTING HIM w i t h a P I S T O L , a n d KENNETH ADAM M C K I N N I S c a u s e d s a i d d e a t h d u r i n g the t i m e t h a t KENNETH ADAM M C K I N N I S was i n t h e course of committing a t h e f t o f U.S. CURRENCY, t h e p r o p e r t y o f CHAMPAGNE LOUNGE, b y t h e u s e 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 M I C H A E L CONWAY, [ s i c ] w i t h intent t o overcome his physical resistance or p h y s i c a l p o w e r o f r e s i s t a n c e , w h i l e t h e s a i d KENNETH ADAM M C K I N N I S was a r m e d w i t h a d e a d l y w e a p o n o r a dangerous instrument, to-wit: .40 C A L I B E R TAURUS PISTOL, i n v i o l a t i o n o f S e c t i o n 13A-5-40(a)(2) o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a , 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 of t h e S t a t e of Alabama." (C. 2 0 ; e m p h a s i s a d d e d . ) murdering Belser However, instructed during during the jury made capital jury could the course i t s oral that because find The i n d i c t m e n t that of robbing charge, to find McKinnis i t was c o m m i t t e d McKinnis 13 charged McKinnis murdered Conaway. the trial guilty during with o f murder a robbery, Belser court during the the CR-08-0592 course of robbing began i t s o r a l The court innocence, e i t h e r Conaway o r charge by then instructed reasonable c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence. jury underlying on the and "Now, I'm c a p i t a l murder lesser-included lesser-included categories that t h r e e ways t h a t i f they are not jury the The indictment on the avoidance trial to the court jury. At of sympathy, the of that point, the of murder in relevant capital part, as 3 presumption the d i f f e r e n c e s between d i r e c t elements robbery, the the doubt, c r e d i b i l i t y of witness, the reading Belser. court and instructed based on an follows: g o i n g t o g i v e you the elements of d u r i n g a r o b b e r y , f o l l o w e d by the offense of murder. The offense of murder has three I'm going to describe. There are a p e r s o n can be c o n v i c t e d o f m u r d e r c o n v i c t e d of c a p i t a l murder.[ ] 4 "Now, concerning c a p i t a l murder i n t h i s case, t h e S t a t e a l l e g e s t h a t i t was committed during the c o m m i s s i o n or t h e a t t e m p t t o commit a r o b b e r y . The defendant i s charged w i t h c a p i t a l murder. The law s t a t e s t h a t an i n t e n t i o n a l m u r d e r c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g a robbery i n the f i r s t degree i s c a p i t a l murder. A p e r s o n c o m m i t s a n i n t e n t i o n a l m u r d e r i f he causes t h e d e a t h o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n and, i n p e r f o r m i n g the a c t or acts which causes the death of t h a t person, The reading of the i n d i c t m e n t record merely contains a notation r e a d by t h e C o u r t . " (R. 1 0 3 1 . ) 3 The was T h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d on t h e l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e s i n t e n t i o n a l murder, r e c k l e s s murder, and f e l o n y murder. 4 of was n o t t r a n s c r i b e d . t h a t "the i n d i c t m e n t 14 CR-08-0592 he i n t e n d s t o k i l l e i t h e r t h a t person. That i s c a l l e d s p e c i f i c person or intent. another "A p e r s o n c o m m i t s a r o b b e r y i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e if, i n the course of committing or attempting to c o m m i t a t h e f t , he u s e s 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 t h e 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 or p h y s i c a l power of resistance, or t h r e a t e n s the imminent use of 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 the i n t e n t t o compel a c q u i e s c e n c e i n t h e t a k i n g or e s c a p i n g of t h e p r o p e r t y , and i n d o i n g so, i s armed w i t h a d e a d l y weapon. "So t o c o n v i c t t h e d e f e n d a n t o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r , the S t a t e must p r o v e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt each of the f o l l o w i n g elements of i n t e n t i o n a l murder d u r i n g a robbery i n the f i r s t degree: Number one, t h e y have t o prove t h a t the v i c t i m i s deceased. Number two, t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t , Mr. M c K i n n i s , c a u s e d t h e d e a t h o f Mr. B e l s e r , t h e v i c t i m i n t h i s c a s e . A n d t h a t he i n t e n d e d t o k i l l M r . B e l s e r o r some other person. A p e r s o n a c t s i n t e n t i o n a l l y when i t i s h i s purpose t o cause the death of another p e r s o n . The intent to k i l l m u s t be r e a l a n d i t m u s t be specific. "The next element is that the defendant committed o r a t t e m p t e d t o commit a t h e f t o f , i n t h i s c a s e , m o n e y , a n d t h a t i n t h e c o u r s e o f a t t e m p t i n g -¬ 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 a t h e f t o r t h e immediate f l i g h t from the commission, the defendant e i t h e r used f o r c e or the imminent use of force a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o f e i t h e r Mr. Conaway o r Mr. B e l s e r , Mr. Conaway b e i n g t h e owner o f t h e money, w i t h the 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 or power t o r e s i s t , o r t o compel i n t h e a c q u i e s c e n c e of t a k i n g o r e s c a p i n g w i t h t h e p r o p e r t y . " (R. 1034-36; emphasis added.) 15 CR-08-0592 The record reflects j u r y asked The trial McKinnis could that during the court to " c l a r i f y court guilty of again c a p i t a l murder." instructed capital i t s deliberations, the jury (R. that murder d u r i n g a robbery, the 1054.) to find the jury f i n d that McKinnis murdered B e l s e r d u r i n g the course robbing either Conaway o r B e l s e r . The court stated: "The d e f e n d a n t i s c h a r g e d w i t h c a p i t a l m u r d e r . And the law states that an intentional murder committed d u r i n g a robbery i n the f i r s t degree i s a c a p i t a l murder. A p e r s o n c o m m i t s an intentional m u r d e r i f he c a u s e s t h e d e a t h o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n , a n d i n performing the act or acts which caused the death o f t h a t p e r s o n , he i n t e n d s t o k i l l t h a t p e r s o n o r another person. "A p e r s o n c o m m i t s a r o b b e r y i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e if, i n the course of committing or attempting to c o m m i t a t h e f t , he u s e s 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 t h e 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 of resistance, or t h r e a t e n s the imminent use of 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 the i n t e n t t o compel a c q u i e s c e n c e i n t h e t a k i n g o f o r e s c a p i n g w i t h t h e p r o p e r t y and, i n d o i n g s o , he i s a r m e d w i t h a d e a d l y w e a p o n . "To convict, t h e S t a t e must p r o v e beyond a reasonable doubt each of the f o l l o w i n g elements of an i n t e n t i o n a l m u r d e r d u r i n g r o b b e r y i n t h e first degree: Number one, t h e y m u s t p r o v e t h a t Mr. B e l s e r i s deceased. Number two, t h e y must p r o v e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t , Mr. M c K i n n i s , c a u s e d t h e d e a t h o f Mr. B e l s e r by s h o o t i n g him w i t h a p i s t o l . Number t h r e e , that i n committing the act which caused the death of Mr. B e l s e r , t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t e n d e d t o k i l l t h e d e c e a s e d o r someone e l s e , a n o t h e r p e r s o n . A person 16 of CR-08-0592 a c t s 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 the death o f another person. The i n t e n t t o k i l l must be r e a l a n d s p e c i f i c . Number f o u r , t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t t e d o r a t t e m p t e d t o commit t h e f t o f money. Number five, that i n the course of 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 t h e t h e f t , o r i n the immediate f l i g h t t h e r e f r o m , t h e defendant e i t h e r used force or threatened u s e o f f o r c e -- i m m i n e n t f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o f e i t h e r Mr. B e l s e r o r Mr. Conaway 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 r e s i s t a n c e o r p h y s i c a l power t o r e s i s t , o r t o compel the a c q u i e s c e n c e i n t h e t a k i n g o f t h e p r o p e r t y , and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was a r m e d w i t h a d e a d l y w e a p o n . Number s e v e n , t h a t t h e m u r d e r t o o k p l a c e d u r i n g t h e robbery." (R. 1054-56; emphasis It jury 902 i s well s e t t l e d that can e f f e c t i v e l y So. 2 d 7 2 0 , 731 (Ala. 2004). indictment or added.) a "trial amend an i n d i c t m e n t . " ( A l a .Crim. App.), "In addition See a l s o Wright (Ala. 2004). Crim. App. Crim. App. 1997); and S t y l e s Crim. App. 1985). However, informal to a charge to the W r i g h t v. State, a f f ' d 902 S o . 2 d 738 formal amendment, an c a n b e i n f o r m a l l y 'amended' b y a c t i o n s o f t h e c o u r t of the defendant." prohibits court's 2007); Williams a n y amendment and with Brooks v. S t a t e , v. S t a t e , v. State, v. S t a t e , Rule 902 S o . 2 d 7 3 8 , 740 973 S o . 2 d 380 ( A l a . 701 1 3 . 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. whether the defendant's 17 2d 832 ( A l a . 474 S o . 2 d 1 8 5 ( A l a . t o an i n d i c t m e n t , or without So. Crim. P., formal or consent, that CR-08-0592 changes the by Ash the v. offense indictment. State, grounds, Ex 843 parte o r c h a r g e s a new As So. not contemplated t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t explained in 2d 213 Seymour, offense (Ala. 2002), 946 So. 2d 536 o v e r r u l e d on (Ala. 2006): other 5 "Rule 13.5(a), Ala. R. Crim. P., forbids a m e n d i n g an i n d i c t m e n t ' t o c h a n g e t h e o f f e n s e o r t o charge a new offense not contemplated by the original indictment.' This rule preserves the implementation of Article I, § 6, Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901, guaranteeing ' [ t ] h a t i n a l l c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s , t h e a c c u s e d has a r i g h t ... t o demand t h e n a t u r e and c a u s e o f t h e a c c u s a t i o n ; a n d t o h a v e a c o p y t h e r e o f ... ' a n d A r t i c l e I , § 8, as amended b y Amendment 37, A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901, g u a r a n t e e i n g t h a t c o n t e s t e d f e l o n i e s w i l l be c h a r g e d by g r a n d j u r y i n d i c t m e n t , S t a t e ex r e l . B a x l e y v. S t r a w b r i d g e , 52 A l a . A p p . 685, 687, 296 So. 2 d 7 7 9 , 781 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ; a n d T h o r n v . S t a t e , 39 A l a . App. 2 2 7 , 2 2 7 , 98 So. 2 d 8 5 9 , 860 (1957); see a l s o K e n n e d y v . S t a t e , 39 A l a . A p p . 6 7 6 , 6 9 0 , 107 So. 2 d 9 1 3 , 926 (1958). The f u n d a m e n t a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y g u a r a n t e e d b e n e f i t s o f an i n d i c t m e n t t o an a c c u s e d a r e ' " t h a t he may p r e p a r e h i s d e f e n c e , a n d p l e a d t h e j u d g m e n t as a b a r t o any s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c u t i o n f o r t h e same o f f e n c e . " ' G a y d e n v . S t a t e , 262 A l a . 4 6 8 , 477, 80 So. 2d 501, 504 (1955) (quoting United S t a t e s v . S i m m o n s , 96 U.S. 360, 3 7 1 , 24 L . E d . 819 (18 7 7 ) ) . " 843 So. 2d at 216. Ex p a r t e Seymour o v e r r u l e d Ash o n l y A s h h e l d t h a t an i n d i c t m e n t i s t h e s o u r c e subject-matter jurisdiction. 5 18 to the extent t h a t of a t r i a l court's CR-08-0592 In this case, instructions to indictment. charged that the clear jury order to McKinnis murdered Belser However, i n order McKinnis murdered the McKinnis the jury during would Belser. whether the court, Belser indictment amendment questions In Alabama court's violated rose Rule of the have the jury during The q u e s t i o n s trial the offense had t o of find robbing during this constructive to the level have the course before 13.5(a) could and, of found robbing the course of Court, then, are amendment to the i f so, whether the of p l a i n error. We answer both affirmatively. McKinney v. State, Supreme C o u r t 5 1 1 S o . 2 d 220 adopted the view (Ala. 1987), of the majority j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h a t when a s i n g l e c r i m i n a l t r a n s a c t i o n multiple court's amended the course Conaway o r t h a t M c K i n n i s m u r d e r e d B e l s e r robbing trial to convict McKinnis of the offense i n s t r u c t e d by the t r i a l that that constructively convict i n the indictment, Conaway. as In i t i s victims, Court explained, multiple i n relevant convictions of involves are permitted. part: "Neither the federal nor the state c o n s t i t u t i o n poses an obstacle to permitting multiple prosecutions when t h e r e has b e e n more t h a n one offense found. I n Gordon v. S t a t e , 71 A l a . 3 1 5 19 the The CR-08-0592 (1882), this Court held that the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t y a g a i n s t double j e o p a r d y does ' n o t e x t e n d t o several prosecutions f o r several offenses, but to r e p e a t e d p r o s e c u t i o n s f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . ' I d . , a t 3 1 7 , a s c i t e d i n [R. Owens, A l a b a m a ' s M i n o r i t y Status: A Single Criminal Act Injuring Multiple P e r s o n s C o n s t i t u t e s O n l y A S i n g l e O f f e n s e , ] 16 Cum. L. R e v . [ 8 5 , ] 1 0 1 [ ( 1 9 8 5 - 8 6 ) ] . The m i n o r i t y v i e w s a s i n g l e b l a s t t h a t i n j u r e s t w o p e o p l e a s t h e 'same o f f e n s e ; o r one c r i m i n a l a c t . By c o n t r a s t , t h e m a j o r i t y r e g a r d s s u c h an a c t as two o f f e n s e s . As the author o f t h e law review a r t i c l e has p o i n t e d o u t , t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h a t i s t h e same o f f e n s e is a question f o r the courts to decide. 16 Cum.L.Rev., s u p r a , a t 1 0 1 . He c o n c l u d e s t h a t §§ 15-3-8 a n d 13A-1-8 do n o t b a r m u l t i p l e c o n v i c t i o n s as t h e r e s u l t o f a s i n g l e a c t when m u l t i p l e v i c t i m s a r e i n v o l v e d . ... " " [ A ] s Owens p o i n t s o u t , l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o a l l o w multiple prosecutions f o r a single act that injures more than one person i s determined by the 'description of the unit of prosecution within the substantive c r i m i n a l law s t a t u t e s . ' 16 C u m . L . R e v . , s u p r a , a t 104. "Avoidance of ambiguity i s essential. Owens asks: "'How, then, should the unit of p r o s e c u t i o n be d e s c r i b e d s o t h a t an i n t e n t to a l l o w m u l t i p l e c o n v i c t i o n s i s c l e a r and unequivocal? Instead of u s i n g t h e word "any" t o describe the u n i t of p r o s e c u t i o n , the s i n g u l a r words " a " o r " a n o t h e r " should be u s e d . An e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e n , s h o u l d be made o f t h e A l a b a m a C r i m i n a l C o d e t o s e e how t h e u n i t o f p r o s e c u t i o n i s d e s c r i b e d . This examination w i l l d i s c l o s e whether the code a l l o w s m u l t i p l e c o n v i c t i o n s . 20 CR-08-0592 "'A review of the criminal code d i s c l o s e s t h a t there are b a s i c a l l y four c a t e g o r i e s i n t o w h i c h t h e s t a t u t e s c a n be divided. The f i r s t c a t e g o r y i n c l u d e s t h o s e s t a t u t e s t h a t p r o h i b i t conduct that cannot a f f e c t m u l t i p l e persons or p r o p e r t y w i t h a single act. These s t a t u t e s p r o h i b i t such c r i m e s as s e x o f f e n s e s , c r i m i n a l t r e s p a s s , b u r g l a r y , f o r g e r y , and e s c a p e . The s e c o n d category contains statutes i n which the u n i t of p r o s e c u t i o n i s d e s c r i b e d w i t h the w o r d " a n y " ; b a s e d o n t h e a b o v e mode o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n , o n l y one c o n v i c t i o n s h o u l d be a l l o w e d . This category consists of the following statutes: interference with custody, indecent exposure, enticement of a c h i l d t o e n t e r a v e h i c l e or house f o r immoral purposes, p o s s e s s i o n of b u r g l a r y t o o l s , c r i m i n a l possession of e x p l o s i v e s , and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of s t o l e n p r o p e r t y , or p r o p e r t y o b t a i n e d by f a l s e p r e t e n s e into the s t a t e . "'Under the majority view, the remaining two categories would allow multiple convictions. The t h i r d category uses the i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e " a " to d e s c r i b e t h e u n i t o f p r o s e c u t i o n , and i n c l u d e s s u c h offenses as arson, offering a false instrument for recording, illegally possessing or f r a u d u l e n t l y using a c r e d i t or d e b i t card, p e r m i t t i n g or f a c i l i t a t i n g an escape, bribing or intimidating a witness or a j u r o r , promoting p r o s t i t u t i o n , abandoning a c h i l d , and endangering the w e l f a r e of a c h i l d . The l a s t c a t e g o r y u s e s the descriptive term "another," and incorporates, i n addition to the above o f f e n s e s , a l l forms of homicide, a s s a u l t , k i d n a p p i n g and u n l a w f u l i m p r i s o n m e n t , t h e f t o f p r o p e r t y , r o b b e r y , and t h e h i n d e r i n g of 21 CR-08-0592 the p r o s e c u t i o n escapee. or the apprehension o f an "'By e m p l o y i n g t h e method o f s t a t u t o r y construction used by the United States Supreme C o u r t t o determine whether the legislative drafters intended to allow m u l t i p l e c o n v i c t i o n s , i t becomes c l e a r t h a t the Alabama Legislature formulated the c r i m i n a l code u s i n g d e s c r i p t i v e words t h a t allow multiple convictions. To t r u l y a d o p t the majority view, however, multiple convictions s h o u l d be a l l o w e d only f o r crimes a g a i n s t persons. I f Alabama accepts the majority rule allowing multiple c o n v i c t i o n s , f u t u r e i n c i d e n t s i n w h i c h more t h a n one p e r s o n i s i n j u r e d o r k i l l e d b y t h e same a c t w i l l s u b j e c t t h e d e f e n d a n t t o a s many c o n v i c t i o n s a s t h e r e a r e i n j u r i e s o r deaths. "16 Cum.L.Rev., supra, a t 105-07. "Owens h a s a r t i c u l a t e l y s t a t e d t h e c a s e f o r joining the majority of states that allow f o r m u l t i p l e c o n v i c t i o n s when more t h a n one p e r s o n i s i n j u r e d as t h e r e s u l t o f a s i n g l e a c t . A d o p t i o n o f t h e m a j o r i t y v i e w w o u l d p l a c e A l a b a m a among t h o s e s t a t e s t h a t have r e c o g n i z e d that punishment f o r a c r i m i n a l a c t s h o u l d be commensurate w i t h t h e a c t i t s e l f and t h e i n j u r y caused by t h a t c r i m i n a l a c t . Absent statutory or c o n s t i t u t i o n a l obstacles t o the adoption of the majority view, l o g i c and reason persuade us t o h e n c e f o r t h a p p l y t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t a s i n g l e c r i m i n a l a c t t h a t c a u s e s i n j u r y t o more t h a n o n e p e r s o n may c o n s t i t u t e m o r e t h a n o n e o f f e n s e and may support more than one p r o s e c u t i o n and conviction." 511 So. 2d a t 223-25. 22 CR-08-0592 This C o u r t has a p p l i e d the McKinney r u l e to the crime of r o b b e r y a n d h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t may b e c o n v i c t e d of multiple counts transaction where So. of robbery multiple 2 d 975 applied during a victims out of a s i n g l e are involved. ( A l a . Crim. the McKinney App. rule 1994). See act or Sims v. S t a t e , Likewise, to the offense of this 663 Court capital counts of c a p i t a l murder d u r i n g single robbery act victims, or transaction albeit only one where murder of a robbery a r i s i n g out there victim. are multiple This explained: "A p e r s o n c o m m i t s t h e c r i m e o f r o b b e r y i n t h e first degree i f , i n the course of committing a t h e f t , he o r s h e u s e s f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e o w n e r o f t h e property o r any p e r s o n present with intent to 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 of r e s i s t a n c e , or threatens the imminent use of force against t h e owner of the property o r any person 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 t h e t a k i n g o f o r e s c a p i n g w i t h t h e p r o p e r t y , a n d he or she i s armed w i t h a d e a d l y weapon o r d a n g e r o u s instrument or causes serious physical injury to another. §§ 1 3 A - 8 - 4 1 a n d 1 3 A - 8 - 4 3 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 . A p e r s o n commits t h e crime o f murder i f , w i t h i n t e n t 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 , he o r s h e causes the death of that person or of another p e r s o n . Both r o b b e r y and murder a r e crimes against t h e p e r s o n , and t h e y b o t h f a l l i n t o t h e f i n a l two c a t e g o r i e s o f s t a t u t e s r e f e r r e d t o i n McKinney and R. Owens, Alabama's Minority Status: A Single C r i m i n a l A c t I n j u r i n g M u l t i p l e Persons Constitutes 23 has murder a r o b b e r y a n d h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t may b e c o n v i c t e d multiple of arising Court CR-08-0592 O n l y a S i n g l e O f f e n s e , 16 C u m . L . R e v . 85 (1985-86), that allow multiple convictions when multiple victims are involved. Likewise, capital murder during a robbery a l s o f a l l s i n t o the category of s t a t u t e s a l l o w i n g m u l t i p l e c o n v i c t i o n s when m u l t i p l e victims are involved. Section 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) (2) d e f i n e s c a p i t a l m u r d e r d u r i n g a r o b b e r y as ' [ m ] u r d e r by the defendant during a robbery i n the first degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant.' (Emphasis added.) The use of the indefinite article 'a' i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e u n i t o f p r o s e c u t i o n a l l o w s f o r m u l t i p l e c o n v i c t i o n s when a murder i s committed d u r i n g the course of m u l t i p l e robberies of m u l t i p l e v i c t i m s . In other words, the capital offense of murder during a robbery c o n t e m p l a t e s t h a t t h e m u r d e r was committed during the course of a s i n g l e robbery. I f the murder i s c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g m o r e t h a n one r o b b e r y a g a i n s t m o r e t h a n one p e r s o n , t h e n m o r e t h a n one c o n v i c t i o n f o r c a p i t a l murder d u r i n g a robbery i s p e r m i t t e d , just a s m o r e t h a n one c o n v i c t i o n f o r robbery would be permitted, e v e n w h e n o n l y one of the v i c t i m s i s murdered." Brooks v. State, 973 So. 2d 380, 406-07 (Ala. Crim. App. 212 (1960), the 2007). In Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t f a c e d a j u r y - i n s t r u c t i o n similar to the one here. Stirone was charged with, convicted of, u n l a w f u l l y i n t e r f e r i n g with i n t e r s t a t e The with indictment specifically a Pennsylvania states. That charged Stirone with company's i m p o r t a t i o n s a n d was used to 24 fulfill a of sand amendment and commerce. interfering from other concrete-production CR-08-0592 contract, and party and used which would the concrete addition t o be delivered to another f o r the erection of a steel-processing i n the future to the evidence importation was o f sand, ship steel of Stirone's out of state. interfering t h e Government i n t r o d u c e d plant, In with the evidence that S t i r o n e ' s a c t s a l s o a f f e c t e d i n t e r s t a t e commerce b y u l t i m a t e l y interfering processing with the future steel plant out of state. shipments The t r i a l court by the steel- i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y that the interstate-commerce element of the offense be f u l f i l l e d i f the j u r y found that with either the Pennsylvania with the future exportation Stirone's acts i n t e r f e r e d company's i m p o r t a t i o n of steel could of sand o r by t h e s t e e l - p r o c e s s i n g plant. The United States instruction c o n s t r u c t i v e l y amended t h e i n d i c t m e n t indictment amendment different returned could offense by the that than the reversed on and ground Court conviction new the Supreme that grand n o t be h a r m l e s s trial court's and that The C o u r t by such a the an explained: "Ever s i n c e Ex p a r t e Bain, 1 2 1 U.S. 1, was d e c i d e d i n 1887, i t has b e e n t h e r u l e t h a t a f t e r an i n d i c t m e n t h a s b e e n r e t u r n e d i t s c h a r g e s may n o t b e b r o a d e n e d t h r o u g h amendment e x c e p t b y t h e g r a n d j u r y 25 jury t o charge contemplated jury error. Stirone's CR-08-0592 itself. I n t h a t c a s e , t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t some s p e c i f i c and r e l e v a n t a l l e g a t i o n s t h e grand j u r y had c h a r g e d be s t r i c k e n from t h e i n d i c t m e n t so t h a t B a i n m i g h t be c o n v i c t e d w i t h o u t p r o o f o f t h o s e p a r t i c u l a r allegations. I n h o l d i n g t h a t t h i s c o u l d n o t be done, Mr. J u s t i c e M i l l e r , s p e a k i n g f o r t h e C o u r t , said: d o n e , "'If i t l i e s within the province of a court to change the charging part of an i n d i c t m e n t t o s u i t i t s own n o t i o n s o f w h a t i t ought t o have been, o r what t h e g r a n d j u r y w o u l d p r o b a b l y h a v e made i t i f t h e i r attention had been c a l l e d to suggested changes, t h e great importance which t h e common l a w a t t a c h e s t o a n i n d i c t m e n t b y a grand jury, as a prerequisite to a p r i s o n e r ' s t r i a l f o r a crime, and without which the constitution says "no p e r s o n s h a l l b e h e l d t o a n s w e r , " may b e f r i t t e r e d away u n t i l i t s v a l u e i s a l m o s t d e s t r o y e d . ' 121 U.S. 1, 1 0 , 7 S . C t . 7 8 1 , 7 8 6 . "The C o u r t w e n t o n t o h o l d i n B a i n : ' t h a t a f t e r t h e i n d i c t m e n t w a s c h a n g e d i t was no l o n g e r t h e i n d i c t m e n t o f t h e g r a n d j u r y who p r e s e n t e d i t . Any other doctrine would place the rights of the c i t i z e n , w h i c h were i n t e n d e d t o be p r o t e c t e d b y t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n , a t t h e mercy o r c o n t r o l o f the court o r p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y ' 1 2 1 U.S. 1, 13, 7 S . C t . 7 8 1 , 7 8 7 . "The Bain case, which has never been disapproved, stands f o r the r u l e that a court cannot p e r m i t a d e f e n d a n t t o be t r i e d on c h a r g e s t h a t a r e n o t made i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t a g a i n s t h i m . See a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v . N o r r i s , 2 8 1 U.S. 6 1 9 , 622 [ ( 1 9 3 0 ) ] ; C f . C l y a t t v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 197 U.S. 2 0 7 , 2 1 9 , 2 2 0 [(1905)]. Yet the court d i d permit that i n t h i s case. The i n d i c t m e n t h e r e c a n n o t f a i r l y b e r e a d a s c h a r g i n g i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h movements o f s t e e l f r o m P e n n s y l v a n i a t o o t h e r S t a t e s n o r does t h e Court o f 26 CR-08-0592 A p p e a l s a p p e a r t o h a v e s o r e a d i t . The g r a n d j u r y w h i c h f o u n d t h i s i n d i c t m e n t was s a t i s f i e d t o c h a r g e that S t i r o n e ' s conduct i n t e r f e r e d w i t h interstate i m p o r t a t i o n of sand. But n e i t h e r t h i s nor any o t h e r c o u r t c a n know t h a t t h e g r a n d j u r y w o u l d h a v e b e e n willing to charge that Stirone's conduct would i n t e r f e r e w i t h i n t e r s t a t e e x p o r t a t i o n of s t e e l from a m i l l l a t e r t o be b u i l t w i t h R i d e r ' s c o n c r e t e . And i t c a n n o t be s a i d w i t h c e r t a i n t y t h a t w i t h a new b a s i s f o r c o n v i c t i o n a d d e d , S t i r o n e was convicted s o l e l y o n t h e c h a r g e made i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t the grand j u r y returned. Although the t r i a l court d i d n o t p e r m i t a f o r m a l amendment o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t , t h e e f f e c t o f w h a t i t d i d was t h e same. A n d t h e a d d i t i o n charging interference with steel exports here i s neither t r i v i a l , u s e l e s s , nor innocuous. Compare F o r d v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 273 U.S. 5 9 3 , 602 [(1927)]; G o t o v . L a n e , 265 U.S. 3 9 3 , 402 [(1924)]. While t h e r e was a v a r i a n c e i n t h e s e n s e o f a v a r i a t i o n between p l e a d i n g and p r o o f , that variation here d e s t r o y e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t t o be t r i e d o n l y on c h a r g e s p r e s e n t e d i n an indictment r e t u r n e d by a g r a n d j u r y . D e p r i v a t i o n of such a b a s i c r i g h t i s f a r t o o s e r i o u s t o be t r e a t e d as n o t h i n g more t h a n a v a r i a n c e and t h e n d i s m i s s e d as harmless e r r o r . Compare B e r g e r v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 295 U.S. 78 [(1935)]. The v e r y p u r p o s e of the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a man b e i n d i c t e d b y g r a n d j u r y i s to l i m i t h i s j e o p a r d y t o o f f e n s e s charged by a group of his fellow citizens acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge. Thus t h e b a s i c p r o t e c t i o n t h e g r a n d j u r y was designed to afford i s defeated by a d e v i c e or method which subjects the defendant to prosecution for interference with interstate commerce w h i c h the grand j u r y d i d not charge. "Here, as t h e t r i a l court charged the j u r y , t h e r e a r e two e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f a Hobbs A c t crime: i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h commerce, and e x t o r t i o n . Both elements h a v e t o be charged. Neither is s u r p l u s a g e and n e i t h e r c a n be t r e a t e d as s u r p l u s a g e . 27 CR-08-0592 The c h a r g e t h a t i n t e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e i s a f f e c t e d i s c r i t i c a l s i n c e the F e d e r a l Government's j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h i s c r i m e r e s t s o n l y on t h a t i n t e r f e r e n c e . It follows that when o n l y one particular kind of commerce is charged to have been burdened a c o n v i c t i o n must r e s t on t h a t c h a r g e and n o t a n o t h e r , e v e n t h o u g h i t be a s s u m e d t h a t u n d e r an i n d i c t m e n t drawn i n g e n e r a l terms a c o n v i c t i o n might r e s t upon a s h o w i n g t h a t commerce o f one k i n d o r a n o t h e r h a d been burdened. The r i g h t t o h a v e t h e g r a n d j u r y make t h e c h a r g e on i t s own j u d g m e n t i s a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t w h i c h c a n n o t be t a k e n away w i t h o r w i t h o u t c o u r t amendment. Here, as i n t h e B a i n c a s e , we cannot know w h e t h e r the grand jury would have i n c l u d e d i n i t s i n d i c t m e n t a c h a r g e t h a t commerce i n steel from a nonexistent steel mill had been interfered with. Yet because of the court's a d m i s s i o n of e v i d e n c e and under i t s charge this might have been t h e b a s i s upon w h i c h t h e t r i a l j u r y convicted petitioner. I f s o , he was c o n v i c t e d o n a c h a r g e t h e g r a n d j u r y n e v e r made a g a i n s t h i m . This was f a t a l e r r o r . C f . C o l e v . S t a t e o f A r k a n s a s , 333 U.S. 196 [ ( 1 9 4 8 ) ] ; De J o n g e v . S t a t e o f O r e g o n , 2 99 U.S. 353 [(1937)]." 361 U.S. In a t 215-19 Brooks, amendment to robbery. The (emphasis supra, an this indictment added; footnotes omitted). Court faced for a capital jury-instruction murder during a e v i d e n c e i n Brooks i n d i c a t e d t h a t Brooks and h i s c o d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d t h e home o f F o r e s t B o w y e r a n d h i s 1 2 - y e a r old son, B r e t t , a remote kidnapped location, Forest and Brett, q u e s t i o n e d F o r e s t about drove t h e two to the whereabouts of a s a f e , d r o v e t h e two b a c k t o t h e i r h o u s e w h e r e t h e y g o t money and a gun, and t h e n d r o v e t h e two 28 back t o the remote location CR-08-0592 where him Brooks and his i n t h e h e a d and throat. Bowyer language i n d i c t e d f o r the the i n the course of indictment murdered B r e t t during the time person Forest he was the use of So. 2d F. Bowyer, r e s i s t a n c e or at 401 instructed with (emphasis o m i t t e d ) . the jury that i t of The could " ' e i t h e r used force to against overcome resist.'" This had force a person, his 973 Court or 2d held to at that resistance course 402 the (emphasis trial c o n s t r u c t i v e l y amended t h e of the his resistance.'" 973 court, Brooks however, guilty of murdered B r e t t and the or Brooks overcome find threatened that imminent W i l l i a m B r e t t Bowyer, w i t h physical So. The 6 force against trial c a p i t a l murder i f i t found t h a t Brooks had had Bowyer. i n the intent p h y s i c a l power cutting his Brett charged that shooting murder of Forest specifically a t h e f t o f money "'by physical B r e t t by capital robbing committing of murdered a t t e m p t e d t o murder F o r e s t by B r o o k s was during codefendant the physical use of intent power to omitted). court's indictment, jury instruction t h a t the amendment B r o o k s was a l s o i n d i c t e d f o r , a n d f o u n d g u i l t y o f , t h r e e additional c o u n t s o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r : m u r d e r made capital b e c a u s e i t was committed during a kidnapping, 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 during a burglary, and m u r d e r made c a p i t a l b e c a u s e t h e v i c t i m was a c h i l d l e s s t h a n 14 y e a r s o f age. 6 29 CR-08-0592 charged a 13.5(a), A l a . R. C r i m . level new of plain or different offense i n violation of P., a n d t h a t t h e a m e n d m e n t r o s e e r r o r a n d was n o t h a r m l e s s . We to the explained: "The e v i d e n c e h e r e ... u n d i s p u t e d l y s h o w e d t w o separate and distinct robberies against two d i f f e r e n t v i c t i m s -- o n e a g a i n s t F o r e s t B o w y e r a n d one a g a i n s t B r e t t B o w y e r . B e c a u s e two v i c t i m s were involved, Brooks could have been charged and convicted separately f o r two c o u n t s of capital m u r d e r d u r i n g a r o b b e r y -- m u r d e r d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of robbing F o r e s t Bowyer and murder d u r i n g t h e course o f r o b b i n g B r e t t Bowyer. Because Brooks c o u l d have been charged and c o n v i c t e d s e p a r a t e l y f o r two c o u n t s o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r d u r i n g a r o b b e r y b a s e d o n t h e t w o s e p a r a t e r o b b e r i e s , we m u s t c o n c l u d e t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d an amendment to the capital-murder-during-a-robbery indictment, which changed t h e robbery from the r o b b e r y o f F o r e s t Bowyer t o t h e r o b b e r y of Brett B o w y e r a n d , t h u s , c h a r g e d a new o r d i f f e r e n t o f f e n s e not contemplated by t h e o r i g i n a l i n d i c t m e n t , running a f o u l o f R u l e 1 3 . 5 , A l a . R. C r i m . P. "In i t s b r i e f on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , t h e State argues that the trial court read the indictment to the jury during i t s preliminary instructions and t h a t the presentation of the e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l was p r e m i s e d s o l e l y o n t h e f a c t t h a t F o r e s t B o w y e r was t h e v i c t i m o f t h e r o b b e r y . Thus, the State concludes, the t r i a l court's i n a d v e r t e n t ' s l i p of the tongue' d i d not serve t o a m e n d t h e i n d i c t m e n t a n d , a t m o s t , was h a r m l e s s error. ( S t a t e ' s b r i e f o n r e h e a r i n g , p . 4.) We acknowledge t h a t the t r i a l court read t h e indictment to t h e j u r y ; however, i t d i d so b e f o r e v o i r dire e x a m i n a t i o n , o n F e b r u a r y 2, 2 0 0 4 , s e v e n d a y s b e f o r e the t r i a l court's f i n a l guilt-phase instructions w e r e g i v e n o n F e b r u a r y 9, 2 0 0 4 . We a l s o a g r e e t h a t the evidence i n t h i s case undoubtedly e s t a b l i s h e d 30 Rule CR-08-0592 t h a t F o r e s t B o w y e r was r o b b e d ; h o w e v e r , a s n o t e d , t h e e v i d e n c e a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t B r e t t B o w y e r was robbed. I n a d d i t i o n , a t no t i m e d u r i n g o p e n i n g o r c l o s i n g statements d i d the prosecutor s p e c i f i c a l l y f o c u s on F o r e s t Bowyer as t h e v i c t i m o f t h e r o b b e r y underlying the capital-murder charge; rather, the p r o s e c u t o r r e f e r r e d t o 'them,' m e a n i n g b o t h F o r e s t Bowyer and B r e t t Bowyer, as v i c t i m s o f t h e r o b b e r y . (R. 1552; 1556; 1570.) Moreover, Brooks was indicted for the robbery of Forest Bowyer independent of the capital-murder charge. Therefore, we cannot agree that the State's p r e s e n t a t i o n o f i t s c a s e was p r e m i s e d s o l e l y o n t h e fact that F o r e s t B o w y e r was the v i c t i m of the robbery u n d e r l y i n g the capital-murder charge. 9 "We also cannot assume that the jurors remembered, seven days l a t e r , t h e s p e c i f i c w o r d i n g of t h e i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g i n g c a p i t a l murder d u r i n g a r o b b e r y a s i t was r e a d t o t h e m b e f o r e v o i r dire e x a m i n a t i o n , a t t h e same t i m e t h a t t h e o t h e r s i x charges were a l s o r e a d t o them, and t h a t they understood, based on those seven-day-old i n s t r u c t i o n s and i n l i g h t o f t h e a m b i g u i t y i n t h e State's p r e s e n t a t i o n of i t s case, that Brooks was charged w i t h c a p i t a l murder d u r i n g the robbery o f F o r e s t Bowyer, as opposed t o c a p i t a l murder d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y o f B r e t t Bowyer as t h e t r i a l court i n s t r u c t e d them j u s t b e f o r e d e l i b e r a t i o n s . To do s o would not o n l y s t r a i n c r e d u l i t y , but would r e q u i r e us t o presume t h a t t h e j u r o r s d i s r e g a r d e d t h e t r i a l court's f i n a l guilt-phase instructions. I t i s well s e t t l e d t h a t j u r o r s are presumed t o f o l l o w , not disregard, the t r i a l court's instructions. See, e.g., S t e p h e n s v. S t a t e , [982] So. 2d [1110, 1130] (Ala. C r i m . App. 2005) ('Jurors are presumed t o f o l l o w the judge's i n s t r u c t i o n s . ' ) ; M i n o r v. S t a t e , 914 S o . 2 d 3 7 2 , 418 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( ' J u r o r s are presumed to follow their instructions.'); P e r a i t a v . S t a t e , 897 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 1 , 1204 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) ('"Jurors are presumed t o f o l l o w the t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s . " ' ) , a f f ' d , 897 S o . 2 d 31 CR-08-0592 1 2 2 7 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , q u o t i n g B r y a n t v . S t a t e , 727 S o . 2d 870, 874-75 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; C e n t o b i e v. S t a t e , 861 So. 2 d 1 1 1 1 , 1135 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2001) ('"Jurors a r e presumed t o f o l l o w t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ' ) , q u o t i n g G r i f f i n v . S t a t e , 790 S o . 2 d 2 6 7 , 334 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , r e v ' d o n other grounds, 790 So. 2 d 351 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; a n d B u r g e s s v . S t a t e , 827 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 , 162 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1998) ('Jurors a r e presumed t o f o l l o w t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s . ' ) , a f f ' d , 827 S o . 2 d 1 9 3 ( A l a . 2000). U n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h i s c a s e , we must presume that the jurors followed the t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e charge o f murder made c a p i t a l b e c a u s e i t was c o m m i t t e d during a r o b b e r y and found, as i n s t r u c t e d by t h e c o u r t , t h a t Brooks murdered B r e t t Bowyer d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f robbing Brett, not during the course of robbing F o r e s t Bowyer as c h a r g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t . "The State's reliance on U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Andrews, 850 F.2d 1557 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1988), i s misplaced. I n Andrews, Sylvester Andrews was charged w i t h c o n s p i r i n g w i t h h i s codefendant Robert Ford to d i s t r i b u t e cocaine. In i t sinstructions to the jury, the trial court gave a standard instruction on conspiracy law, including the following statements: "'"In order to establish a conspiracy offense, i t i s not necessary f o r the government t o prove t h a t a l l o f t h e people named i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t w e r e members o f t h e s c h e m e o r t h a t t h o s e who w e r e m e m b e r s h a d e n t e r e d i n t o any f o r m a l type o f agreement. "'"... W h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e must show b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t i s , f i r s t , t h a t t w o o r m o r e p e r s o n s i n some w a y o r m a n n e r came t o a m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o try t o a c c o m p l i s h a common a n d u n l a w f u l p l a n a s c h a r g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t ; ... 32 CR-08-0592 II I II "'"Now, a g o v e r n m e n t a g e n t , s u c h a s a c o n f i d e n t i a l source or a p o l i c e officer, c a n n o t b e a c o - c o n s p i r a t o r i n a s m u c h a s he is working for the government. A c c o r d i n g l y , i n o r d e r t o f i n d one o r b o t h of the defendants g u i l t y of the crime of c o n s p i r a c y , you must f i n d t h a t e a c h o f them conspired with someone other than a government agent."' "850 F . 2 d a t 1 5 5 9 . In h o l d i n g that these i s o l a t e d comments d i d n o t amend t h e i n d i c t m e n t , t h e U n i t e d States Court of Appeals f o r the E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t noted that, d u r i n g i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s , the t r i a l court had 'read the indictment [to the jury] and repeatedly linked the instructions to the i n d i c t m e n t ' ; had ' d e s c r i b e d the crime of c o n s p i r a c y i n t e r m s o f t h e " d e f e n d a n t s " -- n a m e l y , F o r d and Andrews -and not just "persons"'; and had ' i n s t r u c t e d [ t h e j u r y ] t h a t i t "must f o l l o w a l l o f [the c o u r t ' s ] i n s t r u c t i o n s as a w h o l e . Y o u may not single out or disregard any of the Court's instructions on the law."' 850 F.2d at 1559 ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . The C o u r t a l s o n o t e d t h a t t h e o n l y e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l was t h a t A n d r e w s and Ford had conspired together and that the g o v e r n m e n t had n o t shown n o r a r g u e d t h a t any o t h e r persons were i n v o l v e d . In t h i s case, however, u n l i k e i n Andrews, the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not r e a d the indictment to the j u r y d u r i n g i t s f i n a l g u i l t - p h a s e i n s t r u c t i o n s , b u t d i d so s e v e n days e a r l i e r b e f o r e v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n , n o r d i d t h e c o u r t a t any t i m e link i t s instructions to the indictment. In addition, as noted above, there was evidence p r e s e n t e d of a r o b b e r y of B r e t t Bowyer i n a d d i t i o n t o e v i d e n c e o f a r o b b e r y o f F o r e s t B o w y e r a n d a t no time d i d the p r o s e c u t o r s p e c i f i c a l l y argue that Forest Bowyer was the victim of the robbery u n d e r l y i n g the capital-murder charge. 33 CR-08-0592 " W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 701 So. 2 d 832 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997), i s more a k i n t o t h i s case than i s Andrews. Williams was indicted for robbing C h r i s t o p h e r Rashon Love and E r i c A l e x a n d e r ; however, i n i t s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s , the t r i a l court i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y t h a t i t c o u l d f i n d W i l l i a m s g u i l t y i f i t found t h a t W i l l i a m s had robbed C h r i s t o p h e r Rashon Love or E r i c Alexander. In r e v e r s i n g W i l l i a m s ' s conviction, t h i s Court stated: "'"The t r i a l c o u r t has a mandatory d u t y o f i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y o r a l l y as t o t h e d i f f e r e n t and d i s t i n g u i s h i n g e l e m e n t s of the offense charged." Davidson v. S t a t e , 360 So. 2 d 7 2 8 , 730 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 360 So. 2 d 731 (Ala. 1978). I t i s c l e a r t h a t i n order f o r the j u r y to c o n v i c t W i l l i a m s of the offense charged i n the i n d i c t m e n t , the j u r y would have to have found him g u i l t y of r o b b i n g b o t h a l l e g e d victims. See D o b y n e v . S t a t e , 672 So. 2d 1 3 1 9 , 1341 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , on r e t u r n t o r e m a n d , 672 So. 2 d 1353 (Ala. Cr. App. 1 9 9 4 ) , a f f ' d , 672 So. 2 d 1354 (Ala. 1995), c e r t . d e n i e d , 517 U.S. 1 1 6 9 , 116 S . C t . 1571 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; S t y l e s v . S t a t e , 474 So. 2 d 185, 188 ( A l a . C r . App. 1985) . It i s equally c l e a r t h a t i f the j u r y f o l l o w e d the trial c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n , i t c o u l d have found W i l l i a m s g u i l t y b a s e d on t h e r o b b e r y of e i t h e r of the a l l e g e d v i c t i m s . In S t y l e s v. S t a t e , s u p r a , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e x p l a i n e d to the jury that an indictment c o n j u n c t i v e l y a l l e g i n g crimes against two victims should have a l l e g e d the crimes disjunctively i n the alternative. The c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y amended t h e indictment, so t h a t i n s t e a d o f alleging crimes a g a i n s t A and B, the indictment a l l e g e d crimes a g a i n s t A a n d / o r B. We noted i n Styles that actual prejudice was shown when t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s p o l l i n g o f t h e 34 CR-08-0592 jury indicated that the conviction was a c t u a l l y b a s e d o n a c r i m e a g a i n s t j u s t one o f t h e v i c t i m s ; we b e l i e v e t h a t s u f f i c i e n t p r e j u d i c e has a l s o been d e m o n s t r a t e d i n t h e i n s t a n t case. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t o n l y one o f t h e a l l e g e d v i c t i m s i n t h e i n s t a n t case, E r i c Alexander, a c t u a l l y t e s t i f i e d at trial. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t W i l l i a m s c o u l d be f o u n d g u i l t y on p r o o f o f fewer f a c t s than a l l e g e d i n the indictment was improper and unduly prejudiced Williams's substantial rights. "'In the i n s t a n t case, the State c o u l d p r o p e r l y h a v e c h o s e n t o s e e k i n d i c t m e n t s on two s e p a r a t e c o u n t s o f r o b b e r y i n t h e f i r s t degree. By charging conjunctively the robbery of both v i c t i m s , the indictment r e q u i r e d proof of both r o b b e r i e s i n order for the j u r y to reach a g u i l t y v e r d i c t . The t r i a l court's i n s t r u c t i o n that only proof of the robbery of e i t h e r of the a l l e g e d v i c t i m s was n e c e s s a r y t o s u s t a i n a g u i l t y v e r d i c t was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . ' "701 So. 2d Brooks]).[ ] at 833-34 (some emphasis added [in 7 T h e a m e n d m e n t i n W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 701 So. 2 d 832 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997), d i d not change the o f f e n s e charged, but changed only the conjunction between the two charged robberies. The a m e n d m e n t , j u s t a s t h e o r i g i n a l indictment, p u t W i l l i a m s o n n o t i c e t h a t he was e x p e c t e d t o d e f e n d a g a i n s t two r o b b e r i e s , a g a i n s t b o t h L o v e and A l e x a n d e r , and d i d not i m p a i r W i l l i a m s ' s a b i l i t y to p l e a d the judgment i n bar t o a second prosecution for the robbery of either Love or Alexander. Therefore, t h e amendment d i d n o t v i o l a t e the p r o h i b i t i o n i n R u l e 1 3 . 5 ( a ) a g a i n s t a m e n d i n g an i n d i c t m e n t t o c h a r g e a new o r d i f f e r e n t o f f e n s e . See A s h , 843 So. 2 d a t 217. T h i s C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g was p r e m i s e d o n t h e p r e j u d i c e t o 7 35 CR-08-0592 "The circumstances i n t h i s c a s e a r e e v e n more compelling than those i n W i l l i a m s . The i n d i c t m e n t against Williams p u t h i m o n n o t i c e t h a t h e was expected t o defend against the robbery of both v i c t i m s , b u t t h e j u r y - i n s t r u c t i o n amendment r e d u c e d t h e c h a r g e t o j u s t one v i c t i m . Here, however, t h e j u r y - i n s t r u c t i o n amendment d i d n o t m e r e l y n a r r o w t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t , b u t a c t u a l l y changed t h e o f f e n s e f o r w h i c h B r o o k s was i n d i c t e d -- c a p i t a l m u r d e r d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y o f F o r e s t B o w y e r -- t o a n o f f e n s e f o rwhich Brooks had never been i n d i c t e d and h a d n e v e r r e c e i v e d n o t i c e t h a t he was e x p e c t e d t o d e f e n d a g a i n s t -- c a p i t a l m u r d e r d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y of B r e t t Bowyer. In other words, Brooks was c o n v i c t e d o f an o f f e n s e f o r w h i c h he h a d n o t b e e n p r o p e r l y charged. 'Deprivation of such a b a s i c r i g h t i s f a r t o o s e r i o u s t o be t r e a t e d as n o t h i n g more t h a n a v a r i a n c e a n d t h e n d i s m i s s e d as h a r m l e s s error.' S t i r o n e v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 6 1 U.S. 2 1 2 , 2 1 7 , 80 S . C t . 2 7 0 , 4 L . E d . 2 d 252 ( 1 9 6 0 ) . T h u s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u r y - i n s t r u c t i o n amendment i n t h i s case c o n s t i t u t e s p l a i n e r r o r . " E v e n when a r g u i n g the elements of c a p i t a l murder d u r i n g a robbery, the prosecutor d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y d e l i n e a t e who was t h e v i c t i m o f t h e robbery, b u t i m p l i e d t h a t B r e t t B o w y e r was t h e 9 W i l l i a m s ' s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s u n d e r R u l e 1 3 . 5 ( c ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. ("No c h a r g e s h a l l b e d e e m e d i n v a l i d , n o r s h a l l t h e trial, judgment, o r other proceedings thereon be stayed, arrested, o r i n any manner a f f e c t e d , f o r any d e f e c t o r i m p e r f e c t i o n i n t h e charge w h i c h does n o t t e n d t o p r e j u d i c e the s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t upon t h e m e r i t s . " ) . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e amendment was p r e j u d i c i a l b e c a u s e i t a l l o w e d W i l l i a m s t o "be f o u n d g u i l t y o n p r o o f o f f e w e r f a c t s t h a n alleged i n the indictment." W i l l i a m s , 701 So. 2 d a t 8 3 3 . See a l s o S t y l e s v . S t a t e , 474 S o . 2 d 1 8 5 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) . 36 CR-08-0592 victim. The p r o s e c u t o r s t a t e d : ' I f y o u u s e force a g a i n s t a p e r s o n t o overcome t h e i r r e s i s t a n c e , and y o u ' r e armed w i t h a d e a d l y weapon o r a d a n g e r o u s i n s t r u m e n t o r you c a u s e an i n j u r y , y o u ' r e g u i l t y o f r o b b e r y . D i d t h e y use f o r c e ? Yes; d e a d l y f o r c e . D i d t h e y c a u s e i n j u r y ? Of c o u r s e . ' (R. 1 5 7 3 ; emphasis added.)" Brooks, 973 The So. 2d at evidence 408-11. here, established multiple as in Brooks, robberies. A supra, robbery undoubtedly i s committed when someone c o m m i t s o r a t t e m p t s t o commit a t h e f t o f p r o p e r t y , during that against commission or either the owner present. Both the owner least other person, one repeatedly club, firing register. both Conaway the of and Belser, s e p a r a t e l y f o r two a -- have been counts of capital charged murder and when and a at McKinnis, the force robberies against a g a i n s t them of c a p i t a l of convicted 37 Conaway, t o s t e a l money f r o m course during person the while Because based on and McKinnis separately for robbery and murder d u r i n g r o b b i n g Conaway murder d u r i n g the course of r o b b i n g B e l s e r . could another force c o u l d have been charged counts murder d u r i n g the uses across the s t r e e t to committed using a t t e m p t i n g t o s t e a l m o n e y , a n d he robbery property, attempted by person were p r e s e n t clearly convicted the p r o p e r t y or the Belser, McKinnis and of h i s weapon, w a l k e d entered the club, cash attempt, and the two two CR-08-0592 s e p a r a t e r o b b e r i e s o f Conaway a n d B e l s e r , for o n l y one o f t h o s e the t r i a l b u t h e was r o b b e r i e s -- t h e r o b b e r y court's instructions indicted o f Conaway to the jury that i tcould -¬ find M c K i n n i s g u i l t y o f c a p i t a l murder d u r i n g a robbery i f i t found that McKinnis amended robbed the indictment contemplated Belser -- by and Moreover, case Conaway to add the original clearly 1 3 . 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. this either Crim. we an Belser, violated improperly additional indictment the -- charge not the robbery prohibition in of Rule P. cannot say that harmless. was or As the t r i a l i n Brooks, court's error i n the record here r e f l e c t s t h a t the S t a t e ' s case a t the g u i l t - p h a s e of the t r i a l was not presented in such a fashion distinguish Conaway as t h e v i c t i m Belser the as throughout victim victim the t r i a l , of the crime owner o f t h e c l u b . on the McKinnis's crime. 8 of the to specifically of the robbery murder charged charged. and Rather, t h e p r o s e c u t o r r e f e r r e d t o B e l s e r as t h e generally Indeed, intent as simply as t h e the focus of the S t a t e ' s case to k i l l , In addition, a n d t o Conaway n o t on t h e r o b b e r y although the t r i a l element was of court d i d read Although during opening statements the prosecutor d i d request t h a t t h e j u r y f i n d M c K i n n i s g u i l t y o f c a p i t a l murder, 8 38 CR-08-0592 the indictment initial oral recharged court's occurred to the charge at this at The render of indictment court instructed the him" the and by areas The of elements law of specifically of the Andrews, as t h a t the defendant 1031.) you i n any court before capital link F. case then indictment evidence indictment was o r any "merely 2d i n s t r u c t e d the murder. 1557 the jury instructing At no was the point (11th case not the on the d i d the which jury." five be against method by i s brought before eventually as "should circumstance i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s to the indictment, 850 any oral trial f o l l o w i n g the reading of the i n d i c t m e n t , the the court's the the immediately that the its i n d i c t m e n t when i t does not reading of and, jury of beginning charge, considered beginning the reread the f a c t alone harmless. the once ( i t d i d not the j u r y ) , error jury (R. different jury trial on the court factual allegations in C i r . 1988). United The States trial v. court s p e c i f i c a l l y "of the robbery i n t h i s case, of robbing the C h a m p a g n e L o u n g e , t h e p r o p e r t y o f M i c h a e l C o n a w a y " (R. 2 2 3 ) , t h i s statement i s c l e a r l y i n c o r r e c t because i t r e f e r r e d to the c l u b i t s e l f as t h e v i c t i m o f t h e r o b b e r y , n o t Conaway. As noted above, robbery i s a crime a g a i n s t the person, not against a place. We c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h i s s i n g l e , i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r i n a n y way s u g g e s t e d t o t h e j u r y t h a t C o n a w a y was t h e v i c t i m o f t h e robbery. 39 CR-08-0592 here also made t h e same during its initial jury, the McKinnis trial oral charge court guilty error told of capital n o t once, the jury murder Both when r e c h a r g i n g and again but twice. the that i t could i f i t found find either M c K i n n i s r o b b e d Conaway o r t h a t M c K i n n i s r o b b e d B e l s e r . we cannot say that the simply a amendment was overlooked by t h e j u r y . are presumed to instructions." The "slip court's of As n o t e d follow, the jury-instruction tongue" i n Brooks, that and McKinnis court's McKinnis "jurors the t r i a l not disregard, supra, court's received no n o t i c e the robbery that of Belser. h e was of a crime f o r which during h e was never i n d i c t e d -- t h e the robbery of Belser. because tried a i t "destroy[s only grand i s neither trivial, on c h a r g e s p r e s e n t e d jury." useless, a] d e f e n d a n t ' s Stirone, As t h e U n i t e d 40 or charging innocuous" substantial right i n an i n d i c t m e n t 2 6 1 U.S. of the to convict S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d i n S t i r o n e : " [ T ] h e a d d i t i o n offense] expected Yet because i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e j u r y was p e r m i t t e d murder o f B e l s e r new was 973 S o . 2 d a t 4 0 9 . to defend against [a Thus, grand j u r y d i d not i n d i c t McKinnis f o r the robbery of Belser, trial trial that a t 217 t o be returned (emphasis by added). CR-08-0592 "Deprivation treated as n o t h i n g harmless a basic Id. here adversely and h a d an deliberations. right i s f a r too serious more t h a n a v a r i a n c e error." amendment rights of such The unfair affected and then dismissed court's supra. as jury-instruction McKinnis's p r e j u d i c i a l impact See B r o o k s , p l a i n e r r o r and r e q u i r e s trial t o be Therefore, substantial on the jury's i t constituted r e v e r s a l of McKinnis's c o n v i c t i o n and sentence. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , is reversed and t h i s R E V E R S E D AND cause t h e judgment of the t r i a l r e m a n d e d f o r a new court trial. REMANDED. Windom, P . J . , a n d W e l c h , B u r k e , 41 and J o i n e r , JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.