Ex parte Parker
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Jermaine Parker was convicted of conspiracy to commit a controlled-substance crime (the unlawful distribution of cocaine), and of obstructing governmental operations. The Supreme Court granted certiorari review to consider whether the decision of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the convictions in an unpublished memorandum, conflicted with "Ex parte Williams," (468 So. 2d 99, 101 (Ala. 1985)) regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support Parker's conviction for conspiracy to commit a controlled-substance crime. The Court denied certiorari review with regard to Parker's conviction for obstructing governmental operations. After review of the trial court record and the unpublished appellate court opinion, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented in this matter "speculative" in nature: "Such proof is always insufficient, unless it excludes, to a moral certainty, every other reasonable hypothesis, but that of the guilt of the accused. No matter how strong the circumstances, if they can be reconciled with the theory that some other person may have done the act, then the defendant is not shown to be guilty, by that full measure of proof which the law requires...." The Court reversed the appellate court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Download PDF
REL: 04/05/2013 Notice: This 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1110566 Ex p a r t e Jermaine Lavar Parker PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In r e : Jermaine Lavar Parker v. S t a t e o f Alabama) (Madison C i r c u i t Court, CC-10-1821; Court o f C r i m i n a l Appeals, CR-10-0833) MURDOCK, Justice. Jermaine Lavar Parker was c o n v i c t e d of conspiracy t o commit a c o n t r o l l e d - s u b s t a n c e c r i m e ( t h e u n l a w f u l distribution o f c o c a i n e ) , a v i o l a t i o n o f A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-12-204, a n d of o b s t r u c t i n g governmental operations, a violation of A l a . 1110566 Code 1975, § 13A-10-2. to consider This Court granted certiorari whether t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Alabama C r i m i n a l Appeals, review Court of a f f i r m i n g t h e c o n v i c t i o n s b y an u n p u b l i s h e d memorandum, c o n f l i c t s w i t h Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m s , 468 So. 2d 99, 101 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e C a r t e r , 889 So. 2d 528 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , r e g a r d i n g t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e evidence t o support Parker's conviction f o r conspiracy to commit a c o n t r o l l e d - s u b s t a n c e c r i m e . P a r k e r v . S t a t e (No. CR- 10-0833, Dec. 16, 2 0 1 1 ) , ___ So. 3d ___ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2011) (table). This Court denied certiorari r e v i e w as t o P a r k e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n f o r o b s t r u c t i n g governmental operations. Facts The evidence at trial showed the following. On December 16, 2008, O f f i c e r s B l a k e Dean a n d Tony S h i v e r s o f t h e Huntsville two suspicious LongHorn white D e p a r t m e n t were d i s p a t c h e d vehicles Steakhouse Although the engines and Officer a n d a man passenger's Shivers later seat. near each other behind a o n l y one o f t h e v e h i c l e s was i n b o t h v e h i c l e s were r u n n i n g . (belonging to Parker's seat parked to investigate r e s t a u r a n t ; one o f t h e v e h i c l e s was a N i s s a n Maxima. occupied, Dean Police wife) approached a n d saw P a r k e r identified Officer the Dean 2 as T e r r e n c e testified white Officer Maxima i n the driver's Corbett that, i n the as he a n d 1110566 Officer Shivers approached the vehicle, Parker " [ r ] e a c h i n g down and a r o u n d [ a n d ] a c r o s s " i n t h e c a r . Dean testified Parker to that get out he of opened the the vehicle. O f f i c e r Dean, P a r k e r " i m m e d i a t e l y door, almost door." slamming Officer driver's [Officer y e l l e d , no, drew h i s weapon and ordered Parker complied. Once P a r k e r was Dean under placed him arrest Parker hand continued out in to to the reach O f f i c e r Dean of the car, out of the v e h i c l e , for told and slammed t h e a r o u n d b e t w e e n t h e s e a t and t h e c e n t e r c o n s o l e . then and according Dean's] r i g h t Dean s t a t e d t h a t P a r k e r Officer door However, began and Officer o b s t r u c t i n g governmental operations. The each. o f f i c e r s saw money i n P a r k e r ' s c a r i n b u n d l e s The money, w h i c h t o t a l e d $ 2 , 1 1 5 , was of $100 located in several areas i n the car, i n c l u d i n g the d r i v e r ' s seat, the f l o o r b o a r d , and the center Corbett's console. vehicle and Subsequently, found three backseat seven c o c a i n e and four of which contained marijuana. a set of d i g i t a l bags, the containing a l s o found smaller in police of area which s c a l e s w i t h these searched The a bag contained officers bags. A s h o r t t i m e a f t e r P a r k e r ' s a r r e s t , O f f i c e r G a r y Trampas and a trained police dog arrived at the scene. e x h i b i t e d an " o d o r r e s p o n s e " a t t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t o f 3 The dog Parker's 1110566 c a r and i n the backseat been r e c o v e r e d . had respect to both v e h i c l e s , t h e dog did not e x h i b i t the "odor i n d i c a t i o n " t h a t s i g n i f i e s t h a t he had actually found With o f C o r b e t t ' s c a r where t h e d r u g s 1 drugs. Police did P a r k e r ' s c a r o r on P a r k e r ' s p e r s o n paraphernalia, weapons, scales, not find any drugs and d i d n o t f i n d any or records or in drug notations of drug t r a n s a c t i o n s . Officer Jimmy Anderson, a narcotics agent H u n t s v i l l e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he with the responded to t h e s c e n e o f t h e a r r e s t and saw t h e c o c a i n e and m a r i j u a n a had b e e n s e i z e d f r o m C o r b e t t ' s c a r : a p p r o x i m a t e l y cocaine Anderson cocaine and approximately testified found to be s t r e e t value of the and (3) that the (1) 21 grams that he of a "distribution 7 grams o f marijuana. considered the amount," (2) Officer amount of that the c o c a i n e w o u l d be b e t w e e n $200 and street b e t w e e n $300 and $ 7 0 0 . v a l u e o f t h e d r u g s was value of the that marijuana O f f i c e r Anderson t e s t i f i e d $400, would be that the c l e a r l y l e s s t h a n t h e $2,115 f o u n d i n Parker's car. O f f i c e r Trampas t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e dog was t r a i n e d t o d e t e c t s e v e r a l common d r u g s , i n c l u d i n g both cocaine and marijuana. B e c a u s e no d r u g s were f o u n d i n P a r k e r ' s c a r , i t c a n n o t be d e t e r m i n e d t o what d r u g , i f any, t h e dog was r e s p o n d i n g when he e x h i b i t e d a r e s p o n s e t o P a r k e r ' s c a r . 1 4 1110566 Officer the Shivers t e s t i f i e d incident that officers statement State's he that Corbett and P a r k e r approached the v e h i c l e . by case. Parker or Corbett "were talking" No o t h e r was told him d u r i n g when t h e evidence presented o f any during the 2 Standard o f Review I n Ex p a r t e M a u r i c i o , 523 So. 2d 87, 91 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , this Court d i s c u s s e d the t e s t f o r reviewing the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence i n a criminal case: "'In reviewing a conviction based on c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , t h i s c o u r t must v i e w t h a t evidence i n the l i g h t most favorable t o the p r o s e c u t i o n . The t e s t t o be a p p l i e d i s w h e t h e r t h e j u r y might r e a s o n a b l [ y ] f i n d t h a t the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except t h a t of g u i l t ; n o t whether such evidence excludes every reasonable h y p o t h e s i s b u t g u i l t , b u t whether a j u r y might r e a s o n a b l y so conclude '" Id. ( q u o t i n g Cumbo v . S t a t e , 368 So. 2d 8 7 1 , 874 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1978)). Legal Analysis C o r b e t t t e s t i f i e d f o r t h e d e f e n s e t h a t he w o r k e d as a cook a t t h e L o n g H o r n S t e a k h o u s e r e s t a u r a n t where t h e a r r e s t occurred. He a n d P a r k e r were f o r m e r teammates on a h i g h s c h o o l f o o t b a l l team b u t h a d n o t s e e n e a c h o t h e r f o r some t i m e . When P a r k e r v i s i t e d t h e r e s t a u r a n t on t h e n i g h t o f t h e a r r e s t , Corbett suggested that they v i s i t a f t e r h i s s h i f t e n d e d . C o r b e t t a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d s o l d d r u g s , b u t he d e c l i n e d t o name h i s s u p p l i e r , o t h e r t h a n t o s a y t h a t i t was not Parker. C o r b e t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t P a r k e r h a d no c o n n e c t i o n to t h e drugs i n C o r b e t t ' s c a r . 2 5 1110566 Parker provides was in convicted pertinent of violating part: "(a) A § 13A-12-204, person is which guilty of c r i m i n a l c o n s p i r a c y t o commit a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e c r i m e i f he e n g a g e s i n t h e c o n d u c t d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 4 - 3 ( a ) , the o b j e c t of the c o n s p i r a c y i s a c o n t r o l l e d substance S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 4 - 3 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, and crime." provides: "A p e r s o n i s g u i l t y o f c r i m i n a l c o n s p i r a c y i f , w i t h t h e i n t e n t t h a t c o n d u c t c o n s t i t u t i n g an o f f e n s e be p e r f o r m e d , he a g r e e s w i t h one o r more p e r s o n s t o engage i n o r c a u s e t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f s u c h c o n d u c t , and any one o r more o f s u c h p e r s o n s does an o v e r t a c t t o e f f e c t an o b j e c t i v e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t . " The c o n t r o l l e d - s u b s t a n c e alleged conspiracy was c r i m e t h a t was t h e o b j e c t o f t h e the v i o l a t i o n o f A l a . Code 1975, person commits the distribution of § 13A-12-211, w h i c h s t a t e s : crime of unlawful distribution c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s i f , e x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e o r she s e l l s , cocaine authorized, Court 13A-12-211 of Criminal does not Appeals include has held 'purchasing' that 587 So. Parker's Parker 2d 1238, indictment "agree[d] w i t h that of he or 1242 'receiving' a ( A l a . C r i m . App. specifically " d i d an overt act 6 to effect T y l e r v. 1991). alleged ... C o r b e t t t o s e l l c o c a i n e V." "[s]ection c o n t r o l l e d substance i n i t s p r o s c r i b e d a c t i v i t i e s . " State, "A f u r n i s h e s , g i v e s away, d e l i v e r s , o r d i s t r i b u t e s a c o n t r o l l e d substance enumerated i n Schedules I through The in that Parker t o [ C o r b e t t ] , " and an object of the 1110566 a g r e e m e n t , t o w i t ; meet w i t h [Corbett] i n the parking Longhorn Steakhouse t o s e l l him c o c a i n e . " did Parker's n o t a l l e g e t h a t Parker agreed t o buy c o c a i n e l o t of indictment from Corbett, and i t d i d n o t a l l e g e t h a t t h e c o n s p i r a c y i n v o l v e d t h e s a l e o r d i s t r i b u t i o n of marijuana. 3 Thus, t o c o n v i c t P a r k e r , beyond a reasonable (2) to sell Parker or d o u b t (1) t h a t P a r k e r a g r e e d w i t h or d i s t r i b u t e Corbett t h e S t a t e was r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e cocaine d i d an overt to Corbett, act in and Corbett, (3) t h a t support of the conspiracy. This Court granted c e r t i o r a r i review decision Court the unpublished of the of to consider Criminal Appeals memorandum c o n f l i c t s w i t h W i l l i a m s , w h i c h whether ini t s held: " ' W h i l e a j u r y i s u n d e r a d u t y t o draw w h a t e v e r p e r m i s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e s i t may f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e , i n c l u d i n g c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , mere s p e c u l a t i o n , conjecture, or surmise that the accused i s g u i l t y of t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d does n o t a u t h o r i z e a c o n v i c t i o n . A defendant should n o t be convicted on mere suspicion or out of f e a r that he m i g h t have committed the crime. While reasonable inferences f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e may f u r n i s h a b a s i s f o r p r o o f beyond a reasonable doubt, mere possibility, s u s p i c i o n , o r g u e s s w o r k , no m a t t e r how s t r o n g , w i l l not o v e r t u r n t h e presumption o f innocence.'" The j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s r e q u i r e d t h e S t a t e t o prove t h a t P a r k e r " d i d i n h i s own p e r s o n o r t h r o u g h t h e d i r e c t i o n o f a n o t h e r , s e l l , f u r n i s h , g i v e away, d e l i v e r o r d i s t r i b u t e a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e , namely c o c a i n e . " 3 7 1110566 Williams, So. 2d 468 1020, citations A So. 2d 1022 at 101 (quoting (Ala. Crim. App. Thomas v. 1978) State, (emphasis added; omitted)). conspiracy need not be p r o v e n by d i r e c t and positive e v i d e n c e b u t may be p r o v e n by c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . v. So. State, 578 Conviction may conjecture, or not 3d (Ala. Crim. App. "mere speculation, surmise." 599 Williams, c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence, only be So. 2d So. 383, at 93. 384 See 468 So. 2d at 2008) . 101. As where a c o n v i c t i o n depends on t h a t " [ c ] i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e must consistent i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h any Jones b a s e d , however, on be 595, t h i s Court s t a t e d i n Mauricio, not 363 with guilt, r a t i o n a l hypothesis a l s o J o n e s v. State, but must also of innocence." 90 A l a . 628, be 523 630, 8 (1890) ("If t h e e v i d e n c e r a i s e s a mere s u s p i c i o n , or, a d m i t t i n g a l l i t tends to prove, defendant's g u i l t i s l e f t i n u n c e r t a i n t y , o r d e p e n d e n t upon c o n j e c t u r e o r p r o b a b i l i t i e s , the court Smiley, The 655 should So. instruct 2d 1091, State presented as t o what t h e y saw and the 1094 jury to a c q u i t . " ) ; Ex parte ( A l a . 1995). the testimony heard at the of f o u r p o l i c e o f f i c e r s crime scene. 4 The State The S t a t e a l s o p r e s e n t e d f o r e n s i c 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 d r u g s s e i z e d f r o m C o r b e t t ' s c a r were c o c a i n e and m a r i j u a n a and e v i d e n c e o f C o r b e t t ' s g u i l t y p l e a t o t h e o f f e n s e of p o s s e s s i o n of m a r i j u a n a a r i s i n g out of t h i s i n c i d e n t . 4 8 1110566 p r e s e n t e d no d i r e c t e v i d e n c e and no d i r e c t testimony t h a t P a r k e r had ever s o l d as t o what Parker drugs and C o r b e t t were d o i n g i n t h e v e h i c l e s on t h e n i g h t t h e y were a r r e s t e d , o t h e r than Corbett's talking." State, and a digital (2) to Officer The e v i d e n c e , shows: vehicle statement i n the l i g h t (1) t h a t t h e p o l i c e evidence found there was linking $2,115 in marijuana, those cash "were most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e s c a l e i n a b a g on t h e b a c k s e a t ( b u t no that Shiver t h a t they cocaine, of Corbett's drugs to Parker); i n Parker's vehicle, a r r a n g e d i n b u n d l e s o f $100 and p l a c e d i n s e v e r a l l o c a t i o n s i n the front seat area of the v e h i c l e ; e x h i b i t e d an o d o r r e s p o n s e were found Parker i n Parker's reacted angrily (3) t h a t t h e p o l i c e dog i n P a r k e r ' s c a r ( b u t t h a t no d r u g s c a r o r on h i s p e r s o n ) ; and suspiciously and when (4) t h a t the police arrived. This evidence does not l i n k drugs i n C o r b e t t ' s c a r , except and conjecture. and nothing present found through to the particular surmise, s p e c u l a t i o n , No d r u g s o r o t h e r i t e m s commonly a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the s a l e of i l l e g a l on h i s p e r s o n . Parker d r u g s were f o u n d The d r u g s f o u n d were f o u n d links those any e v i d e n c e drugs to Parker of Parker's i n Parker's car or i n Corbett's car, (the S t a t e d i d not fingerprints on t h e d r u g s i n C o r b e t t ' s c a r o r any e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e a b s e n c e o f 9 1110566 the same). bundles of this I t i s s u s p i c i o u s t h a t P a r k e r h a d $2,115 i n $100 s c a t t e r e d about the i n s i d e o f h i s c a r . money may well t r a n s a c t i o n by Parker suggest a t some p o i n t . provide s u f f i c i e n t evidence beyond a reasonable some sort The p o s s e s s i o n of drug-related I t does n o t , however, from which a j u r y c o u l d conclude doubt t h a t P a r k e r had a c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r drugs found i n Corbett's car. Even i f we were t o assume, however, t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e money i n P a r k e r ' s c a r was a s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r a j u r y t o f i n d beyond a reasonable doubt t h a t Parker had a c o n n e c t i o n t o the p a r t i c u l a r drugs found did not prove conspiracy that to s e l l i n Corbett's car, the State Parker committed cocaine. the crime See Ex p a r t e charged Washington, So. 2d 404, 407 ( A l a . 1984) ("The p e r s o n a c c u s e d still -¬ 448 of a crime i s r e q u i r e d a t t r i a l t o answer o n l y t h e s p e c i f i c charge c o n t a i n e d in the indictment."). several hypotheses: already sold The e v i d e n c e the State's the cocaine p a i d him; t h e h y p o t h e s i s from C o r b e t t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h each of hypothesis to Corbett that and C o r b e t t Parker had had a l r e a d y t h a t P a r k e r was a b o u t t o b u y d r u g s (a c r i m e n o t a l l e g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t ) ; a n d t h e 5 We n o t e t h a t C o r b e t t was t h e p e r s o n w i t h t h e s c a l e s , a fact that i s at least consistent with the notion that Corbett was a s e l l e r . F u r t h e r , t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e o f f i n g e r p r i n t s o r o t h e r d i r e c t e v i d e n c e t h a t P a r k e r had ever had p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e bags found i n C o r b e t t ' s c a r o r t h a t C o r b e t t 5 10 1110566 hypothesis t h a t t h e d r u g s were C o r b e t t ' s a l l t o do w i t h P a r k e r . in this the jury case Court could exchanged The s p e c u l a t i v e n a t u r e o f t h e e v i d e n c e i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the u n c e r t a i n t y expressed i n of C r i m i n a l Appeals' have determined unpublished that Corbett memorandum: and Parker [ w h i c h w o u l d mean t h a t P a r k e r was t h e s e l l e r ] , were a b o u t t o e x c h a n g e money f o r t h e c o c a i n e . " left and had n o t h i n g a t [which w o u l d make (Emphasis added.) t o g u e s s as t o w h a t , i f anything, Parker "A had or the buyer] As i t i s , we a r e h a d h a p p e n e d o r was about t o happen. The d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h i s c a s e i s b a s e d on s p e c u l a t i o n a n d conjecture i s further illustrated from t h e Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals' by t h e f o l l o w i n g unpublished passage memorandum: " P a r k e r p o i n t s o u t i n h i s b r i e f t h a t t h e amount o f money f o u n d i n t h e c a r e x c e e d e d t h e e s t i m a t e d s t r e e t v a l u e o f t h e drugs s e i z e d from C o r b e t t ' s v e h i c l e . However, t h e r e was a l s o t e s t i m o n y from Officer Anderson that, based on h i s experience in i n v e s t i g a t i n g d r u g d e a l s , t h e e x t r a money c o u l d have been a debt from a p r e v i o u s t r a n s a c t i o n . " (Emphasis added.) "'[A] p r i s o n e r , c h a r g e d w i t h a f e l o n y , s h o u l d n o t be c o n v i c t e d on c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , unless i t shows b y a f u l l measure o f p r o o f t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s g u i l t y . Such p r o o f i s always i n s u f f i c i e n t , u n l e s s i t excludes, t o a moral c e r t a i n t y , every other reasonable hypothesis, but that of the g u i l t of the a c c u s e d . No m a t t e r how s t r o n g t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i f had e v e r h a d p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e money f o u n d 11 i n Parker's c a r . 1110566 t h e y c a n be r e c o n c i l e d w i t h t h e t h e o r y t h a t some other person may have done t h e a c t , t h e n t h e d e f e n d a n t i s n o t shown t o be g u i l t y , b y t h a t f u l l measure o f p r o o f w h i c h t h e l a w r e q u i r e s . . . . ' " Williams, 234 468 So. 2d a t 101 (1879)). ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e A c r e e , T h i s s t a n d a r d has n o t b e e n met i n t h i s 63 A l a . case. Conclusion B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals charge affirming o f c o n s p i r a c y and remand proceedings reverse the c o n v i c t i o n of the t h e case to that court f o r consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Moore, C . J . , and S t u a r t , B o l i n , Bryan, t h e judgment o f t h e J J . , concur. 12 P a r k e r , M a i n , W i s e , and
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.
