M. L. H., alias v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 07/08/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 CR-09-0649 M.L.H. v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal KELLUM, The offender from Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t (CC-07-2925) Court Judge. appellant, based M.L.H., 1 on t h e c i r c u i t was adjudicated court's finding a that youthful he was I n i t i a l s are used throughout the d e c i s i o n t o p r o t e c t t h e anonymity o f t h ey o u t h f u l offender, t h e v i c t i m , and t h e other c h i l d r e n . S e e R u l e 5 2 , A l a . R. A p p . P. 1 CR-09-0649 g u i l t y o f f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy, a v i o l a t i o n Code 1 9 7 5 . 3 years' The c i r c u i t 2 ordered 27 months' C.M. married and of C.M. whom D.H. and the court probation. The and t o pay $50 t o t h e Crime the sentence circuit court Victims presented facts. sex-offender Compensation at t r i a l established thefollowing M.L.H. i s t h e b i o l o g i c a l s o n o f C.M. b e g a n d a t i n g when M.L.H. was a f e w m o n t h s when M.L.H. was a p p r o x i m a t e l y had three have the i n i t i a l s divorced, custody three children together: B.H. a n d D.H. -- twin years D.H. o l d ; they old. daughters and another married F.H. h a d t w o c h i l d r e n t o g e t h e r : shared also costs. evidence a n d C.M. F.H. split M.L.H. t o s u b m i t a DNA s a m p l e , t o u n d e r g o pertinent and supervised and c o u r t The M.L.H. t o a t e r m o f M.L.H. t o s e r v e 9 m o n t h s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t f o l l o w e d b y treatment, Fund sentenced i m p r i s o n m e n t ; however, and ordered court o f § 13A-6-63, A l a . -- D.H. both s o n , J.D.H. F.H. i n 2 0 0 2 . L . H . a n d E.H. D.H. D.H. a n d w i t h C.M. o f M.L.H., t h e t w i n s i s t e r s , a n d J.D.H.; h o w e v e r , a t t h e t i m e of the incidents underlying prosecution, M.L.H. was l i v i n g with D.H. could Tuscaloosa High School. both f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy this attend County M.L.H. was c h a r g e d w i t h f i r s t - d e g r e e s e x u a l abuse. 2 2 a n d F.H. s o t h a t h e and CR-09-0649 On S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , D.H., L . H . , a n d M.L.H. t r a v e l e d t o a hunting camp Jefferson. the a boys, owned by A t one p o i n t , a n d D.H. four-wheel told D.H. in Marengo F.H. t e l e p h o n e d her that all-terrain vehicle and w o r r i e d F.H. b e c a u s e with L . H . , who was t h e n four that M.L.H. h a d s e x u a l l y molested County, D.H. near t o ask about M.L.H. a n d L . H . w e r e by themselves. This riding upset s h e d i d n o t w a n t M.L.H. t o b e a l o n e years o l d , given her suspicion h i sbiological b r o t h e r and sisters. Later and in that another friend the l i v i n g L.H. were downstairs that room F.H. o f D.H. touching. h e , F.H., M.L.H., a n d F.H.'s television decided h i s "butt" D.H., M.L.H.'s g i r l f r i e n d , o f M.L.H.'s w e r e w a t c h i n g watching inappropriate touched evening, in she needed She a s k e d or "tee-tee." "hisl i t t l e girl a football house w h i l e the (R. 1 6 5 . ) friend While t o L.H. L.H. i f a n y o n e M.L.H. h a d t o u c h e d h i m i n t h o s e p l a c e s . F.H. a n d basement. to talk L.H. game about had ever indicated a t p r e s c h o o l , " and (R. 1 6 5 . ) L.H. s a i d t h a t M.L.H. h a d t o u c h e d h i s p e n i s w h i l e t h e t w o w e r e i n L . H . ' s room. touched A f e w moments h i s buttocks later L.H. t o l d a n d "[M.L.H.] 3 F.H. stick that M.L.H. h a d [his] fingers up CR-09-0649 [L.H.'s] butt." and (R. D.H. aside this discussion, [M.L.H.'s] D.H. told house F.H. to told F.H., the "lots toy a little F.H., "I L.H.'s times." a 166.) saying book, "Pooh's Songs," and F.H. her F.H. the that cover. put L.H. t o be The a police report testified that mouth saying following e x a m i n e d by with That the she Dr. same Northport never s t a t e m e n t s he made t o h e r him L.H. his was children's pediatrician. filed Department. E.H. Day front L.H.'s p e n i s . and inside Sunny F.H. t o o k L.H. kept put microphone. h i s m o u t h on had a b o o k and p r o c e e d e d he confirmed he and game. this," and the [sic] F.H. went back football him During keeped that A l l three the her. Both " [ M . L . H . ] do d i s c u s s e d w i t h L.H. At and on Cunningham, molesting told (R. upstairs, pulled microphone F.H. Police just times." to up toy Monday m o r n i n g , D.H. L.H. had D.H. watching picked put day, took t o h i s room t o r e a d t h a t M.L.H. h a d Allison of of continue L.H. had told trial t o o k L.H. bed. which on to F.H. w h a t L.H. lots at M.L.H.'s s e c r e t the him L.H. secret testified 165.) again a b o u t M.L.H. him. trial, "weiner" while L.H. the testified two that M.L.H. h a d touched L.H.'s w e r e i n t h e b a t h r o o m on the main floor, 4 CR-09-0649 both with h i s hand L.H. said this and w i t h happened o n l y had previously told his buttocks, or 2006 t e s t i f i e d that and September sleeping to F.H. with during L.H. F.H. the mouth during people adjacent a room F.H. i n that September 24, 2007. examination and a l l these L.H. after t o be odd L.H., L.H. occurrences was were also kissing began told unusual people four years of h i s s i s t e r , She examined i n the area. L.H. While she stick found t h i s spontaneous o f L.H.'s 5 on of her a s k e d Dr. Cunningham not t o for a child E.H. 2007. a t L.H.'s anus as p a r t irritation room of the house t o o l d i n September she on him not t o h a d b e e n moved f r o m a the b i r t h looked May h i s bed, and c r y i n g out f i n g e r s i n h i s anus. Dr. Cunningham request period, that was e x a m i n i n g h i s a n u s , L.H. her touched testified observed L.H. changed between on t h e u p s t a i r s f l o o r floor Cunningham this on, w e t t i n g manner. on t h e m a i n t o what t h a t M.L.H. h a d t i m e and she r e p e a t e d l y t o F.H.'s r o o m outside. L.H.'s a n u s , k i s s e d During t e s t i f i e d t h a t L.H. was Dr. denied t e s t i f i e d t h a t L.H. this found penis. 2007. the night; had Contrary L.H.'s b e h a v i o r his lights for kiss L.H. on L . H . ' s L.H. one t i m e . stuck h i s fingers into p u t h i s mouth F.H. F.H., a stick age. Based on the CR-09-0649 nature Dr. of of the v i s i t Cunningham reported Human R e s o u r c e s Taylor f o r an Cunningham and t h e i n f o r m a t i o n examination. testified as a c h i l d . testified history that that Tuscaloosa 25, On abusing a initially same f i r s t L.H. Dr. Cunningham to her that M.L.H. forensic Center, interviewer interviewed had a at t r i a l . with L.H. on a video September camera. L.H. i n d i c a t e d t h a t a f r i e n d a t s c h o o l i t was h i s b r o t h e r , the The Whitfield testified name a s M.L.H., h a d t o u c h e d h i s p e n i s . stated that sexually his sisters. v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w was p l a y e d and t h a t M.L.H. h a d b e e n F.H. h a d i n d i c a t e d Children's Dr. F.H. h a d i n d i c a t e d t o h e r t h a t s h e not prove, Whitfield, Michael cross-examination, 2007, and r e c o r d e d t h e i n t e r v i e w w i t h that L.H. t o D r . On r e - d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n , of sexually Sharon t o h e r b y F.H., L.H.'s c a s e t o t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t ("DHR") a n d r e f e r r e d suspected, but could abused given with the L a t e r , L.H. M.L.H., who t o u c h e d h i s p e n i s . i n d i c a t e d t o W h i t f i e l d t h a t M.L.H. h a d t o u c h e d h i s p e n i s h i s rear e n d on a t o u c h used to identify After conducting where survey a victim her interview was with 6 -- a n a n a t o m i c a l touched b y an L.H., W h i t f i e l d drawing abuser. referred CR-09-0649 L.H. to Terry extended forensic After an Osberry, cross-examining video argued that 15-25-37, Whitfield, that video the hearsay recording played particularized professional counselor, at t r i a l guaranties A l a . Code. counsel evidence testimony to out-of-court f o r M.L.H. made from the r e c o r d . contained of trustworthiness 1975. i n the h a d n o t b e e n shown t o p o s s e s s The c i r c u i t statements admitted as r e q u i r e d by § court m o t i o n on t h e g r o u n d t h a t , i n i t s o p i n i o n , apply f o r an examination. o r a l motion to s t r i k e Counsel a denied § 15-25-37 d i d n o t at t r i a l pursuant to § 1 5 - 2 5 - 3 2 ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , u n d e r L . J . K . v . S t a t e , 2d 854 (Ala. Crim. Dr. Michael branch of examined Taylor his Dr. the University of Alabama 7, 2007. with School Tuscaloosa of Medicine, L.H. i n d i c a t e d t o Dr. and b u t t o c k s a physical examination with penis. but found no L . H . b e c a m e v e r y u n c o m f o r t a b l e when D r . T a y l o r to conduct indicated the M.L.H. h a d p u t h i s m o u t h o n L.H.'s conducted abnormalities. and a pediatrician t h a t M.L.H. h a d t o u c h e d L . H . ' s p e n i s Taylor wanted Taylor, and t h a t 942 S o . App. 2006). L.H. on N o v e m b e r hands this an a n a l swab t o t e s t t o Dr. T a y l o r that 7 f o rvenereal "[L.H.] didn't diseases want [ t h e CR-09-0649 cotton his swab] n e a r h i s a n u s . " exam, D r . T a y l o r Terry and put a licensed as a p a r t the f i r s t h i s fingers o f an e x t e n d e d session, L.H. t o l d i n L.H.'s anus. M.L.H. h a d t o u c h e d h i s p e n i s , and b i t L.H.'s times. with tongue. counseling. professional L.H. on O c t o b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , a n d a g a i n 26, 2007, During At the conclusion of recommended t h a t L.H. u n d e r g o Osberry, interviewed (R. 3 0 6 . ) o n N o v e m b e r 14 forensic Osberry L.H. a l s o counselor, examination. that M.L.H. h a d indicated p u t h i s t o n g u e i n L.H.'s m o u t h , L.H. said this happened multiple D u r i n g t h e N o v e m b e r 14 s e s s i o n , O s b e r r y p r e s e n t e d anatomical "gingerbread diagrams drawings" what h a d happened. another to represent -- Osberry -- s o t h a t Using the part part o f L . H . ' s b o d y M.L.H. a c t u a l l y from M.L.H.'s h a n d L.H.'s m o u t h . M.L.H. asked used touched. t o L.H.'s p e n i s , L.H. i n d i c a t e d t h a t on t h e same floor. During 8 lines L.H. t o t h e L.H. d r e w lines t o L.H.'s a n d M.L.H.'s m o u t h t o these h a p p e n e d i n h i s r o o m on t h e m a i n f l o o r bathroom M.L.H. a n d M.L.H.'s h a n d t o L.H.'s b u t t o c k s , as describe L.H. t o d r a w to touch L.H. to these one d i a g r a m t o r e p r e s e n t from h a n d , M.L.H's h a n d referred L.H. m i g h t b e t t e r L.H., O s b e r r y o f t h e body that acts of molestation o f t h e house and i n t h e the f i n a l session on CR-09-0649 November fingers 2 6 , L.H. i n L.H.'s During between had the t r i a l , defense had stuck h i s counsel discussion took place f o r M.L.H., a n d t h e c o u r t and s i s t e r s i n an i n a p p r o p r i a t e O v e r M.L.H.'s o b j e c t i o n , t h e c o u r t question various molested matter defense M.L.H. t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t M.L.H. both witnesses asserted, that F.H. about of the twin noted that i t would consider the that considerable touched h i s other brothers manner. to Osberry anus. the State, regarding had told the State allegations that sisters a n d J.D.H. M.L.H. The court the evidence not for the truth of but rather o r D.H. allowed to rebut M.L.H.'s t h e o r y had f a b r i c a t e d these of allegations against him. The State called both of the twin at t r i a l . touched them i n an i n a p p r o p r i a t e manner o r t h a t incidents inappropriately. the Pickens investigated siblings. in testified a n d J.D.H. t o testify remember A l l three sisters which Randy S h e l t o n , County DHR, allegations According M.L.H. to Shelton, 9 M.L.H. they never d i d not touched them a s o c i a l worker formerly testified that that M.L.H. that had in 2003, molested M.L.H. a d m i t t e d to with he his touching CR-09-0649 one sister on t h e b u t t o c k s , The sister M.L.H. said but denied he t o u c h e d that incident to Shelton. that M.L.H. that on o n e o c c a s i o n , had touched testified F.H's M.L.H. a s k e d Shelton Shelton him to place Afterwards, that and M.L.H.'s h i s mouth on M.L.H. p l a c e d h i s i n 2 0 0 2 , he w a l k e d twin biological a bedroom were sisters a n d M.L.H. i n bed together; the adjacent tothe B.H. r a n o u t o f t h e r o o m a n d D.H. p u l l e d M.L.H. o u t o f t h e b e d . D.H. t e s t i f i e d t h a t M.L.H. was w e a r i n g u n d e r w e a r , h a d an e r e c t i o n a t t h e t i m e . mother father, into t w i n a n d J.D.H. w e r e i n a h a l f - b a t h r o o m bedroom. D.H. also told J.D.H. t o l d her buttocks. husband o n e o f M.L.H.'s other but sister confirmed o n J.D.H.'s p e n i s . D.H., and h i s brother. on t h e b u t t o c k s The o t h e r M.L.H.'s p e n i s a n d h e c o m p l i e d . mouth touching D.H. a n d h a d h e r come p i c k M.L.H. u p . t a l k e d t o t h e two s i s t e r s . telephoned After One s i s t e r M.L.H. said why s h e was i n t h e b a t h r o o m w h e n D.H. w a l k e d i n t o t h e b e d r o o m , the other five said, (R. 5 1 4 . ) or s i xyears "I didn't want When M.L.H. touched sister (R. 5 1 4 . ) that left, had anymore." h e r "under h e r p a n t i e s . " M.L.H.'s i t t o happen asked t o me D.H. a l s o e x p l a i n e d t h a t w h e n J.D.H. was o l d , J.D.H. t o l d 10 D.H. t h a t M.L.H. h a d p u t CR-09-0649 his mouth o n J.D.H.'s p e n i s his mouth o n M.L.H.'s penis. decided t o press charges had said also i n 2007 a f t e r considering testified that he F.H. t o l d h i m w h a t L . H . the evidence a n d M.L.H., t h e c i r c u i t youthful of D.H. M.L.H. made J.D.H. p u t M.L.H. h a d d o n e t o h i m . After State and t h a t presented court determined o f f e n d e r b a s e d on i t s f i n d i n g first-degree sodomy. This appeal by both the M.L.H. t o b e a t h a t M.L.H. was guilty ensued. I. On a p p e a l , M.L.H. a r g u e s that the c i r c u i t court erred i n considering hearsay statements admitted pursuant S e x u a l Abuse V i c t i m Protection A c t , § 15-25-30 e t s e q . , Code 1975 ("the A c t " ) as Specifically, M.L.H. substantive contends that to the Child evidence Ala. guilt. L.H.'s because of prior s t a t e m e n t s a d m i t t e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e A c t were i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h L.H.'s trial considered statements substantive satisfied A l a . R. E v i d . the testimony, the hearsay evidence the requirement B e c a u s e L.H.'s p r i o r requirements of of Rule statements guilt of Rule statements only be i f the 801(d)(1)(A), d i d not s a t i s f y 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , M.L.H. 11 could argues, the CR-09-0649 s t a t e m e n t s c o u l d n o t have been c o n s i d e r e d of the close judgment of the State's of a c q u i t t a l abuse. M.L.H. moved for a o f f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy The c i r c u i t court denied this M.L.H. r e n e w e d h i s m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l at the c l o s e of h i s case. the case, to the charges first-degree sexual motion. this evidence guilt. At and substantive The c i r c u i t motion; however, t h e c i r c u i t State t o submit purpose the court a brief could court court denied a s k e d b o t h M.L.H. a n d on t h e i s s u e consider once a g a i n d i s c u s s i n g f o r what L.H.'s s t a t e m e n t . The c o u r t explained: "THE COURT: J u s t w i t h [ L . H . ' s ] h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t s -¬ w h i c h I b e l i e v e u n d e r t h e s t a t u t e t o be a d m i s s i b l e ; t h a t ' s why I ' v e l e t t h e m i n -- a r e t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s to be u s e d as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f t h e f a c t s t h a t they attempt to prove? I s i t l i m i t e d to something l e s s e r t h a n t h a t , s u c h as c r e d i b i l i t y o r s o m e t h i n g of t h a t nature? " I ' v e n o t s e e n a c a s e o n t h a t i s s u e , b u t I'm going t o l o o k . And I would a s k f o r y ' a l l t o look t o l e t me know -- a n d I g u e s s t h i s i s t h e b o t t o m l i n e q u e s t i o n : F o r w h a t p u r p o s e do I c o n s i d e r [L.H.'s] out-of-court statements i n t h i s case?" (R. 802-3.) M.L.H. submitted hearsay testimony a brief provided i n which by t h e v a r i o u s 12 he argued witnesses that the could not CR-09-0649 be c o n s i d e r e d s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f t h e f a c t s t h e s t a t e m e n t s attempt to prove because the i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h L.H.'s t r i a l the statements purposes. the could The c i r c u i t be appeal, M.L.H. statements considered were M.L.H. a r g u e d testimony. that only court ultimately first-degree-sodomy On hearsay f o r impeachment f o u n d M.L.H. g u i l t y of charge. argues that even i f L.H.'s hearsay s t a t e m e n t s were a d m i s s i b l e p u r s u a n t t o t h e A c t , t h e s t a t e m e n t s also had t o s a t i s f y Ala. R. E v i d . , of guilt. the requirements A c c o r d i n g t o M.L.H., t h e h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t s d i d n o t considered only purposes. The of Rule for State argues fell within 15-25-31, and because satisfying the requirements could of legislature consider guilt. 801(d)(1)(A) impeachment, statements evidence 801(d)(1)(A), i n o r d e r t o be c o n s i d e r e d s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s court of Rule that the purview L.H. not because at of § 15-25-32(1) State intended f o r statements 13 c o u l d be substantive, L.H.'s hearsay of the Act pursuant testified the hearsay The and and thus statements also trial -- to § thus -- t h e c i r c u i t as s u b s t a n t i v e contends that admitted pursuant the to the CR-09-0649 Act t o be considered substantive evidence and t h a t intent controls. Neither addressed this Court a claim involving 8 0 1 , A l a . R. E v i d . , trial in a properly circuit evidence must L.H.'s o f M.L.H.'s conclude that then conflict 801(d)(1)(A). under 801(d)(1)(A) prior the c i r c u i t court under L.H.'s Rule under between then controls to the Act, the determine statements the c i r c u i t statements Rule hearsay I f we c o n c l u d e whether 801(d)(1)(A) exists L.H.'s hearsay hearsay guilt We m u s t child's whether determine as the court statute whether as that court substantive 801(d)(1)(A). the has who t e s t i f i e s a t the o f M.L.H.'s g u i l t . Court o f t h e A c t and Rule substantive evidence consider next evidence Rule whether determine could consider a to resolve as we m u s t c o u l d , we could with In order court substantive it inconsistent considered statements, the interplay Supreme i n the context of a child manner statements. nor t h e Alabama I f we could not, and Rule the statute or the p e r m i s s i b l e use of the hearsay statements. A. The s u b s t a n t i v e u s e o f h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t s the A c t . Section 15-25-31 p r o v i d e s : 14 admitted under CR-09-0649 "An o u t - o f - c o u r t s t a t e m e n t made b y a c h i l d u n d e r 12 years o f age a t t h e t i m e of the proceeding c o n c e r n i n g an a c t t h a t i s a m a t e r i a l e l e m e n t o f any crime involving child physical offense, sexual offense, and e x p l o i t a t i o n , as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 15-25-39, which statement i s not otherwise admissible i n evidence, i s admissible i n evidence i n criminal proceedings, i fthe requirements of Section 15-25-32 a r e met." Section 15-25-39 provides: "For purposes o f t h i s a r t i c l e , a ' c h i l d p h y s i c a l offense, sexual offense, and e x p l o i t a t i o n ' i s d e f i n e d t o i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i m e s , when o n e o r more o f t h e v i c t i m s i s a c h i l d u n d e r t h e age o f 12: "(2) "(3) Section Sodomy i n a n y d e g r e e . Sexual 15-25-32(1) abuse i n any degree." states: "An o u t - o f - c o u r t s t a t e m e n t may b e a d m i t t e d a s provided i n Section 1 5 - 2 5 - 3 1 , i f : (1) The child t e s t i f i e s at the proceeding, o r t e s t i f i e s b y means of video t a p e d e p o s i t i o n as p r o v i d e d by S e c t i o n 1 5 - 2 5 - 2 , o r t e s t i f i e s b y means o f c l o s e d circuit t e l e v i s i o n as i s p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 15-25-3, and a t the time of such testimony i s subject to cross-examination about the out-of-court statements." This Court has f r e q u e n t l y r e c o g n i z e d of evidence v. State, admitted 612 So. pursuant 2d 1282 to the Act. ( A l a . Crim. s t a t e m e n t s made b y a s e v e n - y e a r - o l d 15 the s u b s t a n t i v e use See, e.g., Edwards App. 19 92 ) ( h e a r s a y rape v i c t i m t o h e r mother, CR-09-0649 a physician, 1032 and a s o c i a l (Ala. Crim. sexual-abuse Here, King v. S t a t e , App. 2 0 0 5 ) ( h e a r s a y victim M.L.H. first-degree worker); statements 929 S o . 2 d made b y c h i l d t o two c h i l d - a d v o c a c y c o u n s e l o r s ) . faced charges s e x u a l abuse, of first-degree two c h a r g e s sodomy contemplated and by § 15- 2 5 - 3 9 ( 2 ) a n d ( 3 ) , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 . The s t a t e m e n t s L . H . made t o his Whitfield, and t o T e r r y by t h e r e s p e c t i v e witnesses at mother, Osberry, t o Dr. T a y l o r , t o Sharon which were r e p e a t e d trial, r e g a r d i n g M.L.H.'s i n a p p r o p r i a t e sexual molestation contemplated degree sodomy a n d f i r s t - d e g r e e 13-25-31. final Finally, requirement Accordingly, requirements Act, t o u c h i n g and a c t s o f material elements s e x u a l abuse because the under State o f t h e A c t , L.H.'s h e a r s a y first- as r e q u i r e d L.H. t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l , foradmissibility of § by § satisfying the 15-25-32(1). met the various statements, under t h e c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e by t h e c i r c u i t court. B. The s u b s t a n t i v e u s e o f h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t s 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , A l a . R. E v i d . Rule prior 8 0 1 , A l a . R. inconsistent pertinent Evid., statements governs 16 Rule the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of witnesses part: under of and p r o v i d e s , i n CR-09-0649 "(d) statement Statements That Are i s not hearsay i f : Not Hearsay. A "(1) P r i o r S t a t e m e n t by W i t n e s s . The declarant t e s t i f i e s at the t r i a l or hearing and i s subject to cross-examination c o n c e r n i n g t h e statement, and t h e statement is ... i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e d e c l a r a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y , a n d was g i v e n u n d e r o a t h s u b j e c t to p e n a l t y o f p e r j u r y a t a t r i a l , hearing, or other p r o c e e d i n g , or i n a deposition The Advisory Committee's Notes to Rule 801 s t a t e : " S u b d i v i s i o n (d)(1)(A). I n c o n s i s t e n t Statement. If a witness testifies, and i s subject to cross-examination, then that witness's prior i n c o n s i s t e n t statement i s exempted from t h e hearsay d e f i n i t i o n , b u t o n l y i f i t was made u n d e r oath, s u b j e c t t o t h e p e n a l t y o f p e r j u r y , a n d made a t a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or i n a deposition. This r u l e i s consistent with p r e e x i s t i n g A l a b a m a p r a c t i c e . S e e H o o p e r v . S t a t e , 585 S o . 2 d 137 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ; R a n d o l p h v . S t a t e , 348 S o . 2 d 858 (Ala. Crim. App.), c e r t . denied, 348 S o . 2 d 867 (1977). See also C. Gamble & F. James I I I , Perspectives on t h e E v i d e n c e Law o f A l a b a m a : A D e c a d e o f E v o l u t i o n , 1 9 7 7 - 1 9 8 7 , 40 A l a . L. R e v . 9 5 , 116 (1988). Compare A l a . R. C i v . P. 32(a)(1) (containing a broad rule with regard to the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of p r i o r i n c o n s i s t e n t statements found in a party/witness's deposition). Inconsistent statements g e n e r a l l y , o f f e r e d t o impeach a w i t n e s s , w i l l c o n t i n u e t o be a d m i s s i b l e upon t h e t h e o r y t h a t such statements are not o f f e r e d t o prove the t r u t h o f t h e m a t t e r a s s e r t e d b u t , r a t h e r , t o show t h a t t h e witness s a y s one t h i n g i n c o u r t today but s a i d something different i n the past. A l a . R. Evid. 8 0 1 ( c ) ; R e d u s v . S t a t e , 2 4 3 A l a . 3 2 0 , 9 S o . 2 d 914 (1942 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 318 U.S. 774 ( 1 9 4 3 ) . S e e C. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s Alabama E v i d e n c e § 159.02(1) ( 4 t h 17 CR-09-0649 e d . 1 9 9 1 ) ; C. G a m b l e , C. H o w a r d , & J . M c E l r o y , The Turncoat or Chameleonic W i t n e s s : Use o f H i s P r i o r I n c o n s i s t e n t Statement, 34 A l a . L. R e v . 1 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Common l a w w o u l d not admit such statements as substantive evidence of the truth of the assertion unless the inconsistent statement was made b y a p a r t y o p p o n e n t . S e e B a i l e y v . S t a t e , 41 A l a . A p p . 39, 123 S o . 2 d 304 (1960). In contrast, Rule 801(d)(1)(A) w i l l work t o admit a l l inconsistent s t a t e m e n t s , m e e t i n g i t s r e q u i r e m e n t s , as s u b s t a n t i v e evidence of the truth of the matter asserted i n them." Additionally, observations nonparty's P r o f e s s o r Gamble h a s made the following r e g a r d i n g t h e u s e as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e of a self-contradiction: "A s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t o r y s t a t e m e n t b y a w i t n e s s who i s not a p a r t y , whether t e s t i f i e d t o by t h e w i t n e s s during q u e s t i o n i n g or proven extrinsically by others, generally i s not substantive evidence of the m a t t e r a s s e r t e d . The s t a t e m e n t c u s t o m a r i l y o p e r a t e s o n l y t o i m p e a c h o r d i s c r e d i t t h e w i t n e s s a n d h a s no o t h e r e f f e c t ; i n p a r t i c u l a r , such statement cannot be t h e b a s i s o f a f i n d i n g o f f a c t n e c e s s a r y t o t h e establishment of c i v i l or c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y or a defense to e i t h e r . fi " A t l e a s t some i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s , h o w e v e r , c o n s t i t u t e s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e as t o t h e t r u t h o f t h e m a t t e r a s s e r t e d i n them. When a w i t n e s s , f o r example, t e s t i f i e s at a t r i a l o r h e a r i n g and i s subjected to cross-examination then that w i t n e s s ' prior inconsistent statement i s a d m i s s i b l e as substantive evidence i f i t was g i v e n u n d e r oath subject to penalty of perjury at t r i a l , hearing, or other proceeding or i n a deposition. A statement q u a l i f i e s u n d e r t h e p r e s e n t r u l e o n l y i f : (1) i t i s 18 CR-09-0649 inconsistent with the witness's present testimony; (2) t h e w i t n e s s i s s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n ; a n d (3) the statement was g i v e n i n an a p p r o p r i a t e proceeding. Appropriate proceedings i n c l u d e such p r o c e e d i n g s as h e a r i n g s b e f o r e a g r a n d j u r y , p r i o r t r i a l s , a n d d e p o s i t i o n s . When a p r i o r i n c o n s i s t e n t statement i s offered f o r substantive proof of i t s contents under t h e present p r i n c i p l e , t h e o f f e r i n g p a r t y i s due an i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t i t i s u s a b l e b o t h as g o i n g t o t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s a n d a s substantive proof of the matter asserted." C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, Accordingly, statement o f a w i t n e s s may b e c o n s i d e r e d s u b s t a n t i v e the facts statement trial; asserted within i s inconsistent (2) the witness Rule 15 9 . 0 2 ( 1 ) ( 6 t h 2009). of under § with i s the 801(d)(1)(A), statement the witness's subject to regarding the p r i o r inconsistent statements; i n c o n s i s t e n t statement of perjury at t r i a l i f a ed. prior evidence (1) t h e testimony at cross-examination a n d (3) t h e p r i o r was g i v e n u n d e r o a t h s u b j e c t t o p e n a l t y or i n a hearing, other proceeding, or deposition. First, i t i s apparent inconsistent testified with t h a t L.H.'s p r i o r h i s testimony t h a t M.L.H. t o u c h e d a p i e c e o f wood L.H. f o u n d t h a t M.L.H. n e v e r t o u c h e d at t r i a l . statements were At t r i a l , L.H. h i s p e n i s w i t h M.L.H's h a n d a n d o u t s i d e h i shouse. L.H. testified his buttocks, stuck his fingers 19 into CR-09-0649 L.H.'s The anus, kissed within denials L.H., o r p u t h i s m o u t h on L.H.'s p e n i s . L.H.'s various c l a i m s made Taylor, testimony t o Sharon W h i t f i e l d , first the second trial that criterion i n h i s statements none Thus, t h e o f R u l e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) was s a t i s f i e d . Likewise, criterion was o f L.H.'s satisfied prior to penalty because statements of perjury n o t meet t h e f i n a l L.H.'s h e a r s a y L.H. t e s t i f i e d a t at a H o w e v e r , we were g i v e n trial under statements of Rule 801(d)(1)(A). Therefore, L.H.'s statements to h i s mother, Dr. T a y l o r , Sharon W h i t f i e l d , or Terry Osberry be of the considered only therein, but evidence. oath or i n a hearing, Thus, t h e h e a r s a y requirement note s t a t e m e n t s do n o t m e e t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f 801(d)(1)(A). considered t o Dr. and t o T e r r y O s b e r r y . other proceeding, or d e p o s i t i o n . Rule contradicted to h i s mother, a n d was s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . subject did directly substantive rather c a n be evidence A c c o r d i n g l y , because the statements the v a r i o u s requirements statements, under Rule substantive evidence of Rule facts as cannot asserted impeachment failed t o meet 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , L.H.'s hearsay 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , c o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e c i r c u i t 20 court. CR-09-0649 Based on the foregoing inherent tension between evidence available i t i s apparent the Act and for substantive that Rule use there i s an 801(d)(1)(A); under the former is a v a i l a b l e o n l y f o r impeachment or n o n s u b s t a n t i v e use under the latter. A c c o r d i n g l y , the r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n here i s whether the Act Rule the or circuit C. court 801(d)(1)(A) could Schoenvogel, controls consider Rule 601, the manner L.H.'s h e a r s a y A l a . R. Evid., i n which statements. and the " D e a d Man's Statute". The Alabama similar for Supreme t o t h e one the Court of certain former employee filed an Northern Venator estate the action Retail, Locker assaulted Locker United States alleging I n c . , d/b/a DaSilva, store whereas ( A l a . 2004), Foot of Alabama situation a statute In S c h o e n v o g e l v. V e n a t o r 225 a Lady of Schoenvogel's sexually 2d i n the of Anthony Foot So. of District Group Lady heart 895 a of evidence a l l o w e d statements g o v e r n i n g t h e same w o u l d n o t . Inc., addressed at hand i n which a r u l e admission Retail, has c l a i m s was Schoenvogel 21 a apparel District Court f o r the various claims against Lady she plaintiff, sports Foot Schoenvogel's where the Group Locker, and the former supervisor was employed. the a l l e g a t i o n on A u g u s t store, 2, that At at the DaSilva 2000, at the Lady CR-09-0649 Foot Locker suicide filed store shortly a motion the Dead where after the alleged DaSilva assault. The f o r a summary j u d g m e n t c l a i m i n g , Man's Statute, prohibited Schoenvogel surrounding the alleged R u l e 6 0 1 , A l a . R. E v i d . , 3 t h e two worked. § 12-21-163, from testifying assault. 3 superseded T h e Dead Man's S t a t u t e , committed defendants i npart, A l a . Code to Schoenvogel the argued that 1975, events that t h e D e a d Man's S t a t u t e a n d § 12-21-163, p r o v i d e s : "In c i v i l a c t i o n s a n d p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e r e must be no e x c l u s i o n o f a n y w i t n e s s b e c a u s e h e i s a p a r t y o r i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e i s s u e t r i e d , e x c e p t t h a t no p e r s o n having a pecuniary interest i n the result of the a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g s h a l l be a l l o w e d t o t e s t i f y a g a i n s t t h e p a r t y t o whom h i s i n t e r e s t i s o p p o s e d a s to any t r a n s a c t i o n with, or statement by, the d e c e a s e d p e r s o n whose e s t a t e i s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e r e s u l t o f t h e a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g o r when s u c h deceased person, a t t h e time o f such t r a n s a c t i o n o r statement, a c t e d i n any r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r f i d u c i a r y r e l a t i o n w h a t s o e v e r t o t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom s u c h t e s t i m o n y i s sought t o be i n t r o d u c e d , u n l e s s c a l l e d to testify thereto by the party t o whom such i n t e r e s t i s opposed o r u n l e s s t h e t e s t i m o n y o f such deceased person i n r e l a t i o n t o such t r a n s a c t i o n o r statement i s introduced i n evidence by the party whose i n t e r e s t i s opposed t o t h a t o f t h e w i t n e s s o r h a s b e e n t a k e n a n d i s o n f i l e i n t h e c a s e . No p e r s o n who i s an i n c o m p e t e n t w i t n e s s under t h i s section s h a l l make h i m s e l f c o m p e t e n t b y t r a n s f e r r i n g h i s interest t o another." 22 CR-09-0649 that her testimony Pursuant Court to Rule certified district 163, court: A l a . Code would be 1 8 , A l a . R. the admissible App. following P., under Rule the Alabama question from superseded by Rule 4 Supreme the "Has t h e A l a b a m a D e a d Man's S t a t u t e , 1975, been 601. federal § 12-21¬ 6 0 1 , A l a . R. Evid.?" In concluding superseded that t h e Dead Rule 601, Man's Statute, A l a . R. t h e Supreme Evid., Court o b s e r v e d t h a t i n a d o p t i n g R u l e 601, t h e Supreme C o u r t to abrogate 2d a t 230 vetting this t h e D e a d Man's S t a t u t e . ("Against Court, D e a d Man's the Supreme i t cannot S t a t u t e . " ) The C o u r t Court's judicial article, authority, rule-making first intended 895 S o . o f l e n g t h y and p a i n s t a k i n g be g a i n s a i d intended f o r the adoption of Rule the resolve backdrop o f t h e r u l e by t h i s Court making this See S c h o e n v o g e l , had then 601 t o that abrogate discussed at length the "new" t h a t power v i s - a - v i s t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s rule- and how authority the interplay under of t h e two would the q u e s t i o n a t hand: this "'On D e c e m b e r 1 8 , 1 9 7 3 , t h e p e o p l e o f state overwhelmingly approved a R u l e 6 0 1 , A l a . R. E v i d . , p r o v i d e s : " E v e r y p e r s o n i s c o m p e t e n t t o be a w i t n e s s e x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n these r u l e s . " 4 23 CR-09-0649 fundamental r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of the state's judicial system. By a vote of almost two-to-one, the people approved a constitutional amendment (new judicial a r t i c l e ) w h i c h was p r o c l a i m e d o n D e c e m b e r 27, 1973 a s A m e n d m e n t No. 328 to the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n , 1901, and w h i c h l a i d to r e s t a system t h a t s e r v e d w e l l i n the 18th and 19th c e n t u r i e s , but which was s t r a i n e d by the economic, political and s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e 2 0 t h c e n t u r y . On the o l d f o u n d a t i o n s , a modern judicial s y s t e m has been e r e c t e d , d e s i g n e d t o meet the needs of the p e o p l e of t h i s s t a t e i n the l a s t q u a r t e r of t h i s c e n t u r y , and t o continue to be responsive to the k a l e i d o s c o p i c c h a l l e n g e s of modern-day l i f e on i n t o t h e 2 1 s t c e n t u r y . "'The citizens of this state now demand a modern, responsive, effective j u d i c i a l system w h i c h does not c l i n g t o the ideas and concepts o f a more pristine period when problems of judicial a d m i n i s t r a t i o n were s l i g h t . For i n t o d a y ' s c o m p l e x s o c i e t y , j u s t as p r o c e d u r e i s t h e handmaid of justice, so too, judicial administration is the handmaid of an e f f e c t i v e j u d i c i a l s y s t e m . The i n d e p e n d e n c e of the judiciary to do those things j u d i c i a l c a n n o t r e a l i s t i c a l l y be s e p a r a t e d from the need for administrative independence i f t h e mandate o f t h e p e o p l e f o r a more e f f e c t i v e s y s t e m o f j u s t i c e i s t o be f u l f i l l e d . "'One can not escape some o f the u n d e r l y i n g t h e m e s o f t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n a l f r a m e w o r k f o r c o u r t s when a c o m p a r i s o n i s made b e t w e e n t h e p r o v i s i o n s of the o l d judicial article and the new judicial a r t i c l e . One o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g t h e m e s i s a 24 CR-09-0649 c o n s t i t u t i o n a l mandate t h a t t h e j u d i c i a l branch exercise more administrative independence. " ' A n o t h e r u n d e r l y i n g theme i s t h a t t h e Supreme Court should make the initial determination of the operating rules f o r the judicial system, subject only to s p e c i f i c r e s t r a i n t s , i n order t o ensure a more e f f e c t i v e b u s i n e s s l i k e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e c o u r t s y s t e m . W h i l e many l e g a l and j u d i c i a l s c h o l a r s i n Alabama f e l t t h a t "rule-making power" p r e v i o u s l y e x i s t e d i n the inherent powers of the equal but separate j u d i c i a l branch o f government, t h e highest court i n t h i s state had evidenced considerable restraint i n the past p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e e x e r c i s e o f such powers. In order t h a t t h e j u d i c i a r y , as w e l l as t h e other branches o f government, understand t h a t " r u l e - m a k i n g p o w e r " was c l e a r l y v e s t e d within t h e Supreme C o u r t , the j u d i c i a l a r t i c l e mandated t h a t t h e h i g h e s t c o u r t o f A l a b a m a make a n d p r o m u l g a t e t h e r u l e s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r a l l c o u r t s , as w e l l as the r u l e s governing p r a c t i c e and procedure. Regardless o f whether t h i s i s c o n s t r u e d as a constitutional transfer of authority or a c l e a r e r restatement o f i n h e r e n t powers, t h e r e c a n b e n o d o u b t t h a t t h e new j u d i c i a l a r t i c l e p l a c e s t h e m a n d a t o r y f u n c t i o n on t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t t o make t h e o p e r a t i n g r u l e s f o r the j u d i c i a l system, subject t o only s p e c i f i c r e s t r a i n t s and checks. See S e c t i o n 6.11 o f A m e n d m e n t 3 2 8 . ' " M o r g a n C o u n t y Comm'n v . P o w e l l , 292 A l a . 3 0 0 , 3 2 5 - 2 6 , 293 S o . 2 d 830, 853-54 (1974) ( H e f l i n , C . J . , dissenting). 25 CR-09-0649 " S e c t i o n 6.11 o f A m e n d m e n t No. 328 [now § 1 5 0 , Ala. C o n s t . 1901 ( O f f . Recomp.)] t o t h e Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901 r e a d s : "'The supreme court shall make a n d promulgate rules governing the administration of a l lcourts and r u l e s governing practice and procedure i n a l l c o u r t s ; p r o v i d e d , however, t h a t such r u l e s s h a l l not abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive r i g h t o f any p a r t y n o r a f f e c t the j u r i s d i c t i o n of c i r c u i t and d i s t r i c t courts o r venue o f a c t i o n s t h e r e i n ; and provided, further, that the right of t r i a l b y j u r y a s a t common l a w a n d d e c l a r e d b y s e c t i o n 11 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a 1901 s h a l l be p r e s e r v e d t o t h e p a r t i e s i n v i o l a t e . T h e s e r u l e s may b e c h a n g e d b y a general a c t of statewide application.' "Section 6.21(h) o f A m e n d m e n t No. 328 provides: "'Except t o the extent i n c o n s i s t e n t with the provisions of this article, a l l provisions of law and r u l e s of court i n f o r c e on t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h i s a r t i c l e s h a l l continue i n e f f e c t u n t i l superseded in the manner authorized by the Constitution.' "The ' o l d j u d i c i a l a r t i c l e ' c o m p r i s e d A r t . V I , §§ 1 3 9 - 1 7 2 , C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a 1 9 0 1 . T h e 'new j u d i c i a l a r t i c l e ' repealed the o l dj u d i c i a l a r t i c l e and replaced i t w i t h an e n t i r e l y new A r t i c l e V I . T h e r e was n o c o u n t e r p a r t t o § 6.11 i n t h e o l d j u d i c i a l a r t i c l e , b u t r a t h e r A r t . V I , § 1 4 0 , was deemed t o i m p l y an i n h e r e n t power i n t h e Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a t o make r u l e s g o v e r n i n g p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e i n t h e c o u r t s . Section 140 p r o v i d e d that 'the supreme c o u r t s h a l l have t h e power t o issue writs of injunction, habeas corpus, quo warranto, and such other remedial and o r i g i n a l w r i t s 26 CR-09-0649 as may be necessary to give i t a general superintendence and control of inferior jurisdictions.' Article VI, § 139, of the old j u d i c i a l a r t i c l e , l i k e A r t . V I , § 6.01, of the new j u d i c i a l a r t i c l e , v e s t e d the j u d i c i a l power of the State i n the Supreme C o u r t and other specified c o u r t s ( e x c e p t , u n d e r § 139, t h e j u d i c i a l p o w e r o f t h e S e n a t e s i t t i n g as a c o u r t o f i m p e a c h m e n t , and u n d e r § 6.01, ' [ e ] x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e provided by this Constitution'). " A n a l y z i n g the r u l e m a k i n g powers e s t a b l i s h e d by those c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s , t h i s Court d e c l a r e d a s f o l l o w s i n E x p a r t e F o s h e e , 246 A l a . 604, 6 0 6 - 0 7 , 21 So. 2 d 8 2 7 , 8 2 8 - 2 9 (1945): " ' I t has been t h e r e c o g n i z e d d o c t r i n e i n t h i s State t h a t a l e g i s l a t i v e enactment takes precedence over a r u l e of the Court. N i c h o l s v . D i l l , 222 A l a . 4 5 5 , 132 S o . 900 [(1931)]; Williams v. Knight, 233 Ala. [42], 169 So. 871 [(1936)]; Porter v. S t a t e , 234 A l a . 1 1 , 174 So. 311 [(1937)]; 21 C o r p u s J u r i s S e c u n d u m , C o u r t s , § 1 7 6 , p . 276 e t s e q . ; 14 A m e r . J u r . 3 4 7 ; 21 C o r p u s J u r i s Secundum, C o u r t s , § 179, s u b s e c . b, p. 288. "'But there have been efforts to hamper t h e o r d e r l y f u n c t i o n i n g of this Court, w h i c h have been r e p u d i a t e d . Hackett v . C a s h , 196 A l a . 4 0 3 , 72 So. 52 [(1916)]; H a l l e v . B r o o k s , 209 A l a . 4 8 6 , 96 So. 341 [ ( 1 9 2 3 ) ] ; T h o r n h i l l v. G u l f C o a s t P r o d u c e E x c h . , 219 A l a . 2 5 1 , 121 So. 912 [(1929)]; B u t t r e y v . B u t t r e y , 218 A l a . 2 6 8 , 118 So. 282 [(1928)]. "'To make a r u l e f o r a n i n f e r i o r c o u r t t h i s C o u r t must have a u t h o r i t y c o n f e r r e d e i t h e r by the C o n s t i t u t i o n or by s t a t u t e . 21 C o r p u s J u r i s S e c u n d u m , C o u r t s , § 1 7 0 , p . 27 CR-09-0649 264; 646, S t a t e v . R o y , 40 N.M. 110 A . L . R . 1 [ ( 1 9 3 6 ) ] . 397, 60 P . 2 d "'Our C o n s t i t u t i o n , s e c t i o n 140, g i v e s t h i s Court superintendence and c o n t r o l of inferior jurisdictions, and that includes b y i m p l i c a t i o n t h e p o w e r t o make r u l e s , a n d i t i s t h e r e f o r e sometimes s a i d t o be an i n h e r e n t p o w e r . 21 C o r p u s J u r i s Secundum, Courts, § 1 7 0 , p . 2 6 4 ; S t a t e v . R o y , 40 N.M. 3 9 7 , 60 P . 2 d 6 4 6 , 110 A . L . R . 1 [(1936)]. "'But t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n c o n f e r s on t h e legislature plenary power to legislate e x c e p t as r e s t r i c t e d by t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , S t a t e o r f e d e r a l . S e c t i o n 44, C o n s t . ; S i s k v . C a r g i l e , 138 A l a . 1 6 4 , 1 7 2 , 35 S o . 114 [(1903)]. This includes t h e power to p r e s c r i b e r u l e s o f p r a c t i c e and procedure in the courts of the State. Porter v. S t a t e , 234 A l a . 1 1 , 174 S o . 3 1 1 [ ( 1 9 3 7 ) ] . S e e , S i b b a c h v . W i l s o n & C o . , 3 1 2 U.S. 1, 655, 61 S . C t . 4 2 2 , 85 L . E d . 4 7 9 [ ( 1 9 4 1 ) ] ; Wayman v . S o u t h a r d , [ 2 3 U.S.] 10 W h e a t . 1, 42, 6 L . E d . 2 5 3 [ ( 1 8 2 5 ) ] . T h e p o w e r o f t h i s Court flowing from the provisions of section 140 of the Constitution by i n f e r e n c e a n d t h e power c o n f e r r e d on t h e legislature to prescribe rules of practice and p r o c e d u r e must be c o o r d i n a t e d . "'The p o w e r w h i c h t h i s C o u r t h a s t o make r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s for inferior courts i s t o do a j u d i c i a l a c t . The l e g i s l a t i v e p o w e r t o make t h e r u l e s a n d regulations f o r a l l the courts i s l e g i s l a t i v e . There a r e c e r t a i n proceedings which a r e so v i t a l to the efficient f u n c t i o n i n g o f a c o u r t as t o be b e y o n d t h e legislative power. This Court may by section 140, supra, make rules and 28 CR-09-0649 r e g u l a t i o n s w h i c h c o v e r t h a t f i e l d and a l s o those which extend beyond i t . The legislature has the same p o w e r in the l a t t e r f i e l d . But t h a t of the l e g i s l a t u r e i n i t b e i n g by e x p r e s s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g r a n t i s s u p e r i o r to t h a t of t h i s Court i n f e r r e d merely from section 140, supra. The l e g i s l a t u r e may p r e e m p t t h a t f i e l d o r o m i t t o a c t i n i t , so as t o p e r m i t t h e c o u r t t o h a v e f u l l s w a y t e m p o r a r i l y i n i t . Or i t may by legislative enactment give clear expression to the constitutional i m p l i c a t i o n i n the form of a d e l e g a t i o n to t h i s C o u r t o f t h e p o w e r t o make r u l e s o f p r a c t i c e f o r i n f e r i o r t r i b u n a l s . In e i t h e r e v e n t , the a c t i o n by t h i s C o u r t i s j u d i c i a l i n n a t u r e , but becomes the law pro tanto and r e m a i n s so u n t i l i t i s amended or repealed. "'But the f a i l u r e of the l e g i s l a t u r e t o a c t o r i t s e x p r e s s a u t h o r i t y t o do so given to t h i s Court i s operative only u n t i l the l e g i s l a t u r e undertakes again to enter t h e f i e l d by m a k i n g r u l e s and regulations through legislative channels. It cannot permanently diminish or abrogate its constitutional power to be thereafter exercised t o make l a w s , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e p e r t a i n i n g t o p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e . I t cannot curtail future c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y authorized legislation. " ' S i n c e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c a n make r u l e s o f p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e , i t c a n amend any r u l e s made b y i t , o r b y t h i s C o u r t , f o r an inferior court, unless by doing so i t p r o h i b i t s t h e due a n d o r d e r l y p r o c e s s e s b y which t h a t court f u n c t i o n s , or prevents i t f r o m p r o p e r l y f u n c t i o n i n g . 21 C o r p u s J u r i s S e c u n d u m , C o u r t s , p. 2 8 8 , § 1 7 9 , s u b s e c . b . The l e g i s l a t u r e may t h e r e f o r e amend t h e l a w 29 CR-09-0649 a s e x p r e s s e d i n E q u i t y R u l e 56, u n l e s s by so doing i t would hamper the proper functioning of the trial court. Our j u d g m e n t i s t h a t t h e A c t o f May 2 1 , 1943, supra, would not have t h a t e f f e c t . "'In amending that law, i t is i m m a t e r i a l t h a t i t p u r p o r t s t o amend a r u l e o f t h i s C o u r t . The s u b s t a n c e a n d e f f e c t i s t h a t i t amends t h e l a w as t h u s e x p r e s s e d and r e f e r s t o t h e r u l e f o r c l a r i t y . T h i s i s n o t o b j e c t i o n a b l e , when as e n a c t e d i t i s c o m p l e t e , c l e a r and p r e c i s e w i t h i n i t s e l f . H a r r i s v . S t a t e e x r e l . W i l l i a m s , 228 A l a . 1 0 0 , 151 So. 858 [ (1933)].' " T h i s C o u r t a f f i r m e d on a n u m b e r o f s u b s e q u e n t occasions i t s inherent a u t h o r i t y to promulgate rules o f p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e f o r t h e l o w e r c o u r t s o v e r which the Alabama Constitution gave i t ' s u p e r i n t e n d e n c e and c o n t r o l . ' P a n k e y v. C i t y of Mobile, 250 Ala. 566, 35 So. 2d 497 (1948); L o u i s v i l l e & N a s h v i l l e R.R. v . J o h n s , 267 A l a . 261, 101 S o . 2 d 265 ( 1 9 5 8 ) ; Ex p a r t e H u g u l e y W a t e r Sys., 282 A l a . 633, 213 So. 2 d 799 (1968); and Morgan C o u n t y Comm'n v . P o w e l l , supra. " B e c a u s e § 6.11 e x p l i c i t l y c o n f e r s on t h i s C o u r t r u l e m a k i n g a u t h o r i t y , and, i n f a c t , mandates t h a t t h i s Court exercise t h a t a u t h o r i t y , some o f the r a t i o n a l e o f Ex p a r t e F o s h e e , s u p r a , i s undercut. The C o u r t i n F o s h e e p l a c e d g r e a t e m p h a s i s on the f a c t t h a t i t s r u l e m a k i n g p o w e r was d e r i v e d o n l y 'by i m p l i c a t i o n ' f r o m t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n as i t t h e n s t o o d , ' f l o w i n g f r o m [ i t ] b y i n f e r e n c e , ' 246 A l a . a t 606, 21 So. 2 d a t 8 2 9 , as c o n t r a s t e d w i t h t h e 'plenary power' conferred on the Legislature. Thus, in assessing the relative r u l e m a k i n g powers of the L e g i s l a t u r e and t h i s C o u r t u n d e r the l a n g u a g e o f § 6.11, i t m u s t be r e m e m b e r e d t h a t ' [ p ] r e - 1 9 7 3 c a s e s dealing with the Legislature's authority merely 30 CR-09-0649 p r o v i d e h i s t o r i c a l b a c k g r o u n d . ' Ex p a r t e 730 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 6 , 1250 n . 1 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . Stewart, "Nonetheless, i t has l o n g been r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the Legislature, operating within i t s separate sphere o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y , a l s o has t h e power t o e s t a b l i s h r u l e s g o v e r n i n g p r a c t i c e and procedure i n the courts i n t h i s State. "'"We do n o t , b y t h i s o p i n i o n , i n t e n d i n any way t o l i m i t t h e i n h e r e n t r i g h t o f c o u r t s o f g e n e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make s u c h r u l e s as a r e n e c e s s a r y i n t h e d i s p a t c h o f business i n said courts, but i t i s within the power o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e , s u b j e c t t o s u c h p r o v i s i o n s a s may b e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n , t o e s t a b l i s h r u l e s of procedure by which courts s h a l l e x e r c i s e jurisdiction and conduct the t r i a l of cases, and where a positive rule of p r a c t i c e i s e s t a b l i s h e d by s t a t u t e , t h e c o u r t s h a v e n o d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e m a t t e r . 15 J u r i s C o r p u s 901 (275)."' "Porter (1937). v. S t a t e , 234 A l a . 1 1 , 1 3 , 174 So. 311, 312 "'We have never d e n i e d t h e r i g h t and power o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e to enact laws r e g u l a t i n g any p r o c e e d i n g s i n this Court, even though they r e l a t e t o m a t t e r s i n which the c o u r t i s e x e r c i s i n g i t s i n h e r e n t power, so l o n g as s u c h l e g i s l a t i o n does n o t i m p a i r u n d u l y an e x e r c i s e o f s u c h p o w e r s . ' "Ex p a r t e D o z i e r , 905 (1953). 262 A l a . 1 9 7 , 1 9 9 , 77 S o . 2 d 9 0 3 , " ' " W h i l e we r e c o g n i z e i n g e n e r a l t h e right and power of the l e g i s l a t u r e to p r e s c r i b e r u l e s o f p l e a d i n g and p r a c t i c e a n d o f e v i d e n c e , we h a v e a l s o r e f e r r e d t o 31 CR-09-0649 the fact that the court i s of constitutional origin, t h e same a s t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , a n d h a s p o w e r s o f common l a w descent which a r e i m p l i e d by t h e terms used i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . T h i s means t h a t t h e judicial power i s coordinate with the l e g i s l a t u r e , and n e i t h e r can e n c r o a c h upon t h e o t h e r . We h a v e a p p l i e d t h a t p r i n c i p l e to h o l d that the l e g i s l a t u r e cannot v a l i d l y pass a law which will impede the f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e c o u r t . Ex p a r t e Foshee, 246 A l a . 604, 6 0 6 ( 1 ) , 21 So. 2d 827 [ ( 1 9 4 5 ) ] ; S o u t h e r n Ry. Co. v . Hanby , 166 A l a . 6 4 1 , 52 S o . 334 [ ( 1 9 1 0 ) ] [overruled i n part on other grounds, Louisville & N a s h v i l l e R.R. v . A b e r n a t h y , 197 A l a . 5 1 2 , 73 So. 103 (1916)]. So that i f the l e g i s l a t u r e enacts a law which i s repugnant to the ordinary power and proper functioning of the court, we very r e l u c t a n t l y point that out i n d e c l i n i n g t o abide by i t . " ' " L o u i s v i l l e & N a s h v i l l e R.R. v . J o h n s , 267 A l a . a t 276-77, 101 So. 2 d a t 279-80 (quoting from an opinion on original deliverance i n Birmingham T r a n s i t C o . v . P e r s o n s , 2 6 6 A l a . 4 0 6 , 96 S o . 2 d 673 (1957), that was withdrawn on application for rehearing). "The L e g i s l a t u r e e x c e e d s i t s p o w e r i n t h e a r e a o f r u l e m a k i n g i f i t s a c t i o n ' p r o h i b i t s t h e due a n d o r d e r l y p r o c e s s e s b y w h i c h [a] c o u r t f u n c t i o n s , o r prevents i t from p r o p e r l y f u n c t i o n i n g , ' Ex p a r t e F o s h e e , 2 4 6 A l a . a t 6 0 7 , 21 S o . 2 d a t 8 2 9 , o r d i s t u r b s t h e f u n c t i o n s and o r d e r l y processes of t h e c o u r t , B r o a d w a y v . S t a t e , 257 A l a . 4 1 4 , 4 1 8 , 60 S o . 2 d 7 0 1 , 704 ( 1 9 5 2 ) . '[T]he f u n c t i o n s and o r d e r l y processes of courts which derive t h e i r existence f r o m t h e s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n may n o t b e d i s t u r b e d b y any l e g i s l a t i v e e n a c t m e n t . ' Ex p a r t e H u g u l e y W a t e r Sys., 282 A l a . a t 6 3 9 , 2 1 3 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 5 . A 32 CR-09-0649 l e g i s l a t i v e e n a c t m e n t may n o t e n c r o a c h o n t h e c o r e j u d i c i a l power. Ex p a r t e J e n k i n s , 723 So. 2 d 6 4 9 , 653-56 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . The m a n d a t e t o t h i s C o u r t i n § 6.11 t o make a n d p r o m u l g a t e r u l e s g o v e r n i n g t h e administration of a l l courts and r u l e s governing practice and procedure i n a l l courts i s an empowerment b y a n d f r o m t h e p e o p l e ; i t does n o t d e p e n d on l e g i s l a t i v e e n a c t m e n t f o r i t s e x i s t e n c e o r implementation. " N o n e t h e l e s s , b e c a u s e t h a t was n o t t r u e f o r a l l features o f t h e new j u d i c i a l a r t i c l e , a n d b e c a u s e c o o r d i n a t e d c o n f i r m a t o r y l e g i s l a t i o n was h e l p f u l f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f f u r t h e r i n g t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o f § 6.01 o f t h e new j u d i c i a l a r t i c l e t h a t ' t h e j u d i c i a l p o w e r of the state shall be v e s t e d exclusively i n a u n i f i e d j u d i c i a l system,' the L e g i s l a t u r e enacted A c t No. 1 2 0 5 i n 1 9 7 5 , t h e t i t l e o f w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t it i s a n a c t ' [ t ] o i m p l e m e n t t h e new Judicial A r t i c l e o f t h e Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n (Amendment No. 328, a p p r o v e d December 18, 1 9 7 3 ) ; b y e s t a b l i s h i n g a u n i f i e d j u d i c i a l system f o r the state ... ' ( ' t h e Judicial Article I m p l e m e n t a t i o n A c t ' ) . Among t h e sections of that act pertinent to the present discussion were the following provisions, as subsequently codified: " ' ( a ) S i n c e t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t now h a s the initial primary duty t o make a n d promulgate rules governing p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e i n a l l c o u r t s , as w e l l as r u l e s of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r a l l courts, a l l such r u l e s made a n d p r o m u l g a t e d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t s h a l l be f i l e d i n t h e o f f i c e o f t h e C l e r k o f t h e Supreme C o u r t a n d p u b l i s h e d i n t h e o f f i c i a l r e p o r t o f d e c i s i o n s . The C l e r k o f t h e Supreme C o u r t s h a l l c e r t i f y t o t h e Secretary of State a l l s u c h r u l e s . The Secretary o f State s h a l l cause such r u l e s t o be p u b l i s h e d i n t h e A c t s o f Alabama and i n any code o f t h e laws o f Alabama whenever 33 CR-09-0649 such codes supplements are published t o codes. or in pocket " ' "'(c) R u l e s h e r e t o f o r e promulgated by the Supreme C o u r t s h a l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d to have been superseded o r m o d i f i e d by t h i s t i t l e u n l e s s by express r e f e r e n c e i n t h i s t i t l e o r by law h e r e i n a f t e r e n a c t e d or by irreconcilable conflict with this t i t l e . ' "Ala. Code 1975, § 12-2-19(a) and ( c ) . "In 1977, as a p a r t o f i t s a d o p t i o n o f t h e Code of Alabama 1975, t h e L e g i s l a t u r e i n c l u d e d § 12-1-1, w h i c h reads as f o l l o w s : "'Any provisions of this title regulating procedure s h a l l apply only i f the procedure i s not governed by the Alabama Rules of C i v i l Procedure, the Alabama R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e Procedure o r any o t h e r r u l e o f p r a c t i c e a n d p r o c e d u r e a s may be adopted by the Supreme Court of Alabama.' " T h a t Code s e c t i o n , a l o n g w i t h t h e r e s t o f t h e Code of A l a b a m a 1975, became e f f e c t i v e on O c t o b e r 3 1 , 1977. E x p a r t e S t e w a r t , 730 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 9 . A s e x p l a i n e d i n Ex p a r t e S t e w a r t , however: " ' [ S e c t i o n ] 12-1-1 i s a l s o p h r a s e d so as t o allow a prospective f i e l d of operation i n that i t refers not only to rules e x i s t i n g w h e n t h e 1 9 7 5 C o d e was a d o p t e d , b u t a l s o t o "any o t h e r r u l e o f p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e a s may b e a d o p t e d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f Alabama." Prospective application of § 12-1-1, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t would never allow a statute enacted after that section's e f f e c t i v e date t o override a r u l e 34 CR-09-0649 of court, would forfeit the authority c o n f e r r e d b y t h e p e o p l e on t h e L e g i s l a t u r e in § 6.11. S u c h an a p p l i c a t i o n would, therefore, unconstitutionally defeat the m a n d a t e o f § 6.11 t h a t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e , a n d n o t t h e C o u r t , h a s t h e l a s t w o r d on m a t t e r s of procedure so l o n g as t h e change i s wrought by a g e n e r a l a c t of statewide application.' "(Emphasis added.) "Thus, pursuant t o the express legislative d e c l a r a t i o n i n § 1 2 - 1 - 1 , when t h i s C o u r t a d o p t e d t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e e f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 1 9 9 6 , those r u l e s s u p p l a n t e d and superseded any p r o v i s i o n s o f T i t l e 12 o f t h e C o d e o f A l a b a m a 1 9 7 5 i n c o n s i s t e n t with those rules, subject, however, to the limitation d e c l a r e d i n Ex p a r t e Stewart t h a t t h e prospective application of § 12-1-1 would not preclude the Legislature from subsequently o v e r r i d i n g one o f t h o s e r u l e s u n d e r t h e a u t h o r i t y c o n f e r r e d o n i t i n § 6.11 t o d o s o b y a g e n e r a l a c t of s t a t e w i d e a p p l i c a t i o n . " 895 So. 2d a t 230-35. that pursuant Ultimately, t o § 6.11 o f A m e n d m e n t No. 328 as A r t . V I , § 150, A l a . C o n s t . Ala. Code 601, A l a . R. E v i d . , 1975, t h e Alabama abrogated Included i n T i t l e 1-1, a provides: shall statute that only concluded now codified ( O f f . R e c o m p . ) -- a n d § 1 2 - 1 - 1 , Supreme Court, i n adopting t h e Dead Man's Rule Statute. 15 o f t h e C o d e o f A l a b a m a 1 9 7 5 i s § 1 5 mirrors "Any p r o v i s i o n s apply t h e Supreme C o u r t § of this 12-1-1. title i f the procedural 35 Section regulating subject 15-1-1 procedure matter i s not CR-09-0649 governed by Supreme the r u l e Court rationale of of p r a c t i c e Alabama." i n Schoenvogel, E v i d e n c e s u p p l a n t e d and of the Code of Alabama and p r o c e d u r e Based we hold superseded 1975 on that the a d o p t e d by Supreme the Alabama with the regarding that limitation declared the p r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n i t would not preclude the in Rules of 15 those However, as t h e Supreme C o u r t d i d i n S c h o e n v o g e l , recognize Court's of T i t l e any p r o v i s i o n s inconsistent rules. we likewise parte Ex Stewart o f § 1 2 - 1 - 1 -- legislature the from namely, subsequently o v e r r i d i n g one o f t h o s e r u l e s u n d e r t h e a u t h o r i t y c o n f e r r e d on it in § 6.11 application -- to do so and now hold by a general of statewide to Schoenvogel and Ex p a r t e S t e w a r t , t h e p r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n o f § 15-1-1 will not p r e c l u d e the l e g i s l a t u r e of those to do rules so by Under under from subsequently o v e r r i d i n g the a u t h o r i t y c o n f e r r e d on a general act of statewide Schoenvogel, i t i s apparent a rule of evidence c o n f l i c t recently that pursuant act enacted of the two Fortner v. State, 582 6.11 application. that i f a statute and on a m a t t e r o f p r o c e d u r e , t h e m o s t will control. S e x u a l A b u s e P r o t e c t i o n A c t became e f f e c t i v e See i t in § one So. 36 2d 581 The Child on May (Ala. Victim 17, 1989. Crim. App. CR-09-0649 1990)("The Child (codified the effective legislature Acts 1994). Rule of Act, §§ through Alabama May 4, 1994. Supreme 1989 (Supp. 89-876 January i t became effective after governs the A c t No. Court effective 801 15-25-40 1 7 , 1 9 8 9 . A c t No. Evidence Rule P r o t e c t i o n Act of (1989 1 5 - 2 5 - 3 0 , - 3 1 , and -39 were amended effective The 15-25-30 on May Acts).") Sections because Abuse V i c t i m a t A l a . Code 1 9 9 0 ) became Ala. Sexual 94-704 ( A l a . adopted 1, 1996. the Alabama Accordingly, the e f f e c t i v e admissibility of by date of the L.H.'s hearsay statements. Finally, properly 601, abrogated the Court Rule 601 abridged, party before and abrogating enlarged, Court's practice that Man's the Supreme Statute t h e Dead or modified rules Man's "not abridge, 37 in § enlarge, After o f t h e D e a d Man's S t a t u t e after to Rule i n adopting Statute, of the l i m i t a t i o n and had improperly the substantive r i g h t s o f any p a r t y . " jurisdictions, Court pursuant had t o determine whether the Court, substantive rights other t h e Dead i n contravention Supreme and concluding 6.11 o f any that the or modify the surveying the h i s t o r y i n A l a b a m a as w e l l surveying the various as tests CR-09-0649 used to distinguish practice rights, the Court and procedure from substantive concluded: "Under any o f t h e v a r i o u s t e s t s and a p p r o a c h e s to d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between s u b s t a n c e and p r o c e d u r e , we w o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t a b r o g a t i o n o f t h e D e a d Man's Statute by Rule 601 represents a permissible exercise of t h i s Court's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l rulemaking authority; the statute governs practice and p r o c e d u r e and does n o t a b r i d g e , e n l a r g e , o r m o d i f y the s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t o f any p a r t y . C e r t a i n l y i t does n o t a f f e c t t h e p r e l i t i g a t i o n conduct of a party. Also, as previously discussed, i t s predominant and paramount purpose i s t o a i d t h e f a c t - f i n d e r ' s t r u t h - s e e k i n g f u n c t i o n by a v o i d i n g a particularly tempting p o t e n t i a l f o r perjury. I t s unique 'representative or fiduciary relation' p r o v i s i o n r e f l e c t s t h a t aim. Thus, t r u t h seeking, not the protection of estates, i s the primary purpose of t h e Dead Man's Statute; i t only i n c i d e n t a l l y a f f e c t s bogus c l a i m s a g a i n s t e s t a t e s . Historically, witness competency was governed initially o n l y by c o u r t - f a s h i o n e d r u l e s , and has only evolved into a shared area of rulemaking between t h i s Court and t h e L e g i s l a t u r e . " We b e l i e v e and that that i t does substantive right the Act i s likewise procedural not o f any p a r t y . inherent within violated and v u l n e r a b l e doctor, or abridge, The the Act i s apparent: social worker child -- victim like mother, p e d i a t r i c i a n , and v a r i o u s available enlarge, at t r i a l to provide or i n nature modify truth-seeking statements function made to h i s or her L.H.'s social statements workers by a parent, to h i s -- w o u l d the f a c t - f i n d e r with 38 the be relevant CR-09-0649 factual descriptions contemporaneously child-witness's cannot conscience conduct d i d f o r L.H. Based under on which results likely given w i t h the o c c u r r e n c e s of the events of any beyond a l l c o n t r a d i c t i o n she events testimony at the time i n good litigation of say that party that of t r i a l . the Act F.H. would r e g a r d l e s s of the than the Moreover, we changes involved. It the is e x i s t e n c e of the Act and regarding the Rule 801(d)(1)(A) permissible use the care Act. situation command of pre- apparent have sought the f o r e g o i n g , i n the present f a c t u a l the more different L.H.'s hearsay s t a t e m e n t s , p u r s u a n t t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n Schoenvogel, R u l e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , A l a . R. permissible considerations Because the hearsay statements requirements of Rule 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , the used only. for s u b s t a n t i v e purposes L.H.'s do but not for hearsay satisfy statements the statements circuit II. 39 the may reversal. various not be purposes court considered as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e court e r r e d to the statement. impeachment A c c o r d i n g l y , to the e x t e n t the c i r c u i t L.H.'s h e a r s a y guilt, of E v i d . , must g o v e r n o f M.L.H.'s CR-09-0649 M.L.H. n e x t in his argues c o n s i d e r i n g L.H.'s guilt, judgment without the court of statements denied Specifically, hearsay evidence the c i r c u i t statements, to support argues that double-jeopardy trying h i m on t h e f i r s t - d e g r e e - s o d o m y Alabama v. S t a t e , Supreme relying Court on L o c k h a r t M.L.H. within this principles v. Nelson, State a case, the than the f a i l u r e t h e Double evidence admitted verdict. presented -- w o u l d The C o u r t have at t r i a l been for firstM.L.H. ( A l a . 1 998 ) , t h e similar 488 U.S. 33 Clause that charge. question (1988), of the State to present Jeopardy for a presented argument, when a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t r e v e r s e s a c o n v i c t i o n other and, held that f o r any reason a prima facie d i d not bar r e t r i a l where -- erroneously sufficient or p r o p e r l y to sustain a guilty explained: "In Lockhart, t h e Supreme C o u r t rejected a h i n d s i g h t a p p r o a c h u n d e r w h i c h an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t c o u l d r e t r o a c t i v e l y e x c l u d e evidence and b a r r e t r i a l if the remaining evidence was insufficient to s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n . C o m p a r e L o c k h a r t , 488 U.S. at 4 0 - 4 2 , 109 S . C t . 2 8 5 , w i t h i d . a t 4 2 - 5 0 , 10 9 40 of b a r t h e S t a t e from r e ¬ 728 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 3 addressed erred argues h i s conviction sodomy. Lindley h i s motion the degree In Additionally, court as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e erroneously acquittal. L.H.'s insufficient that because CR-09-0649 S.Ct. 285 (Marshall, J., dissenting). Instead, L o c k h a r t r e q u i r e s an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o s t e p i n t o t h e shoes o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t o c o n s i d e r a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e a d m i t t e d b e f o r e t h e j u r y -- w h e t h e r o r n o t e r r o n e o u s l y -- t o d e t e r m i n e i f s u c h e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t to support the c o n v i c t i o n . I f so, the Double J e o p a r d y C l a u s e does not bar r e t r i a l . I d . at 4 2 , 109 S . C t . 285." 728 So. 2d 1157. Clause will not charge o f f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy. evidence at against his M.L.H.'s Based bar trial the that considered some M.L.H. command that preclude a retrial on M.L.H. and dissent to asks sodomy charge. the Alabama are this adopt that "without the case Double in order Supreme C o u r t , to M.L.H. on we sufficient are court presented, Jeopardy the sodomy reversing erroneously Lindley Clause does and not charge. to this Jeopardy first-degree circuit distinguish reasoning Because authority the Court the retrying Although same Double State presented evidence the the committed L.H. the Lockhart from The because of Lindley, State stepbrother conviction Lindley upon to Court see found render case Justice the i s bound by from Almon's first-degreedecisions § 1 2 - 3 - 1 6 , A l a . Code o v e r r u l e the 41 in his decisions 1975, of of we [that] CR-09-0649 court." So. Jones 2 d 2 8 8 , 290 Based is for v . C i t y o f H u n t s v i l l e , 288 A l a . 2 4 2 , 2 4 4 , 2 5 9 (1972). on t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t due t o b e , a n d i s h e r e b y , reversed further proceedings consistent R E V E R S E D AND Welch, with and t h e case this court remanded opinion. REMANDED. P . J . , a n d Windom, B u r k e , 42 and J o i n e r , J J . , concur.

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

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