B. H. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel:04/29/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n 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 sheets 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 any 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-09-1884 B.H. v. S t a t e o f Alabama A p p e a l from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e C o u r t (JU-10-51909; JU-10-51912; JU-10-51914; JU-10-51915; 51918; a n d JU-10-52041) KELLUM, Judge. Delinquency p e t i t i o n s were f i l e d i n t h e J u v e n i l e Court o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , c h a r g i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t , B.H., a male, with vehicle, JU-10- 6 counts violations of unlawful of § breaking 13A-8-11, 16-year-old and entering A l a . Code a 1975, and 2 CR-09-1884 counts of f i r s t - d e g r e e t h e f t of p r o p e r t y , v i o l a t i o n s of § 13A- 8-3, six A l a . Code 1975. charges true, of unlawful both charges adjudicated written B.H. order Department The juvenile breaking of court and first-degree delinquent. remanding The B.H. to of Y o u t h S e r v i c e s . facts. On July with the City officer 2010, of a theft be of the the following O f f i c e r Richard Police Haluska, Department a r o u n d m i d n i g h t a d v i s i n g him five males just silver Pontiac Birmingham. Street, recorded G r a n d Am noted that the 2010, not been there was p u l l up seen stolen. who no the getting was and On then the to ran learned out on of the that morning saw a in Haygood vehicle, the o f f duty, to a four-way stop at the 2 G r a n d Am damage number, number ( " V I N " ) , O f f i c e r Haluska, G r a n d Am located license-plate reported been that a u t o m o b i l e p a r k e d on H a y g o o d S t r e e t O f f i c e r Haluska identification had had a Alabama a dispatch black and issued ("BPD"), r e c e i v e d young be followed. established Birmingham to true, court custody appeal of the vehicle to juvenile the This 19, found four entering evidence presented at t r i a l pertinent an The vehiclethe of vehicle July the 20, silver i n t e r s e c t i o n of Red CR-09-1884 Mill Road and G r a n d Am had As the began the in reported stolen searching for notified he was identified Haluska between of at the while, the G r a n d Am automobile B.H. as explained the away. Ford number Ford but Grand see the the that he Fusion and of the the Grand and the the Ford F u s i o n t i m e he had Fusion not testified Haluska while at t r i a l Fusion. as was Haluska Fusion and been unit the himself three pulled Haluska cars aside opportunity to After he Officer positioned o f f and O f f i c e r 3 had Ford f r o n t - s e a t passenger. sped Ford Haluska Am Haluska Officer Ford another following police the eventually the was Fusion at the i n t e r s e c t i o n , driver off radioed the when of I n the process, O f f i c e r driver of Officer driver in his Officer another Am dispatcher. to the cut him Haluska earlier. The time, stolen police able observed him. the Ford Fusion, at which the follow Officer license-plate front the had the v e h i c l e s were s t o p p e d at to t h e G r a n d Am. t h a t he reported drove that point, d i s p a t c h e r , i n f o r m i n g d i s p a t c h t h a t he directly that At stolen. a black Ford Fusion behind G r a n d Am also Haluska vehicle, pulled police been r e p o r t e d Officer personal and Lawson Road i n Birmingham. a the look short continued CR-09-1884 to follow the Grand Am. arrived on t h e s c e n e , wrecked Eventually, a marked car i n the process. While suspect other he was a n d t h e G r a n d Am a t t e m p t e d police assisting i n t h e G r a n d Am, young Haluska and the O f f i c e r Haluska elapsed i n detaining the Officer Haluska males walking down B.H. black recognized driver the officers a n d one of the other front-seat and three the street. passenger saw B.H. Officer his last seeing males as t h e i n the Ford t e s t i f i e d that approximately between to flee but Fusion. seven minutes had the Ford Fusion and h i s o b s e r v i n g t h e y o u n g men w a l k t o w a r d t h e scene of t h e a c c i d e n t . During that had learned Fusion had a l s o Fusion i n the parking time, Officer been Haluska stolen. The l o t of a officers church that found the Ford the approximately Ford three q u a r t e r s o f a m i l e t o one m i l e f r o m t h e s c e n e o f t h e a c c i d e n t . BPD Detective Cedric Thomas testified statements from four of the five defendants connection with the car thefts and declined statements t o make a statement. was h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g case he took apprehended i n break-ins; Detective from the v i c t i m s i n t h i s that Thomas only B.H. also took and e x p l a i n e d t h a t i t t h a t no d e f e n d a n t h a d t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f 4 CR-09-1884 any owner to testified enter that the owner's vehicle. mainly e l e c t r o n i c devices Detective Thomas were t a k e n f r o m the v e h i c l e s , i n c l u d i n g g l o b a l - p o s i t i o n i n g s y s t e m ("GPS") d e v i c e s , portable music devices Detective such as f i n g e r p r i n t i n g or with Nissalke the DNA and l a p t o p analysis, and that v e h i c l e was were her t h a t she l i v e d 1999 GMC o f J u l y 20, 2010. four telephoned police her to Pulliam neighborhood. six number, believed basketball. and had in Two full was and saw walking around they testified that broken in had her into a group just sport2010, of vehicle. After she o f young drove men, neighborhood. finished playing t h a t she d i d n o t know B.H. trial. t h a t she l i v e d 1999 on the Road bottles the break-in, Pulliam seen him before Susan R i g g i n s vehicle report Pulliam also testified never Birmingham that to KC-10 o f J u l y 19, Gatorade s p o r t s d r i n k were t a k e n f r o m P u l l i a m ' s around conducted on C a m i l l a Suburban b r o k e n i n t o on t h e n i g h t or i n the e a r l y morning Pulliam computers. break-ins. Pulliam testified Birmingham utility an i P o d ) , Thomas a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t no f o r e n s i c e x a m i n a t i o n s , connection in (e.g., Lexus the 5 night on Dogwood L a n e i n RX-300 of sport-utility July 19, 2010. CR-09-1884 Riggins explained that a DVD player, a c o v e r were a l l t a k e n f r o m the v e h i c l e . t h a t she see had him n e v e r s e e n B.H. near her Clifford in and he did permission not his night 2000 that he to 20, vehicle on Pontiac break-ins t h a t B.H. picked trial, explained that he, testified she did not G r a n d Am night he was stolen o f J u l y 19, Burns a l s o 2010. testified had never given B.H. on Regal Avenue black 2010 vehicle, of who and a July stole his t h a t he 19, had Ford 2010. car, that in Hill he had never given B.H. vehicle. that and him that Bible question. lived night see t h a t he and the he company the take his 2010, also a l i v e d on F r e d a J a n e L a n e that that d i d not testified and vehicle. his before and in vehicle. and testified n e v e r s e e n B.H. J.H. B.H. Riggins trial t h a t he s t o l e the stolen that permission who take his and was testified and that know Hill Birmingham Fusion, see to Chad 19 the d r i v e w a y o f h i s h o u s e on Burns d i d not that on Burns t e s t i f i e d Birmingham from the vehicle before Bible, was he thefts with was that B.H. on involved the night with evening. J.H. up f r o m h i s h o u s e i n a s i l v e r B.H., and two 6 other boys, C.H. a of July number of testified vehicle and and W.H., CR-09-1884 were d r i v i n g "pull around o n " -- the neighborhood i . e . , break that they broke into into -- looking f o r vehicles to or steal. J.H. approximately 8 or 9 cars explained i n the Sunrise East neighborhood o f t h e Center P o i n t area o f Birmingham, that B.H. was into some of the vehicles. broke present up into the entire pairs time, and t h a t J.H. c l a i m e d t h a t or individually B.H. broke a t times went and t h e boys "pulled on" v e h i c l e s , b u t h e was a w a r e t h e o t h e r s w e r e b r e a k i n g i n t o o t h e r vehicles stole when t h e y w e r e n o t p r e s e n t . only admitted and that stole W.H. said "mp3 player" he b r o k e that when wrecked evening. from one o f t h e v e h i c l e s . D.T. out near t h e Grand store. 1 An J.H. the Ford Fusion, found the keys, he was h a n g i n g t h e Grand out with Am, B.H., t h e same w h e n J . H . was p i c k e d Am. an abandoned house J.H. t e s t i f i e d that w i t h B.H. i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e h e , B.H., C.H., the he C.H., c a r J.H. up e a r l i e r i n the A c c o r d i n g t o J.H., t h e f o u r h a d gone t o a s t o r e and hanging wrecked into testified B.H. was d r i v i n g were 1 that the vehicle. J.H. and an J.H. t e s t i f i e d J.H. e x p l a i n e d mp3 p l a y e r that B.H. never i s a p e r s o n a l music 7 a t the time D.T. he h a d n o t b e e n a n d W.H. drove device. went t o "the black CR-09-1884 car" -- i . e . , t h e F o r d told him that the s i l v e r B.H. was p r e s e n t C.H., thefts, one of drive the silver the black D.T., question, doors. when and involved Pontiac i n the break-ins C.H. t e s t i f i e d and t h a t B.H. d i d G r a n d Am b u t t h a t B.H. d i d d r i v e C.H. explained that a l l p u l l e d on v e h i c l e d o o r s h e , B.H., J.H., on t h e n i g h t i n a n d he s a i d t h a t he h i m s e l f p u l l e d on a b o u t s i x c a r C.H. D.T. testified that the five p u l l e d on t h e d o o r found t h e keys. silver W.H. G r a n d Am was s t o l e n a n d t h a t at t r i a l . Fusion. a n d W.H. that conversation. t h e boys not J.H. a l s o t e s t i f i e d Pontiac f o r this also testified Ford Fusion. Pontiac also driving G r a n d Am explained turns C.H. that of the s i l v e r also testified and t h a t the five the vehicle. o f them B.H. were Pontiac that Grand D.T. rode w i t h o f them, together drove the h i m , b u t he i n c l u d i n g B.H., C.H. e x p l a i n e d Am that they took stole an i P o d and a D e l l brand l a p t o p computer from t h e v e h i c l e s . C.H. e x p l a i n e d t h a t h e , B.H., W.H., a n d D.T. w e r e p r e s e n t they found Jane the Grand reiterated driving Am on t h a t B.H. the Grand Freda and every Lane y o u n g man Am. 8 and s t o l e when i t . C.H. involved took turns CR-09-1884 C.H. r e m e m b e r e d " p u l l i n g o n " a 2 0 0 5 T o y o t a H i g h l a n d e r a n d that B.H. w a s w i t h them a t t h a t point. "pulling o n " a 1 9 9 9 GMC K - 1 5 0 0 t r u c k , was with D.T. on" a 2003 gone at that Chevrolet home at that recall "pulling truck, o r a 2009 black Ford At a of Tahoe, C.H. Yukon. that remembered b u t he s t a t e d t h a t C.H. r e c a l l e d b u t he e x p l a i n e d point. GMC Fusion judgment i n time. that testified that RX-300, a 2000 o n " a 1999 Lexus the close breaking point C.H. a l s o C.H. acquittal and e n t e r i n g a JU-10-51911. to present i n the cases vehicle F-350 Highlander; Tahoe; -- any evidence truck; asserting case case no. case JU-10-52026, JU-10-52041, no. JU-10-51909, involving involving and case no. B.H. a r g u e d t h a t t h e S t a t e that any crime was committed B.H. made t h e same m o t i o n r e g a r d i n g The c o u r t unlawful no. case no. JU-10-51912; Specifically, those v e h i c l e s . charges. Ford c a s e , B.H. made a m o t i o n f o r t h e 2 0 0 9 GMC Y u k o n ; c a s e n o . J U - 1 0 - 5 1 9 1 8 , 2003 C h e v r o l e t F-350 d i d s e e B.H. d r i v i n g t h e involving the d i dnot Ford t h e 2004 Toyota B.H. h a d he involving 2005 "pulling night. of the State's the B.H. granted the motions 9 for a failed as t o the theft judgment o f CR-09-1884 acquittal and i n c a s e no. c a s e no. After the JU-10-52026, JU-10-51911. B.H. juvenile both found to be true the the two the Pontiac and the counts of L e x u s R X - 3 0 0 -- and first-degree theft G r a n d Am. F-350, This appeal arguments, four charges i n v o l v i n g t h e C h e v r o l e t T a h o e , t h e GMC Highlander, Ford s i d e s gave c l o s i n g unlawful-breaking-and-entering-a-vehicle those the 2 r e s t e d and court involving remaining -- i.e., Yukon, the Toyota a l s o f o u n d t o be of the Ford true Fusion and regarding the ensued. I. On denial to appeal, B.H. raises claims of h i s motion f o r a judgment of a c q u i t t a l w i t h the entering four a remaining vehicle charges involving 2005 T o y o t a H i g h l a n d e r , GMC various the the 1999 of unlawful 2003 respect breaking Chevrolet L e x u s RX-300, and Tahoe, the and the 2009 Yukon. T h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l d o e s n o t c o n t a i n t h e delinquency p e t i t i o n s o r a t t e n d a n t d o c u m e n t s f o r e i t h e r c a s e no. JU-1052026 o r c a s e no. JU-10-51911. The d i s c u s s i o n at trial r e v e a l s t h a t i n c a s e n o . J U - 1 0 - 5 2 0 2 6 B.H. was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e u n l a w f u l b r e a k i n g and e n t e r i n g o f a 2004 F o r d F-350 t r u c k . However, t h e d i s c u s s i o n a t t r i a l i s n o t c l e a r as t o what v e h i c l e was contemplated b y t h e c h a r g e i n c a s e no. JU-1051911. 2 10 CR-09-1884 "Where e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ore tenus i n a nonjury case, a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on issues of f a c t ; i t s determination w i l l n o t be disturbed unless clearly erroneous, without supporting evidence, manifestly unjust, or against the great weight of t h e evidence. Odom v . H u l l , 658 So. 2 d 442 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . H o w e v e r , when t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y a p p l i e s t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s , no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e c o u r t ' s judgment. Ex p a r t e B o a r d o f Z o n i n g A d j u s t m e n t o f t h e C i t y o f M o b i l e , 636 S o . 2 d 4 1 5 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . " E x p a r t e A g e e , 669 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 , 104 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . State, 564 S o . 2 d 4 7 4 , 4 7 6 ( A l a . C r i m . State, 552 evidence given its it So. 2d 178 , i spresented every finding ' i f i t was s u p p o r t e d A p p . 1 98 9) a n d we w i l l by c r e d i b l e Department ("When not overturn evidence o f Human unless Resources 5 1 9 S o . 2 d 540 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) . " ) . " ' S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 5 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , requires that an adjudication of d e l i n q u e n c y be s u p p o r t e d b y " p r o o f b e y o n d a reasonable doubt, based on competent, m a t e r i a l [ , ] and r e l e v a n t evidence." The credibility of witnesses and the truthfulness of testimony i n delinquency proceedings i s f o r the t r i e r of fact to determine. C . T . L . v . S t a t e , 5 9 9 S o . 2 d 94 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). Furthermore, i n resolving questions of sufficiency ofthe e v i d e n c e , t h i s c o u r t must view t h e e v i d e n c e 11 C.D.U. v . t h e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n must be presumption wrong.' App. 1990); (Ala. Crim. ore tenus, reasonable was p a l p a b l y Middleton, 18 0 See R.L.L. v . v. CR-09-1884 in the light most favorable to the state. Id.'" R.B.H. v . S t a t e , quoting 762 S o . 2 d 3 8 2 , 3 8 3 A.A.G. v . S t a t e , ( A l a . Crim. App. 1999), 668 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 , 124 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1995). Section 13A-8-11, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s , i n relevant part: "(b) A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f u n l a w f u l breaking and e n t e r i n g a v e h i c l e i f , without, t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e owner, he b r e a k s i n t o a n d e n t e r s a v e h i c l e o r any p a r t o f a v e h i c l e w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o commit a f e l o n y o r t h e f t . F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s e c t i o n , ' e n t e r s ' mean t o i n t r u d e : "(1) Any p a r t o f t h e body; o r "(2) any physical connected w i t h t h e body." Under between State, So. 2d current principals law, there and a c c e s s o r i e s . i s no distinction See, e.g., F a i r c l o t h 471 So. 2d 4 8 5 , 489 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) , 493 continues ( A l a . 1 985) the long between p r i n c i p a l s in Alabama object ("Alabama recognized abolition and a c c e s s o r i e s P e r a i t a v. S t a t e , "Alabama's provides: Code § 13A-2-23 12 471 (1975) of the distinction i nAlabama."). A s we n o t e d 897 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 1 ( A l a . C r i m . accomplice aff'd, v. liability App. 2003): statute CR-09-1884 "'A p e r s o n i s l e g a l l y a c c o u n t a b l e f o r the b e h a v i o r of another constituting a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e i f , w i t h the i n t e n t to promote or a s s i s t the commission of the offense: "'(2) He aids or abets such person i n committing the o f f e n s e "§ 13A-2-23, A l a . Code other ' 1975. "'The words " a i d and a b e t " encompass a l l a s s i s t a n c e by a c t s , words o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t , or support, or presence, actual or c o n s t r u c t i v e , to render assistance should i t b e c o m e n e c e s s a r y . W r i g h t [ v . S t a t e , 494 So. 2 d 936 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) ] ; S a n d e r s v . S t a t e , 423 So. 2 d 348 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1982). A c t u a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the crime n e e d n o t be p r o v e d b y p o s i t i v e t e s t i m o n y t o convict someone o f a i d i n g and abetting. "The jury i s to determine whether the a p p e l l a n t ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n e x i s t s and the extent of i t from the conduct of the p a r t i e s and a l l t h e t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d . " W a l l s v . S t a t e , 378 So. 2d 1 1 8 6 , 1191 ( A l a . C r . App. 1979), cert. d e n i e d , Ex parte W a l l s , 378 So. 2d 1193 ( A l a . 1 980 ) . S u c h facts as the defendant's presence in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h h i s c o m p a n i o n s h i p , and h i s c o n d u c t a t , b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e c o m m i s s i o n of the a c t , are p o t e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s from w h i c h p a r t i c i p a t i o n may be i n f e r r e d . ' "Henry v. S t a t e , A p p . 198 9 ) . "'Any word commission calculated 555 or of to So. 2d 7 68 , 769 (Ala. act contributing to a felony, intended incite or encourage 13 the and i t s Crim. CR-09-1884 a c c o m p l i s h m e n t , w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e one so c o n t r i b u t i n g i spresent, brings the accused w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t e t h a t makes a n y p e r s o n concerned i n the commission of a f e l o n y , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , a p r i n c i p a l . . . . No p a r t i c u l a r a c t s a r e n e c e s s a r y t o make o n e an a i d e r a n d a b e t t o r ; t h e common e n t e r p r i s e o r a d v e n t u r e may h a v e b e e n e n t e r e d i n t o o n the spur of the moment without prearrangement or p a r t i c i p a t i o n . ' "Scott v. 1979)." 897 State, 374 So. 2d 316, 318-19 ( A l a . So. 2d a t 1210. With these challenges principles to the i n m i n d , we t u r n t o B.H.'s sufficiency breaking-and-entering-a-vehicle of the State's various unlawful- cases. A. B.H. a r g u e s grant h i s motion that the j u v e n i l e court erred f o r a judgment o f a c q u i t t a l the u n l a w f u l - b r e a k i n g - a n d - e n t e r i n g - a - v e h i c l e the 2003 Chevrolet Specifically, B.H. Tahoe a n d t h e 2005 contends that either t h e Tahoe that B.H. was p r e s e n t that i n failing to with respect to charges Toyota no e v i d e n c e involving Highlander. was presented or the Highlander was b r o k e n a t the time v e h i c l e was into. 14 either into or broken CR-09-1884 At the close of the t r i a l , the j u v e n i l e court found true t h e c h a r g e s t h a t B.H. h a d u n l a w f u l l y b r o k e n i n t o t h e C h e v r o l e t Tahoe a n d t h e T o y o t a H i g h l a n d e r , and i t e x p l a i n e d : "THE COURT: J u s t f o r t h e r e c o r d , I was a b l e t o assess the testimony especially of the two codefendants i n t h i s case. And w h i l e I found a p a r t o f t h e i r t e s t i m o n y t o be n o t c r e d i b l e , I d i d f i n d a p a r t t o b e v e r y c r e d i b l e .. . F o r t h e [ u n l a w f u l breaking-and-entering-a-vehicle charge] f o r the Chevy Tahoe, I'm finding i t t r u e b a s e d on t h e testimony t h a t I heard from t h e codefendants. I think i t ' s p r e t t y c l e a r that the gentlemen while maybe n o t s t a n d i n g on t o p o f e a c h other right behind, r i g h t i n f r o n t of o r r i g h t beside each other the e n t i r e time were c e r t a i n l y a c t i n g i n c o n c e r t . So, a s t o t h e UBEV o n t h e 2 0 0 9 GMC Y u k o n , I'm f i n d i n g i t t r u e . A s t o t h e UBEV o n t h e 2 0 0 5 T o y o t a , I'm f i n d i n g i t t r u e . A s t o t h e [ u n l a w f u l - b r e a k i n g and-entering-a-vehicle charge] o n t h e '99 L e x u s R X - 3 0 0 , I'm f i n d i n g i t t r u e . " (R. 87-88.) H e r e , e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d and C.H. 2010, along and t h a t vehicles from heard two o t h e r s they J . H . a n d C.H. on" v e h i c l e s testimony vehicles from on t h e n i g h t perpetrated i n Birmingham. both "pulled with t h a t B.H. was w i t h b o t h J . H . a number that J.H. B.H., night. and that B.H. C.H. to testimony as t h e The j u v e n i l e t h a t were s t o l e n on t h a t n i g h t . 15 heard as w e l l C.H. 19-20, of break-ins The j u v e n i l e c o u r t that of July others, court also drove both also admitted CR-09-1884 that he Toyota breaking Highlander. present C.H. remembered C.H. a f o r the break-in into juvenile C.H., and other they broke into question. Accordingly, evidence to support petitions involving Chevrolet Accordingly, motions being that e r r i n determining the a however, I t i s apparent i n Birmingham "true" B.H. Highlander; y o u n g men w e r e w o r k i n g vehicles and B.H. b e i n g p r e s e n t w h e n h e Tahoe. court d i d not c l e a r l y Tahoe remembered of the Toyota the Chevrolet J.H., Chevrolet specifically s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t r e c a l l broke 2003 into State that B.H., i n concert on the the when night i n presented verdicts sufficient f o r the delinquency the u n l a w f u l b r e a k i n g and e n t e r i n g of the Tahoe and the juvenile the 2005 Toyota Highlander. court d i dnot e r r i n denying f o r a judgment o f a c q u i t t a l as t o those two B.H.'s charges. B. B.H. present also sufficient accomplices' offenses. satisfy the argues on appeal evidence statements Specifically the requirements that tending regarding B.H. argues the State to corroborate h i s involvement that the State o f § 1 2 - 2 1 - 2 2 2 , A l a . Code conclusion of the State's 16 case, failed B.H. made to his i n the failed to 1975. At a motion f o r CR-09-1884 judgment of acquittal on a l l charges. Counsel for B.H. argued: " A l s o , f u r t h e r on t h e s e c a s e s , I w o u l d a s k t h a t you g r a n t a m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l on a l l e i g h t cases because of the i n c o n s i s t e n t statements, the lack of evidence, the lack of prima facie evidence. J u s t r e a l l y the i n c o n s i s t e n t statements. We c a n ' t g e t a n y k i n d o f c o n s e n s u s on a n y o f t h e s e cases." (R. 86.) B.H. did accomplice the not raise testimony discussion of he appeal. Therefore, Marks v. (holding raised State, that any point i t i s not So. 3d motion i.e., that the State words to that effect, claim that does Crim. App. 1997); (Ala. C r i m . App. and trial judgment the judgment the to prove not a Perkins Brown 1994). 17 v. v. App. only facie for State, 715 645 on See 2008) that generally, case review testimony State, here acquittal prima preserve during court. Crim. evidence the acquittal. time this of of or of first (Ala. accomplice's s u f f i c i e n t l y corroborated"); (Ala. 172 a of failed an a the properly before for sufficiency corroboration during for 166, the of for argument challenges specific issue motions this 20 "a at his Rather, the was So. So. or the not 2d 888 2d 309 CR-09-1884 M o r e o v e r , t h i s C o u r t has not apply to juvenile 698 So. 2d T.B., 12-21-222 convictions, offender other State, ("Because the 497 are So. adjudication 587 to Supreme Court.") argument i n a t i m e l y t o any Accordingly, his for the motion State even fashion, relief. denying that Thus, failed from of a d d i t i o n a l p r o o f i s n e i t h e r r e q u i r e d by the including fact s t a t u t e nor had of corroborate youthful effect."); 1986)("We in a that by such rule of this have e n t i t l e d acquittal § felony presented juvenile court judgment to the i f B.H. of corroboration i t would not the i t s ( A l a . C r i m . App. view parte requirement requirement of in Ex language excluded 2d e.g., clear adjudications, u n w i l l i n g to impose the delinquency See, corroboration adjudications, W o o d b e r r y v. are 129 its a l l t h a t § 12-21-222 does adjudications. 127, limits recognized him d i d not err on ground J.H.'s the in and C.H.'s in failing testimony. C. B.H. a l s o argues t h a t the juvenile court erred to g r a n t h i s motion f o r judgment of a c q u i t t a l w i t h respect the 1999 charge of u n l a w f u l l y breaking RX-300 s p o r t - u t i l i t y v e h i c l e . and entering Specifically, 18 the B.H. argued to Lexus that CR-09-1884 a l t h o u g h t h e owner o f t h e Lexus broken into present into on t h e e v e n i n g evidence the was Bible, who broken i n question, the State f a i l e d B.H. o r one broke into into and t h a t cover her vehicle. "pulling on" a to steal near stole a DVD her vehicle. C.H. 1999 to broke RX-300 devices from a She d i d not see that testified Lexus RX- player, he d i d n o t on the night i n t h a t he a n d h i s a c c o m p l i c e s electronic were b r e a k i n g i n t o . someone from q u e s t i o n , b u t he d i d t e s t i f y looking of h i s accomplices S u s a n R i g g i n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r 1999 L e x u s and a B i b l e remember was Lexus. At t r i a l , 300 that t e s t i f i e d that her vehicle the vehicles The b r e a k - i n o c c u r r e d i n a were they neighborhood t o where two o f t h e o t h e r b r e a k - i n s t o o k p l a c e . In 2006), B r a d f o r d v. this State, 948 So. 2d 574 ( A l a . Crim. Court e x p l a i n e d : "'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 view t h a t evidence i n the light most favorable to the prosecution. The t e s t t o b e a p p l i e d i s w h e t h e r t h e jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but g u i l t , but whether a j u r y might r e a s o n a b l y so c o n c l u d e . U n i t e d S t a t e s v, - Dl a , ^k , / i m TP inon B i- c v 497 F . 2 d 1 0 3 9 /c-i-v,h C A ^r . i 9 7 4 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s (5t n i 1m / i \ . v . M c G l a m o r y , 4 4 1 F . 2 d 130 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) ; C l a r k v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 2 9 3 F . 2 d 445 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 1 ) . TTV^,- 19 App. CR-09-1884 "'"[W]e must keep i n m i n d t h a t t h e t e s t t o be a p p l i e d i s n o t s i m p l y w h e t h e r i n t h e o p i n i o n of the t r i a l judge or the a p p e l l a t e court the evidence f a i l s to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but t h a t of guilt; but rather whether the jury might so conclude. H a r p e r v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 405 F . 2 d 185 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) ; R o b e r t s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 416 F . 2 d 1216 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) . The procedure for appellate review of the s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e has been a p t l y s e t o u t i n Odom v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 377 F.2d 8 5 3 , 855 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 7 ) : "'"'Our o b l i g a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , i s to examine the record to determine whether there i s any t h e o r y of the evidence from which the jury might have excluded every hypothesis except guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Rua v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 5 C i r . , 1963, 321 F.2d 140; Riggs v. United S t a t e s , 5 C i r . , 1960, 280 F.2d 949. In Judge Thornberry's words, "'"'"... t h e s t a n d a r d u t i l i z e d b y t h i s Court i s not whether i n our opinion the evidence and a l l reasonable inferences therefrom failed to exclude every hypothesis other than g u i l t , but r a t h e r w h e t h e r t h e r e was evidence from which the jury might reasonably so conclude." W i l l i a m s o n v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 5 t h Cir., 1966, 365 F.2d 12, 14. (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . ' "'"The demands sanctity of the jury function that t h i s court never substitute 20 CR-09-1884 i t s decision f o r that of the jury. Our o b l i g a t i o n i s [to] examine t h e w e l t e r o f evidence t o determine i f there e x i s t s any reasonable theory from which t h e j u r y might have concluded that the defendant was g u i l t y of the crime charged." McGlamory, 441 F . 2 d a t 1 3 5 a n d 1 3 6 . '" 948 So. 2d a t 578-79, q u o t i n g 874 (Ala. Crim. Because deference this was not a bench to the juvenile Lexus RX-300, that trial, court's we weighing court h e r Lexus was broken She testified looked basketball. had that that though he a n d h i s basketball into that a group men who, s h e he a n d t h e o t h e r that night. 21 i n o f young that c l e a r l y erroneous. Accordingly, Riggins the night had j u s t adjudication i t did her vehicle. finished C.H. a l s o playing young men admitted to steal electronic from t h e v e h i c l e s they broke i n t o . court's on on" t h e t o enter a c c o m p l i c e s were l o o k i n g the juvenile "pulling they C.H. t e s t i f i e d been p l a y i n g devices t o seeing as of the facts. indicated a n d t h a t no one h a d p e r m i s s i o n thought, substantial o f J . H . ' s a n d C.H.'s t e s t i m o n y . question also give he d i d n o t remember the juvenile believe portions testified 368 S o . 2 d 8 7 1 , App. 1978). A l t h o u g h C.H. s a i d t h a t 1999 Cumbo v . S t a t e , T h u s , we c a n n o t s a y as t o t h i s count was the juvenile court d i d not err CR-09-1884 by denying respect 1999 B.H.'s motion for a judgment of acquittal t o the charge o f u n l a w f u l l y breaking Lexus with and e n t e r i n g the RX-300. D. B.H. a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g his motion unlawfully f o r a judgment breaking utility vehicle. claimed ownership accomplices night of acquittal and e n t e r i n g Specifically, o f t h e Yukon admitted that they as t o t h e charge t h e 2009 GMC B.H. c o n t e n d s and that "pulled Yukon sport- t h a t no w i t n e s s neither he n o r h i s on" t h e Yukon on t h e i n question. The State concedes that the juvenile court erred d e n y i n g B.H.'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 w i t h to this 207 of charge. As o u r Supreme C o u r t n o t e d i n H i l l A l a . 4 4 4 , 4 4 6 , 93 S o . 4 6 0 , 461 respect v. S t a t e , (1922): " I n e v e r y c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n t h e b u r d e n i s on the s t a t e t o prove beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt that the crime charged has been i n f a c t committed, and t h a t t h e a c c u s e d i s t h e p e r s o n who c o m m i t t e d i t . W i n s l o w v . S t a t e , 76 A l a . 4 2 , 47 [ ( 1 8 8 4 ) ] ; S m i t h v . S t a t e , 1 3 3 A l a . 1 4 5 , 1 5 0 , 31 S o . 8 0 6 , 91 A m . S t . R e p . 21 [ ( 1 9 0 2 ) ] ; P e r r y v . S t a t e , 1 5 5 A l a . 9 3 , 46 S o . 470 [ ( 1 9 0 8 ) ] ; S a n d e r s v . S t a t e , 167 A l a . 8 5 , 52 S o . 4 1 7 , 28 L . R . A . , N . S . , 5 3 6 [ ( 1 9 1 0 ) ] . " 22 i n CR-09-1884 After reviewing the record, find that regarding this offense. present any forward t o t e s t i f y t h a t he was evidence we broken into on officer mentioned that d i d not in he broke indicating into juvenile anything Thus, and court that entered a State No in question. the Yukon. on" any B.H. has or 2009 Yukon that his GMC C.H. to i n f a i l i n g to grant the night produce accomplices Yukon. police testified Y u k o n on failed to came Neither about State failed victim o w n e d a 2 0 0 9 GMC "pulling the erred she night remember question. evidence the or the any unlawfully Accordingly, B.H.'s m o t i o n the for a judgment of a c q u i t t a l w i t h r e s p e c t to the charge of u n l a w f u l l y breaking and entering the 2 0 0 9 GMC Yukon. II. B.H. grant the argues h i s motion first-degree Specifically, conflicting drove the presented that the f o r a judgment of theft B.H. contends by r e q u i r e d by J.H. § Am was court that testimony and, further, corroborated 12-21-222. 23 erred acquittal charge i n v o l v i n g accomplice Grand juvenile the the that respect to to Am. presented only w h e t h e r B.H. ever none i n any with Pontiac Grand State regarding in failing of form or the evidence fashion, as CR-09-1884 With present respect t o B.H.'s evidence tending claim that to corroborate B. H. was d r i v i n g t h e s i l v e r we n o t e t h a t B.H. p r e s e n t s the State J.H.'s t e s t i m o n y G r a n d Am w h e n h e p i c k e d Thus, as d i s c u s s e d properly before this discussed i n Part I . B . , e v e n i f B.H. h a d p r o p e r l y Ex parte T.B., Am was J.H. the juvenile court h i s driveway testified that B.H. c a r and l a t e r the s i l v e r C.H. C. H. a d m i t t e d keys C.H. about that that how on i s not was As further raised this t o any r e l i e f . that the Grand See, that B.H. question. h i s house to steal in a c a r was, i n court t h e Grand when t h e g r o u p d i d not drive men drove Am, found the A d d i t i o n a l l y , although a l l t h e young 24 Grand When t h e j u v e n i l e came Am. from in the s i l v e r G r a n d Am. they that the s i l v e r the night h i m up B.H. was p r e s e n t testified admitted picked admitted Pontiac t o and s t o l e originally claim h e a r d ample e v i d e n c e t o C l i f f o r d Burns t e s t i f i e d from questioned t i m e on t h a t B.H. p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e t h e f t o f stolen silver fact, f o r review. that 698 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 9 . support the conclusion G r a n d Am. Court I.B., t h i s he w o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d In any event, the i n Part to up J.H., t h i s argument f o r t h e f i r s t appeal. issue at t r i a l , failed he the Grand Am, the Grand Am. CR-09-1884 Furthermore, surrounding testified which give he Officer his was following being knew was rise to the d r i v e n by inference accomplice is clear that the the juvenile court t o , the denying description black B.H., the and time t h e f t of the State have he of the Fusion, which silver began events he Grand Am, to pursue i t , p a r t i c i p a t e d i n , or ample found G r a n d Am. evidence true the was Thus, i t upon which first-degree committed t h e f t of the Accordingly, B.H.'s m o t i o n the silver presented could Ford t h a t B.H. c h a r g e a l l e g i n g t h a t B.H. P o n t i a c G r a n d Am. in the stolen at an theft Haluska's silver the j u v e n i l e court d i d not f o r a judgment of acquittal err on this charge. Conclusion Based court case the on the i s due no. to be, 10-51918 and (the of the the judgment i s hereby, (the unlawful unlawful and 1999 2000 P o n t i a c and JU-10-51912 and entering JU-10-51915 G r a n d Am). 25 the juvenile respect to entering of (the unlawful L e x u s R X - 3 0 0 ) , c a s e no. breaking c a s e no. of affirmed with breaking T a h o e ) , c a s e no. e n t e r i n g of the Toyota Highlander), theft and JU-10-51909 2003 C h e v r o l e t breaking foregoing, of the JU2005 (the f i r s t - d e g r e e H o w e v e r , we reverse the CR-09-1884 adjudication of delinquency unlawful breaking to present evidence a finding of delinquency. the juvenile delinquency i n case court to vacate Yukon) sufficient Accordingly, this B.H.'s case due t o to support i s remanded adjudication of no. JU-10-52041. A F F I R M E D I N PART; R E V E R S E D Welch, no. JU-10-52041 ( t h e a n d e n t e r i n g o f t h e 2 0 0 9 GMC the State's f a i l u r e for as t o case I N PART; AND P . J . , a n d Windom, B u r k e , 26 REMANDED. 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.