Montez Spradley, alias v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/30/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be 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-07-1270 Montez Spradley v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t (CC-06-2950 and CC-06-2951) WINDOM, Judge. Montez Spradley appeals h i s capital-murder conviction, h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r i n t i m i d a t i n g a w i t n e s s , and h i s r e s u l t i n g sentences. Spradley was c o n v i c t e d o f m u r d e r made capital b e c a u s e he s h o t a n d k i l l e d M a r l e n e J a s o n d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f a robbery, see § 13A-5-40(a)(2), A l a . Code 1975, a n d o f CR-07-1270 i n t i m i d a t i n g a witness, jury, by a vote sentenced to parole. The presentence hearing, and of life recommended court After Spradley and t o 20 without then that the ordered holding a Spradley be possibility and of received judicial a sentencing to death years i n p r i s o n discovered she capital-murder for his conviction found for lying N a n c y Dempsey, a n u r s e p i z z a - d e l i v e r y e m p l o y e e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t on e v e n i n g she was and his 2004, M a r l e n e J a s o n ' s b o d y was s i d e of a road i n Birmingham. and p a r t - t i m e for witness. On J a n u a r y 9, pulse, 2, imprisonment report. intimidating a she to circuit sentenced the 10 The the c i r c u i t c o u r t r e j e c t e d the j u r y ' s recommendation conviction on see § 13A-10-123, A l a . Code 1975. d e l i v e r i n g p i z z a s on S e c o n d Way Jason's Dempsey could t e l e p h o n e d e m e r g e n c y 911. Dr. a medical examiner w i t h body. that N o r t h w e s t when not detect a G a r y Simmons, the J e f f e r s o n County C o r o n e r / M e d i c a l E x a m i n e r O f f i c e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t J a s o n had s u f f e r e d b l u n t - f o r c e t r a u m a and her t h a t she had d i e d as a r e s u l t o f a g u n s h o t wound t o head. The l e a d i n v e s t i g a t o r , Det. Don Edge w i t h the Jefferson C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s O f f i c e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he a r r i v e d a t 2 the CR-07-1270 s c e n e , he f o u n d J a s o n on t h e g r o u n d n e a r h e r c a r . was Jason's car p a r k e d on t h e s t r e e t i n f r o n t o f h e r h o u s e and was running. The c a s i n g was her car t r u n k o f t h e c a r was open. found near J a s o n ' s body. or i n her house, so A .40 c a l i b e r J a s o n ' s p u r s e was Det. Edge contacted her accounts after her death. Det. shell not i n Jason's c r e d i t - c a r d company t o see i f t h e r e h a d b e e n a c t i v i t y of still on Edge t e s t i f i e d J a s o n ' s USAA M a s t e r c a r d had b e e n u s e d on F r i d a y , any that January 9, 2004, a f t e r h e r d e a t h , a t t h e R o g e r J o l l y C h e v r o n , and a g a i n on Sunday a t v a r i o u s s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s a r o u n d town. D e t . Edge f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t L t . P h i l l i p Green locations where J a s o n ' s t h e r e was any s e c u r i t y - c a m e r a f o o t a g e f r o m t h e t i m e s t h a t t h e card been used. secured footage from used -- E n s l e y Seafood Edge testified had officer, Det. Officer Edge Bashears's 1 Lt. that According 1 two one locations and to been u s e d Det. Edge, where t h e Cowboy's s e r v i c e videotape t o see i f Lt. Green c a r d had station. d e p i c t e d another been Det. police Steve Bashears, a r r i v i n g a t E n s l e y Seafood. spoke report. Green M a s t e r c a r d had went t o t h e v a r i o u s with Officer Bashears and read Officer O f f i c e r Bashears's report i n d i c a t e d d i d not t e s t i f y 3 at Spradley's trial. that CR-07-1270 M e l v i n Henderson and Orlando Rankin t o l d O f f i c e r Bashears t h a t on J a n u a r y 11, 2004, a m a l e i n a g r e e n C a d i l l a c a u t o m o b i l e was trying to sell identified driving, months them g a s o l i n e the v e h i c l e that but could later, using the person not i d e n t i f y police a credit located card. selling g a s o l i n e was the i n d i v i d u a l . the C a d i l l a c Edge, A t k i n s told officers that Several automobile and d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t was owned b y A n t o n i o A t k i n s . Det. Police Spradley According to used a c r e d i t c a r d t o p u r c h a s e g a s o l i n e on J a n u a r y 11, 2004. M a t t h e w B r y a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d b e e n i n c a r c e r a t e d i n the J e f f e r s o n County j a i l that Spradley Point. a t t h e same t i m e Bryant faced told stated that the death penalty. him that Spradley he was i n j a i l on a c h a r g e o f w i t h h i s f a t h e r ' s death and t h a t According and A t k i n s to Bryant, followed Spradley t h e woman E a s t b r o o k M a l l and approached h e r from b e h i n d w h i l e unloading her vehicle. Bryant stated that had card. Spradley Spradley no money, S p r a d l e y credit and t a l k e d t o h i m a b o u t m u r d e r i n g a woman i n C e n t e r c a p i t a l murder i n c o n n e c t i o n he as S p r a d l e y Bryant choked from s h e was h e r and shot h e r . t o l d h i m t h a t b e c a u s e t h e woman got Atkins explained 4 to sell that gasoline using her "[e]very time that CR-07-1270 [Spradley] tattooed does on something him; like four-leaf [that], clover." he (R. gets a 298.) clover Bryant specifically i d e n t i f i e d a t a t t o o d e p i c t i n g a c l o v e r l e a f and a leprechaun as t h e t a t t o o S p r a d l e y t o l d h i m he g o t a f t e r he murdered Jason. his arms S p r a d l e y h a d s e v e r a l c l o v e r - l e a f t a t t o o s on but the photographs showed only one clover-leaf tattoo with a leprechaun. Atkins, a f r i e n d of Spradley, testified t h a t on January 11, 2004, he was a t h i s g r a n d m o t h e r ' s house when S p r a d l e y came b y t h e h o u s e t o t a l k t o h i m . A t k i n s s a i d t h a t he a n d S p r a d l e y went t o a C h e v r o n s e r v i c e s t a t i o n n e a r h i s g r a n d m o t h e r ' s h o u s e and Spradley automobile put while gasoline Atkins was in Atkins's "under green t h e hood." Cadillac (R. 332.) A c c o r d i n g t o A t k i n s , he knew t h a t S p r a d l e y u s e d a c r e d i t c a r d t o p a y f o r t h e g a s o l i n e f o r h i s c a r b e c a u s e n e i t h e r o f them had any c a s h ; h o w e v e r , he d i d n o t know where S p r a d l e y g o t t h e credit card a n d he further t e s t i f i e d Ensley Seafood d i d n o t see the c r e d i t card. Atkins t h a t a f t e r t h e y g o t g a s o l i n e , t h e y went t o and Spradley got automobile. 5 into a blue Chevrolet CR-07-1270 Atkins said that he was working McDonald's f a s t - f o o d r e s t a u r a n t He s a i d that before an unknown against individual a t the he was and late time of a p p r o a c h e d on was shift threatened the at a murder. the s t r e e t by i f he testified Spradley. Officer Steve Department dispatched the trial a Bashears testified owner, V i e t Van Birmingham January 11, was from t h a t someone was O f f i c e r B a s h e a r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t Van Doe 2004, Police he Doe, on the Seafood to respond to a complaint to Ensley that of stealing gasoline. t o l d him t h a t Van Doe t h o u g h t t h a t O r l a n d o R a n k i n and M e l v i n H e n d e r s o n were s t e a l i n g gasoline and offering to f i l l (R. that Henderson their had said that t a n k s up w i t h gas "a for five person was dollars." 2 361.) Melvin Henderson testified Draper C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y robbery. The prosecutor gasoline using a that card on him V a n Doe d i d not currently concerning January H e n d e r s o n r e f u s e d t o a n s w e r any q u e s t i o n s . 2 was s e r v i n g a 22-year sentence questioned credit he t e s t i f y at Spradley's 6 11, in for purchasing 2004, but Henderson s a i d , " I trial. CR-07-1270 d o n ' t w a n t t o be i n v o l v e d i n i t " a n d t h a t he was a f r a i d o f both t h e S t a t e and S p r a d l e y . Officer Randy (R. 321-22.) Martinez of the Birmingham Police D e p a r t m e n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he met A l i s h a B o o k e r when she f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t S p r a d l e y a l l e g i n g t h a t he h a d p h y s i c a l l y assaulted her. Martinez said t h a t when B o o k e r came t o t h e West P r e c i n c t o f t h e B i r m i n g h a m P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t on December 21, 2005, she h a d been b l o o d s h o t and s w o l l e n . had an argument beaten, a n d one o f h e r eyes was She t o l d h i m t h a t she a n d S p r a d l e y h a d a n d t h a t he h a d s l a p p e d s e v e r a l t i m e s , and had choked h e r . h e r , had h i t her O f f i c e r Martinez read the f o l l o w i n g f r o m h i s r e p o r t : " [ S p r a d l e y ] t h e n s t a t e d he was mad b e c a u s e she was t a l k i n g t o a p o l i c e d e t e c t i v e a n d he she [was] t r y i n g t o s e n d h i m t o j a i l . " [thought] (R. 369.) Booker, S p r a d l e y ' s e x - g i r l f r i e n d a t t h e time o f t r i a l and the mother o f t h r e e o f h i s c h i l d r e n , confessed her credit said that testified t o h e r t h a t he a n d a f r i e n d that Spradley k i l l e d Jason and took c a r d b e c a u s e she h a d no money i n h e r p u r s e . Spradley told her that they "felt stupid" f o r k i l l i n g J a s o n b e c a u s e t h e y d i d n o t g e t much o f a n y t h i n g credit cards. (R. 406.) Booker 7 further She testified except that CR-07-1270 S p r a d l e y b e a t h e r and s a i d he w o u l d k i l l t a l k e d to a law-enforcement The jury intimidating h e l d , and Spradley the j u r y be A of sentenced to life The and of sentencing hearing was a vote o f 10 t o 2, that without the court sentenced Spradley 20 y e a r s on h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r i n t i m i d a t i n g a w i t n e s s . circuit court capital-murder rejected the conviction This appeal followed. See jury's and recommendation sentenced Rule 45A, A l a . R. App. record for "plain error." Spradley § 13A-5-55, A l a . Code B e c a u s e S p r a d l e y has b e e n s e n t e n c e d to murder imprisonment circuit P., this R u l e 45A had the murder. capital separate recommended, b y p o s s i b i l i t y of p a r o l e . to o f f i c e r about convicted Spradley a witness. h e r b e c a u s e she on to The the death. 1975. to death, according Court must search the states: "In a l l c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y has been imposed, the C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s s h a l l n o t i c e any p l a i n e r r o r o r d e f e c t i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s under review, whether or not brought to the a t t e n t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e a c t i o n by r e a s o n t h e r e o f , w h e n e v e r s u c h e r r o r has o r p r o b a b l y has a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of the a p p e l l a n t . " (Emphasis In added.) Ex p a r t e Brown, 11 So. 3d 933 Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d : 8 ( A l a . 2008), the Alabama CR-07-1270 "'"To r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f p l a i n e r r o r , t h e c l a i m e d e r r o r must n o t o n l y s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t a d e f e n d a n t ' s ' s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s , ' b u t i t must a l s o have an u n f a i r p r e j u d i c i a l i m p a c t on t h e j u r y ' s deliberations."' Ex p a r t e B r y a n t , 951 So. 2d 724, 727 ( A l a . 2002) ( q u o t i n g Hyde v. S t a t e , 778 So. 2d 199, 209 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ) . In United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S. C t . 1038, 84 L. E d . 2d 1 (1985), the United S t a t e s Supreme Court, construing the f e d e r a l p l a i n - e r r o r r u l e , stated: "'The R u l e a u t h o r i z e s t h e C o u r t s o f A p p e a l s to c o r r e c t only " p a r t i c u l a r l y egregious e r r o r s , " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. F r a d y , 456 U.S. 152, 163 (1982), those errors that " s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t the f a i r n e s s , i n t e g r i t y or public reputation of judicial p r o c e e d i n g s , " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. A t k i n s o n , 297 U.S. [ 1 5 7 ] , a t 160 [ ( 1 9 3 6 ) ] . I n o t h e r words, the p l a i n - e r r o r e x c e p t i o n t o the c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s - o b j e c t i o n r u l e i s t o be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances i n which a m i s c a r r i a g e of j u s t i c e would otherwise result." United S t a t e s v. F r a d y , 456 U.S., a t 163, n. 14.' "See a l s o Ex p a r t e Hodges, 856 So. 2d 936, 947-48 ( A l a . 2003) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t p l a i n e r r o r e x i s t s only i f failure to recognize the e r r o r would ' s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t the f a i r n e s s or i n t e g r i t y of the j u d i c i a l proceedings,' and t h a t t h e p l a i n - e r r o r d o c t r i n e i s t o be 'used s p a r i n g l y , s o l e l y i n t h o s e circumstances i n which a m i s c a r r i a g e of j u s t i c e w o u l d o t h e r w i s e r e s u l t ' ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n marks omitted))." 11 So. 3d a t 938. claim under "The standard the p l a i n - e r r o r of review doctrine i n reviewing i s stricter than a the s t a n d a r d u s e d i n r e v i e w i n g an i s s u e t h a t was p r o p e r l y r a i s e d 9 CR-07-1270 i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r on a p p e a l . " 2d 1 1 3 , 121 failure ( A l a . Crim. to object w i l l See H a l l v . S t a t e , 820 So. App. 1 9 9 9 ) . Although not b a r t h i s Court Spradley's from r e v i e w i n g any i s s u e , i t w i l l weigh a g a i n s t any c l a i m o f p r e j u d i c e . v. S t a t e , 600 So. 2d 343, 352 ( A l a . C r i m . See D i l l App. 1 9 9 1 ) . I. Spradley argues t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g two State exhibits, a DVD a n d a CD, w i t h o u t State t o e s t a b l i s h a proper This Court f o rtheir admittance. agrees. Specifically, State's foundation r e q u i r i n g the exhibits Spradley 49 a n d 50 challenges -- video the admission recordings from of two s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s -- b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o l a y a p r o p e r foundation. S t a t e ' s e x h i b i t 49 i s a DVD c o p y o f s u r v e i l l a n c e footage from E n s l e y murder. State's S e a f o o d t h a t was made two d a y s a f t e r t h e exhibit 50 i s a CD t h a t c o n s i s t s of nine s t i l l photographs p u r p o r t e d l y c o p i e d from s u r v e i l l a n c e footage f r o m Cowboy's t h a t was made t h e same d a y . The offered testimony. following and a d m i t t e d during D e t . Edge's copies occurred: " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : [Det.] Edge, I'm g o i n g t o show y o u w h a t ' s b e e n m a r k e d as S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 49. Do y o u 10 were The CR-07-1270 recognize disk? that particular that i t as one "[Det. Edge]: I recognize video, of particular them. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Okay. And i s this, in fact, the v i d e o t h a t was c o l l e c t e d f r o m t h e E n s l e y S e a f o o d , o v e r on t h e 6800 b l o c k o f F i r s t Avenue N o r t h ? " [ D e t . E d g e ] : I'm n o t s u r e o f t h e e x a c t a d d r e s s , i t ' s F i r s t Avenue N o r t h , y e s . "[Prosecutor]: But i t i s Ensley but Seafood? " [ D e t . E d g e ] : Yes, s i r . " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : And have t h i s p a r t i c u l a r video? " [ D e t . E d g e ] : Yes, you had a chance to view I have. "[Prosecutor]: A l l right. A l l right. And i s t h a t t h e v i d e o t h a t you u s e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f y o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i n o r d e r t o t r y t o i d e n t i f y anyone o r a n y t h i n g t h a t was i n v o l v e d i n t h e d e a t h o f M a r l e n e Jason? " [ D e t . E d g e ] : Yes, s i r . "[Prosecutor]: A l l right. "[Prosecutor]: State would i n t r o d u c e S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 49. move to " [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : Y o u r Honor, we w o u l d o b j e c t a t t h i s time, because the p r o p e r p r e d i c a t e has n o t b e e n l a i d , i n t h a t t h e c h a i n o f e v i d e n c e has n o t b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d concerning t h i s tape. "The Court: A l l right. response, [prosecutor]? 11 What's your CR-07-1270 " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : W e l l , Judge, I t h i n k i f t h i s i s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h e [ D e t . Edge] used during the course of his investigation, to try to develop i n f o r m a t i o n , I t h i n k he w o u l d be a b l e t o testify that this i s , i n fact, the i n f o r m a t i o n he u s e d . I f he's g o t a v i d e o , and he u s e d t h a t p a r t i c u l a r v i d e o , a g a i n , d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , he w o u l d c e r t a i n l y be a b l e t o t e s t i f y that t h a t i s , i n f a c t , t h e one he u s e d . "The Court: admitted." (R. Okay. i t ' s 470-71.) During the d i s c u s s i o n 50, Overruled, the f o l l o w i n g concerning State's Exhibit number occurred: "[Prosecutor]: A l l right. I w i l l show y o u w h a t ' s b e e n m a r k e d as S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 50. Take a l o o k a t that, please. Do you r e c o g n i z e S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 50? "[Det. Edge]: Yes, s i r . "[Prosecutor]: What i s t h a t ? " [ D e t . E d g e ] : T h a t ' s a c o p y o f t h e Cowboy's CD. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Okay, a n d t h a t ' s t h e v i d e o t h a t you r e l i e d on d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f y o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n ? "[Det. Edge]: Yes, s i r , the video. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Okay. And d i d you make were you a b l e t o make any d e t e r m i n a t i o n s -- o r i d e n t i f y any i n d i v i d u a l s on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r CD? " [ D e t . E d g e ] : T h e r e was one i n d i v i d u a l t h a t l o o k s e x t r e m e l y c l o s e t o M o n t e z S p r a d l e y , on t h e i n s i d e . 12 CR-07-1270 "[Prosecutor]: Okay. "[Det. Edge]: But other c h a r g i n g , no. "[Prosecutor]: Okay. -- a s f a r as t h e o u t s i d e , A l l right. "[Prosecutor]: State would i n t r o d u c e S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 50. "[Defense c o u n s e l ] : (R. Court: to We w o u l d o b j e c t , Honor, on t h e same o b j e c t i o n s "The move Your -¬ Overruled." 475-76.) Initially, this proper foundation enough Court or predicate to put the t r i a l challenging evidence." notes "an o b j e c t i o n that a h a s n o t b e e n made i s s p e c i f i c court the prosecutor's that on n o t i c e procedure that counsel f o r presenting is the W y a t t v . S t a t e , 620 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992). Accordingly, Court's review. Further, foundation a video this Spradley preserved t h i s Court has e x p l a i n e d that issue "'[t]he (Ala. proper r e q u i r e d f o r t h e a d m i s s i o n o f a sound r e c o r d i n g [or recording] i n t o e v i d e n c e d e p e n d s on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e case i n which t h e a d m i s s i o n i s sought.'" State, for this [Ms. CR-06-0827, A u g u s t 27, 2010] C r i m . App. 2010) ( q u o t i n g 13 Mitchell So. 3d S m i t h v. S t a t e , v. , 727 So. 2d CR-07-1270 147, 167 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ) . When d i s c u s s i n g these r e q u i r e m e n t s , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s s t a t e d : "There a r e two t h e o r i e s upon w h i c h p h o t o g r a p h s , motion p i c t u r e s , v i d e o t a p e s , sound r e c o r d i n g s , and the l i k e a r e a n a l y z e d f o r admission i n t o evidence: the 'pictorial communication' or 'pictorial t e s t i m o n y ' t h e o r y and t h e ' s i l e n t w i t n e s s ' t h e o r y . Wigmore [on E v i d e n c e ] , s u p r a , § 790 [(1970 & Supp. 1 9 9 1 ) ] ; [2] M c C o r m i c k [on E v i d e n c e , s u p r a , § 214 [ ( 1 9 9 2 ] ; a n d S c h r o e d e r , [Alabama E v i d e n c e , ] s u p r a § 11-3 [(1987 & Supp. 1988)]. The 'pictorial communication' t h e o r y i s t h a t a photograph, e t c . , i s merely a graphic p o r t r a y a l or s t a t i c expression of what a q u a l i f i e d a n d c o m p e t e n t w i t n e s s s e n s e d a t t h e time i n q u e s t i o n . Wigmore, s u p r a , § 790, a n d M c C o r m i c k , s u p r a , § 214. The ' s i l e n t w i t n e s s ' theory i s t h a t a photograph, e t c . , i s a d m i s s i b l e , e v e n i n t h e a b s e n c e o f an o b s e r v i n g o r s e n s i n g w i t n e s s , b e c a u s e t h e p r o c e s s o r mechanism b y w h i c h t h e p h o t o g r a p h , e t c . , i s made e n s u r e s reliability and t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s . In essence, the process o r mechanism s u b s t i t u t e s f o r t h e w i t n e s s ' s s e n s e s , a n d b e c a u s e t h e p r o c e s s o r mechanism i s e x p l a i n e d b e f o r e the photograph, e t c . , i s admitted, the t r u s t p l a c e d i n i t s t r u t h f u l n e s s comes f r o m t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t , h a d a w i t n e s s b e e n t h e r e , t h e w i t n e s s w o u l d have s e n s e d what t h e p h o t o g r a p h , e t c . , r e c o r d s . Wigmore, s u p r a , § 790, a n d M c C o r m i c k , s u p r a , § 214. "A r e a s o n a b l e r e a d i n g o f V o u d r i e [ v . S t a t e , 387 So. 2d 248 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 0 ) ] , C a r r a w a y [ v . S t a t e ] , [583 So. 2d 993 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991)] M o l i n a [ v . S t a t e ] , [533 So. 2d 701 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) ] a n d t h e more r e c e n t c a s e l a w o f t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s l e a d s us t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s i s o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e 'pictorial communication' and ' s i l e n t witness' theories are mutually exclusive theories, rather than a l t e r n a t i v e t h e o r i e s . The p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r a d m i s s i o n i n t o e v i d e n c e o f a sound 14 CR-07-1270 r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r medium b y w h i c h a s c e n e o r e v e n t i s recorded (e.g., a photograph, motion p i c t u r e , videotape, e t c . ) depends upon the particular circumstances. I f there i s no q u a l i f i e d and c o m p e t e n t w i t n e s s who c a n t e s t i f y t h a t t h e s o u n d r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r medium a c c u r a t e l y and r e l i a b l y r e p r e s e n t s what he o r she s e n s e d a t t h e t i m e i n q u e s t i o n , t h e n t h e ' s i l e n t w i t n e s s ' f o u n d a t i o n must be l a i d . Under t h e ' s i l e n t w i t n e s s ' t h e o r y , a w i t n e s s must e x p l a i n how t h e p r o c e s s o r mechanism t h a t c r e a t e d t h e i t e m w o r k s a n d how t h e p r o c e s s o r mechanism e n s u r e s r e l i a b i l i t y . When t h e ' s i l e n t w i t n e s s ' t h e o r y i s u s e d , t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g t o have t h e s o u n d r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r medium a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e must meet t h e s e v e n - p r o n g V o u d r i e test. R e w r i t t e n t o have more g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e Voudrie standard requires: "(1) a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e d e v i c e o r p r o c e s s o r mechanism t h a t p r o d u c e d t h e i t e m b e i n g o f f e r e d as e v i d e n c e was c a p a b l e o f r e c o r d i n g what a w i t n e s s w o u l d have seen o r h e a r d had a w i t n e s s been p r e s e n t at the scene o r event r e c o r d e d , "(2) a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e o p e r a t o r o f t h e d e v i c e o r p r o c e s s o r mechanism was c o m p e t e n t , "(3) establishment of the a u t h e n t i c i t y and correctness of the r e s u l t i n g recording, photograph, videotape, e t c . , "(4) a s h o w i n g t h a t no c h a n g e s , d e l e t i o n s h a v e b e e n made, "(5) a recording, preserved, showing of photograph, a d d i t i o n s , or t h e manner i n w h i c h videotape, etc., "(6) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e s p e a k e r s , p i c t u r e d , and 15 the was or persons CR-07-1270 "(7) f o r c r i m i n a l c a s e s o n l y , a s h o w i n g t h a t a n y s t a t e m e n t made i n t h e r e c o r d i n g , t a p e , e t c . , was v o l u n t a r i l y made w i t h o u t a n y k i n d o f c o e r c i o n o r improper inducement.[ ] 3 "On t h e o t h e r h a n d , when a q u a l i f i e d a n d competent w i t n e s s can t e s t i f y that t h e sound r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r medium a c c u r a t e l y a n d r e l i a b l y r e p r e s e n t s what t h e w i t n e s s s e n s e d a t t h e t i m e i n q u e s t i o n , then the f o u n d a t i o n r e q u i r e d i s t h a t f o r the ' p i c t o r i a l communication' t h e o r y . Under t h i s t h e o r y , t h e p a r t y o f f e r i n g t h e i t e m must p r e s e n t sufficient evidence to meet the 'reliable r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ' s t a n d a r d , t h a t i s , t h e w i t n e s s must t e s t i f y t h a t t h e w i t n e s s has s u f f i c i e n t p e r s o n a l knowledge o f t h e scene o r events p i c t u r e d o r t h e sounds r e c o r d e d and t h a t t h e i t e m o f f e r e d a c c u r a t e l y and r e l i a b l y r e p r e s e n t s t h e a c t u a l s c e n e o r s o u n d s . " Ex p a r t e F u l l e r , 620 So. 2d 675, 678 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . Surveillance videotapes may be admissible under the pictorial-communication theory or the s i l e n t - w i t n e s s theory. See I v e r y v. S t a t e , 686 So. 2 d 495 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . H e r e , " [ s ] i n c e none o f t h e o f f i c e r s were p r e s e n t at the s i t e w h i l e t h e cameras r e c o r d e d no other witness [the defendant's] testified that the a c t i v i t i e s [and videos r e f l e c t e d what t h e y saw] ... , t h e ' s i l e n t - w i t n e s s ' appropriate." Straughn accurately theory i s v. S t a t e , 876 So. 2d 492, 502 ( A l a . Because n e i t h e r e x h i b i t contains any s t a t e m e n t S p r a d l e y , c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h i s s t e p was n o t n e c e s s a r y . 3 16 by CR-07-1270 C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . (Ala. See a l s o Ex p a r t e R i e b e r , 663 So. 2d 999 1995). In 1999), Pressley this v. S t a t e , Court applied 770 So. 2d 115 ( A l a . C r i m . App. the requirements i n t r o d u c i n g a v i d e o under the s i l e n t - w i t n e s s necessary f o r theory: "[The p o l i c e o f f i c e r ] t h e n i d e n t i f i e d t h e e x h i b i t as t h e v i d e o t a p e he h a d removed f r o m t h e s u r v e i l l a n c e VCR a t t h e pawnshop, t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t was k e p t i n h i s s o l e c u s t o d y , e x c e p t f o r a d a y when i t was r e l e a s e d t o t h e F B I , a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t was i n t h e same c o n d i t i o n a t t r i a l , a n d t h a t t h e r e h a d b e e n no c h a n g e s on t h e v i d e o t a p e , as when he f i r s t v i e w e d t h e v i d e o t a p e . I t was a f t e r t h i s t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e t r i a l court admitted the s u r v e i l l a n c e videotape i n t o evidence. "By calling a witness with expertise i n s u r v e i l l a n c e camera s y s t e m s , the State p r o p e r l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e pawnshop's s u r v e i l l a n c e s y s t e m was i n p r o p e r w o r k i n g o r d e r a n d c a p a b l e o f r e c o r d i n g a c c u r a t e l y what was h a p p e n i n g i n t h e a r e a o f t h e pawnshop i t was f o c u s e d on. [The p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s ] t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e v i d e o t a p e r e c o r d i n g was c o r r e c t and a u t h e n t i c . T h e r e f o r e , the S t a t e p r o p e r l y satisfied the elements o f t h e V o u d r i e t e s t as a r t i c u l a t e d b y t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e Rieber, supra." 777 642, So. 2d a t 132-33. See a l s o W a s h i n g t o n v. S t a t e , 653, 961 A . 2 d 1110, 1116 (2008) surveillance equipment tapes that and operates photographs ("Courts made automatically by when have 406 Md. admitted surveillance 'a witness t e s t i f i e s t o t h e t y p e o f e q u i p m e n t o r camera u s e d , i t s g e n e r a l 17 CR-07-1270 reliability, by which the q u a l i t y of the recorded product, i t was focused, e n t i r e system.'"); C r i m . App. 1988) for reliability of the Logue v. S t a t e , 529 So. 2d 1064, 1068 ( A l a . ("The p u r p o s e o f l a y i n g the admission [depiction or the general the process of a tape on the the State a proper foundation r e c o r d i n g i s t o show tape] was accurately that the recorded and preserved.") Here, satisfy devoid Fuller, failed the s i l e n t - w i t n e s s of any of the to present theory. requirements 620 So. 2d a t 678. The any testimony record discussed to i s totally i n Ex The o n l y q u e s t i o n a s k e d parte o f Det. Edge was w h e t h e r he u s e d t h o s e r e c o r d i n g s d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n to develop a suspect. The f a c t t h a t a l a w - enforcement o f f i c e r viewed recordings d u r i n g h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n is not s u f f i c i e n t admittance of the to establish recording a proper under foundation either communication theory or the s i l e n t - w i t n e s s the pictorial- theory. Therefore, t h e two r e c o r d i n g s were i m p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d the State failed to l a y the proper admission. 18 f o r the at t r i a l foundation because for their CR-07-1270 Further, this Court cannot say that a d m i s s i o n o f t h e r e c o r d i n g s was h a r m l e s s . C r i m . P. the Rule improper 45, A l a . R. R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P., s t a t e s : "No j u d g m e n t may be r e v e r s e d o r s e t a s i d e , n o r new t r i a l g r a n t e d i n a n y c i v i l o r c r i m i n a l c a s e on the ground o f m i s d i r e c t i o n o f the j u r y , t h e g i v i n g or refusal of special charges o r the improper a d m i s s i o n o r r e j e c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e , n o r f o r e r r o r as to any m a t t e r o f p l e a d i n g o r p r o c e d u r e , u n l e s s i n the o p i n i o n o f the c o u r t t o which the appeal i s t a k e n o r a p p l i c a t i o n i s made, a f t e r an e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e e n t i r e cause, i t s h o u l d appear t h a t t h e e r r o r complained o f has p r o b a b l y i n j u r i o u s l y affected s u b s t a n t i a l rights of the p a r t i e s . " At the time that State's exhibit number 49 was offered and a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , D e t . Edge t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e t a p e showed a g r e e n Cadillac automobile next t o a blue Chevrolet a u t o m o b i l e a t t h e g a s o l i n e pump where J a s o n ' s c r e d i t c a r d h a d been used. The Cadillac belonging to Atkins. 50 consisted surveillance credit that photographs a t Cowboy's c a r d h a d been u s e d the i n d i v i d u a l was identified as D e t . Edge t e s t i f i e d t h a t S t a t e ' s e x h i b i t of s t i l l camera automobile p u r p o r t e d l y taken a t the time at that location. i n several that from Jason's D e t . Edge o f the photographs a said made a t Cowboy's a t t h e t i m e t h e v i c t i m ' s c r e d i t c a r d h a d b e e n u s e d a t that location strongly resembled 19 the defendant. The CR-07-1270 recordings Spradley State's were to the the use evidence testimony of regarding overwhelming. 211 ( A l a . 1993) demonstrative Jason's against nor harmless, only credit Spradley, card. aside See Ex parte Det. the Edge's neither ironclad Greathouse, 624 So. 2d 208, (recognizing that p r e j u d i c i a l error could be the when is evidence of the defendant's errors occurred i n Spradley's strength of evidence the State's in this erroneous admission guilt F i n a l l y , as d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l b e l o w , multiple occurred linking Moreover, from h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , was "virtually ironclad"). that evidence case, this of the v i d e o and trial. the Court B a s e d on cumulative cannot say r e c o r d i n g s was the errors that the harmless. 4 II. S p r a d l e y next argues t h a t the S t a t e i m p r o p e r l y introduced p r e j u d i c i a l hearsay testimony d u r i n g the d i r e c t examination two p o l i c e o f f i c e r s who 802, A l a . R. State Evid. improperly i n v e s t i g a t e d Jason's death. Specifically, elicited Spradley testimony See Rule contends t h a t from Officer of the Steve N o t h i n g i n t h e o p i n i o n s h o u l d be r e a d as h o l d i n g t h a t S t a t e ' s e x h i b i t s 49 and 50 w o u l d n o t be a d m i s s i b l e i n t h e f u t u r e ; h o w e v e r , t h e S t a t e must l a y t h e p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e s e e x h i b i t s t o be a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . 4 20 CR-07-1270 B a s h e a r s and D e t . Don Edge e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t M e l v i n H e n d e r s o n t o l d them t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l a t E n s l e y S e a f o o d o f f e r e d t o use a credit card to f i l l $5 i n c a s h . Spradley also introduced hearsay Jason's Jolly credit Chevron locations and s u p p l i e d by her been used several town. Jason's argues t h a t the S t a t e i m p r o p e r l y t e s t i m o n y from Det. c a r d had around locations h i s tank w i t h g a s o l i n e i n exchange f o r card days Det. after after because Det. Edge's J a s o n ' s c r e d i t c a r d s was her death at Roger at various times been documents used through company, b u t a d m i t t h o s e documents i n t o e v i d e n c e . that her death that Edge l e a r n e d o f t h e had credit-card Edge i n d i c a t i n g the S t a t e d i d not Spradley further testimony and regarding the b a s e d on documents f r o m t h e argues use of credit- c a r d company, D e t . Edge l a c k e d any p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h o s e documents and h i s t e s t i m o n y c o n s t i t u t e d improper hearsay. See Rules 602 and 802, A l a . R. Evid. S p r a d l e y d i d n o t o b j e c t t o O f f i c e r B a s h e a r s ' s and D e t . Edge's testimony, but conviction despite his failure review because asserts that this Court should to preserve these issues f o r the erroneous admission of O f f i c e r 21 reverse h i s Bashears's CR-07-1270 and D e t . Edge's t e s t i m o n y r i s e s to the l e v e l of p l a i n e r r o r . R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. At Jason trial, during This Court the State's a robbery, theory agrees. was t h a t S p r a d l e y took her c r e d i t card, murdered and used t h e c a r d t o purchase g a s o l i n e f o r p e o p l e i n exchange f o r cash. p r o v e i t s t h e o r y t h a t J a s o n ' s c r e d i t c a r d had been used her murder, t h e S t a t e had learned through documents p r o v i d e d i s s u e d Jason's c r e d i t time F r i d a y n i g h t , and o f f e r e d D e t . Edge's t e s t i m o n y ... t h e y service station] Jason's call[] State admitted card a t Cowboy's e x h i b i t 50, a CD ... testimony from service information credit card, he station, Det. that Jason's indicating from credit t h e company card was still location. State based that also elicited on the issued the used f o l l o w i n g ... J a s o n ' s d e a t h ... [ a t ] E n s l e y S e a f o o d 22 the i n s i d e Cowboy's the received Spradley c o n s i s t i n g of nine e s t a b l i s h i t s theory, Edge Chevron[,] To show t h a t on t h e day J a s o n ' s c r e d i t c a r d was u s e d a t t h a t further that [ a t t h e Cowboy's photographs t h a t appeared t o d e p i c t Spradley To t h a t he b y t h e company i t Roger J o l l y (R. 439; 475.) credit after c a r d t h a t t h e c a r d h a d b e e n " u s e d one Sunday, f o l l o w i n g ... J a s o n ' s d e a t h used To "Sunday, " (R. CR-07-1270 439; 475.) card at I n an a t t e m p t t o show t h a t S p r a d l e y Ensley Atkins Antonio Seafood, the indicating State presented that Atkins and used Jason's testimony Spradley from went to E n s l e y S e a f o o d on J a n u a r y 11, 2004, S p r a d l e y p a i d f o r g a s o l i n e for Atkins's car with a c r e d i t c a r d , and someone in automobile. admitted exhibit To a blue Chevrolet 49, establish a video that recording. Spradley Spradley The spoke w i t h State 5 attempted to use Jason's c r e d i t c a r d a t E n s l e y Seafood to o b t a i n cash, the S t a t e M e l v i n H e n d e r s o n , t h e owner o f t h e b l u e C h e v r o l e t to testify. Henderson, however, Spradley. testify, and To the Det. that refused void left elicited by Henderson made t h e gas This testimony against refusal to from O f f i c e r Bashears a to statement Seafood o f f e r e d to them use a tank of h i s car w i t h g a s o l i n e i n testimony and called automobile, to t e s t i f y Henderson's testimony someone a t E n s l e y f o r cash. with Atkins's the that card to f i l l exchange exhibit State Edge indicating credit fill also the was State's used in conjunction improperly admitted 50. As d i s c u s s e d above, the S t a t e f a i l e d t o l a y the p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n f o r S t a t e ' s e x h i b i t s 49 and 50; t h e r e f o r e , t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e s e e x h i b i t s was i m p r o p e r . 5 23 CR-07-1270 It i s well s e t t l e d t h a t " [ a ] w i t n e s s may not t e s t i f y to a matter unless evidence i s introduced s u f f i c i e n t to support a finding matter." [Ms. that the witness has R u l e 602, A l a . R. C r i m . P. 1091767, June 30, 2011] the requirement knowledge the events of Similarly, not other statute." one to which R u l e 802, A l a . R. admissible except rules adopted by that of the 3d a , ( A l a . 2011) witness that have witness personal testifies). Evid., provides that "[h]earsay as p r o v i d e d by the Supreme " H e a r s a y " i s d e f i n e d as made by knowledge See a l s o Ex p a r t e Brown, So. (reaffirming is personal these or by of Alabama Court rules, or by "a s t a t e m e n t , the d e c l a r a n t w h i l e t e s t i f y i n g other a t the than trial or h e a r i n g , o f f e r e d i n evidence to prove the t r u t h of the matter asserted." "It R u l e 801, A l a . R. i s clear that the Evid. hearsay rule applies statement o f f e r e d f o r the t r u t h of i t s c o n t e n t s . " State, 502 (citations So. 2d 846, omitted). ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992), In 848-49 Sawyer v. (Ala. Crim. State, 598 only a Edwards v. App. So. 1986) 2d t h i s Court e x p l a i n e d : "'A s t a t e m e n t may be a d m i s s i b l e where i t i s n o t o f f e r e d to prove the t r u t h of whatever f a c t s might be s t a t e d , " b u t r a t h e r t o e s t a b l i s h t h e r e a s o n f o r a c t i o n o r c o n d u c t by t h e w i t n e s s [when t h e r e a s o n 24 to 1035 CR-07-1270 f o r t h e a c t i o n o r c o n d u c t i s r e l e v a n t t o an i s s u e a t trial]."' Edwards v. S t a t e , 502 So. 2d 846, 849 (Ala. C r . App. 1986) ( q u o t i n g T u c k e r v. S t a t e , 474 So. 2d 131, 132 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 4 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r grounds, 474 So. 2d 134 (1985)). The officers r e l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d from o t h e r s o u r c e s t o e x p l a i n why t h e y p r o c e e d e d as t h e y d i d . T h i s was n o t hearsay. See, e.g., B r a n n o n [v. S t a t e ] , 549 So. 2d [532] a t 539 [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) ] ; M c C r a y v. S t a t e , 548 So. 2d 573, 576 ( A l a . C r . App. 1988). See, a l s o , M o l i n a v. S t a t e , 533 So. 2d 701, 714 (Ala. C r . App. 1 9 8 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 489 U.S. 1086, 109 S. C t . 1547, 103 L. Ed. 2d 851 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ; T i l l i s v. S t a t e , 469 So. 2d 1367, 1370 ( A l a . C r . App. 1985)." 598 1281, this So. 2d 1285 at 1038. ( A l a . C r i m . App. c a s e was Recognizing purpose also Miller 1996) ("The v. the their investigation potential out-of-court for statements S t a t e , 687 So. 2d o f f i c e r s ' testimony i n r e c e i v e d t o show t h e r e a s o n s a c t i o n s and how allowing See f o r the officers' f o c u s e d on a s u s p e c t . " ) . abuse to and be the dangers admitted for of any other than to prove the t r u t h of the matter a s s e r t e d , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has cautioned: "We urge vigilance i n e v a l u a t i n g any offer of t e s t i m o n y a b o u t an o u t - o f - c o u r t d e c l a r a t i o n 'not f o r the truth of the matter asserted.' The a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f s u c h t e s t i m o n y depends on i t s b e i n g r e l e v a n t to a proper i s s u e i n the case. The f i r s t i n q u i r y s h o u l d be: ' i f t h e o u t - o f - c o u r t d e c l a r a t i o n is not o f f e r e d f o r i t s t r u t h , i s whatever the d e c l a r a t i o n does t e n d t o p r o v e r e a l l y a t i s s u e i n the p a r t i c u l a r proceedings?'" 25 CR-07-1270 Ex p a r t e M e l s o n , 775 So. 2d 904, 907 a l s o Ex p a r t e Toney, 854 So. what n. testimony purpose was Bill's 2d 37, i n evidence? proving that Toney ( A l a . 2000). 40-41 that Tennessee c a r d e a l e r s h i p i d e n t i f i e d offered 2. ( A l a . 2002) the agents i f we We can d i s c e r n no had in fact p u r p o s e was not assume for to prove the ("For of the Toney f r o m a p h o t o g r a p h purpose been in other than Tennessee. That t e s t i m o n y had a b s o l u t e l y no o t h e r r e l e v a n c e t o t h e Further, See sake of t h a t Toney had proceeding. argument that i t s been i n Tennessee, t h e n t h a t p r o o f w o u l d n o t o t h e r w i s e have b e e n a v a i l a b l e i n t h e e v i d e n c e . " ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e v. Cir. 2004) ("Allowing investigations, and Silva, 380 1018, 1020 agents to n a r r a t e the course of thus juries spread F.3d before (7th their damning i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s n o t 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 , w o u l d go f a r toward a b r o g a t i n g the defendant's r i g h t s under the sixth amendment and t h e h e a r s a y r u l e . " ) ; C o n l e y v. S t a t e , 620 So. 180, 182 admitting ( F l a . 1993) into ("[T]he i n h e r e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t o f evidence an out-of-court statement a c c u s a t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n o n l y to e s t a b l i s h the l o g i c a l of events outweighs Such p r a c t i c e must be 2d the probative avoided."). 26 value Indeed, of such relating sequence evidence. CR-07-1270 " [ i ] t w i l l be s e e n t h a t o n l y i n r a r e i n s t a n c e s w i l l t h e ' c o n d u c t ' o f an i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r n e e d t o be ' e x p l a i n e d ' , as i n p r a c t i c a l l y e v e r y c a s e , t h e m o t i v e , i n t e n t , o r s t a t e o f m i n d o f s u c h an o f f i c e r w i l l n o t be ' m a t t e r s c o n c e r n i n g w h i c h t h e t r u t h must be f o u n d . ' At heart, a c r i m i n a l prosecution i s d e s i g n e d t o f i n d t h e t r u t h o f what a d e f e n d a n t d i d , and, on o c c a s i o n , o f why he d i d i t . I t i s most unusual that a p r o s e c u t i o n w i l l p r o p e r l y concern itself w i t h why an investigating officer did something." Teague v. S t a t e , 252 Ga. 534, 536, 314 S.E.2d 910, 912 In (1984). t h i s c a s e , D e t . Edge's t e s t i m o n y r e l a t i n g t o t h e t i m e s when and l o c a t i o n s where J a s o n ' s credit c a r d was used after h e r m u r d e r was n o t b a s e d on h i s p e r s o n a l , f i r s t h a n d k n o w l e d g e . See Rule 602, A l a . R. June 30, 2011] Evid.; Ex So. 3d a t p a r t e Brown, [Ms. ( r e a f f i r m i n g the 1091767, requirement t h a t a w i t n e s s have p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e e v e n t s t o w h i c h that witness statements See Rule was neither other Jason's testifies). p r o v i d e d t o him 801, than I n s t e a d , Det. A l a . R. relevant the credit by Evid. Jason's of the c a r d s were u s e d offered matter testified credit-card F u r t h e r , Det. t o show n o r truth Edge testimony to prove anything asserted, i . e . , that a f t e r her murder a t See Ex p a r t e M e l s o n , at Edge's n. 2. Because Det. 27 company. Edge's t i m e s and s p e c i f i c p l a c e s . 907 to testimony was specific 775 So. 2d based on CR-07-1270 s t a t e m e n t s p r o v i d e d t o h i m by J a s o n ' s c r e d i t - c a r d company, h i s t e s t i m o n y s h o u l d have been e x c l u d e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 602 and 802, A l a . R. Evid., b e c a u s e he l a c k e d p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e t e s t i m o n y was Likewise, Officer Bashears's hearsay. 6 and D e t . Edge's testimony r e g a r d i n g H e n d e r s o n ' s s t a t e m e n t s t o them was n o t r e l e v a n t t o prove any asserted. relevant In matter fact, except Officer the truth Bashears's of and the matter Det. Edge's t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g Henderson's o u t - o f - c o u r t statement appears t o have b e e n a d m i t t e d t o f i l l left by Henderson's refusal the v o i d i n the S t a t e ' s case to t e s t i f y . Accordingly, the t e s t i m o n y r e l a t i n g t o Henderson's o u t - o f - c o u r t statement was h e a r s a y and was i m p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 802, A l a . R. Evid. Furthermore, Officer the erroneous Bashears's a d m i s s i o n o f D e t . Edge's t e s t i m o n y was "adversely affected "seriously affect[ed] [Spradley's] the and "particularly egregious," substantial right[s]," fairness, integrity or public A l t h o u g h t h e document f r o m t h e c r e d i t - c a r d company may f a l l w i t h i n the b u s i n e s s - r e c o r d s e x c e p t i o n to the hearsay r u l e , R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) , A l a . R. E v i d . , t h e S t a t e d i d n o t a d m i t t h e document i n t o e v i d e n c e . 6 28 CR-07-1270 reputation 1091767, of j u d i c i a l June proceedings," 30, 2011] So. 3d a t q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) , and r e s u l t e d Waldrop v. S t a t e , 2010) Brown, [Ms. (citations 59 So. 3d 60, 61 ( A l a . C r i m . App. The S t a t e u s e d D e t . r e g a r d i n g when a n d where J a s o n ' s c r e d i t been used i n c o n j u n c t i o n and i n "a m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e ( c i t a t i o n s and q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . Edge's t e s t i m o n y had Ex p a r t e with the State's cards exhibit 50 -¬ n i n e p h o t o g r a p h s d e p i c t i n g S p r a d l e y i n s i d e Cowboy's on J a n u a r y 11, 2004, card. Jason's -- t o p r o v e location t h e day that credit Spradley card was had used used Jason's F u r t h e r , t h e S t a t e u s e d D e t . Edge's t e s t i m o n y when and where Henderson's State's credit out-of-court exhibit Atkins's Jason's 49 -- testimony card, credit cards statements a video from to establish had at been credit regarding used in conjunction Ensley Seafood that t h a t he u s e d i t a t E n s l e y Spradley that had and with -- a n d Jason's S e a f o o d , a n d t h a t he sought t o use i t t o purchase g a s o l i n e f o r p e o p l e i n exchange for cash. W i t h o u t D e t . Edge's t e s t i m o n y r e l a t i n g t o when a n d where J a s o n ' s c r e d i t c a r d h a d been u s e d , t h e t e s t i m o n y that Spradley used a c r e d i t card 29 at Ensley establishing Seafood and t h e CR-07-1270 p h o t o g r a p h s o f S p r a d l e y i n s i d e Cowboy's s e r v i c e s t a t i o n meaningless. Similarly, without r e l a t i n g t o when and where J a s o n ' s and that Henderson's Spradley meaningless. Det. a credit testimony c r e d i t c a r d h a d been u s e d o u t - o f - c o u r t statement, used Edge's card at Atkins's Ensley testimony Seafood was credit card The t i m e s and p l a c e s where J a s o n ' s had been u s e d c o u p l e d w i t h H e n d e r s o n ' s o u t - o f - c o u r t and State's exhibits State's evidence 49 and 50 c o n s t i t u t e d e s t a b l i s h i n g Spradley's As t h e f o r e g o i n g e s t a b l i s h e s , O f f i c e r Bashears's and statement the bulk of the guilt. the improper admission of and D e t . Edge's t e s t i m o n i e s must have h a d "an u n f a i r p r e j u d i c i a l Ex p a r t e B r y a n t , were impact on t h e j u r y ' s 951 So. 2d 724, 727 quotations omitted). deliberations." ( A l a . 2002) When c o u p l e d with the (citations improperly a d m i t t e d r e c o r d i n g s f r o m Cowboy's s e r v i c e s t a t i o n and E n s l e y Seafood, Officer Bashears's and Det. Edge's inadmissible testimony c e r t a i n l y a f f e c t e d the j u r y ' s d e c i s i o n . this Court Bashears's entitles holds and that Det. the Edge's Spradley to r e l i e f . erroneous testimony Rule III. 30 admission was plain Therefore, of Officer error 45A, A l a . R. App. P. and CR-07-1270 S p r a d l e y next argues t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r error in introducing State's witness. evidence of Specifically, f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y t h a t was a committed p l a i n third-party threat Spradley to challenges admitted during Atkins's the direct examination: " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Have you had a g a i n s t you o r y o u r f a m i l y t e s t i f y today? "[Atkins]: any t y p e s o f t h r e a t s about coming here t o Yeah. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : And what f o r m have t h o s e t h r e a t s b e e n in? "[Atkins]: I was t o l d not t o come " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : And you "[Atkins]: testify. Montez. Against were t o l d t h a t by " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : I'm s o r r y . " [ A t k i n s ] : I was t o l d n o t Montez. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : And who to who? come t e s t i f y against t o l d you n o t t o come t e s t i f y ? " [ A t k i n s ] : Some -- I d o n ' t know i f t h e y were f a m i l y members o r n o t , b u t I was a p p r o a c h e d by someone on t h e s t r e e t , t e l l i n g me n o t t o . II " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Okay. I'm g o i n g t o b a c k up a l i t t l e bit. I t h i n k I got ahead of m y s e l f . You stated t h a t you r e c e i v e d t h r e a t s . Okay. Where d i d t h o s e t h r e a t s come from? Who? 31 a CR-07-1270 " [ A t k i n s ] : I don't face. "[Prosecutor]: those t h r e a t s ? know h i s name, Where were b u t I know h i s y o u when you received " [ A t k i n s ] : East Lake. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Okay. you p e r s o n a l l y ? "[Atkins]: A n d d i d t h i s p e r s o n come up t o Yeah. "[Prosecutor]: you? A n d what s p e c i f i c a l l y d i d he s a y t o " [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : I'm g o i n g t o o b j e c t t o h e a r s a y , Y o u r Honor. "The C o u r t : Okay. Overruled. " [ A t k i n s ] : I was t o l d n o t t o come t o c o u r t t e s t i f y a g a i n s t Montez i n t h e murder c a s e . " (R. and 335-38.) According to Spradley, the State committed error e l i c i t i n g t e s t i m o n y from A t k i n s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a t h i r d had threatened testifying Spradley Atkins against plain (Ala. error to prevent Atkins Spradley because the State to the threat. hearsay objection; for i n an a t t e m p t At therefore, only. C r i m . App. 2009) trial, this D a v i s v. S t a t e , made reviews t h i s from only a issue 42 So. 3d 162, 168 ("The s t a t e m e n t o f s p e c i f i c 32 party f a i l e d to l i n k Spradley Court by grounds o f CR-07-1270 o b j e c t i o n waives a l l grounds not s p e c i f i e d 45A, A l a . R. App. A l a b a m a has a third party 109, 118, improperly attempted Rule l o n g h e l d t h a t t h r e a t s made t o a w i t n e s s by are not admissible unless 41 So. 413, 415 admitted to See P. connected t o the making of the t h r e a t . Ala. ...."). (1906) testimony suppress a that witness's e v i d e n c e was presented indicating procurement of the defendant, the See Sims v. S t a t e , the defendant's statement with his I n A r t h u r v. S t a t e , 575 So. 2d 1165, C r i m . App. 1990), Court father no done by the knowledge or 1177-80 ( A l a . explained: "'A t h r e a t by a t h i r d p e r s o n a g a i n s t a ... w i t n e s s i s r e l e v a n t o n l y i f t h e d e f e n d a n t i s l i n k e d i n some way t o t h e making of the t h r e a t . Thus, e v i d e n c e t h a t a w i t n e s s r e c e i v e d an u n s i g n e d letter c o n t a i n i n g a t h r e a t s h o u l d be e x c l u d e d i f there i s no evidence to connect the defendant w i t h i t . ' "C. T o r c i a , 1 W h a r t o n ' s C r i m i n a l E v i d e n c e § 157 (14th e d . 1985) ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . ' E v i d e n c e o f an a t t e m p t by a n o n - w i t n e s s t h i r d p e r s o n t o s u p p r e s s t e s t i m o n y i s a d m i s s i b l e i f , b u t o n l y i f , i t i s shown that the p a r t y a g a i n s t whom s u c h evidence i s offered, procured, promoted or approved such attempt.' C. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 190.03 (3d e d . 1977) ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . See a l s o Sims v. S t a t e , 146 A l a . 109, 41 So. 413 (1906); 33 146 because was consent") this is ( h o l d i n g t h a t the S t a t e "that this or defendant CR-07-1270 S t e w a r t v . S t a t e , 398 So. 2d 369 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 398 So. 2d 376 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . The p r o s e c u t o r made a b s o l u t e l y no a t t e m p t t o l i n k , t o A r t h u r , t h e t h r e a t made t o W i c k e r . In fact, a t trial, the prosecutor claimed that Brantley's t e s t i m o n y h a d n o t h i n g t o do w i t h A r t h u r d i r e c t l y . " Further, P r o f e s s o r Gamble a n d P r o f e s s o r Goodwin w r i t e : " E v i d e n c e o f an a t t e m p t b y a n o n w i t n e s s t h i r d person t o suppress evidence i s a d m i s s i b l e i f , b u t o n l y i f , i t i s shown t h a t t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom such evidence i s o f f e r e d e i t h e r p r o c u r e d , promoted or approved such attempt. T h i s evidence i s , l i k e i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , a d m i s s i b l e under t h e t h e o r y t h a t i t c o n s t i t u t e s an i m p l i e d a d m i s s i o n b y t h e p a r t y who p r o c u r e d , p r o m o t e d o r a p p r o v e d t h e a t t e m p t to suppress." Charles W. Gamble a n d R o b e r t J . Goodwin, M c E l r o y ' s E v i d e n c e , § 190.03 ( 6 t h e d . 2 0 0 9 ) . i n C r i m i n a l Case, See A n n o t . , on I s s u e o f D e f e n d a n t ' s Alabama Admissibility Guilt, of Evidence t h a t T h i r d Person has Attempted t o I n f l u e n c e a Witness n o t t o T e s t i f y or to T e s t i f y Falsely , 79 A.L.R. 3d 1156 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . See also S t e w a r t v. S t a t e , 398 So. 2d 369, 375 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1981) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t "when t h e e x e c u t i o n o f a t h r e a t o r t h e a t t e m p t t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e i s done b y a t h i r d p a r t y , t h e n i t must be shown t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t o f f e r e d , p r o c u r e d , p r o m o t e d or approved such attempt") See a l s o Cox v. S t a t e , 1981) ( c i t a t i o n s and q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . 422 N.E.2d 357, 361-62 ( I n d . C t . App. (mere m e n t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s name d u r i n g a t h r e a t i s 34 CR-07-1270 not s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a nexus t o the d e f e n d a n t ) ; 146 Ala. at 118, 41 So. at 415 (evidence of r e l a t i o n s h i p between the defendant and t h r e a t i s n o t enough t o e s t a b l i s h a sufficient a Sims, family the person making nexus t o the the defendant). Here, the between the State t h r e a t and name o f t h e p e r s o n that failed Spradley who been by any connection A t k i n s d i d not t h r e a t e n e d him, "procured, threatened establish Spradley. promoted A r t h u r , 575 So. 2d a t 1177. had to know and n o t h i n g or approved" the indicated the threat. A c c o r d i n g l y , the f a c t t h a t A t k i n s a third party was irrelevant and inadmissible. Further, the third-party "substantial impact on error. the threat rights," the miscarriage So. i n t h i s unique of jury's case, the improper seriously probably had affected "an deliberations," justice"; admission therefore, Spradley's unfair and of prejudicial resulted in i t constituted "a plain A l b a r r a n v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-07-2147, J u l y 29, 2011] 3d bulk improperly , ( A l a . C r i m . App. of the State's admitted. 2011). evidence As d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , against Additionally, 35 with Spradley no was evidence CR-07-1270 indicating that t e s t i m o n y was innuendo procured the threat, ... [Spradley] behind 575 Arthur, was at 1177-78. So. 2d the a dangerous p e r s o n of bad a t h r e a t from j a i l . that Spradley attempted this to c h a r a c t e r , who This testimony must be prevent issue e n t i t l e s guilty, Atkins Spradley to innuendo that Spradley could authorize w o u l d a l s o have i n d i c a t e d otherwise from to threats . .. This most l i k e l y l e f t t h e j u r y w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g was Atkins's p r e j u d i c i a l and " i n j e c t [ e d ] [ i n t o t h e t r i a l ] that [Atkins]." Spradley he would testifying. not have Accordingly, relief. IV. S p r a d l e y next argues t h a t the S t a t e i m p r o p e r l y evidence of p r i o r his bad character Specifically, elicited prisoner, been in bad in violation Spradley testimony indicating jail a c t s f o r no p u r p o s e o t h e r for from argues of that Matthew that Spradley violating the Spradley d i d not o b j e c t to Bryant's Court reviews R. Crim. Rule 404, the Bryant, was on terms 36 t h a n t o show Ala. State R. probation of testimony; his Evid. erroneously Spradley's this issue for plain error only. P. introduced fellow and had probation. therefore, this R u l e 45A, Ala. CR-07-1270 At trial, the following occurred during the State's d i r e c t examination of Bryant: " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Mr. B r y a n t , do you remember t h e f i r s t time that you h a d a c o n v e r s a t i o n with Montez Spradley concerning the death of a lady i n Center Point? " [ B r y a n t ] : Yes, s i r . "[Prosecutor]: Do you c o n v e r s a t i o n took place? remember when that " [ B r y a n t ] : I t h a p p e n e d t h e s e c o n d t i m e he came i n t o t h e j a i l , s i r . A n d -" [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : A l l r i g h t . What a b o u t t h e f i r s t t h a t he came i n t o t h e j a i l , d i d -- time " [ B r y a n t ] : I j u s t t a l k e d t o h i m a few t i m e s . I fed e v e r y b o d y , I d i d t h e t r a y s a n d s t u f f on t h e f l o o r , and -- you know, you r u n i n t o p e o p l e , a n d p e o p l e n e e d t h i n g s , a n d y o u h e l p them o u t . " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Okay. M o n t e z S p r a d l e y , was J a i l , as w e l l ? A n d t h e s e c o n d t i m e you saw t h a t i n the J e f f e r s o n County " [ B r y a n t ] : Yes, s i r . "[Prosecutor]: conversational T e l l us how you a n d he w i t h each other, p l e a s e . g o t t o be " [ B r y a n t ] : He g o t i n t r o u b l e i n one o f t h e o t h e r b l o c k s , a n d t h e y were a l l g e t t i n g r e a d y t o jump on him, so I t a l k e d t o one o f t h e o t h e r o f f i c e r s a n d g o t h i m moved o v e r i n t h e b l o c k w i t h u s . I was j u s t d o i n g i t b e c a u s e i t was t h e r i g h t t h i n g t o do. I d i d n ' t know a n y t h i n g a b o u t h i m . A n d so a f t e r t h a t 37 CR-07-1270 we -- you know, we j u s t s t a r t e d t a l k i n g , you know, he come t o my c e l l . I t s t a y e d open a l l t h e t i m e b e c a u s e I was a f l o o r w o r k e r . So, we w o u l d go i n t h e r e and s i t a r o u n d and t a l k , w h i l e e v e r y b o d y e l s e was b e i n g l o u d and w a t c h i n g TV and s t u f f , s i r . " "[Prosecutor]: girlfriends, "[Bryant]: A l l now right. You mentioned two -¬ yes, s i r . "[Prosecutor]: and you a r e u s i n g t h e t e r m 'she.' " [ B r y a n t ] : Yes, s i r . " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : So, I n e e d you t o s p e c i f y who t a l k i n g about, p l e a s e . "[Bryant]: Okay. "[Prosecutor]: The girl you a r e t h a t has t h e b a b y -¬ Okay. " [ B r y a n t ] : -- and was p r e g n a n t w i t h a n o t h e r b a b y o f h i s , she was t h e one t h a t t a l k e d t o t h e p o l i c e and h a d h i m r e a r r e s t e d on t h i s c a s e . " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Okay. on t h a t c a s e ? " [ B r y a n t ] : No, violation." (R. 291-94 (emphasis A l l right. s i r , he was And was he i n j a i l there on a probation added).) R u l e 4 0 4 ( a ) , A l a . R. E v i d . , p r o v i d e s that "[e]vidence a person's c h a r a c t e r or a t r a i t of c h a r a c t e r 38 i s not of admissible CR-07-1270 for the " purpose of Similarly, proving action Rule 404(b), in A l a . R. conformity Evid., therewith states: "Evidence of o t h e r c r i m e s , wrongs, or a c t s i s not a d m i s s i b l e to prove the c h a r a c t e r of a person i n o r d e r t o show a c t i o n i n c o n f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h . I t may, h o w e v e r , be a d m i s s i b l e f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s , s u c h as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, p r e p a r a t i o n , p l a n , knowledge, i d e n t i t y , or absence of mistake or a c c i d e n t " T h i s C o u r t has e x p l a i n e d t h a t " ' R u l e 404(b) i s a p r i n c i p l e of limited admissibility. T h i s means t h a t t h e o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e is broad, impermissible purpose, but is more purposes '" i n a d m i s s i b l e f o r one admissible for one T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 808 or So. other 2d 1148, limited 1165 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000) ( q u o t i n g C. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 69.01(1) ed. 1996) (emphasis added)). "The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has 'held that the exclusionary rule prevents the S t a t e from u s i n g e v i d e n c e of a d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i o r bad a c t s t o p r o v e t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s b a d c h a r a c t e r and, t h e r e b y , p r o t e c t s the defendant's r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l . ' Ex p a r t e D r i n k a r d , 777 So. 2d 295, 302 ( A l a . 2000) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e C o f e r , 440 So. 2d 1121, 1123 (Ala. 1983)). T h i s c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d t h a t ' [ o ] n t h e t r i a l f o r the a l l e g e d commission of a particular crime, e v i d e n c e of the accused's h a v i n g committed another a c t or crime i s not a d m i s s i b l e i f the o n l y p r o b a t i v e f u n c t i o n of such e v i d e n c e i s t o p r o v e bad c h a r a c t e r and t h e a c c u s e d ' s c o n f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h . ' L e w i s v. S t a t e , 889 So. 2d 623, 661 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) ( q u o t i n g C. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 69.01(1) ( 5 t h ed. 1 9 9 6 ) ) . 39 (5th CR-07-1270 "'"'This exclusionary rule i s simply an a p p l i c a t i o n of the character r u l e which f o r b i d s the S t a t e t o prove the accused's bad c h a r a c t e r by p a r t i c u l a r deeds. The b a s i s f o r t h e r u l e l i e s i n the b e l i e f t h a t t h e p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t of p r i o r crimes w i l l f a r o u t w e i g h any p r o b a t i v e v a l u e t h a t m i g h t be g a i n e d f r o m them. M o s t agree t h a t such evidence of p r i o r c r i m e s h a s a l m o s t an i r r e v e r s i b l e i m p a c t upon t h e m i n d s o f t h e jurors.'"' "Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , 33 So. 3d 1279, 1284-1285 ( A l a . 2009) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e A r t h u r , 472 So. 2d 665, 668 (Ala. 1985), q u o t i n g i n t u r n M c E l r o y ' s s u p r a , § 69.01(1)) . "The State i s not p r o h i b i t e d from ever p r e s e n t i n g evidence of a defendant's p r i o r bad a c t s . T h i s c o u r t has s t a t e d : "'If the defendant's commission of a n o t h e r c r i m e o r m i s d e e d i s an e l e m e n t o f guilt, or tends to prove his guilt o t h e r w i s e t h a n by s h o w i n g o f b a d c h a r a c t e r , then p r o o f of such o t h e r a c t i s a d m i s s i b l e . [Some] w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e i n c l u d e : (1) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e i d e n t i t y ; (2) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e r e s g e s t a e ; (3) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e s c i e n t e r ; (4) relevancy to prove intent; (5) r e l e v a n c y t o show m o t i v e ; (6) r e l e v a n c y t o prove system; (7) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e malice; (8) r e l e v a n c y t o r e b u t s p e c i a l d e f e n s e s ; a n d (9) r e l e v a n c y i n v a r i o u s p a r t i c u l a r crimes.' " H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 2 So. 3d 880, 907 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007) ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n s a n d q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . 40 CR-07-1270 However, '[f]or collateral-act evidence to be a d m i s s i b l e f o r one o f t h e " o t h e r p u r p o s e s " i n R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , t h e r e must be "'a r e a l and open i s s u e as t o one o r more o f t h o s e " o t h e r p u r p o s e s . " ' " ' D r a p e r v. S t a t e , 886 So. 2d 105, 117 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2002) ( q u o t i n g G i l l e s p i e v. S t a t e , 549 So. 2d 640, 645 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Bowden v. S t a t e , 538 So. 2d 1226, 1227 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ) . " Moore v. S t a t e , 49 So. 3d 228, 232-33 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009). F u r t h e r , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has h e l d t h a t e v i d e n c e that a defendant has b e e n bad-character evidence. 1357 the ( A l a . 1986). Alabama admit a arrested i n the past Ex p a r t e J o h n s o n , I n Ex p a r t e J o h n s o n , Supreme fingerprint Court held card that that constitutes 507 So. 2d 1351, 507 So. 2d a t 1357, i t was contained plain the error details to of J o h n s o n ' s p r i o r a r r e s t s on t h e b a c k o f t h e c a r d when t h e c a r d h a d no r e l e v a n c e e x c e p t t o show t h e a c c u s e d ' s b a d The C o u r t character. stated: " I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e copy showing t h e f r o n t of [the f i n g e r p r i n t card] c o n t a i n e d i n f o r m a t i o n which c l e a r l y r e v e a l e d the defendant's past c o n t a c t s w i t h l a w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s . From t h i s t h e j u r y c o u l d have r e a d i l y i n f e r r e d , a t a minimum, t h a t he h a d been a r r e s t e d i n t h e p a s t . I n o u r v i e w , s u c h an i n f e r e n c e w o u l d have h a d an a l m o s t irreversible i m p a c t upon t h e m i n d s o f t h e j u r o r s . " 507 So. 2d a t 1357. 628, 630 Likewise, ( A l a . C r i m . App. i n Tabb v. S t a t e , 553 So. 2d 1988), t h i s Court found t h a t 41 plain CR-07-1270 error occurred when t h e S t a t e e l i c i t e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was a " d r u g a d d i c t . " testimony indicating This Court noted t h e r e was "no p u r p o s e i n t h e e l i c i t a t i o n of this testimony, other than t o show t h e b a d c h a r a c t e r o f t h e a p p e l l a n t . " This f u r t h e r found t h a t the testimony Court was because i t undermined the defense's c r e d i b i l i t y . Further, Cir. Id. prejudicial I d . a t 631. i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C a l h o u n , 544 F.2d 2 9 1 , 296 ( 6 t h 1976), t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Court Circuit that of Appeals f o r the S i x t h explained: " P a r o l e s u g g e s t s t o t h e j u r y t h a t t h e c r i m e was recent and that i t was one which required imprisonment. The k n o w l e d g e t h a t [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] was on p a r o l e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e c o u l d a l s o a r o u s e an e m o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n among t h e j u r o r s , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e who h a r b o r s t r o n g f e e l i n g s about r e c i d i v i s m and t h e premature r e l e a s e o f those i n p r i s o n f o r crimes. Thus i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . P o s t o n , 430 F.2d 706 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 7 0 ) , we h e l d t h a t i t was p r e j u d i c i a l a n d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r t o have introduced evidence before a j u r y that the defendant was on p r o b a t i o n a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e . See, a l s o , U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S m i t h , 403 F.2d 74 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 6 8 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . R u d o l p h , 403 F.2d 805 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 6 8 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C a l v e r t , 498 F.2d 409 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. H u r s t , 510 F.2d 1035 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. B l a n t o n , 520 F. 2d 907 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) . " Here, the State specifically elicited B r y a n t e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t S p r a d l e y was i n j a i l violation when he s p o k e w i t h Spradley 42 testimony from f o r a probation about Jason's murder. CR-07-1270 Bryant's testimony r e l a t i n g to Spradley's probation v i o l a t i o n constituted evidence established Calhoun, 544 F.2d eliciting bad that that] of Spradley a t 296. prior conviction Consequently, Rule Spradley alerted 404, committed other than 553 was So. Further, jury to the prior t h a t he had E v i d . , and bad for 630. Bryant's violating that Spradley error. his had bad 45A, to excluded. the admission Rule a act. i n a d m i s s i b l e pursuant s h o u l d have b e e n case, acts. [Spradley's] committed another i n t h i s unique and "no p u r p o s e [ f o r at fact constituted plain testimony 2d jail B r y a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y was A l a . R. character t o show in the and bad F u r t h e r , t h e r e was Tabb, that probation had testimony, character testimony Spradley's of Bryant's A l a . R. Evid. As d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , t h e b u l k o f t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e c o n s i s t e d o f evidence f o r which the S t a t e f a i l e d to l a y a proper o r t h a t was not i n a d m i s s i b l e hearsay. present overwhelming foundation A c c o r d i n g l y , the S t a t e d i d evidence of guilt. F u r t h e r , when Bryant's testimony r e l a t i n g to Spradley's probation v i o l a t i o n is considered someone Spradley, in conjunction with threatened the jury to harm surely him must 43 Atkins's i f he have testimony testified been left that against with the CR-07-1270 impression Such an impact So. that Spradley impression was a dangerous, w o u l d have had an "almost upon t h e m i n d s o f t h e j u r o r s . " 2d at testimony 1357. Consequently, the career criminal. irreversible Ex p a r t e J o h n s o n , admission r e l a t i n g to Spradley being i n j a i l of Bryant's f o r a probation v i o l a t i o n must have h a d "an u n f a i r p r e j u d i c i a l i m p a c t jury's deliberations," Ex p a r t e B r y a n t , 507 on t h e 951 So. 2d 724, 727 ( A l a . 2002) ( c i t a t i o n s and q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) , and " a d v e r s e l y affected [Ms. [Spradley's] s u b s t a n t i a l 1091767, June 30, 2011] therefore, Crim. i t constitutes r i g h t [ s ] , " Ex p a r t e So. 3d plain error. , Rule Brown, ( A l a . 2011); 45A, A l a . R. P. V. When r e v i e w i n g S p r a d l e y ' s c a p i t a l - m u r d e r c o n v i c t i o n , Court uses the p l a i n - e r r o r s t a n d a r d of review. this R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. However, t h i s s t a n d a r d does n o t a p p l y t o r e v i e w o f Spradley's conviction A l a b a m a Supreme 652 Court for intimidating stated a witness. i n Ex p a r t e W o o d a l l , As 730 So. 2d ( A l a . 1998): "Because the defendant in this case was sentenced to death, we have c o m p l i e d w i t h our obligation [to conduct] a plain-error review. However, with respect to h i s attempted murder 44 the CR-07-1270 c o n v i c t i o n , f o r w h i c h he r e c e i v e d a s e n t e n c e o f l e s s t h a n d e a t h , we do n o t b e l i e v e t h e d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o b e n e f i t f r o m o u r p l a i n e r r o r r e v i e w . We have f o u n d no A l a b a m a d e c i s i o n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n p r e s e n t here: a case i n which p l a i n e r r o r n e c e s s i t a t e d a r e v e r s a l on a c a p i t a l c o n v i c t i o n and d e a t h s e n t e n c e b u t i n w h i c h t h e defendant was also sentenced to a term of i m p r i s o n m e n t on a n o t h e r c o n v i c t i o n . However, t h e defendant's sentence of imprisonment for his c o n v i c t i o n o f a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r does n o t i m p l i c a t e the same heightened degree of concern for r e l i a b i l i t y that attended h i s sentence of death f o r the c a p i t a l c o n v i c t i o n . I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t where a d e f e n d a n t r e c e i v e s o n l y a p r i s o n s e n t e n c e t h e p l a i n - e r r o r d o c t r i n e i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e a n d an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r an a l l e g e d e r r o r t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o p r e s e r v e by making a p r o p e r and t i m e l y o b j e c t i o n i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See B i d d i e v. S t a t e , 516 So. 2d 846 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ; H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 347 So. 2d 1363 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 7 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 347 So. 2d 1368 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . Indeed, i t has been s a i d t h a t t h e p l a i n - e r r o r d o c t r i n e 'applies to death penalty cases, but not to other convictions.' Pugh v . S t a t e , 355 So. 2d 386, 389 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 355 So. 2d 392 ( A l a . 1977) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . "Had t h e d e f e n d a n t b e e n c o n v i c t e d a n d s e n t e n c e d t o a t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t on t h e a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r count b u t e i t h e r a c q u i t t e d o r sentenced t o l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t w i t h o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r o l e on the c a p i t a l murder count, t h e p l a i n - e r r o r d o c t r i n e w o u l d n o t have a p p l i e d . Thus, we w o u l d n o t have even considered t h e e r r o r upon w h i c h we have p r e d i c a t e d our r e v e r s a l of h i s c a p i t a l c o n v i c t i o n and d e a t h s e n t e n c e : t h e S t a t e ' s q u e s t i o n i n g o f t h e defendant r e g a r d i n g h i s c h a r a c t e r and the subsequent introduction of evidence of s p e c i f i c incidents tending to i n d i c a t e a propensity f o r violence. No o b j e c t i o n t o t h a t q u e s t i o n i n g was r a i s e d a t t r i a l . The d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d n o t be p u t i n a more f a v o r a b l e 45 CR-07-1270 position with respect to our review of his n o n c a p i t a l c o n v i c t i o n s i m p l y b e c a u s e he was also f o u n d g u i l t y o f a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e and was sentenced to death. Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e defendant's f a i l u r e to o b j e c t to the S t a t e ' s i n q u i r y i n t o h i s c h a r a c t e r or to the i n t r o d u c t i o n of evidence of the t h r e e v i o l e n t i n c i d e n t s p r e c l u d e s t h i s Court from c o n s i d e r i n g t h o s e g r o u n d s as t h e f o u n d a t i o n f o r a r e v e r s a l of h i s attempted-murder c o n v i c t i o n , f o r w h i c h he r e c e i v e d a s e n t e n c e o f l e s s t h a n d e a t h . " 730 So. 2d a t Spradley witness 765. argues s h o u l d be First, 7 that his conviction for intimidating r e v e r s e d f o r the f o l l o w i n g a reasons. S p r a d l e y a s s e r t s t h a t the i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g i n g him w i t h the o f f e n s e of i n t i m i d a t i n g a w i t n e s s , A l i s h a Booker, was defective. was Specifically, vague b e c a u s e related official to the S p r a d l e y argues t h a t the i t d i d not intimidation; proceeding identify that i t did t o w h i c h B o o k e r had t h a t i t d i d not s t a t e the date the indictment underlying not been case specify the summoned; and of the a l l e g e d o f f e n s e . I n a f o o t n o t e i n S p r a d l e y ' s b r i e f , he a r g u e s t h a t t h i s Court should apply a p l a i n - e r r o r a n a l y s i s to h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r i n t i m i d a t i n g a w i t n e s s b e c a u s e t h e two o f f e n s e s were t r i e d together. However, t h i s C o u r t i s b o u n d by t h e d e c i s i o n s o f t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t . See § 12-3-16, A l a . Code 1975. 7 46 CR-07-1270 Initially, preserve this this issue Court notes that for appellate Spradley review. failed to I n L a n s d e l l v. S t a t e , 25 So. 3d 1169, 1182 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , t h i s Court h e l d t h a t a c h a l l e n g e t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f an i n d i c t m e n t d o e s not implicate the jurisdiction of the t h e r e f o r e , s u c h c l a i m s must be p r e s e r v e d . circuit See a l s o court; Ex p a r t e Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536, 539 ( A l a . 2006) ( h o l d i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e validity of circuit court th[e] case[; error, see [an] i n d i c t m e n t i s irrelevant had j u r i s d i c t i o n therefore,] Rule over [a] d e f e c t 15.2(d), t o whether the subject the matter of i n an i n d i c t m e n t may A l a . R. Crim. P. -- or be even c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e r r o r , s e e A l a . C o n s t . , A r t . I , § 8 -- b u t t h e d e f e c t does n o t d i v e s t t h e c i r c u i t t h e c a s e " ) ; Ex p a r t e H o r t o n , c o u r t o f t h e power t o t r y 456 So. 2d 1120, 1122 ( A l a . 1984) (holding that challenges to the s u f f i c i e n c y of the a l l e g a t i o n s in an i n d i c t m e n t must be r a i s e d a t t r i a l ) ; 998 So. 2d 1092, 1099 ( A l a . Crim. Gargis App. 2007) v. S t a t e , (holding that d e f e c t s i n an i n d i c t m e n t a r e n o n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l and, t h u s , must be p r e s e r v e d challenge f o r appellate review). the s u f f i c i e n c y f a i l e d to preserve this Here, S p r a d l e y of the indictment. issue f o r appellate 47 d i d not Therefore, review. he CR-07-1270 Moreover, even i f S p r a d l e y had p r e s e r v e d h i s c h a l l e n g e t o the indictment, h i s allegations indictment charged are without merit. The S p r a d l e y as f o l l o w s : " M o n t e z S p r a d l e y , a l i a s K e v i n S p r a d l e y , whose name i s t o t h e g r a n d j u r y o t h e r w i s e unknown, d i d a t t e m p t , b y u s e o f a t h r e a t d i r e c t e d t o A l i s h a Renea B o o k e r , a w i t n e s s o r a p e r s o n he b e l i e v e d w o u l d be c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s i n an o f f i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s , t o w i t : S t a t e o f Alabama v s . Montez S p r a d l e y , t o i n d u c e A l i s h a Renae B o o k e r t o a b s e n t h e r s e l f f r o m said o f f i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g t o which she had been l e g a l l y summoned, a v i o l a t i o n o f S e c t i o n 13A-10-123 o f t h e A l a b a m a C r i m i n a l Code, a g a i n s t t h e p e a c e a n d d i g n i t y of t h e S t a t e o f Alabama." (C. 284.) S e c t i o n 13A-10-123, A l a . Code 1975, s t a t e s : " ( a ) A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f i n t i m i d a t i n g a w i t n e s s i f he a t t e m p t s , b y u s e o f a t h r e a t d i r e c t e d t o a w i t n e s s o r a p e r s o n he b e l i e v e s w i l l be c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s i n a n y o f f i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s , to: of "(1) C o r r u p t l y i n f l u e n c e t h e testimony that person; "(2) Induce t h a t person t o a v o i d l e g a l p r o c e s s summoning h i m t o t e s t i f y ; o r "(3) Induce t h a t person t o absent h i m s e l f f r o m an o f f i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g t o w h i c h he h a s b e e n l e g a l l y summoned." " T h r e a t " i s d e f i n e d as c r i m i n a l c o e r c i o n , which i n turn, i s d e f i n e d i n § 13A-6-25, A l a . Code 1975, as f o l l o w s : 48 CR-07-1270 "A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f c r i m i n a l c o e r c i o n if, without legal a u t h o r i t y , he threatens to c o n f i n e , r e s t r a i n to cause p h y s i c a l i n j u r y to the threatened person or another, o r t o damage t h e p r o p e r t y or r e p u t a t i o n of the t h r e a t e n e d person or another w i t h i n t e n t thereby to induce the threatened p e r s o n o r a n o t h e r a g a i n s t h i s w i l l t o do an u n l a w f u l a c t or r e f r a i n from d o i n g a l a w f u l a c t . " I n a d d r e s s i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an i n d i c t m e n t , § 25, A l a . Code 1975, 15-8¬ provides: "An i n d i c t m e n t must s t a t e t h e f a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g the offense i n ordinary and concise language, w i t h o u t p r o l i x i t y o r r e p e t i t i o n , i n s u c h a manner as t o e n a b l e a p e r s o n o f common u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o know what i s i n t e n d e d and w i t h t h a t d e g r e e o f c e r t a i n t y which w i l l e n a b l e t h e c o u r t , on c o n v i c t i o n , t o pronounce the proper judgment." I n R e e s e v. S t a t e , 456 So. 2d 341 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1982), t h i s Court s t a t e d : " I t i s s u f f i c i e n t i n an i n d i c t m e n t t o c h a r g e t h e e l e m e n t s o f a s t a t u t o r y o f f e n s e i n t h e words o f t h e statute. Gayden v. S t a t e , 262 A l a . 468, 80 So. 2d 501 ( 1 9 5 5 ) ; W i l d e r v. S t a t e , 401 So. 2d 151 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 401 So. 2d 167 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . The o n l y q u a l i f i c a t i o n t o t h i s r u l e i s t h a t t h e i n d i c t m e n t must a p p r i s e t h e a c c u s e d w i t h r e a s o n a b l e c e r t a i n t y of the nature of the a c c u s a t i o n a g a i n s t him, so t h a t he may p r e p a r e h i s d e f e n s e and t h e n p l e a d t h e j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n as a b a r t o any s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c u t i o n f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . " 456 (Ala. So. 2d a t 346. Crim. indictments App. See 2001). a l s o Owens v. "[U]nder our State, 825 system of So. 2d pleading, are r a t h e r a statement of l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s , 49 861 than CR-07-1270 o f f a c t s . ... [ I ] t i s n o t r e q u i r e d t h a t an i n d i c t m e n t the p r o o f n e c e s s a r y t o a c o n v i c t i o n . " 2d 503, 514 quotations The witness ( A l a . C r i m . App. S m i t h v. S t a t e , 797 So. (internal c i t a t i o n s and omitted). indictment tracked charging the prescribes with Spradley language i n t i m i d a t i o n of a witness. 1975, 2000) s e t up of Further, sufficient the intimidating statute a defining § 13A-10-123, A l a . Code definiteness elements of i n t i m i d a t i n g a witness. 898 So. 2d 875, 877 with the e s s e n t i a l See Tompkins v. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2004) ("An State, indictment[] t h a t t r a c k s the language of the s t a t u t e i s s u f f i c i e n t i f the s t a t u t e p r e s c r i b e s w i t h d e f i n i t e n e s s the e s s e n t i a l elements of the o f f e n s e . " ) . F i n a l l y , the indictment S p r a d l e y on n o t i c e o f t h e c h a r g e d Because the indictment was s u f f i c i e n t t o p u t offense. charging Spradley with i n t i m i d a t i n g a w i t n e s s t r a c k e d t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e and put that S p r a d l e y on n o t i c e o f t h e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e , the indictment merit. Therefore, was this his allegation u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y vague i s w i t h o u t issue relief. 50 does n o t e n t i t l e Spradley to CR-07-1270 Spradley next argues t h a t t h e r e was a m a t e r i a l v a r i a n c e between t h e i n d i c t m e n t and S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e . S p r a d l e y argues indictment Alisha t h a t a m a t e r i a l v a r i a n c e e x i s t s because the charged Renae Specifically, Spradley Booker with t o absent attempting herself from t o " t o induce said p r o c e e d i n g t o w h i c h s h e h a d b e e n l e g a l l y summoned," pursuant failed official (C. 2 8 4 ) , t o § 1 3 A - 1 0 - 1 2 3 ( a ) i 3 i , A l a . Code 1975, b u t t h e S t a t e t o prove therefore, the State "[c]orruptly pursuant that Booker had been legally failed to establish i n f l u e n c e [ d ] the testimony t o § 13A-10-123(a)11i, summoned; t h a t Spradley had of A l a . Code that 1975. person," In other words, S p r a d l e y argues t h a t a m a t e r i a l v a r i a n c e e x i s t s because the State charged Spradley pursuant t o one s u b s e c t i o n o f § 1 3 A - 1 0 - 1 2 3 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, b u t p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t he was g u i l t y p u r s u a n t t o a n o t h e r s u b s e c t i o n o f t h e same s t a t u t e . This issue i s not preserved f o r t h i s Court's In App. review. S h o u l d i s v . S t a t e , 953 So. 2d 1275, 1283 ( A l a . C r i m . 2006), t h i s Court h e l d t h a t i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o a v a r i a n c e b e t w e e n an i n d i c t m e n t an t h e p r o o f p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l must be raised at t r i a l . Specifically, t h i s Court h e l d t h a t " i s s u e s as t o a v a r i a n c e b e t w e e n t h e i n d i c t m e n t a n d p r o o f 51 ... a r e n o t CR-07-1270 p r e s e r v e d f o r r e v i e w where t h e y a r e n o t ( q u o t i n g B i l e s v. S t a t e , 1997), q u o t i n g 715 So. 2d 878, i n t u r n T u r n e r v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. r a i s e d at t r i a l . " 883 610 (Ala. Crim. So. 2d 1198, i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t . preserved for appellate to App. 1199 1992)). Here, S p r a d l e y f a i l e d t o r a i s e h i s argument r e l a t i n g a variance Id. Therefore, r e v i e w and to t h i s i s s u e i s not does n o t entitle Spradley relief. C. In a similar insufficient intimidating argument, evidence a Spradley asserts to witness. support Specifically, his he that there was conviction for argues the that s t a t e f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t B o o k e r had b e e n summoned t o a l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g at the without The t i m e she was threatened. This argument i s merit. Commentary t o § 13A-10-123, A l a . Code 1975, states: " S e c t i o n 13A-10-123 may change A l a b a m a law t o the e x t e n t t h a t a c t u a l knowledge t h a t the p e r s o n s o u g h t t o be b r i b e d i s a b o u t t o be c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s i s no longer required Under the C r i m i n a l Code, t h e d e f e n d a n t n e e d o n l y have b e l i e v e d that t h e p e r s o n s o u g h t t o be b r i b e d would be called." 52 CR-07-1270 (Emphasis (Ala. So. added.) C r i m . App. 2d 979, See a l s o Logue v. S t a t e , 1988). i n Johnson v. 2d 1064 State, t h a t "§ 13A-10-123, A l a . Code 1975, does n o t ... r e q u i r e that an b e f o r e an p r o c e e d i n g be pending (2005), t h i s 932 held convicted ( A l a . C r i m . App. So. Court official 982-83 Likewise, 529 of i n t i m i d a t i n g a witness." accused can T h a t i s , "an be official p r o c e e d i n g n e e d n o t be p e n d i n g f o r an a c c u s e d t o be convicted of the intimidating a witness under § 13A-10-123; only r e q u i r e m e n t i s t h a t t h e a c c u s e d b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p e r s o n he o r she i s a c c u s e d o f i n t i m i d a t i n g w i l l u l t i m a t e l y be c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s i n an o f f i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g . " I d . a t 983. o f f i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g n e e d n o t be p e n d i n g Because "an f o r an a c c u s e d t o be c o n v i c t e d o f i n t i m i d a t i n g a w i t n e s s u n d e r § 13A-10-123," A l a . Code 1975, i s not r e q u i r e d t o submit evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t t h e v i c t i m has b e e n summoned t o an official proceeding. i d . , the State Instead, accused b e l i e v e [ d ] that the State need the person he only prove o r she "that i s accused the of i n t i m i d a t i n g [ w o u l d ] u l t i m a t e l y be c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s i n an o f f i c i a l proceeding." Id. R e g a r d i n g t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e , t h i s C o u r t has explained: 53 CR-07-1270 "In deciding whether there i s sufficient evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t o f t h e j u r y and t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h e e v i d e n c e must be reviewed i n the l i g h t most favorable to the prosecution. Cumbo v . S t a t e , 368 So. 2 d 871 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 368 So. 2 d 877 ( A l a . 1979). Conflicting evidence presents a jury q u e s t i o n n o t s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w on a p p e a l , provided the s t a t e ' s evidence e s t a b l i s h e s a prima f a c i e case. Gunn v. S t a t e , 387 So. 2d 280 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . denied, 387 So. 2 d 283 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . The t r i a l court's d e n i a l o f a motion f o r a judgment o f a c q u i t t a l must be r e v i e w e d b y d e t e r m i n i n g whether there e x i s t e d l e g a l evidence before thej u r y , a t the t i m e t h e m o t i o n was made, f r o m w h i c h t h e j u r y b y fair inference could have found t h e a p p e l l a n t guilty. Thomas v. S t a t e , 363 So. 2 d 1020 ( A l a . C r . App. 1978). In applying this standard, the appellate court will determine only i f legal e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d from which t h e j u r y c o u l d have f o u n d t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. W i l l i s v . S t a t e , 447 So. 2d 199 ( A l a . C r . App. 1983); Thomas v . S t a t e . When t h e e v i d e n c e raises questions o f f a c t f o r t h e j u r y and such evidence, i fbelieved, i s sufficient to sustain a c o n v i c t i o n , t h e d e n i a l o f a motion f o r a judgment o f a c q u i t t a l b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t does n o t c o n s t i t u t e e r r o r . Young v. S t a t e , 283 A l a . 676, 220 So. 2d 843 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; W i l l i s v. S t a t e . A v e r d i c t of conviction w i l l n o t be s e t a s i d e on t h e g r o u n d o f i n s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence unless, a l l o w i n g a l l reasonable presumptions f o r i t s c o r r e c t n e s s , the preponderance o f t h e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t t h e v e r d i c t i s so d e c i d e d a s t o c l e a r l y c o n v i n c e t h i s c o u r t t h a t i t was wrong a n d unjust. Duncan v . S t a t e , 436 So. 2 d 883 ( A l a . C r . App. 1983), c e r t . denied, 464 U.S. 1047 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 378 So. 2 d 1164 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . q u a s h e d , 378 So. 2d 1173 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . " Breckenridge v. S t a t e , 628 So. 2 d 1012, 1993). 54 1018 ( A l a . C r i m . App. CR-07-1270 Here, Booker t e s t i f i e d that Spradley t a l k i n g w i t h law-enforcement o f f i c e r s She testified because she that was a Spradley star told witness w o u l d be u n a b l e t o c o n v i c t him. going to k i l l about the murder her and a s s a u l t e d her not to without go for case. to the her, court State S p r a d l e y a l s o t o l d h e r he was h e r b e c a u s e she was g o i n g t o send him back Booker's indicating to prison. Based on testimony that Spradley b e l i e v e d she w o u l d be a w i t n e s s a g a i n s t h i m and t h a t S p r a d l e y attempted to suppress her testimony, t h i s Court concludes t h a t the State presented s u f f i c i e n t evidence to s u s t a i n conviction for intimidating a witness. n o t e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f on t h i s Spradley's Therefore, Spradley i s issue. D. S p r a d l e y l a s t l y argues t h a t the S t a t e e r r e d i n f a i l i n g to elect which incident submitted to the j u r y . of intimidation should have been S p e c i f i c a l l y , he a s s e r t s t h a t B o o k e r ' s testimony established that multiple occasions; Spradley t h e r e f o r e , the required to elect a s p e c i f i c threatened State s h o u l d have i n c i d e n t to submit 55 Booker to the on been jury. CR-07-1270 Spradley failed to preserve this issue review. He d i d n o t o b j e c t to the State's specific incident the c i r c u i t court State o r move for appellate failure to elect a to require the t o e l e c t w h i c h i n c i d e n t i t was p r e c e d i n g c a s e was s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y . from t h e r e c o r d t h a t elect on w h i c h on b e f o r e t h e " [ B ] e c a u s e i t does n o t a p p e a r [the defendant] requested that the State incident ... i t was basing the remaining charge, that c l a i m i s not preserved f o r a p p e l l a t e review. Pierson v. S t a t e , Shouldis 2006). 677 So. 2d 830 v. S t a t e , Accordingly, (Ala. Crim. 953 So. 2d 1275, 1280 this issue App. See 1996)." ( A l a . C r i m . App. i s not preserved for this C o u r t ' s r e v i e w a n d does n o t e n t i t l e S p r a d l e y t o a n y r e l i e f . For the conviction cause reasons, and h i s sentence i s remanded opinion. his foregoing Spradley's of death f o r proceedings capital-murder are reversed consistent and t h i s with this S p r a d l e y ' s c o n v i c t i o n f o r i n t i m i d a t i n g a w i t n e s s and s e n t e n c e o f 20 y e a r s i n p r i s o n a r e a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Welch, P . J . , and K e l l u m , Burke, and J o i n e r , J J . , concur. 56

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.