Kenneth Eugene Billups, alias v. State of Alabama
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 11/13/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-05-1767 K e n n e t h Eugene Billups v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WISE, P r e s i d i n g The from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CC-05-1755) Judge. appellant, K e n n e t h Eugene B i l l u p s , c a p i t a l murder f o r t h e k i l l i n g was made c a p i t a l Court was c o n v i c t e d o f o f Stevon Lockett. b e c a u s e he c o m m i t t e d i t d u r i n g a f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery. The m u r d e r t h e course o f See § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . CR-05-1767 After a sentencing hearing, by a vote of 7-5, the jury recommended t h a t B i l l u p s be s e n t e n c e d t o i m p r i s o n m e n t for life without court overrode j u r y ' s recommendation and s e n t e n c e d him t o d e a t h . Billups the filed the p o s s i b i l i t y a motion This f o r a new appeal this trial, The which trial the t r i a l court denied. followed. Because been imposed, we 45A, A l a . R. is a App. trial will the prejudice case i n which the death have r e v i e w e d i t f o r p l a i n P. Although the lack penalty, i t will t h e a p p e l l a n t may 2 d 1106 ( A l a . 1985). weigh raise. R u l e 45A, penalty error. of n o t b a r o u r r e v i e w o f an i s s u e death So. of parole. an Rule objection i n a case against See has involving claim of Ex p a r t e Kennedy, See 472 A l a . R. A p p . any at P., p r o v i d e s : "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 Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals shall n o t i c e any p l a i n e r r o r o r d e f e c t i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r r e v i e w ... w h e n e v e r s u c h e r r o r h a s 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 o f the appellant." " [ T h i s ] p l a i n - e r r o r exception to the rule in i s t o be which 'used sparingly, a m i s c a r r i a g e of U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Y o u n g , 470 84 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985) contemporaneous-objection solely justice U.S. i n those would 1, 1 5 , circumstances otherwise 105 S. C t . 1 0 3 8 , ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. 2 result.'" Frady, 1046, 456 CR-05-1767 U.S. 152, 816 163 n.14 n.14, 102 McReath t e s t i f i e d w h o s e n i c k n a m e was l i v i n g together to night go "T", of December had with the bought 12, next the 2003, the anywhere d i d not that v i c t i m s a i d he he 2003, had records 71 L. v i c t i m , Stevon She the Ed. 2d and v i c t i m was they were on getting ready testified further handgun, and that Lockett, also t e s t i f i e d that, She a 9 mm, that, that which was later t h a t the v i c t i m always was gun from evening calls However, he later, "had t o go had or sell $5,400 victim's with him. he cellular 3 cellular want to answered his make a r u n , " and t h a t , when the m e a n t t h a t he was She 12:30 The December d i d not drugs. between m i d n i g h t and of his on McReath e x p l a i n e d g o i n g t o "make a r u n , " he and the the several t o l d her r i g h t back. victim left his during a n s w e r t h e m b e c a u s e he t o meet someone t o buy the the morning. night. times, s a i d he w o u l d be that n.14, boyfriend victim received t e l e p h o n e a few going her victim testified telephone, but go 1592 him. McReath 12, that was i d e n t i f i e d as a H i g h p o i n t it 1584, i n December 2003. hunting she Ct. (1982)). Misty the S. also a.m. State telephone stated and that presented that showed CR-05-1767 several incoming cellular calls telephone McReath previous on McReath was house cocaine had gone to the going was The a.m. on pickup area. b o d y was the she seen v i c t i m had one or two the Billups from with with him the the from him been the to victim. the victim supposed to v i c t i m and Billups in several had months b e f o r e had p e r s o n made i t r i g h t ; a n d deal on t h a t she Road whom Billups's bought drugs s o m e t h i n g t h a t was be Billups bought that future the the person rather than evidence that, at approximately 3:15 Billups. 13, 2003, P o l i c e Department Fire had to 2003. Springville person December discovered truck. Old State presented truck 12-13, calls also testified s o l d him v i c t i m to Birmingham outgoing actually sugar; that and through She that, Billups but substance, told on testified killed, that when t h e o r s o l d d r u g s t o him. and December testified occasions Billups's from that was on department the Because Officer Lincoln responded fire in an personnel to a alley put Blue report in out of about identified East Lake the fire and been burned e x t e n s i v e l y , using dental 4 records. a the dead body of the v i c t i m i n the back seat i t had the the of the victim's CR-05-1767 The State also presented evidence that, on December 16, 2 0 0 3 , f o u r H i s p a n i c men -- 2 7 - y e a r - o l d M a n u e l N u n e z , 25-year- old Rafael Salcedo, 20-year- 24 y e a r - o l d E n r i q u e M a r q u e z , a n d o l d W i l b u r G o m e z -- w e r e k i l l e d a t Osman V a l l a d r e s ' s r e s i d e n c e at Avanti East able t o escape law Apartments. V a l l a d r e s and Pablo from the apartment enforcement Pablo S t u a r t went pulled hisgirlfriend, guns telephone on them, some people telephoned men talked and t e l l they four on O l d S p r i n g v i l l e their them the kitchen, and C h a r l e s hands, to bring Cooper a n d made them marijuana and They a l l t h e n went t o h i s apartment again. and k i l l i n g He t e s t i f i e d that the t h e H i s p a n i c men when got there. Valladres saw robbing house Parrish, taped the other people about on D e c e m b e r 16, 2003, he When t h e y w e n t i n t o Quinton duct cocaine t o h i s apartment. and that, to Billups's R o a d t o g e t some m a r i j u a n a . Billups, and r e p o r t e d t h e i n c i d e n t t o officers. Osman V a l l a d r e s t e s t i f i e d and S t u a r t were testified some m o n e y , a n d s a i d Hispanic pounds men of marijuana. t h a t t w o men came t o t h e they would b r i n g arrived with 5 the drugs. approximately Valladres testified apartment, Later, thirty-five that Billups and CR-05-1767 Quinton started shooting out of the enforcement the f o u r H i s p a n i c apartment and subsequently Robert Thompson of Sheriff's Department Valladres's Billups Valladres, was became that at 5918 executed found the between on Old They by 17, and he Road, 2003. ran law box Finally, he testified to to search and that Stuart and Billups's the warrant some marijuana in tape not Billups's that brother's matched papers r e l a t e d to testified was spoke testified officers Billups t h a t he also that i n Iowa looking Gary T. searched B i l l u p s ' s United with Robina States Courthers. f o r and Simmons, a forensic residence that on did not 2003. Dr. b l o o d w h e n he located He to time, duct Thompson responded that spring found County handgun and 9 mm At S t u a r t and V a l l a d r e s and eventually 17, contacted he 2003. warrant Springville also Marshals any t h a t he Jefferson that after a Highpoint Courthers. see suspect December mattress bedroom. described a obtained victim's a Catrina he testified the a p a r t m e n t on D e c e m b e r 16, residence and authorities. Sergeant that men pathologist J e f f e r s o n County Coroner/Medical Examiner's O f f i c e , 6 December for the performed CR-05-1767 an a u t o p s y on t h e v i c t i m ' s b o d y . suffered s i x g u n s h o t wounds four to the l e f t back of t h e head. examination already side, that one t o t h e r i g h t He also the f i r e Simmons t e s t i f i e d males Nunez d i e d of three h i s head, and face, side, including a n d one t o t h e that, he b e l i e v e d based on h i s t h e v i c t i m was started. on December 16, 2003. Salcedo died right testified that the v i c t i m t h a t he r e c e i v e d t h e b o d i e s o f t h e f o u r g u n s h o t wounds He a l s o testified that t o the back of h i s head; o f g u n s h o t wounds t o h i s f a c e and t h e back of h i s neck; t h a t Marquez of t o the head o f t h e v i c t i m ' s body, d e a d when Hispanic He t e s t i f i e d the back hip, his left died o f g u n s h o t wounds t o t h e b a c k of h i s shoulder, thigh, and h i s r i g h t his right back, h i s arm; and t h a t Gomez d i e d o f g u n s h o t wounds t o t h e b a c k o f h i s h e a d , h i s r i g h t arm, his right chest, and h i s r i g h t wrist. O f f i c e r David Rockett of the Birmingham P o l i c e testified that Billups's residence 15, 2004. I n the kitchen area, a b u l l e t hole flooring he a s s i s t e d i n e x e c u t i n g a t 5918 O l d S p r i n g v i l l e i n the floor, had been a search Road Department warrant at on J a n u a r y t h e y f o u n d what a p p e a r e d t o be a n a r e a w h e r e some o f t h e l i n o l e u m t o r n up, a n d an empty s h e l l 7 casing. CR-05-1767 Carl Mauterer, Department 14, 2004, he went evidence to heater o n some s t a i r s , confirmed Birmingham bullets the Police that were same g u n . was r e c o v e r e d Hispanic fired the blood of blood on a Department, recovered on also a p i l l o w at the the wall, testified from DNA and that five fired from of the four i d e n t i f i e d as h a v i n g could n o t be and toolmarks the shell 8 of the t h a t one o f t h e b u l l e t s t h a t Department examined that heater, t h e v i c t i m were the firearms Alabama he wall, T h e r e was from t h e case i n v o l v i n g t h e k i l l i n g s that luminol. and toolmarks examiner w i t h t h e He a l s o t e s t i f i e d f o r the Old blood. a firearms E. M o r a n , 5918 Mauterer t e s t i f i e d f r o m t h e same g u n , b u t i t a l s o testified January evidence using the floor, men c o u l d n o t b e p o s i t i v e l y William chief that Rector, on from t h e k i t c h e n t o t h e basement, and a matched t h e v i c t i m ' s Mitch Alabama at i n the kitchen. t h a t was i n t h e b a s e m e n t . testing floor f o rblood the that, residence he o b s e r v e d e v i d e n c e bottom of a s t a i r w e l l with testified Billups's a c h a i r , a n d a mop of blood biologist Sciences, Road t o s e a r c h W h i l e he was t h e r e , floor, forensic of Forensic Springville the a of Forensic casing from been excluded. discipline Sciences, Billups's CR-05-1767 kitchen, Taurus a shell 9 mm casing handgun that both s h e l l from a diver casings Valladres's found apartment, i n a lake had been f i r e d and and a determined from t h a t gun. He also t e s t i f i e d t h a t another b u l l e t from t h e case i n v o l v i n g t h e four Hispanic from for men h a d s i m i l a r i t i e s the Taurus, h i m t o make testified that Valladres's to the b u l l e t s that b u t d i d n o t have a positive the apartment microscopic identification. remaining matched enough eleven each were Moran shell fired detail further from and had been other casings fired f r o m t h e same g u n . Charles went to Billups's Courthers kitchen Cooper on testified that, house O l d S p r i n g v i l l e Road h e r hands floor. He a l s o on and knees testified on December wiping that blood referred t o as "T," t h e n i g h t that B i l l u p s had blood two before. time, o f f of the t h e v i c t i m , whom Cooper testified that, from the v i c t i m . a t another time, P a r r i s h were t a l k i n g about what o c c u r r e d that saw on h i s hands a n d t h a t B i l l u p s t h r e w h i m b a g s o f m a r i j u a n a he h a d g o t t e n Cooper t e s t i f i e d and he he a s k e d B i l l u p s what h a p p e n e d , a n d B i l l u p s t o l d h i m he h a d t o k i l l he 13, 2003, Billups said that with he d i d n o t l i k e 9 he, B i l l u p s , and the victim. At the v i c t i m and CR-05-1767 had to k i l l Parrish victim he and another took eight person, and that testified that some c o c a i n e the victim from he watching up b e h i n d t h e also t o l d him that 4^ o u n c e s o f c o c a i n e , a n d stated that Billups mixed in i t . that once before was n o t r i g h t He s t a t e d and t r i e d t o s t r a i g h t e n A f t e r w a r d , he recommended t h a t and he s n u c k on he h a d met t h e v i c t i m i thad had something with focused Billups pounds o f m a r i j u a n a , he b o u g h t because was the victim. Cooper after the victim and shot him i n t h e h e a d . a gun from met him, that that out the drugs. t h e v i c t i m g e t h i s money the victim he d i d g e t h i s money back, back from Billups. Cooper Billups, also Parrish, Valladres testified that, on December 16, 2003, and C o u r t h e r s were a t B i l l u p s ' s and S t u a r t arrived. At that house time, a l l four he, when o f them d r e w g u n s o n t h e t w o men, d u c t t a p e d t h e i r h a n d s , a n d h a d t h e m telephone other apartment. apartment people to deliver They t h e n t o o k V a l l a d r e s and w a i t e d f o r t h e people Cooper testified that Valladres's apartment with four marijuana Valladres's and S t u a r t t o V a l l a d r e s ' s to bring Hispanic marijuana 10 to the marijuana. men and that arrived an at argument CR-05-1767 ensued. He also Billups started thought that and that testified shooting the B i l l u p s shot B i l l u p s shot t r i e d to run. that, Valladres men. the the at spur Cooper first other and the two two of rob the shoot later divided. men more t i m e s four them, men, and m u r d e r b a s e d on The testimony testified testified that he had on holes killed the not entered a he out a plea United States apprehended January 14, of 2004. i n the the kitchen, v i c t i m , and that guilty had floor With to to felony- Cooper Russell spoke regard to to and his Detective Marshal and going to between trial Young. Tithof him about this case, gone t o B i l l u p s ' s house, and w h a t he t h a t B i l l u p s had B i l l u p s had 11 and incident. to Cooper t h a t C o o p e r s a i d he on shootings cross-examined statement they testified know B i l l u p s was inconsistencies prior seen blood bullet did extensively Deputy offenses he pointed that he because Cooper he head that they intended h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the and Afterward, he that defense specifically the that explained that once i n the Stuart escaped. He moment, testified t h a t t h e y t o o k the m a r i j u a n a w i t h them a f t e r the t h a t i t was the given thought t o l d him him he were had marijuana. CR-05-1767 With Tithof men $5,000, men that killings Cooper t h e men told were to front Cooper a l s o men of the four him t h a t going to give arrived with e a r l i e r but had l e f t i n cash, him t h a t $15,000 h e was the marijuana; men, owed t h e Billups him and B i l l u p s told Hispanic Billups i n e x c h a n g e f o r $15,000 were g o i n g Hispanic there that of marijuana marijuana. the to the testified worth the regard $30,000 and that worth not there of when t h a t he h a d b e e n when no one h a d a r r i v e d ; and t h a t , l a t e r t h a t n i g h t , B i l l u p s came t o h i s a p a r t m e n t w i t h b l o o d a l l over h i s pants (R. said, "'[W]e d i d the Mexicans.'" 848.) Billups numerous not and testified p e o p l e were know t h a t that other or f i v e that he was involving the four convicted cellular Billups of h i s and t h a t testified victim's own behalf murder. i n the and stated i n and out of h i s house and t h a t p e o p l e use them. friend his someone h a d b e e n k i l l e d he h a d f o u r a good on telephones testified he He he d i d also stated and t h a t he l e t that the v i c t i m also on t h e r u n i n Iowa b e c a u s e o f t h e case men Finally, he involving 12 d i d not k i l l when he stated the four him. was He Hispanic case there. that learned that he Hispanic about had men the been and CR-05-1767 sentenced on to death admitting in appears was I r v i n v. first evidence violation to unduly We as and that his c o n v i c t i o n s were pending appeal. Billups's men, row argue argument i s t h a t the about of that the Rule the killings 404(b), evidence trial of court erred the Ala. R. about the four Evid. in Hispanic He also collateral act prejudicial. extensively discussed State, 940 So. similar 2d 331, 344-52 f a c t s and arguments ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005), follows: " I r v i n a r g u e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d when i t a l l o w e d Norman W i l l i a m s t o t e s t i f y a b o u t I r v i n ' s i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e S e p t e m b e r 1999 r o b b e r y a n d m u r d e r of Dacqurie Lane. S p e c i f i c a l l y , he c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e was not p r o b a t i v e o f any issue at trial, was offered solely to e s t a b l i s h his bad c h a r a c t e r , d i d n o t f a l l w i t h i n an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e , and b e c a u s e t h e p r o b a t i v e value of the e v i d e n c e was o u t w e i g h e d by i t s potential prejudicial effect. "'The q u e s t i o n of a d m i s s i b i l i t y of evidence i s g e n e r a l l y l e f t to the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court, a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h a t q u e s t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d e x c e p t u p o n a c l e a r s h o w i n g o f a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' E x p a r t e L o g g i n s , 771 So. 2d 1093, 1103 (Ala. 2000). This i s equally true with regard to the admission of c o l l a t e r a l - a c t s evidence. See D a v i s v . S t a t e , 740 So. 2d 1115, 1130 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1998). Moreover, '"[a] t r i a l c o u r t will 13 in CR-05-1767 not be placed i n e r r o r f o r a s s i g n i n g the wrong reason for a proper ruling, i f that ruling is c o r r e c t f o r a n y r e a s o n . " ' P e r a i t a v . S t a t e , 897 So. 2 d 1 1 6 1 , 1183 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) , a f f ' d , 897 So. 2 d 1227 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o t i n g N i c k s v . S t a t e , 521 So. 2d 1018, 1030-31 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1987), a f f ' d , 521 So. 2 d 1035 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S. C t . 2 9 1 , 101 L. E d . 2 d 948 (1988)). "Rule 404(b), A l a . R. Evid., provides: "'Evidence of other crimes, 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 in order to show action in conformity therewith. I t may, h o w e v e r , be admissible for other purposes, such 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 , provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable n o t i c e i n advance of t r i a l , or d u r i n g t r i a l i f the court excuses p r e t r i a l n o t i c e on g o o d c a u s e s h o w n , o f t h e general nature o f any such evidence i t intends to introduce at t r i a l . ' "Before the e f f e c t i v e d a t e of R u l e 404(b) -¬ January 1, 1996 -the exclusionary rule was e x p l a i n e d and f o l l o w e d by t h e Alabama c o u r t s . The adoption of Rule 404(b) d i d not abrogate prior c a s e l a w on t h i s t o p i c . H u n t e r v . S t a t e , 802 So. 2d 265 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 802 So. 2 d 273 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . We n o t e m o r e o v e r , t h a t t h e A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n E x p a r t e C a s e y , 889 So. 2 d 615 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , w h i l e t i g h t e n i n g t h e u s e o f R u l e 404(b) e v i d e n c e , d i d not p r o h i b i t the use of such evidence. Moreover, given the p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e h o l d i n g i n E x p a r t e Casey does not p r o h i b i t the admission o f Norman W i l l i a m s ' s testimony i n t h i s case. 14 CR-05-1767 " I n R o b i n s o n v . S t a t e , 528 S o . 2 d 3 4 3 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986), t h i s C o u r t d i s c u s s e d t h e p u r p o s e of the e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e , s t a t i n g : "'"'On t h e t r i a l of a person f o r the a l l e g e d commission of a p a r t i c u l a r crime, evidence of h i s doing another a c t , which i t s e l f i s a crime, i s not admissible i f the only p r o b a t i v e f u n c t i o n of such evidence i s t o show h i s b a d c h a r a c t e r , i n c l i n a t i o n o r p r o p e n s i t y t o commit t h e t y p e o f c r i m e f o r w h i c h he i s b e i n g t r i e d . This i s a general exclusionary rule which prevents the introduction of p r i o r criminal acts f o r the sole purpose of suggesting that the accused i s more l i k e l y t o be g u i l t y o f t h e c r i m e i n question.'" Pope v . S t a t e , 365 So. 2 d 369, 371 ( A l a . C r . App. 1978), quoting 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 (3d e d . 1 9 7 7 ) . "'This exclusionary rule i s s i m p l y an a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e c h a r a c t e r r u l e which forbids the State t o prove the accused's bad character by particular d e e d s . The b a s i s f o r t h e r u l e l i e s i n t h e b e l i e f that the 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 outweigh any probative 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. Most agree t h a t such evidence of p r i o r crimes has 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 minds o f the j u r o r s . ' " Ex p a r t e A r t h u r , 472 S o . 2 d 6 6 5 , 668 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , q u o t i n g McElroy's supra, § 69.01(1). Thus, t h e exclusionary rule serves to protect the defendant's right to a f a i r t r i a l . "'The jury's determination of g u i l t or innocence s h o u l d be b a s e d on e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t t o t h e crime charged.'" E x p a r t e C o f e r , 440 S o . 2d 1 1 2 1 , 1123 ( A l a . 1983); Terrell v. S t a t e , 397 S o . 2 d 2 3 2 , 234 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 397 S o . 2 d 2 3 5 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . T u r q u i t t , 557 F . 2 d 4 6 4 , 468 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) . 15 CR-05-1767 "'"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 otherwise than by showing of bad c h a r a c t e r , then proof of such other act i s admissible." S a f f o l d v . S t a t e , 494 S o . 2 d 164 (Ala. Cr. App. 1986). The well-established exceptions to the 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 gestae; (3) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e scienter; (4) relevancy to prove intent; (5) r e l e v a n c y t o s h o w m o t i v e ; (6) r e l e v a n c y t o prove system; (7) relevancy to prove malice; (8) r e l e v a n c y t o r e b u t special defenses; and (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. W i l l i s v . S t a t e , 449 So. 2 d 1 2 5 8 , 1260 ( A l a . C r . App. 1984); S c o t t v . S t a t e , 3 5 3 S o . 2 d 36 ( A l a . C r . App. 1977). However, the fact that e v i d e n c e o f a p r i o r b a d a c t may f i t i n t o one o f t h e s e e x c e p t i o n s w i l l not alone j u s t i f y i t s admission. "'Judicial inquiry does n o t end w i t h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e evidence o f another crime i s r e l e v a n t and p r o b a t i v e of a necessary element of the charged offense. I t does n o t suffice s i m p l y t o see i f the evidence i s capable o f b e i n g f i t t e d w i t h i n an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e rule. Rather, a b a l a n c i n g t e s t must be a p p l i e d . The e v i d e n c e o f a n o t h e r similar c r i m e must n o t o n l y be r e l e v a n t , i t must also be reasonably necessary to the g o v e r n m e n t ' s c a s e , a n d i t must be p l a i n , c l e a r , and c o n c l u s i v e , b e f o r e i t sp r o b a t i v e value will be held to outweigh i t s potential prejudicial effects.'" Averette v. S t a t e , 469 So. 2 d 1 3 7 1 , 1374 ( A l a . C r . App. 1985), quoting United States v. T u r q u i t t , s u p r a a t 468-69. " ' " P r e j u d i c i a l " is used i n this phrase to limit the introduction of probative evidence of p r i o r 16 CR-05-1767 misconduct o n l y when i t i s u n d u l y and unfairly prejudicial.' [Citation omitted.] 'Of c o u r s e , ' p r e j u d i c e , i n t h i s c o n t e x t , means more than simply damage to the opponent's cause. A p a r t y ' s case i s always damaged by e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e f a c t s are c o n t r a r y to h i s c o n t e n t i o n ; but that cannot be g r o u n d f o r e x c l u s i o n . What i s meant here i s an undue t e n d e n c y t o move the t r i b u n a l t o d e c i d e on a n i m p r o p e r basis, commonly, t h o u g h n o t a l w a y s , an e m o t i o n a l o n e A v e r e t t e v. State, supra, at 1374.' "528 S o . 2 d a t 3 4 7 . So. 2d 197, 213-14 See a l s o H o c k e r v . S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2002). 840 " F i n a l l y , b o t h t h i s C o u r t and t h e Supreme C o u r t have recognized that collateral-act evidence -¬ s o m e t i m e s r e f e r r e d t o a s ' p r i o r b a d - a c t e v i d e n c e ' -¬ need not have o c c u r r e d b e f o r e the now-charged crime in order to be admissible as collateral-act evidence. S e e , e . g . , A n o n y m o u s v . S t a t e , 507 S o . 2 d 9 7 2 , 974 n.1 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ; C o t h r e n v . S t a t e , 705 S o . 2 d 8 4 9 , 8 5 8 - 6 0 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , a f f ' d , 705 S o . 2 d 861 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 523 U.S. 1 0 2 9 , 118 S. Ct. 1319, 140 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1998) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence regarding appellant's participation in a robbery-homicide o c c u r r i n g a f t e r t h e c r i m e f o r w h i c h he was being t r i e d u n d e r t h e common p l a n o r s c h e m e e x c e p t i o n ) ; H i n t o n v. S t a t e , 632 So. 2d 1345, 1347-48 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1993) (upholding admission of subsequent c o l l a t e r a l o f f e n s e t o p r o v e i n t e n t ) ; Hayes v. S t a t e , 384 S o . 2 d 6 2 3 , 626 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1979) ( u p h o l d i n g admission of subsequent c o l l a t e r a l act to prove i n t e n t and i d e n t i t y ) . "The collateral-act evidence concerning the r o b b e r y a n d m u r d e r o f D a c q u r i e L a n e was a d m i s s i b l e under the identity exception to the general 17 CR-05-1767 exclusionary rule. See W i m b e r l y 411 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2005). v. State, 934 So. " C o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence i s a d m i s s i b l e to prove i d e n t i t y o n l y when t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e p e r s o n who committed the charged o f f e n s e i s i n i s s u e and the charged o f f e n s e i s committed i n a novel or p e c u l i a r manner. 1 C h a r l e s W. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s Alabama E v i d e n c e § 69.01(8) ( 5 t h ed. 1 9 9 6 ) ; Ex p a r t e A r t h u r , 472 S o . 2 d 665 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 820 S o . 2 d 8 4 2 , 861 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000); Tyson v. S t a t e , 784 S o . 2 d 3 2 8 , 344 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , a f f ' d , 784 S o . 2 d 357 ( A l a . 2000). 'Under t h e identity exception to the general exclusionary rule p r o h i b i t i n g the admission of other or collateral c r i m e s as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f t h e g u i l t o f t h e accused, the p r i o r crime i s not r e l e v a n t to prove i d e n t i t y u n l e s s b o t h t h a t and t h e now-charged c r i m e a r e " s i g n a t u r e c r i m e s " h a v i n g t h e a c c u s e d ' s mark and t h e p e c u l i a r l y d i s t i n c t i v e modus o p e r a n d i s o t h a t t h e y may b e s a i d t o b e t h e w o r k o f t h e same p e r s o n . ' B i g h a m e s v . S t a t e , 440 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 3 3 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1983). '[E]vidence of a prior crime is a d m i s s i b l e o n l y when t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e p r i o r c r i m e and t h o s e s u r r o u n d i n g t h e p r e s e n t l y charged crime "exhibit such a g r e a t degree of similarity t h a t a n y o n e v i e w i n g t h e two offenses w o u l d n a t u r a l l y assume them t o have been committed b y t h e same p e r s o n . " ' E x p a r t e A r t h u r , 472 So. 2 d a t 668 ( q u o t i n g B r e w e r v . S t a t e , 440 S o . 2 d 1155, 1161 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 3 ) ) . See a l s o M a s o n v . S t a t e , 259 A l a . 4 3 8 , 66 S o . 2 d 557 ( 1 9 5 3 ) ; a n d G o v a n v . S t a t e , 40 A l a . A p p . 4 8 2 , 115 S o . 2 d 667 (1959) (recognizing that the identity exception is a p p l i c a b l e o n l y where b o t h the p r i o r crime and the c h a r g e d o f f e n s e w e r e c o m m i t t e d i n t h e same s p e c i a l or p e c u l i a r manner). "When e x t r i n s i c o f f e n s e e v i d e n c e i s i n t r o d u c e d to prove i d e n t i t y , the l i k e n e s s of the offenses i s the c r u c i a l consideration. In o t h e r words, the p h y s i c a l s i m i l a r i t y m u s t be s u c h t h a t i t m a r k s t h e 18 CR-05-1767 o f f e n s e s as t h e h a n d i w o r k o f t h e a c c u s e d . Thus, as Dean C h a r l e s Gamble p o i n t s o u t , a g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f similarity between the charged o f f e n s e and the collateral act i s required for admissibility to prove identity than for admissibility to prove i n t e n t or knowledge. H o w e v e r , Dean G a m b l e g o e s on to note t h a t '[e]ven i f i d e n t i t y i s not m a t e r i a l a t t h e o u t s e t o f t h e c a s e , ... i t may b e made m a t e r i a l by c o n d u c t o f t h e d e f e n s e s u c h as c r o s s - e x a m i n i n g t h e i d e n t i f y i n g w i t n e s s i n s u c h a way a s t o i n d i c a t e m i s t a k e , by p o s i t i o n s t a k e n , or i n argument of counsel.' McElroy's Alabama Evidence, supra a t § 69.01(8). " I n H o w e l l v . S t a t e , 627 So. 2 d 1 1 3 4 , 1140 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) , t h i s C o u r t u p h e l d t h e a d m i s s i o n o f collateral-act evidence to establish identity, s t a t i n g t h a t ' t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s i d e n t i t y was p l a c e d into issue w h e n he pleaded not guilty to the b u r g l a r y c h a r g e a n d w h e n t h e S t a t e was u n a b l e to positively identify the defendant as the perpetrator.' I r v i n a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e he d i d n o t p l a c e h i s i d e n t i t y as t h e p e r p e t r a t o r a t i s s u e , t h e S t a t e was p r o h i b i t e d f r o m o f f e r i n g collateral-act evidence to establish his identity. A careful r e v i e w of the r e c o r d , however, i n d i c a t e s o t h e r w i s e . In t h e s t a t e m e n t I r v i n gave t o ABI Agent A n t h o n y Frost, Irvin d i d not say that he shot Jackie Thompson; i n s t e a d , I r v i n s t a t e d t h a t A l i s t e r B u t l e r was the person who shot Thompson. Thus, with B u t l e r and I r v i n each a t t e m p t i n g t o p o r t r a y h i m s e l f as the passive observer -e.g., an 'innocent b y s t a n d e r ' -- l a c k i n g t h e i n t e n t t o r o b a n d m u r d e r J a c k i e Thompson, l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s were l e f t w i t h the dilemma of d e t e r m i n i n g the i d e n t i t y of the p e r p e t r a t o r , as w e l l as i n t e n t and m o t i v e . However, b e c a u s e I r v i n was t h e o n l y i n d i v i d u a l i n v o l v e d i n b o t h t h e r o b b e r y and m u r d e r o f J a c k i e Thompson and the robbery and murder of Dacqurie Lane, the testimony of Norman W i l l i a m s was necessary to e s t a b l i s h t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e p e r s o n who r o b b e d a n d m u r d e r e d J a c k i e Thompson. 19 CR-05-1767 "Moreover, e v i d e n c e of t h e r o b b e r y and murder o f Dacqurie L a n e was a d m i s s i b l e under the identity e x c e p t i o n to the g e n e r a l e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e because he was k i l l e d i n t h e same u n i q u e m a n n e r a s J a c k i e Thompson. T h o m p s o n , who was 19 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f h i s d e a t h , was t h e b o y f r i e n d of Lawanda Fallin -Irvin's sister. Therefore, Irvin was w e l l - a c q u a i n t e d w i t h Thompson. M o r e o v e r , I r v i n was p r e s e n t a t t h e p a r t y Thompson a t t e n d e d b e f o r e h i s d i s a p p e a r a n c e on t h e n i g h t o f N o v e m b e r 12, 1997. "On N o v e m b e r 1 3 , 1 9 9 7 , W a l t e r V a i l d i s c o v e r e d a burned vehicle later determined to belong to T h o m p s o n on h i s f a r m i n s o u t h M a c o n C o u n t y . Almost two y e a r s l a t e r , Thompson's r e m a i n s w e r e l o c a t e d i n a n i s o l a t e d a r e a i n M a c o n C o u n t y , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 26.4 miles from where h i s burned vehicle had been discovered. Forensic analysis of the remains indicated that Thompson had suffered serious i n j u r i e s t o h i s s k u l l t h a t were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a gunshot to the head. Irvin told law-enforcement officials t h a t he and A l i s t e r B u t l e r had killed Thompson by s h o o t i n g h i m i n t h e h e a d d u r i n g t h e course of a robbery. I r v i n stated that they took money f r o m Thompson's p e r s o n a n d t h e n d r o v e h i s c a r t o a r e m o t e l o c a t i o n a n d s e t i t on f i r e . The two t h e n t o o k Thompson's body t o a n o t h e r i s o l a t e d a r e a a n d dumped i t . "The robbery and murder of Dacqurie Lane followed a similar pattern. Norman Williams testified that he, Irvin, and Lane were acquaintances. L a n e was 21 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f his death. W i l l i a m s t e s t i f i e d t h a t on S e p t e m b e r 1, 1 9 9 9 , he a n d I r v i n e n c o u n t e r e d L a n e on t h e c a m p u s o f Tuskegee U n i v e r s i t y . In response to the pair's r e q u e s t , Lane a g r e e d t o d r i v e I r v i n and W i l l i a m s t o w h e r e W i l l i a m s ' s t r u c k was parked. Once inside L a n e ' s v e h i c l e -- a l s o a t r u c k -- I r v i n directed Lane t o d r i v e t o a remote a r e a o f Macon County. a A f t e r Lane s t o p p e d the t r u c k , I r v i n d i r e c t e d him t o g e t out o f t h e v e h i c l e , empty h i s p o c k e t s , and t h e 20 CR-05-1767 g e t on h i s k n e e s . When Lane r e f u s e d , W i l l i a m s s t a t e d t h a t I r v i n s h o t him i n the head. I r v i n and W i l l i a m s l e f t Lane's body i n t h e f i e l d , and they t o o k h i s t r u c k and drove to Atlanta. The pair s t a y e d i n A t l a n t a f o r two d a y s , b e f o r e r e t u r n i n g t o Tuskegee. Upon t h e i r r e t u r n t o T u s k e g e e , I r v i n and Williams took Lane's truck to a remote area a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8-10 m i l e s from where t h e y had left Lane's body and s e t f i r e t o t h e v e h i c l e . "As c a n b e s e e n , n u m e r o u s s i m i l a r i t i e s e x i s t i n t h e s e two i n c i d e n t s . In both instances, the v i c t i m s w e r e y o u n g men; T h o m p s o n was 1 9 ; L a n e was 2 1 . Both were acquainted with Irvin. Both crimes were committed a t n i g h t and i n Macon County. Both v i c t i m s were k i l l e d i n a remote a r e a . In both c a s e s , I r v i n h a d an a c c o m p l i c e a n d k i l l e d t h e v i c t i m during the course of a robbery. In both cases, the v i c t i m ' s b o d y was dumped i n an i s o l a t e d a r e a o f Macon County. F i n a l l y , i n both cases the v i c t i m ' s v e h i c l e was t a k e n t o a d i f f e r e n t i s o l a t e d a r e a i n M a c o n C o u n t y a n d s e t on f i r e . "Given the p a r a l l e l circumstances surrounding t h e r o b b e r y and m u r d e r o f Thompson and t h e r o b b e r y a n d m u r d e r o f L a n e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t w o c r i m e s were committed ' i n the same n o v e l a n d peculiar manner.' A c c o r d i n g l y , the c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence o f L a n e ' s r o b b e r y a n d m u r d e r was a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r the i d e n t i t y e x c e p t i o n to the general e x c l u s i o n a r y rule. "Evidence of Irvin's participation in the r o b b e r y a n d m u r d e r o f D a c q u r i e L a n e was likewise a d m i s s i b l e under the i n t e n t e x c e p t i o n to the g e n e r a l exclusionary rule. "Addressing the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence pursuant t o t h e i n t e n t e x c e p t i o n , Dean C h a r l e s Gamble has w r i t t e n : 21 CR-05-1767 " ' I f the accused i s charged w i t h a crime that requires a p r e r e q u i s i t e i n t e n t , c o l l a t e r a l crimes, acts or misconduct are admissible to show that the accused possessed the necessary i n t e n t . This rule i s based upon the t h e o r y t h a t because the u n i n t e n t i o n a l d o i n g o f an a c t i s a b n o r m a l and u n u s u a l , t h e more a p e r s o n does o t h e r acts s i m i l a r to the act i n q u e s t i o n , the g r e a t e r the l i k e l i h o o d that the act i n question was not done inadvertently. Whether t h e c o l l a t e r a l a c t has a t e n d e n c y t o show t h a t t h e a c c u s e d d i d p o s s e s s t h e p r e r e q u i s i t e s t a t e of mind i s , of course, one of relevancy v e s t e d l a r g e l y i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court.' "McElroy's omitted). Alabama Evidence § 69.01(5) (footnotes " I r v i n was c h a r g e d w i t h m u r d e r c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g the course of a robbery. T h u s , r o b b e r y was a m a t e r i a l element of t h i s o f f e n s e . However, because I r v i n contended t h a t the S t a t e had f a i l e d t o prove t h a t he i n t e n d e d t o r o b T h o m p s o n , t h e c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence concerning Irvin's involvement in the r o b b e r y a n d m u r d e r o f D a c q u r i e L a n e was a d m i s s i b l e pursuant to the i n t e n t e x c e p t i o n to the general exclusionary rule. See P r e s l e y v . S t a t e , 770 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 , 110 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 770 S o . 2 d 114 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 531 U.S. 8 8 1 , 121 S. C t . 1 9 4 , 148 L. E d . 2 d 135 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( u p h o l d i n g a d m i s s i o n o f c o l l a t e r a l - a c t e v i d e n c e t o show i n t e n t a n d m o t i v e w h e n d e f e n d a n t a r g u e d t h a t b e c a u s e he d i d n o t i n t e n d t o r o b t h e v i c t i m he c o u l d n o t b e c o n v i c t e d of c a p i t a l murder). Given the s i m i l a r i t y of the f a c t s surrounding the robbery and murder of Jackie Thompson and t h e r o b b e r y and m u r d e r o f Dacqurie Lane, the c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d not e r r i n a l l o w i n g evidence r e l a t i n g t o Dacqurie Lane's robbery and m u r d e r t o be a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e u n d e r t h e i n t e n t exception to the general e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e . 22 CR-05-1767 "We note t h a t although I r v i n argues to this Court t h a t t h i s c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence should not h a v e b e e n a d m i t t e d b e c a u s e he d i d n o t d e n y t h a t he c o m m i t t e d t h e r o b b e r y , an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s otherwise. A d m i t t e d l y , I r v i n d i d not take t h e s t a n d a n d d e n y t h a t he i n t e n d e d t o r o b J a c k i e Thompson; however, h i s d e f e n s e c o u n s e l b a s e d t h e i r motion f o r a judgment of a c q u i t t a l c o n c e r n i n g the c a p i t a l o f f e n s e o f r o b b e r y - h o m i c i d e on t h e f a c t t h a t the S t a t e had f a i l e d t o prove I r v i n i n t e n d e d t o rob the v i c t i m . Defense counsel r e i t e r a t e d t h i s c l a i m during the penalty-phase opening argument. A d d i t i o n a l l y , c o u n s e l a t one p o i n t a r g u e d t h a t i t was I r v i n ' s codefendant A l i s t e r B u t l e r who robbed and m u r d e r e d t h e v i c t i m , and that Irvin had no knowledge of B u t l e r ' s p l a n . Evidence concerning Dacqurie Lane's robbery and murder was highly probative as to whether Irvin intended to rob T h o m p s o n w h e n he m u r d e r e d h i m . " M o r e o v e r , a s we s e t o u t a b o v e i n some d e t a i l , t h e f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e r o b b e r i e s and murders of b o t h Thompson and Lane were q u i t e s i m i l a r . In each instance, Irvin, assisted by an accomplice, encountered the v i c t i m at n i g h t . T h e y w e n t t o an i s o l a t e d a r e a o f Macon C o u n t y t o r o b him. The victim, in each instance a young man, was outnumbered by h i s r o b b e r s . During the course of the r o b b e r y , I r v i n k i l l e d the v i c t i m by s h o o t i n g him i n the head. I n each c a s e , I r v i n and h i s a c c o m p l i c e t o o k c a r e t o a v o i d l e a v i n g a c r i m e s c e n e f o r someone to stumble a c r o s s , d i s p o s i n g of the v i c t i m ' s body and h i s v e h i c l e i n separate locations, and then b u r n i n g t h e v e h i c l e t o d e s t r o y any incriminating e v i d e n c e t h a t m i g h t be l e f t b e h i n d i n t h e v e h i c l e . Given these circumstances, the t r i a l court d i d not err i n a d m i t t i n g the c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence. " F i n a l l y , Norman W i l l i a m s ' s t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g I r v i n ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the r o b b e r y and murder of Dacqurie Lane was admissible under the motive exception to the general e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e . 23 CR-05-1767 "Evidence t e n d i n g to e s t a b l i s h motive i s always admissible. P e r k i n s v . S t a t e , 808 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 1 , 1084 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 808 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , v a c a t e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d , 536 U.S. 9 5 3 , 122 S. Ct. 2 4 5 3 , 153 L. E d . 2 d 830 (2002). See also McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 70.01(12)(e) . In d i s c u s s i n g m o t i v e , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has stated: " ' " M o t i v e i s an i n d u c e m e n t , o r t h a t w h i c h l e a d s o r t e m p t s t h e m i n d t o do o r c o m m i t the c r i m e c h a r g e d . " S p i c e r v. S t a t e , 188 A l a . 9, 2 6 , 65 S o . 9 7 2 , 977 ( 1 9 1 4 ) . M o t i v e is "that state of mind which works to ' s u p p l y t h e r e a s o n t h a t nudges t h e w i l l and prods the mind t o i n d u l g e the criminal i n t e n t . ' " C. G a m b l e , C h a r a c t e r E v i d e n c e , [A Comprehensive Approach (1987)] at 42. "Furthermore, testimony offered f o r the purpose of showing motive is always admissible. I t i s permissible i n every c r i m i n a l c a s e t o s h o w t h a t t h e r e was an i n f l u e n c e , an i n d u c e m e n t , o p e r a t i n g on t h e a c c u s e d , w h i c h may h a v e l e d o r t e m p t e d h i m to commit t h e offense." (Emphasis in original, c i t a t i o n s omitted.) Bowden v. S t a t e , 538 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 5 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e R e g i s t e r , 680 S o . 2 d 2 2 5 , 227 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . 'If the p r i o r bad a c t f a l l s w i t h i n [the motive] e x c e p t i o n , and i s r e l e v a n t and r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a r y to the S t a t e ' s case, and the e v i d e n c e t h a t the a c c u s e d committed t h a t a c t i s c l e a r and c o n c l u s i v e , _ B o y d v . S t a t e , 715 S o . 2 d 8 2 5 , i t i s admissible.' ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 715 S o . 2 d 852 838 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 525 U.S. 9 6 8 , 119 S. C t . 4 1 6 , 142 L. E d 2 d 338 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . " I r v i n was c h a r g e d w i t h m u r d e r c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g the course of a robbery. T h u s , r o b b e r y was a m a t e r i a l element of t h i s o f f e n s e . However, because I r v i n contended t h a t the S t a t e had f a i l e d t o prove 24 CR-05-1767 t h a t he i n t e n d e d t o r o b T h o m p s o n , t h e c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence concerning Irvin's involvement in the r o b b e r y a n d m u r d e r o f D a c q u r i e L a n e was a d m i s s i b l e pursuant to the motive e x c e p t i o n to the general e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e . See M c C l e n d o n v . S t a t e , 813 So. 2d 936, 944 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) (upholding admission of accused's c o l l a t e r a l act of soliciting someone t o m u r d e r h i s f i r s t w i f e as r e l e v a n t to prove intent and motive in prosecution for s o l i c i t i n g murder of accused's second w i f e ) ; P r e s l e y v. S t a t e , 770 So. 2d 104, 110 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 770 S o . 2 d 114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 881, 121 S. C t . 1 9 4 , 148 L. E d 2 d 135 (2000) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence o f o t h e r r o b b e r i e s t o show i n t e n t and m o t i v e w h e n d e f e n d a n t a r g u e d t h a t b e c a u s e he d i d n o t i n t e n d t o r o b t h e v i c t i m he c o u l d n o t b e c o n v i c t e d of c a p i t a l murder). As d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l a b o v e , given the s i m i l a r i t y of the f a c t s surrounding the r o b b e r y and m u r d e r o f J a c k i e Thompson and those s u r r o u n d i n g t h e r o b b e r y and murder of D a c q u r i e Lane, the c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d not e r r i n a l l o w i n g evidence o f D a c q u r i e L a n e ' s r o b b e r y a n d m u r d e r t o be a d m i t t e d i n t o evidence under the motive exception to the general exclusionary rule. " I r v i n a l s o argues t h a t the p r o b a t i v e value of the evidence of his collateral bad act was s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. " R e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e i s e v i d e n c e t h a t has 'any t e n d e n c y t o make t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n y f a c t t h a t i s of consequence to the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the a c t i o n more p r o b a b l e o r l e s s p r o b a b l e t h a n i t w o u l d be without the evidence.' R u l e 4 0 1 , A l a . R. Evid. 'All relevant evidence i s admissible, except as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d . ' R u l e 4 0 2 , A l a . R. E v i d . Rule 4 0 3 , A l a . R. E v i d . , p r o v i d e s : " ' A l t h o u g h r e l e v a n t , e v i d e n c e may excluded i f i t s probative value 25 be is CR-05-1767 s u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d by the danger of u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e , confusion of the i s s u e s , or misleading the jury, or by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f undue d e l a y , waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.' "In H a y e s v . S t a t e , 717 So. 2 d C r i m . App. 1997), t h i s Court s t a t e d : 30, 37 (Ala. "'The p o w e r t o make t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s vested i n the trial court. Z i e l k e v. A m S o u t h B a n k , 703 So. 2d 354, 361 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996); see also C. Gamble, Gamble's A l a b a m a R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e § 403. We w i l l n o t d i s t u r b s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n unless i t is clearly an abuse of discretion.' "Evidence of I r v i n ' s c o l l a t e r a l bad a c t does not f i t neatly into a single recognized exception. Rather, it spills over into three of the recognized exceptions. Nevertheless, that evidence may be admissible i f such evidence i s relevant to the issues presented and i f i t s probative value o u t w e i g h s any p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t t h a t t h a t e v i d e n c e might have. I n N i c k s v . S t a t e , 521 So. 2 d 1018, 1025-26 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) , a f f ' d , 521 So. 2d 1035 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 487 U.S. 1 2 4 1 , 199 S. C t . 2916, 101 L. E d . 2 d 948 (1988), t h i s Court wrote: "'Alabama law provides for the admissibility of evidence of collateral c r i m e s o r a c t s as p a r t o f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f i f the defendant's c o l l a t e r a l m i s c o n d u c t i s r e l e v a n t t o show h i s g u i l t o t h e r t h a n b y s u g g e s t i n g t h a t he i s m o r e l i k e l y t o be g u i l t y b e c a u s e o f h i s p a s t misdeeds. B r e w e r v. S t a t e , [440 So. 2d 1155 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1983)]. Numerous Alabama cases l i s t the e x c e p t i o n s to the general exclusionary rule, or t e s t s for 26 CR-05-1767 r e l e v a n c y , whereby evidence o f c o l l a t e r a l c r i m e s o r a c t s may b e a d m i t t e d . ... A l l of the exceptions r e l a t e t o the relevancy o f t h e e v i d e n c e , w h i c h means t h a t e v i d e n c e of separate and distinct crimes i s admissible only when the evidence i s r e l e v a n t t o t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d . Mason v. S t a t e , 2 5 9 A l a . 4 3 8 , 66 S o . 2 d 557 ( 1 9 5 3 ) ; N o b l e v . S t a t e , 2 5 3 A l a . 5 1 9 , 45 S o . 2 d 857 (1950) . " ' " A l l evidence i s relevant which throws, o r tends t o throw, any l i g h t upon t h e g u i l t o r t h e innocence of the prisoner. And relevant evidence which i s i n t r o d u c e d t o prove any m a t e r i a l fact ought n o t t o be rejected merely because i t proves, or tends t o prove, that a t some o t h e r t i m e o r a t t h e same t i m e the accused has been g u i l t y o f some o t h e r s e p a r a t e , i n d e p e n d e n t and dissimilar crime. The general rule i s well settled that all e v i d e n c e must be relevant. I f e v i d e n c e i s r e l e v a n t upon t h e general issue of guilt, or i n n o c e n c e , no v a l i d r e a s o n e x i s t s for i t s r e j e c t i o n merely because it may p r o v e , o r may t e n d t o prove, that the accused committed some other crime, or may establish some collateral and unrelated fact. Evidence of o t h e r a c t s t o be a v a i l a b l e must h a v e some l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i o n a n d reveal evidence of knowledge, design, plan, scheme, or conspiracy of the crime charged; or circumstantial evidence of i d e n t i t y of the person charged 27 CR-05-1767 with the crime; or corroborate direct admitted.' tends to evidence " ' U n d e r h i l l , C r i m i n a l E v i d e n c e § 154 (3d ed. 1 9 2 3 ) . I f t h e e v i d e n c e i s n o t so remote as t o l o s e i t s r e l e v a n c y , t h e d e c i s i o n t o allow or not a l l o w evidence of c o l l a t e r a l crimes o r a c t s as p a r t o f t h e State's c a s e - i n - c h i e f r e s t s i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l judge. McGhee v. S t a t e , 333 S o . 2 d 865 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 7 6 ) ; M c D o n a l d v . S t a t e , 57 A l a . A p p . 5 2 9 , 329 S o . 2 d 583 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , w r i t q u a s h e d , 295 A l a . 4 1 0 , 329 S o . 2 d 596 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 429 U.S. 834, 97 S. C t . 99, 50 L. E d . 2 d 99 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . ' "As previously stated, probative evidence of c o l l a t e r a l b a d a c t s may b e e x c l u d e d o n l y w h e n i t i s 'unduly and u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c i a l . ' Here, e v i d e n c e a b o u t I r v i n ' s c o l l a t e r a l b a d a c t was r e l e v a n t , was not a d m i t t e d s i m p l y t o prove I r v i n ' s bad c h a r a c t e r , a n d was m o r e p r o b a t i v e on t h e i s s u e o f g u i l t t h a n i t was p r e j u d i c i a l t o h i s d e f e n s e . A c c o r d i n g l y , the c o u r t d i d not abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n a d m i t t i n g t h i s evidence." The Alabama principles set Supreme forth in Court Irvin admissibility of Jackson, 1080390, August 2009). [Ms. I t also collateral bad 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. the evidence collateral emphasized act f a l l s Evid., and bad reiterated Robinson act evidence in 2009] So. that, even i f evidence one 3d the parte (Ala. about demonstrate i s reasonably necessary to i t s c a s e . 28 Ex of the exceptions to S t a t e must s t i l l the governing 28, within the recently a Rule that CR-05-1767 In t h i s the killings trial court c a s e , when i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t of the four Hispanic men the evidence was about admissible, the stated: "I t h i n k i t i s j u s t b a s e d upon t h e c l o s e p r o x i m i t y , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e same w e a p o n was u s e d , a n d t h e f a c t that they are very s i m i l a r . I think both the victim i n t h i s case and t h e v i c t i m s i n t h e o t h e r case were shot i n the back of the head. "... I'm s a y i n g t h e a c t i s a d m i s s i b l e under 4 0 4 ( b ) , s i m i l a r e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o show t h a t j u s t t h e c l o s e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e , how t h e y a r e s o -- t h e o f f e n s e s a r e so s i m i l a r t o each o t h e r , so c l o s e i n t i m e , same w e a p o n u s e d . " (R. to the 11-12.) admit the evidence based crimes questions to killing or purposes of Lockett, obviously at Billups court evidence was before was already were n e c e s s a r y that tried also sought f o r the tried f o r the over both trials, i n both trials. familiar with sought t o admit, extensive f o r i t to rule 29 quite that It the State h e was admitted bad a c t evidence the State d i d not believe appeared . was t h e same j u d g e p r e s i d e d o f t h e same the t r i a l 3d f o r which However, men court on i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n So. of the four Hispanic collateral regard solely similar." the evidence. much Thus, were the purpose admit killings and The d i s s e n t s t a t e s t h a t " t h e t r i a l discussions the and i t i n that on t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of CR-05-1767 the evidence. stated, this In that "I think case was regard, I ruled admissible w o u l d go t h e o t h e r We a g r e e w i t h the t r i a l court i n the earlier case i n that I tend way as w e l l . " the t r i a l one. court's conclusion of the evidence H i s p a n i c men. There were s e v e r a l s i m i l a r i t i e s In both cases, i n v o l v e d with drugs. Also, that ... to think i t regarding the about the k i l l i n g s the victims were i n both cases, of the four between t h e two young Billups and v i c t i m s and l u r e d them t o a l o c a t i o n o f h i s c h o o s i n g the o f f e r o f making a drug d e a l , the a period of three at B i l l u p s ' s In l i g h t l o c a t i o n s , and then the offenses days; each occurred house; was u s e d a t b o t h Finally, and there crime occurred partially was e v i d e n c e that or within t h e same g u n scenes. of the s i m i l a r i t i e s between t h e two o f f e n s e s , we novel p e c u l i a r manner" and t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e about t h e k i l l i n g s o f t h e f o u r H i s p a n i c men was a d m i s s i b l e plan took completely c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t w o c r i m e s w e r e c o m m i t t e d " i n t h e same and with shot t h e v i c t i m s i n the head they a r r i v e d at the designated victims' property. were telephoned the after that (R. 1 0 - 1 1 . ) admissibility offenses. specifically or pattern exceptions under t h e i d e n t i t y and to the general 30 exclusionary rule. CR-05-1767 Further, because facilitated evidence robberies about that Billups's noted victims offer four i n both evidence cases Hispanic men . men showed deal. were . that The to attempt However, occurred to the the dissent not lured However, Billups dissent to as lured also to conceal we the with the notes that because at a the murders." the k i l l i n g s location other of the than evidence that four Billups's t h e m u r d e r s was n o t a s g r e a t was i n t h e c a s e i n v o l v i n g t h e m u r d e r o f L o c k e t t . discounts was i n t h e a p a r t m e n t [ , and ] t h e k i l l e r o r house, t h e need t o conceal dissent that males t o a l o c a t i o n of h i s choosing a drug d i d nothing 3d a t Hispanic So. 3d a t " [ t ] h e b o d i e s were l e f t So. Hispanic residence." o f making killers of the four t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e two c a s e s , the that rule. "[t]he above, killings under t h e i n t e n t and motive exceptions attempting states involved f o r d r u g s a n d / o r m o n e y , we c o n c l u d e exclusionary In offenses the k i l l i n g s also admissible general both as i t F i n a l l y , the a l l o f t h e v i c t i m s were shot i n t h e h e a d b e c a u s e some o f t h e m a l s o s u s t a i n e d g u n s h o t w o u n d s to other that parts he t h o u g h t of their that bodies. Billups shot 31 However, Cooper testified t h e f i r s t two H i s p a n i c men CR-05-1767 once i n the because head they and tried that to he shot run. It the other two more times i s therefore reasonable to c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e y may have s u s t a i n e d gunshot wounds t o o t h e r parts because run. of their bodies they evidence r e f u t e s the d i s s e n t ' s were not b o t h committed tried to assertion that Thus, the "[t]hese crimes i n such a novel or p e c u l i a r way as to make e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e q u a d r u p l e m u r d e r a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r the identity o r common p l a n , the e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e . " We the bad prejudicial Billups So. 3d acts evidence effects. attempted killings of In t h i s f o u r H i s p a n i c men blame C o o p e r and contended know t h a t anyone had connected him t o b o t h crime scenes intent, and plan loctions f o r drug evidence been t h a t he by which deals, from killed he killed the crime 32 the by trial, The had evidence about an extremely high that Billups d i d not kill attempted to the v i c t i m or i n h i s house. The evidence and a l s o showed t h e lured people them, and scene the outweighed case, throughout t o c a s t b l a m e on C o o p e r . the to . i s substantially p r o b a t i v e value i n l i g h t o f the f a c t Because at must n e x t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e o f collateral its scheme, o r d e s i g n e x c e p t i o n s to stole involving motive, specified from the them. four CR-05-1767 Hispanic scene males tied in this Billups case, four H i s p a n i c males case and the was Jackson, 2009) plain, [Ms. was about a about and the 28, did capital i t Finally, the trial the j u r y , both d u r i n g the t r i a l to the Snyder proper v. under prejudice the 893 So. these d i d not State's parte 3d (Ala. demonstrate murder the that conviction was the evidence was unduly and unfairly court repeatedly instructed about 2d collateral 482, 486-87 circumstances, substantially of the and d u r i n g i t s o r a l evidence crime the outweigh charge, acts. (Ala. danger as See 2001) . of unfair the p r o b a t i v e value evidence. The Billups t h e r e was or of State, Therefore, of use to So. not not the C o n t r a s t Ex Although was at killings 2009] State separate prejudicial, prejudicial. the conclusive. reasonably necessary to i t s c a s e ) . obviously found reasonably necessary clear, that evidence evidence 1080390, August (holding evidence to dissent in the argues that Lockett "[t]he shooting State's evidence was substantial" n o t any r e a l d o u b t as t o B i l l u p s ' s intent. "[e]vidence So. of the 3d at . quadruple 33 It murder identity, against and that motive, then concludes that was, therefore, not CR-05-1767 reasonably the those necessary to the issues." So. S t a t e ' s case 3d at . to e s t a b l i s h Cooper t e s t i f i e d t h e S t a t e and p r o v i d e d d e t a i l e d t e s t i m o n y , i n c l u d i n g admissions, a about the murder of the convicted Cooper at felon, every murderer was and Billups turn. certainly in e x t e n s i v e l y cross-examined inconsistencies statement We Ex to Detective are parte aware Jackson, (Ala. 2009), collateral the between bad reasons set of 1080390, was than reasonably clear, and blame identity Also, as the testimony on the defense and Supreme C o u r t ' s August 28, a prior above, pattern i t was conclusive. evidence or plan, B i l l u p s ' s bad to For in So. 3d admission of i n Jackson, about the relevant to e s t a b l i s h prejudicial necessary the However, u n l i k e the decision 2009] i t s holding regarding admitted simply to prove probative trial Alabama act evidence. intent, cast was Cooper and s p e c i f i c a l l y p o i n t e d out o f t h e f o u r H i s p a n i c m a l e s was identity, Billups's Young. [Ms. forth to of for H o w e v e r , he Billups's question. his the and victim. attempted Therefore, any the killings Billups's was not c h a r a c t e r ; a n d was more motive; to h i s defense State's these 34 and for case reasons, we and because i t was conclude plain, that CR-05-1767 this case trial i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from Jackson. court evidence. did not abuse appears to argue t h a t the instructions brief.) The were not trial regarding Billups not did Therefore, we A l a . R. During trial in the admitting this (Issue the court's XI in parties the limiting to trial limiting Billups's for input instructions. trial court's argument f o r p l a i n or However, instructions. error. See Rule P. the t r i a l court asked the object review App. sufficient. court suggestions the the 1 Billups 4 5A, i t s discretion Accordingly, and during repeatedly i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s to the i n s t r u c t e d the jury as jury, to the A t one p o i n t , B i l l u p s m a k e s a n o b l i q u e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e admission of evidence about prior robbery convictions. H o w e v e r , he focuses h i s a r g u m e n t on t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r i n a d m i t t i n g evidence about the murders of the four H i s p a n i c men. T h e r e f o r e , we q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r he a c t u a l l y r a i s e s a s e p a r a t e a r g u m e n t a b o u t t h e r o b b e r y c o n v i c t i o n s . We a l s o n o t e t h a t he d i d n o t o b j e c t a t t r i a l and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , any argument i s reviewable only for p l a i n error. See R u l e 45A, A l a . R. App. P. We n o t e t h a t t h e r e was o n l y one b r i e f r e f e r e n c e t o p r i o r armed r o b b e r y c o n v i c t i o n s d u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y , t h a t d e t a i l s about those convictions were not admitted, that the c o n v i c t i o n s w e r e n o t e m p h a s i z e d i n a n y way, a n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e p e a t e d l y i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y as t o t h e p r o p e r use o f e v i d e n c e a b o u t p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . We a l s o n o t e t h a t B i l l u p s was p a r o l e d on J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 1 , a n d t h a t h i s p a r o l e was s e t t o e x p i r e on J a n u a r y 2 0 , 2 0 1 3 . T h e r e f o r e , we do n o t f i n d t h a t t h e r e was a n y p l a i n e r r o r i n t h i s r e g a r d . 1 35 CR-05-1767 limited four purpose Hispanic instructed act he acted to the was being jury that to court's court's i t could e v i d e n c e was not to was admissible 2006). Therefore, we do not in this 1041313, find that The and provide It also use the 6, or to i t d i d not input was any show bad that object accept the regarding the note that purposes. such but See So. dissent's objections the specifically defense d i d not 2006] of collateral F i n a l l y , we for other there killings impeachment e v i d e n c e , October the the character given. o f f e r e d as [Ms. bad instructions, invitation State, not therewith. l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s t o be properly about admitted. show B i l l u p s ' s i n conformity trial trial men the evidence for which evidence rather Johnson 3d v. (Ala. notwithstanding, error, plain or otherwise, regard. II. B i l l u p s ' s second argument i s t h a t Alabama's death scheme i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b e c a u s e t h e of the findings imposition similar (Ala. of the argument C r i m . App. of fact that are death penalty. necessary We i n Barber v. 2005), follows: as State, 36 j u r y does not to a d d r e s s e d and 952 So. 2d penalty make a l l support the rejected a 393, 458-59 CR-05-1767 " F i r s t , t h e a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e scheme i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b e c a u s e t h e j u r y d o e s n o t make a l l of the findings of fact that are necessary to support the imposition of the death penalty. With r e g a r d t o h i s c a s e , he s p e c i f i c a l l y a s s e r t s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t , r a t h e r t h a n t h e j u r y , made f i n d i n g s o f fact as t o which aggravating and mitigating circumstances existed; that the t r i a l court, rather than the jury, determined that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances; that the jury d i d not agree u n a n i m o u s l y on t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e two a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances; and that t h e j u r y d i d not unanimously find that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. (Ala. " I n E x p a r t e W a l d r o p , 859 So. 2 d 1 1 8 1 , 1187-88 2 0 0 2 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d : "'It i s true t h a t under Alabama law a t least one statutory aggravating c i r c u m s t a n c e u n d e r A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 13A-449, m u s t e x i s t i n o r d e r f o r a defendant convicted of a capital offense t o be sentenced t o death. See A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(f) ("Unless at least one aggravating circumstance as d e f i n e d in S e c t i o n 13A-5-49 e x i s t s , t h e s e n t e n c e s h a l l be l i f e imprisonment without parole."); J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 8 2 3 S o . 2 d 1, 52 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001) ( h o l d i n g t h a t i n o r d e r t o sentence a c a p i t a l defendant t o death, the s e n t e n c e r "'must d e t e r m i n e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f at least one of the aggravating c i r c u m s t a n c e s l i s t e d i n [ A l a . Code 1975,] § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ' " ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e W o o d a r d , 631 50. 2 d 1 0 6 5 , 1070 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) ) ) . Many c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s l i s t e d i n A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-40, i n c l u d e conduct that c l e a r l y corresponds t o c e r t a i n aggravating c i r c u m s t a n c e s f o u n d i n § 13A-5-49: 37 CR-05-1767 "'"For example, the capital offenses of intentional murder during a rape, § 13A-5-40(a)(3), intentional murder during a robbery, § 13A-5-40(a)(2), intentional murder during a burglary, § 13A-5-40(a)(4), and intentional murder during a kidnapping, § 13A-5-40(a)(1), parallel the aggravating circumstance that '[t]he c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was committed while the d e f e n d a n t was e n g a g e d ... [ i n a] rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping,' § 13A-5-49(4)." " ' E x p a r t e W o o d a r d , 631 So. 2 d a t 1 0 7 0 - 7 1 ( a l t e r a t i o n s and o m i s s i o n i n o r i g i n a l ) . "'Furthermore, when a d e f e n d a n t is found g u i l t y of a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e , "any aggravating circumstance which the v e r d i c t c o n v i c t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t e s t a b l i s h e s was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at t r i a l s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d as p r o v e n b e y o n d a reasonable doubt for purposes of the sentencing hearing." A l a . Code 1975, § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( e ) ; see a l s o A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-50 ("The fact that a particular capital offense as defined in Section 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e s one or more a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s as s p e c i f i e d i n S e c t i o n 13A-5-49 s h a l l n o t be c o n s t r u e d t o p r e c l u d e t h e f i n d i n g and c o n s i d e r a t i o n of that relevant circumstance or circumstances i n determining sentence."). This i s known as "double-counting" or "overlap," and Alabama courts "have r e p e a t e d l y u p h e l d death sentences where the only aggravating circumstance supporting t h e d e a t h s e n t e n c e o v e r l a p s w i t h an e l e m e n t o f t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e . " Ex p a r t e T r a w i c k , 38 CR-05-1767 698 S o . 2 d 1 6 2 , 178 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; s e e a l s o C o r a l v . S t a t e , 628 S o . 2 d 9 5 4 , 965 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992). "'Because the j u r y c o n v i c t e d Waldrop o f two c o u n t s o f murder d u r i n g a r o b b e r y i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e , a v i o l a t i o n o f A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(2), the statutory aggravating circumstance of committing a capital offense while engaged i n the c o m m i s s i o n o f a r o b b e r y , A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-49(4), was "proven beyond a reasonable doubt." A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 13A5 - 4 5 ( e ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-50. Only one a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e m u s t e x i s t i n o r d e r t o impose a sentence o f death. A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(f). Thus, i n Waldrop's case, t h e j u r y , and not t h e t r i a l judge, determined the existence of the "aggravating circumstance necessary f o r imposition of the death penalty." Ring, 5 3 6 U.S. a t 6 0 9 , 122 S. C t . a t 2 4 4 3 . Therefore, the findings r e f l e c t e d i n the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t alone exposed Waldrop t o a r a n g e o f p u n i s h m e n t t h a t h a d a s i t s maximum the death p e n a l t y . This i s a l l R i n g and Apprendi require.' "(Footnote In this capital omitted.)" case, offense because of the jury convicted Billups robbery-murder, that c i r c u m s t a n c e was p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . the jury, and not t h e judge, "aggravating death circumstance penalty." Ring, determined necessary 5 3 6 U.S. 39 of the aggravating Therefore, the existence of the f o r imposition of the a t 6 0 9 , 122 S. C t . a t 2 4 4 3 . CR-05-1767 Also, because the j u r y found the circumstance, B i l l u p s was penalty, "[t]he and t h a t the murder is a factor mitigating Waldrop, Ring that So. violation contrary are 2d and at in this without subsequent application circumstances 859 court's e s p e c i a l l y heinous, has o f one exposed to or e l i g i b l e trial [was] existence the 1190. only death determination in aggravating and f o r the a t r o c i o u s , or Accordingly, case, aggravating Billups's cruel weighing the circumstances." there was arguments not to a the merit. III. Billups's have granted third him mitigation expert. argument funds 2 to The i s that the trial court investigator. to hire trial granted r e c o r d s h o w s t h a t he the However, w i t h motion regard a private psychologist court noted: court hire a private psychologist hire a psychologist, a m i t i g a t i o n expert, The trial "Denied. The and to and for the should a motions filed and to an i n v e s t i g a t o r . funds to motions hire for a m i t i g a t i o n expert, C o u r t has been informed an funds the that Billups also lists a firearms expert in his issue statement, but he does not i n c l u d e any argument i n t h a t regard. Therefore, his brief does not comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. A p p . P., a n d we will not address i t . 2 40 CR-05-1767 previous Ackerson counsel for Kenneth d i d not beneficial to the f i n d any Ackerson's f i n d i n g s from to and Ackerson, file counsel Billups's file 23.) Also, the trial phase s t a r t e d , to any find previous out case, court that Billups Ackerson for the c o u l d not p r o v i d e this trial case. afterward court and again counsel had previous anything Under these the performed and stated the we error in this just penalty advised the mental funds Also, trial evaluation that she t h a t w o u l d be b e n e f i c i a l circumstances, c o m m i t t e d any a had, Defense requesting before specifically trial trial previous i f necessary. just do n o t a of what i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y subsequent motions started defense during counsel to t a l k to B i l l u p s ' s updated motions d i d not (C.R. h i r e a m i t i g a t i o n expert and/or a p s y c h o l o g i s t . before Kimberly after explaining i t s understanding court i n s t r u c t e d defense to Dr. i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t would have been Defendant." h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n s , and hired as a p o s s i b l e m i t i g a t i o n e x p e r t and p s y c h o l o g i s t , b u t Dr. A c k e r s o n counsel Billups of really t o him find that in the regard. IV. Billups's in denying f o u r t h argument i s t h a t the trial court h i s motion f o r d i s c o v e r y of a t r a n s c r i p t , 41 erred exhibits, CR-05-1767 and m e m o r i a l i z a t i o n of the grand of the grand grand jury 408-10 j u r y members. jury proceedings We a d d r e s s e d i n f o r m a t i o n i n Blackmon (Ala. Crim. App. 2005), as v. a similar State, and a request f o r 7 So. 3d follows: "Blackmon argues t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n denying her motion requesting discovery of the transcript of the grand-jury proceedings. Specifically, she argues that, because she was i n d i c t e d f o r c a p i t a l murder, she had a 'special' need t o review t h e g r a n d - j u r y p r o c e e d i n g s . " B l a c k m o n was i n d i c t e d f o r c a p i t a l m u r d e r i n A u g u s t 1999. I n M a r c h 2 0 0 1 , B l a c k m o n moved t h a t she be a l l o w e d d i s c o v e r y o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t , exhibits, and any o t h e r m e m o r i a l i z a t i o n o f t h e grand jury proceedings. The m o t i o n l i s t e d o n l y o n e g r o u n d i n s u p p o r t o f t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t h i s e v i d e n c e -- t h a t Blackmon had been i n d i c t e d f o r c a p i t a l murder. "Alabama has l o n g p r o t e c t e d t h e s e c r e c y o f grand-jury proceedings. See § 12-16-214, A l a . Code 1975. 'The l o n g t i m e rule, sanctioned by our courts, i s that the proceedings before a grand j u r y a r e e s s e n t i a l l y s e c r e t . ' S t e w a r d v . S t a t e , 55 A l a . A p p . 2 3 8 , 2 4 0 , 314 S o . 2 d 3 1 3 , 3 1 5 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1975). However, a defendant may b e a l l o w e d t o inspect grand-jury proceedings i f the defendant meets the threshold test of showing a ' p a r t i c u l a r i z e d need' f o r b r e a c h i n g t h e s e c r e c y o f those proceedings. As t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n M i l l i c a n v . S t a t e , 423 S o . 2 d 268 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ) : "'Before a defendant i s allowed to inspect a t r a n s c r i p t of a State's witness who t e s t i f i e d b e f o r e t h e g r a n d jury or b e f o r e a t r i a l j u d g e s h o u l d c o n d u c t an i n camera i n s p e c t i o n o f such t e s t i m o n y , see Palermo [ v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 360 U.S. 343 42 list 397, CR-05-1767 (1959),] and Pate [ v . S t a t e , 415 S o . 2d 1140 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ] , t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d a t l e a s t a n d a t a v e r y m i n i m u m make some o f f e r o f p r o o f (1) t h a t t h e m a t t e r s c o n t a i n e d i n the witness' grand jury t e s t i m o n y were relevant to the subject matter of the p r o s e c u t i o n ; (2) a n d t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s a n i n c o n s i s t e n c y between grand j u r y t e s t i m o n y and trial testimony. Unless defense counsel i s merely going on a fishing e x p e d i t i o n , he w i l l h a v e some i n f o r m a t i o n as t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n t h e defendant's testimony. In t h i s case no s u c h s h o w i n g was made a n d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any inconsistency between the w i t n e s s ' t r i a l a n d g r a n d j u r y t e s t i m o n y was never even a l l e g e d . C o o k s [ v . S t a t e , 50 A l a . A p p . 4 9 , 276 S o . 2 d 634 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)]. A l s o , t h e r e was no s h o w i n g t h a t the witness' grand jury testimony, i f a v a i l a b l e , was " o f s u c h n a t u r e t h a t w i t h o u t it the defendant's trial would be f u n d a m e n t a l l y u n f a i r . " C o o k s , 50 A l a . A p p . a t 5 4 , 276 S o . 2 d 6 3 4 . See a l s o H u s c h v . State, 211 A l a . 274, 276, 100 So. 321 (1924). ("Moreover, i f t h e s o l i c i t o r had had such a statement i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n , defendant could have required i t s p r o d u c t i o n b y a r u l e o f t h e c o u r t i f he t h o u g h t i t was f a v o r a b l e t o h i m . " ) "'In l a y i n g the proper p r e d i c a t e f o r examination of a witness' grand jury t e s t i m o n y , i t s h o u l d a l s o be established that the witness t e s t i f i e d before the grand j u r y a n d t h a t s u c h t e s t i m o n y was r e c o r d e d or r e d u c e d t o w r i t i n g , u n l e s s a g r a n d j u r o r w i l l be c a l l e d t o d i s c l o s e t h e t e s t i m o n y o f the witness. A l a b a m a Code 1975, Section 12-16-201. 43 CR-05-1767 "'"When t h e d e f e n d a n t , i n e f f e c t , asks f o r the State District A t t o r n e y t o produce a document, he s h o u l d a t l e a s t e s t a b l i s h t h a t this State official has such document o r a copy t h e r e o f i n h i s possession before the t r i a l court w i l l be p u t i n e r r o r . " Strange v . S t a t e , 43 A l a . A p p . 5 9 9 , 6 0 6 , 197 S o . 2 d 437 [ ( 1 9 6 6 ) ] , c e r t . d i s m i s s e d , 2 8 0 A l a . 7 1 8 , 197 S o . 2 d 447 ( 1 9 6 [ 7 ] ) . "'Once t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s l a i d a p r o p e r p r e d i c a t e f o rt h e impeachment o f a w i t n e s s who t e s t i f i e d b e f o r e t h e g r a n d j u r y , t h e trial judge should conduct an i n camera i n s p e c t i o n as o u t l i n e d i n Palermo, supra, and P a t e , s u p r a , t o d e t e r m i n e (1) w h e t h e r t h e s t a t e m e n t made b y t h e w i t n e s s b e f o r e the grand j u r y " d i f f e r e d i n any r e s p e c t s from statements made t o t h e j u r y d u r i n g t r i a l , " P a t e , s u p r a , a n d (2) w h e t h e r t h e grand jury testimony requested by t h e defendant "was o f s u c h a nature that w i t h o u t i t t h e defendant's t r i a l would be fundamentally unfair." Pate, supra. This procedure w i l l best preserve and p r o t e c t the l e g i s l a t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t " i t i s essential to the f a i r and impartial a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e t h a t a l l grand j u r y p r o c e e d i n g s be s e c r e t and t h a t t h e secrecy of such proceedings, remain inviolate." A l a b a m a Code 1 9 7 5 , S e c t i o n s 12-16-214 t h r o u g h 226.' "423 So. 2d a t 270-71. "Nonetheless, Alabama h a s no s t a t u t e t tl a t h r e q u i r e s t h a t g r a n d - j u r y p r o c e e d i n g s be r e c o r d e d or otherwise memorialized. I n S t a l l w o r t h v . S t a t e , 868 So. 2 d 1 1 2 8 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) , t h e d e f e n d a n t 44 CR-05-1767 argued t h a t the c i r c u i t court e r r e d i n denying her motion to t r a n s c r i b e the grand-jury testimony. In u p h o l d i n g t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s r u l i n g , we s t a t e d : "'"In Alabama t h e r e i s no statute requiring that testimony b e f o r e a g r a n d j u r y be r e c o r d e d . 'A G r a n d J u r y i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o c o m p i l e r e c o r d s and the t e s t i m o n y in the absence of a statute requiring p r e s e r v a t i o n of the proceedings. State ex r e l . B a x l e y v. Strawbridge, 52 A l a . App. 6 8 5 , 296 So. 2 d 779 [(Ala. C r i m . App. 1974)]. T h e r e i s no such statute in this state.' S o m m e r v i l l e v . S t a t e , 361 So. 2d 3 8 6 , 388 (Ala. Cr. App.), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 389 (Ala. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1118, 99 S. C t . 1 0 2 7 , 59 L. Ed. 2 d 78 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . See a l s o G a i n e s v . S t a t e , 52 A l a . A p p . 29, 30, 288 So. 2d 810, 812, cert. denied, 292 A l a . 720, 288 So. 2d 813 (1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 8 5 1 , 95 S. C t . 92, 42 L. E d . 2d 82 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . B e c a u s e t h e r e was no l e g a l requirement t h a t the grand jury proceedings be recorded, this contention is without merit."' " S t a l l w o r t h , 868 So. 2 d a t 1 1 3 9 , q u o t i n g H a r d y v. S t a t e , 804 So. 2 d 2 4 7 , 287 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999), a f f ' d , 804 So. 2 d 298 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . See a l s o S t e w a r d v. S t a t e , s u p r a . " A t t h e p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g on t h i s m o t i o n , the p r o s e c u t o r s t a t e d t h a t i t was the p o l i c y of the d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e to not r e c o r d the grandj u r y p r o c e e d i n g s a n d t h a t he h a d no k n o w l e d g e t h a t 45 CR-05-1767 the g r a n d - j u r y proceedings had been r e c o r d e d i n t h i s case. N e i t h e r d i d B l a c k m o n show a ' p a r t i c u l a r i z e d need' t o breach the secrecy of the grand-jury proceedings. B a s e d o n t h e c a s e s c i t e d a b o v e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o m m i t t e d no e r r o r i n d e n y i n g t h i s m o t i o n made a f t e r B l a c k m o n h a d b e e n indicted. C f . M c K i s s a c k v . S t a t e , 926 S o . 2 d 367 (Ala. 2005) (request to preserve grand-jury proceedings was made before grand jury was empaneled)." In grand law h i s w r i t t e n motion jury and impeaching following proceedings, made a Billups fleeting witnesses. f o r discovery with cited reference During general to the hearing regard to the principles the p o s s i b i l i t y of on t h e m o t i o n , occurred: "THE COURT: N e x t i s m o t i o n f o r o r d e r p e r m i t t i n g discovery of transcripts, exhibits, and other m e m o r i a l i z a t i o n o f t h e grand j u r y proceedings, and a l i s t o f g r a n d j u r y members. [Defense counsel], a n y t h i n g t h a t you need t o add t o t h i s ? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: J u d g e , o t h e r t h a n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i s s o s l i m , w e ' d l i k e t o know how t h e y g o t an i n d i c t m e n t . And I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t g r a n d jury proceedings normally are closed. But i n this case, i ti s c a p i t a l murder. We'd l i k e t h e C o u r t t o c o n s i d e r g i v i n g us t h a t . "THE COURT: W e l l , I don't t h i n k there's any c a s e l a w t h a t I know o f t h a t s a y s t h a t s h o u l d b e g i v e n j u s t b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n s e t h i n k s t h e c a s e may be weak o r n o t weak. I know t h a t i n h i s o t h e r c a s e , I d i d order that the d i s t r i c t attorney's o f f i c e give me a copy of t h e grand jury testimony for impeachment purposes, w h i c h I d i d . A n d I ' l l do 46 of the CR-05-1767 that. That's your motion. "[DEFENSE covered i n here, COUNSEL]: Yes, I think, as w e l l i n s i r . "THE COURT: So t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t h a t you g e t i t f o r impeachment purposes, it. But I ' l lreview the grand jury myself. And i f there's something I a p p r o p r i a t e f o r impeachment purposes, I that t o you, but i t ' s otherwise denied." (R. 28-29.) following Finally, the t r i a l court t requests I ' l l deny testimony think i s will give also entered the order w i t h regard t o the motion: "Granted t o the extent that the D i s t r i c t Attorney's O f f i c e s h a l l p r o v i d e t h e Court w i t h a copy o f t h e Grand J u r y t e s t i m o n y o f w i t n e s s e s i n t h i s case (by 3/17/06). The C o u r t w i l l r e v i e w s a i d t e s t i m o n y i n camera and n o t i f y defense c o u n s e l i f s a i d t e s t i m o n y includes any exculpatory evidence, including n o t i f i c a t i o n r e g a r d i n g impeachment m a t e r i a l a f t e r a witness has t e s t i f i e d . Otherwise, the motion i s denied." (C.R. 2 4 . ) In this case, general principles need t o breach Also, the t r i a l Billups made bare allegations o f l a w , b u t d i d n o t show a the secrecy of the grand and particularized jury proceedings. court s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d that i twould the grand jury testimony and n o t i f y defense existence o f any e x c u l p a t o r y evidence, 47 cited review c o u n s e l as t o t h e including impeachment CR-05-1767 material. 3 Under these circumstances, the t r i a l court d i d not err i n denying B i l l u p s ' s motion f o rdiscovery with the grand jury Billups's denying respect to proceedings. fifth h i s motion argument i s t h a t t h e t r i a l i n limine as to court erred i n allegedly prejudicial photographs. "'"Photographic evidence i s admissible in a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n i f i t tends to p r o v e o r d i s p r o v e some d i s p u t e d o r m a t e r i a l i s s u e , t o i l l u s t r a t e some r e l e v a n t f a c t o r evidence, or to corroborate or dispute other evidence i n the case. Photographs t h a t tend t o shed l i g h t on, t o s t r e n g t h e n , or t o i l l u s t r a t e other testimony presented may b e a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e Finally photographic evidence, i f relevant, i s a d m i s s i b l e even i f i t has a tendency t o i n f l a m e t h e minds o f t h e j u r o r s . " ' " G a d d y v . S t a t e , 698 S o . 2 d 1 10 0 , 1 14 8 ( A l a . C r . App. 1995), a f f ' d , 698 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 0 ( A l a . 1997 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e S i e b e r t , 555 S o . 2 d 7 8 0 , 7 8 3 - 8 4 (Ala. 1989)). Furthermore, photographs that depict I n h i s b r i e f t o t h i s court, B i l l u p s argues "that the t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have r e v i e w e d g r a n d j u r y p r o c e e d i n g s at a minimum t o e n s u r e t h a t [he] r e c e i v e d a f a i r a n d i m p a r t i a l t r i a l i n h i s death penalty case." ( B i l l u p s ' s b r i e f a t p. 34.) However, as s e t f o r t h h e r e i n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t specifically s t a t e d t h a t i t w o u l d do j u s t t h a t , a n d t h e r e i s n o t a n y i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t i t d i d n o t do s o . Therefore, B i l l u p s ' s argument t o t h e c o n t r a r y i s n o t supported by t h e record. 3 48 CR-05-1767 the crime scene are relevant and therefore admissible. A u l t m a n v . S t a t e , 621 So. 2d 353 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 510 U.S. 9 5 4 , 114 S. C t . 407 , 12 6 L. E d . 2 d 354 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ; Ex p a r t e S i e b e r t , 555 So. 2 d 7 8 0 , 7 8 3 - 8 4 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , c e r t . denied, 497 U.S. 1032, 110 S. C t . 3 2 9 7 , 111 L. E d . 2 d 806 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ; H i l l v . S t a t e , 516 So. 2d 876 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1987). F i n a l l y , p h o t o g r a p h s may be a d m i s s i b l e e v e n if they are c u m u l a t i v e or demonstrate undisputed facts. S t a n t o n v . S t a t e , 648 So. 2d 638 ( A l a . Cr. A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) ; H o p k i n s v . S t a t e , 429 So. 2 d 1 1 4 6 , 1157 ( A l a . C r . App. 1983)." Hyde v. aff'd, S t a t e , 778 778 So. 2d So. 237 2d 199, (Ala. 234-35 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998), 2000). " ' [ P ] h o t o g r a p h s d e p i c t i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r and l o c a t i o n o f w o u n d s on a d e c e a s e d ' s b o d y a r e a d m i s s i b l e even though they are c u m u l a t i v e and are based on undisputed matters. M a g w o o d [ v . S t a t e ] , 4 94 So. 2 d [ 1 2 4 , 141 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) , a f f i r m e d , 494 So. 2 d 154 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 479 U.S. 9 9 5 , 107 S. C t . 5 9 9 , 93 L. E d . 2 d 599 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ] . The f a c t t h a t a p h o t o g r a p h i s gruesome i s not grounds to exclude i t as long as the photograph sheds light on issues being tried. Id. A l s o , a photograph may be gruesome and g h a s t l y , b u t t h i s i s n o t a reason to exclude i t as long as the photograph i s r e l e v a n t to the p r o c e e d i n g s , even i f i t tends to i n f l a m e the j u r y . Id.' "Ex p a r t e B a n k h e a d , 585 So. 2d 112 ( A l a . 1991). A c c o r d , E x p a r t e S i e b e r t , 555 So. 2 d 7 8 0 , 783-84 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , [ 4 9 7 ] U.S. [ 1 0 3 2 ] , 110 S. C t . 3 2 9 7 , 111 L. E d . 2 d 806 (1990); McElroy's at § 2 0 7.01(2)." 49 CR-05-1767 Parker v. 1991), opinion Crim. State, App.), 587 So. extended aff'd, 610 2d 1072, after So. 1092-93 remand, 2d 1181 610 (Ala. Crim. So. 2d ( A l a . 1992). 1171 App. (Ala. Finally, "'"[p]hotographic evidence, i f relevant, i s a d m i s s i b l e even i f i t has a t e n d e n c y t o i n f l a m e the minds of the j u r o r s . " Ex p a r t e S i e b e r t , 555 So. 2 d 7 8 0 , 784 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 497 U.S. 1032, 110 S. C t . 3297, 111 L. Ed. 2d 806 (1990). See generally C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama E v i d e n c e , § 207.01(2) (4th ed. 1991). "The photographs of the v i c t i m were properly admitted into evidence. Photographic e x h i b i t s are a d m i s s i b l e even though they may be c u m u l a t i v e , ... demonstrative of undisputed facts, ... or gruesome " W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 50 6 S o . 2 d 368 , 371 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 98 6 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 506 So. 2 d 372 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . ' " D e B r u c e v . S t a t e , 651 So. 2 d 5 9 9 , 607 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1 9 9 3 ) . See a l s o E x p a r t e B a n k h e a d , 585 So. 2 d 112 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . The c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n a l l o w i n g p h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e v i c t i m ' s b o d y t o be r e c e i v e d i n t o evidence." Hutcherson 1994), See So. State, r e v ' d on also 1992), v. Giles aff'd, 2 d 368 677 So. 2d 1174, 1200 other grounds, 677 So. 2d v. So. 2d (Ala. Crim. 568 632 State, So. 2 d 577 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 632 ( A l a . 1993); 1991), a f f ' d , 1992). 50 1205 ( A l a . 1996). (Ala. Crim. Haney v. 603 App. State, App. 603 So. 2 d 412 ( A l a . CR-05-1767 In this case, photographic Likewise, find evidence we have t h a t i t was Rather, the of scenes i n both jury scenes, and the court court before i t was injuries cases the thoroughly was prejudicial r e l e v a n t to the victims involving injuries nor trial. and the killings d i d not c a s e , and i n the two and the and crime made i t p o s s i b l e victims and t o show t h e cases. we nature both body similarities Therefore, e r r i n a d m i t t i n g the photographic for crime to a i d i n p r e s e n t i n g testimony about the v i c t i m ' s scene i n t h i s the inflammatory. the suffered the at evidence, depict Billups, to reviewed admitted the photographic neither unduly to view the crime between trial reviewed evidence extent the the the trial evidence. VI. Billups's s i x t h argument i s t h a t the t r i a l denying h i s motion or were addressed t o d i s q u a l i f y a l l p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s who acquainted a similar 1148, 1184-85 (Ala. 2001), with the argument (Ala. Crim. as court erred i n victim or i n T a y l o r v. App. 2000), his family. S t a t e , 808 aff'd, 808 So. So. 2d follows: " T a y l o r a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d when i t denied h i s p r e t r i a l motion to d i s q u a l i f y ' a l l p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s who w e r e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h e i t h e r t h e v i c t i m s o r who know a n y o f t h e v i c t i m ' s i m m e d i a t e 51 knew We 2d 1215 CR-05-1767 f a m i l y members.' Taylor argues that because these p e r s o n s w o u l d h a v e known t h e d e c e a s e d ' s s t a n d i n g a n d r e p u t a t i o n i n t h e community and because they would be t a i n t e d b y t h e g r i e f o f f a m i l y members, they s h o u l d have been a u t o m a t i c a l l y d i s q u a l i f i e d . " ' " [ T ] h e mere f a c t t h a t a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r is personally acquainted with the v i c t i m [or h i s family] does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y disqualify a person from sitting on a c r i m i n a l j u r y . " B r o w n l e e v . S t a t e , 545 So. 2 d 1 5 1 , 164 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f i r m e d , 545 S o . 2 d 166 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 493 U.S. 8 7 4 , 110 S. C t . 2 0 8 , 107 L . E d . 2 d 1 6 1 (1989) Instead, t h e t e s t i s "whether the [prospective] j u r o r ' s acquaintance w i t h [the v i c t i m ] o r r e l a t i v e i s such t h a t i t would result i n probable prejudice." V a u g h n v . G r i f f i t h , 5 6 5 S o . 2 d 7 5 , 77 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 498 U.S. 1 0 9 7 , 1 1 1 S. C t . 9 8 7 , 112 L . E d . 2 d 1 0 7 2 (1991).' As err we d i d i n T a y l o r , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l i n denying B i l l u p s ' s motion i n this court d i dnot case. VII. Billups's present seventh sufficient "In evidence argument evidence i s that the State d i d not to support h i s conviction. deciding whether there i s sufficient t o support the v e r d i c t of the j u r y and the 52 CR-05-1767 judgment 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 light most favorable to the prosecution. Cumbo v . S t a t e , 3 6 8 S o . 2 d 8 7 1 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 7 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 3 6 8 S o . 2 d 877 ( A l a . 1979). C o n f l i c t i n g 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 S o . 2 d 280 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 387 S o . 2 d 283 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . The t r i a l court's denial of 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 the jury, a t the t i m e t h e m o t i o n w a s made, f r o m w h i c h t h e j u r y b y fair inference could have found the appellant guilty. Thomas v . S t a t e , 3 6 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 0 ( 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 f r o m w h i c h t h e j u r y could have found t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y beyond 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 S o . 2 d 199 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 3 ) ; Thomas v . S t a t e . When t h e e v i d e n c e raises questions of f a c t f o r t h e j u r y and such evidence, i f believed, i s s u f f i c i e n t t o 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 by the t r i a l c o u r t does n o t c o n s t i t u t e error. Y o u n g v . S t a t e , 283 A l a . 6 7 6 , 220 So. 2 d 843 (1969); W i l l i s v. S t a t e . " B r e c k e n r i d g e v. S t a t e , 628 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 2 , 1 0 1 8 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1993). "'In determining the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence t o s u s t a i n t h e c o n v i c t i o n , t h i s C o u r t must a c c e p t as true the evidence introduced by the State, accord the State a l l l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e s t h e r e f r o m , and c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the p r o s e c u t i o n . ' F a i r c l o t h v . S t a t e , 471 So. 2 d 485, 489 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) , a f f i r m e d , E x p a r t e F a i r c l o t h , [471] So. 2 d 493 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . " 53 CR-05-1767 "'"The r o l e o f a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s i s n o t t o say what the f a c t s a r e . O u r r o l e , ... i s to judge whether the evidence i s l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w s u b m i s s i o n o f an i s s u e for decision to the jury." Ex parte Bankston, 358 So. 2d 1040, 1042 (Ala. 1978). An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may interfere with the jury's verdict o n l y where i t reaches "a clear conclusion that the f i n d i n g and judgment a r e wrong." K e l l y v. S t a t e , 273 A l a . 2 4 0 , 2 4 4 , 139 S o . 2 d 326 (1962). ... A verdict on conflicting e v i d e n c e i s c o n c l u s i v e on a p p e a l . Roberson v . S t a t e , 162 A l a . 3 0 , 50 S o . 345 (1909). "[W]here t h e r e i s ample e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d by the s t a t e to support a v e r d i c t , i t should n o t be o v e r t u r n e d e v e n t h o u g h t h e e v i d e n c e offered by the defendant is in sharp conflict therewith and presents a s u b s t a n t i a l d e f e n s e . " F u l l e r v . S t a t e , 269 A l a . 3 1 2 , 3 3 3 , 113 S o . 2 d 153 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , F u l l e r v . A l a b a m a , 361 U.S. 9 3 6 , 80 S. Ct. 380, 4 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1960).' G r a n g e r [ v . S t a t e ] , 473 S o . 2 d [ 1 1 3 7 , ] 1139 [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1985)]. "... ' C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e a l o n e i s e n o u g h t o s u p p o r t a g u i l t y v e r d i c t of the most h e i n o u s c r i m e , p r o v i d e d the j u r y b e l i e v e s beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused i s g u i l t y . ' W h i t e v. S t a t e , 294 A l a . 2 6 5 , 2 7 2 , 314 S o . 2 d 8 5 7 , c e r t . d e n i e d , 423 U.S. 9 5 1 , 96 S. C t . 3 7 3 , 46 L. E d . 2 d 288 (1975). ' C i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence i s i n nowise considered i n f e r i o r e v i d e n c e a n d i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e same w e i g h t as d i r e c t e v i d e n c e p r o v i d e d i t p o i n t s t o t h e g u i l t of the accused.' C o c h r a n v . S t a t e , 500 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 1 , 1177 ( A l a . C r . App. 1984), a f f i r m e d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , r e v e r s e d i n p a r t on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e C o c h r a n , 500 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 9 ( A l a . 1985)." 54 CR-05-1767 White v. S t a t e , 546 So. 2 d 1014, 1017 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989). Also, " ' [ c ] i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence i s not i n f e r i o r e v i d e n c e , a n d i t w i l l b e g i v e n t h e same w e i g h t as d i r e c t e v i d e n c e , i f i t , a l o n g with the other evidence, i s susceptible of a reasonable inference pointing unequivocally t o the defendant's guilt. W a r d v . S t a t e , 557 S o . 2 d 848 ( A l a . C r . App. 1990). In reviewing a conviction b a s e d i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t on c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , t h e t e s t t o be a p p l i e d i s w h e t h e r the j u r y might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but whether a jury might reasonably so conclude. Cumbo v . S t a t e , 368 S o . 2 d 8 7 1 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 7 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 368 S o . 2 d 877 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . ' "Ward, 610 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 9 1 - 9 2 . " L o c k h a r t v. S t a t e , Section murder first 13A-5-40(a)(2), committed degree constitutes 715 S o . 2 d 8 9 5 , 8 9 9 "by [ a ] d e f e n d a n t o r an a t t e m p t capital "(a) the f i r s t he: A l a . Code ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997). 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t during t h e r e o f committed a robbery i n the by t h e d e f e n d a n t " murder. A p e r s o n commits t h e crime o f r o b b e r y i n d e g r e e i f he v i o l a t e s S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 8 - 4 3 a n d "(1) dangerous I s armed w i t h instrument; or 55 a a deadly weapon or CR-05-1767 "(2) Causes s e r i o u s p h y s i c a l i n j u r y another. to " ( b ) P o s s e s s i o n t h e n a n d t h e r e o f an article u s e d o r f a s h i o n e d i n a m a n n e r t o l e a d a n y p e r s o n who i s p r e s e n t r e a s o n a b l y t o b e l i e v e i t t o be a d e a d l y weapon o r d a n g e r o u s i n s t r u m e n t , o r any v e r b a l or o t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by t h e d e f e n d a n t t h a t he i s t h e n a n d t h e r e so a r m e d , i s p r i m a f a c i e evidence u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n (a) o f t h i s s e c t i o n t h a t he was s o armed." § 1 3 A - 8 - 4 1 , A l a . Code 1975. "(a) A p e r s o n commits the crime of r o b b e r y i n the t h i r d degree i f i n the course of committing a t h e f t he: "(1) Uses f o r c e a g a i n s t the p e r s o n of the owner o r any p e r s o n p r e s e n t w i t h i n t e n t to overcome h i s p h y s i c a l r e s i s t a n c e or p h y s i c a l power o f r e s i s t a n c e ; or "(2) T h r e a t e n s the imminent use o f f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o f t h e owner o r any p e r s o n p r e s e n t w i t h i n t e n t to compel acquiescence to the t a k i n g of or e s c a p i n g w i t h the p r o p e r t y . " § 13A-8-43, A l a . Code 1975. "To s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r § 13A-5-40(a)(2) for c a p i t a l robbery-murder, t h e s t a t e must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) a ' r o b b e r y i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e o r an a t t e m p t t h e r e o f , ' as d e f i n e d b y § 1 3 A - 8 - 4 1 ; (2) a ' m u r d e r , ' a s d e f i n e d b y § 1 3 A - 6 2(a)(1); and (3) that t h e m u r d e r was committed ' d u r i n g ' the robbery or attempted robbery, i . e . , t h a t t h e m u r d e r was c o m m i t t e d ' i n the course of or in connection with the commission of, or in immediate f l i g h t from the commission of' the robbery or a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e , § 13A-539(2). C o n n o l l y v . S t a t e , 500 So. 2 d 57 ( A l a . C r . 56 CR-05-1767 App. 1 9 8 5 ) , a f f ' d , 500 S o . 2 d 68 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . The capital crime of robbery when the v i c t i m i s i n t e n t i o n a l l y k i l l e d i s a single offense beginning with the a c t of robbing or attempting t o r o b and culminating i n the act of i n t e n t i o n a l l y k i l l i n g the victim; the offense consists o f two elements, robbing and i n t e n t i o n a l k i l l i n g . Davis v. S t a t e , 536 S o . 2 d 110 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1987 ) ; M a g w o o d v . S t a t e , 494 S o . 2 d 124 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) , a f f ' d , Ex parte M a g w o o d , 4 94 S o . 2 d 154 (Ala.), cert. d e n i e d , 479 U.S. 9 9 5 , 107 S. C t . 5 9 9 , 93 L. E d . 2 d 599 (1986). The i n t e n t i o n a l m u r d e r m u s t occur during the course of the robbery in question; however, the t a k i n g o f the p r o p e r t y of the v i c t i m need not occur p r i o r t o t h e k i l l i n g . C l a r k v. S t a t e , 451 S o . 2 d 368 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 451 S o . 2 d 368 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . While the violence or i n t i m i d a t i o n must p r e c e d e o r be c o n c o m i t a n t w i t h t h e taking, i t i s immaterial t h a t t h e v i c t i m i s dead when t h e t h e f t o c c u r s . Thomas v . S t a t e , 460 S o . 2 d 207 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) , a f f ' d , 460 S o . 2 d 2 1 6 (Ala. 1984). "'As t h e A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d i n C o b e r n v . S t a t e , 2 7 3 A l a . 5 4 7 , 142 S o . 2 d 869 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , " t h e f a c t t h a t t h e v i c t i m was dead a t t h e time t h e p r o p e r t y was t a k e n would not m i l i t a t e [against a f i n d i n g ] of robbery i f the i n t e r v e n i n g time between the murder and t h e t a k i n g formed a c o n t i n u o u s chain of events." C l e m e n t s v . S t a t e , 370 So. 2 d 7 0 8 , 713 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 978), a f f i r m e d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , 370 S o . 2 d 723 (Ala. 1 9 7 9 ) ; C l a r k v . S t a t e , 451 S o . 2 d 3 6 8 , 372 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) . To s u s t a i n any o t h e r p o s i t i o n " w o u l d be t a n t a m o u n t t o g r a n t i n g t o would-be robbers a l i c e n s e t o k i l l t h e i r v i c t i m s p r i o r t o r o b b i n g them i n the hope o f a v o i d i n g p r o s e c u t i o n u n d e r t h e capital felony statute." Thomas v . S t a t e , 460 S o . 2 d 2 0 7 , 212 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) , a f f i r m e d , 460 S o . 2 d 2 1 6 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . 57 CR-05-1767 " ' A l t h o u g h a r o b b e r y c o m m i t t e d as a "mere a f t e r t h o u g h t " and u n r e l a t e d t o the murder w i l l not s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n under § 13A-5-40(a)(2) f o r the c a p i t a l o f f e n s e of murder-robbery, see Bufford v. State, supra, O ' P r y v . S t a t e , s u p r a [642 S.W.2d 748 (Tex. C r . App. 1981)], the q u e s t i o n of a defendant's i n t e n t at the time of the c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e c r i m e i s u s u a l l y an i s s u e for the j u r y to r e s o l v e . Crowe v. State, 435 So. 2d 1371 , 1379 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 3 ) . The j u r y may infer from the facts and c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t t h e r o b b e r y b e g a n when the accused attacked t h e v i c t i m and the c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was c o n s u m m a t e d when t h e defendant took the v i c t i m ' s p r o p e r t y and fled. C o b e r n v . S t a t e , 273 A l a . 5 4 7 , 550, 142 So. 2d 869, 871 (1 962 ) . The d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t e n t t o r o b t h e v i c t i m c a n be i n f e r r e d where " [ t ] h e i n t e r v e n i n g time, i f any, b e t w e e n t h e k i l l i n g and r o b b e r y was part of a c o n t i n u o u s chain of events." Thomas v . S t a t e , 460 So. 2d 2 0 7 , 212 (Ala. C r . App. 1 9 8 3 ) , a f f i r m e d , 460 So. 2d 216 (Ala. 1984). See a l s o C o b e r n v . S t a t e , 273 Ala. 547, 142 So. 2d 869 ( 1 9 6 2 ) ; Crowe v. State, 435 So. 2d 1371 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1 983); B u f f o r d v . S t a t e , 382 So. 2d 1162 (Ala. C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 382 So. 2d 1175 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ; C l e m e n t s v. S t a t e , 370 So. 2d 708 ( A l a . C r . App. 1978), a f f i r m e d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , 370 So. 2d 723 (Ala. 1979).' "Connolly, 500 So. 2d v. State, 548 So. aff'd, 548 Hallford 1988), as So. 2d at 547 63." 2d 526, (Ala. 534-35 (Ala. Crim. 1989). " I t i s sometimes s a i d t h a t a robbery committed a 'mere a f t e r t h o u g h t ' a n d u n r e l a t e d t o t h e m u r d e r 58 App. CR-05-1767 will not s u s t a i n a conviction f o r the capital offense of murder-robbery. C o n n o l l y v . S t a t e , 500 So. 2 d 57 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) , a f f ' d , 500 S o . 2 d 68 (Ala. 1986). However, t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s i n t e n t t o r o b t h e v i c t i m may l a w f u l l y a n d c o r r e c t l y be i n f e r r e d where t h e k i l l i n g and t h e r o b b e r y were p a r t o f a continuous chain of events. H a l l f o r d v . S t a t e , 548 So. 2 d 526 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f ' d , 548 S o . 2 d 547 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 493 U.S. 9 4 5 , 110 S. C t . 3 5 4 , 107 L. E d . 2 d 342 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . " Harris v. S t a t e , 671 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 , 126 ( A l a .Crim. App. 1995). Finally, "'[i]ntent, ... b e i n g a s t a t e o r c o n d i t i o n o f t h e mind, i s r a r e l y , i f ever, s u s c e p t i b l e o f d i r e c t or p o s i t i v e p r o o f , a n d must u s u a l l y be i n f e r r e d from the facts testified to by witnesses and the c i r c u m s t a n c e s as d e v e l o p e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . ' McCord v . S t a t e , 501 S o . 2 d 5 2 0 , 5 2 8 - 5 2 9 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) , q u o t i n g P u m p h r e y v . S t a t e , 156 A l a . 1 0 3 , 47 So. 156 ( 1 9 0 8 ) . " French v. S t a t e , aff'd i n part, (Ala. 687 S o . 2 d 2 0 2 , 204 ( A l a .Crim. r e v ' d i n p a r t on o t h e r g r o u n d s , App. 1995), 687 S o . 2 d 205 1996). "'The q u e s t i o n o f i n t e n t i s h a r d l y e v e r c a p a b l e o f d i r e c t p r o o f . Such q u e s t i o n s a r e n o r m a l l y q u e s t i o n s for the jury. M c M u r p h y v . S t a t e , 455 S o . 2 d 924 (Ala. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) ; C r a i g v . S t a t e , 410 S o . 2 d 449 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 410 S o . 2 d 449 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . ' L o p e r v . S t a t e , 469 S o . 2 d 7 0 7 , 710 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) . " Oryang v. S t a t e , 642 S o . 2 d 9 8 9 , 994 59 ( A l a .Crim. App. 1994). CR-05-1767 In this repeatedly case, his house, It also presented the and that presented Billups and Billups drugs in to k i l l i n g s of the State four testified that blood the scene of the k i l l i n g s of the victim's gun was Although any evidence the victim three found Billups that and he that had the days the robbery later, the the to this and jury jury that men, the robbery Finally, house Billups's and from that there was not kill and rob a mere a f t e r t h o u g h t , his intent to to resolve. including k i l l i n g s of the 60 robbed house. case, could that a shell casing contend r o b b e r y was and from Hispanic specific f o r the in as four on from B i l l u p s ' s in Billups's appears a question presented the blood days l a t e r . same gun gun i n the that a s h e l l casing f i r e d from the a day and role went head. and saw killed three been concerning next had Billups finally drugs the men house had that i n the he Hispanic matched the v i c t i m ' s blood, evidence he took that house that victim Billups evidence presented was the a l s o t e s t i f i e d as t o B i l l u p s ' s and intent shot Billups's Cooper evidence t h a t the v i c t i m that Cooper admitted He Billups evidence victim. victim. State t e l e p h o n e d the v i c t i m , to from the have four Based the on evidence Hispanic reasonably the men concluded CR-05-1767 from t h e f a c t s and circumstances Billups t h e r o b b e r y began when l u r e d t h e v i c t i m t o h i s house and shot h i m ; t h a t t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was c o n s u m m a t e d drugs that and g u n ; t h a t continuous chain intentional and Billups's the k i l l i n g of was argument when B i l l u p s t o o k t h e v i c t i m ' s events; not a and robbery and mere i s without that were the part of a robbery was afterthought. Therefore, merit. VIII. Billups's in denying McGowan 2003), argument h i s motion information favorable eighth to require concerning State, 990 So. the t r i a l disclosure potential t o the defense. v. i s that jurors 9 3 1 , 966-67 that might be argument i n ( A l a . Crim. as f o l l o w s : "McGowan c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s 'Motion t o R e q u i r e D i s c l o s u r e o f Any and A l l I n f o r m a t i o n C o n c e r n i n g P r o s p e c t i v e J u r o r s Which May Be F a v o r a b l e t o t h e D e f e n s e , ' i n w h i c h he a s k e d for d i s c l o s u r e o f ' a n y r e a s o n why a j u r o r w o u l d b e particularly favorable or unfavorable to the defense, o r why a particular juror should not serve.' " I n D o r s e y v . S t a t e , 881 S o . 2 d 4 6 0 , 484 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001), a f f ' d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , r e v ' d i n p a r t , 881 S o . 2 d 533 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , i n a f f i r m i n g t h e trial court's denial of the defendant's motion seeking t o have the State disclose favorable 61 erred o f any anda l l We a d d r e s s e d a s i m i l a r 2d court App. CR-05-1767 i n f o r m a t i o n about the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s , the court reiterated: '"The S t a t e h a s no d u t y t o d i s c l o s e information concerning prospective jurors."' ( Q u o t i n g M c G r i f f v . S t a t e , 908 S o . 2 d 9 6 1 , 981 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000).) M o r e o v e r , ' " t h e s t a t e h a s no duty to d i s c l o s e information that i s a v a i l a b l e to the a p p e l l a n t from another source. H u r s t v. S t a t e , 4 69 S o . 2 d 720 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) . Here, the a p p e l l a n t c o u l d have p r o c u r e d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n from the veniremembers themselves during voir dire."' A r t h u r v . S t a t e , 711 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 8 0 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) ( q u o t i n g K e l l e y v . S t a t e , 602 S o . 2 d 4 7 3 , 478 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ) , a f f ' d , 711 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 7 (Ala. 1997). S e e a l s o W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 654 S o . 2 d 74 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) . A l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d McGowan's m o t i o n s , i t p e r m i t t e d t h e p a r t i e s practically unlimited voir dire of the venirepersons. "Furthermore, i n s p e c i f i c regard to the t r i a l court's denial o f McGowan's m o t i o n to disclose possibly favorable information, we adopt the a p p r o a c h t a k e n b y t h e c o u r t i n L e e v . S t a t e , 683 S o . 2d 3 3 , 38 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) . In d i s m i s s i n g the appellant's contention that the t r i a l court v i o l a t e d B r a d y v . M a r y l a n d , 373 U.S. 8 3 , 83 S. C t . 1 1 9 4 , 10 L. E d . 2 d 2 1 5 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , by d e n y i n g h i s 'Motion t o Require Disclosure o f Any and A l l I n f o r m a t i o n C o n c e r n i n g P r o s p e c t i v e J u r o r s W h i c h May Be F a v o r a b l e to the Defense,' the court s t a t e d : "'In h i s b r i e f to this court, Lee has not alleged that the prosecutor i n fact withheld any information whatsoever which would be favorable to h i s defense. Further, nothing i n the record indicates that the prosecutor w i t h h e l d such i n f o r m a t i o n . We f i n d no e r r o r i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f t h i s motion.' "683 So. 2d a t 3 8 . " 62 CR-05-1767 Also, App. i n M c G r i f f v. 2000), 2 0 0 4 ) , we rev'd State, on other 908 So. 2d 961, 981-82 (Ala. Crim. grounds, 908 So. 1024 2d held: "The State has no duty to d i s c l o s e information concerning prospective jurors. As we stated in A r t h u r v . S t a t e , 711 So. 2 d 1031 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 6 ) , a f f ' d , 711 So. 2 d 1097 (Ala. 1997), quoting K e l l e y v . S t a t e , 602 So. 2 d 473 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992): " ' " T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t a r r e s t and c o n v i c t i o n r e c o r d s o f p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s do n o t q u a l i f y as t h e t y p e o f discoverable evidence t h a t f a l l s w i t h i n the scope of B r a d y and t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t w i l l not be h e l d i n e r r o r f o r d e n y i n g an a p p e l l a n t ' s motion to d i s c o v e r such documents. S l i n k e r v . S t a t e , 344 S o . 2 d 1264 (Ala. Cr. App. 1 9 7 7 ) . C f . , C l i f t o n v . S t a t e , 545 So. 2d 173 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1988) (the n o n d i s c l o s e d e v i d e n c e was not e x c u l p a t o r y , thus Brady was i n a p p l i c a b l e ) . In other words, the a p p e l l a n t d o e s n o t h a v e an a b s o l u t e right to the disclosure of the arrest and c o n v i c t i o n records of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . See S l i n k e r , s u p r a . C f . , D a v i s v . State, 554 So. 2d 1094 (Ala. Cr. App. 1984), aff'd, 554 So. 2d 1111 (Ala. 1989), r e h e a r i n g o v e r r u l e d , 569 So. 2 d 738 (Ala. 1 9 9 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 498 U.S. 1 1 2 7 , 111 S. Ct. 1091, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1196 (1991) (defendant i s not e n t i t l e d to the g e n e r a l d i s c l o s u r e of the c r i m i n a l records of the s t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s ) ; W r i g h t v. S t a t e , 424 So. 2d 684 (Ala. Cr. App. 1982) (no a b s o l u t e r i g h t to d i s c l o s u r e of c r i m i n a l records of s t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s ) . 63 (Ala. CR-05-1767 "'"Several jurisdictions have similarly held. See, e.g., People v. M u r t i s h a w , 29 C a l . 3 d 7 3 3 , 175 C a l . R p t r . 7 3 8 , 631 P.2d 446 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 455 U.S. 9 2 2 , 102 S. C t . 1 2 8 0 , 71 L . E d . 2 d 464 (1982) (trial judge has discretionary a u t h o r i t y to permit defense access to j u r y r e c o r d s ) ; Moon v . S t a t e , 258 Ga. 7 4 8 , 375 S . E . 2 d 442 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 499 U.S. 982, 111 S. C t . 1 6 3 8 , 113 L. E d . 2 d 733 (1991) ( t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n d e n y i n g defendant's motion f o r p r e t r i a l discovery of state's juror information records); S t a t e v . W i g g i n s , 556 So. 2 d 622 ( L a . A p p . 1990) (defendant is not necessarily e n t i t l e d to 'rap sheets' of prospective j u r o r s ) ; S t a t e v . W e i l a n d , 540 So. 2 d 1288 ( L a . A p p . 1989) (defendant i s not e n t i t l e d to rap sheets of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s because those records are u s e f u l to s t a t e i n i t s desire to challenge jurors with i n c l i n a t i o n s or b i a s e s a g a i n s t s t a t e , but are not p e r t i n e n t to purpose of defendant's voir dire: to challenge jurors who defendant b e l i e v e s w i l l not approach the verdict in a detached and objective m a n n e r ) ; S t a t e v . C h i l d s , 299 S.C. 4 7 1 , 385 S . E . 2 d 839 ( 1 9 8 9 ) (no r i g h t t o d i s c o v e r y o f c r i m i n a l records of p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s absent statute or court rules requiring such disclosure); J e f f r e y F. Ghent, Annot., Right of Defense i n C r i m i n a l P r o s e c u t i o n to Disclosure of Prosecution Information R e g a r d i n g P r o s p e c t i v e J u r o r s , 86 A . L . R . 3 d 571, § 4(a) (1978), and t h e c a s e s cited therein. "'"Also, the s t a t e has no duty to d i s c l o s e information that i s a v a i l a b l e to the a p p e l l a n t from another source. Hurst v . S t a t e , 469 So. 2 d 720 (Ala. Cr. App. 1985). Here, the appellant could have 64 CR-05-1767 procured this information from the veniremembers themselves d u r i n g v o i r d i r e . See a l s o C l i f t o n , s u p r a ( n o n d i s c l o s u r e d i d not p r e j u d i c e a p p e l l a n t ' s defense)."' "711 So. In t h i s disclosure 2d at case, of 1080." when i t d e n i e d any j u r o r s t h a t m i g h t be and Billups's a l l information motion to concerning require potential f a v o r a b l e to the defense, the t r i a l court stated: "Motion to disclose a l l information concerning prospective j u r o r s t h a t may be favorable to the d e f e n s e . I t h i n k t h a t ' s -- t h e i r r e s p o n s e o b j e c t s t o t h a t . A n d I t h i n k t h a t ' s due t o b e d e n i e d . B u t i t ' s k i n d o f t h e same s i t u a t i o n I just addressed. If t h e r e ' s something t h a t they say t h a t ' s wrong d u r i n g t h e v o i r d i r e a n d t h e DA k n o w s a b o u t i t , t h e y s h o u l d l e t e v e r y b o d y know." With regard following to the motion, the trial court also entered the order: "Denied. Attorneys will be allowed to question prospective jurors in detail. Once a g a i n , a l l attorneys are ordered to inform the court and o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l i f t h e y a r e aware o f any questions w h i c h are not answered t r u t h f u l l y by prospective jurors." (C.R. 24.) court used to conduct During the jury s e l e c t i o n proceedings, a jury questionnaire individual veniremembers. voir Finally, and dire Billups 65 also allowed examination has not of the the many alleged, trial parties of the and the CR-05-1767 record does not indicate, that information that Accordingly, we denying do have not been find prosecution favorable that the to withheld trial the any motion. this would the court defense. erred in IX. Billups's improperly present ninth denied his motion is that attorney similar contention C r i m . App. and potential in Belisle 2007), the trial f o r d i s c l o s u r e of relationships, associations, district (Ala. argument and ties jurors. State, 11 11 So. 323 3d past and between the We v. aff'd, any addressed So. 3d 256, (Ala. 2008), follows: " B e l i s l e f u r t h e r argues t h a t the c i r c u i t court erred i n denying h i s motion to d i s c l o s e past and present r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y , the former d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y , the a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l , and any p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . "When d i s c u s s i n g t h i s m o t i o n , t h e stated: circuit " ' I was g o i n g t o s a y , my experience has b e e n , b o t h as a d e f e n s e l a w y e r and a p r o s e c u t o r , t h a t I may know some p e o p l e o u t t h e r e and I m i g h t be a b l e t o d i s c l o s e t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t I have w i t h them and t h e n n o t r e c o g n i z e someone f r o m s e v e n y e a r s ago t h a t t h e y remember, hey, I knew h i m and bla, bla, bla. So I f o u n d u s u a l l y y o u g e t a b e t t e r r e s p o n s e by a s k i n g a j u r o r . ' 66 court court a 277 as CR-05-1767 "(R. 181-82.) C l e a r l y , t h e l e a s t i n t r u s i v e method of discovering a juror's past or present r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h any o f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n team i s t o ask the prospective jurors during voir dire examination. 'Discovery matters are within the sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge. W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 4 5 1 S o . 2 d 4 1 1 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1984) . The court's judgment on t h e s e matters will n o t be reversed absent a c l e a r abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n and proof of prejudice resulting from t h e abuse. Ex p a r t e H a r w e l l , 639 So. 2 d 1335 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . ' Parker v. S t a t e , 777 S o . 2 d 9 3 7 , 938 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2000). T h e r e was no a b u s e o f t h e c i r c u i t court's discretion here." Also, i n T r a v i s v. S t a t e , 1997), aff'd, 7 7 6 S o . 2 d 8 1 9 , 870 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 776 S o . 2 d 8 7 4 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , we noted: "Although the t r i a l court denied a p p e l l a n t ' s motion, i t allowed the p a r t i e s almost u n l i m i t e d v o i r d i r e of the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . F u r t h e r , t h e S t a t e h a s no duty t o d i s c l o s e information t o the defense that i s a v a i l a b l e from another source; e.g., through v o i r dire examination. " M o r e o v e r , t h e a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o name i n b r i e f a n y member o f h i s v e n i r e whom h e h a s subsequently l e a r n e d h a d h a d a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a n y member o f the p r o s e c u t i o n t h a t might have caused such a p e r s o n to have a n a t u r a l b i a s i n f a v o r o f t h e S t a t e . The a p p e l l a n t h a s f a i l e d t o show i n w h a t m a n n e r he was p r e j u d i c e d by the d e n i a l of h i s motion. S e e A l a . R. App. P., R u l e 4 5 . S e e a l s o , D e F r i e s v . S t a t e , 597 So. 2 d 742 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ( n o e r r o r i n d e n y i n g m o t i o n t o d i s c l o s e p a s t r e l a t i o n s h i p s w h e r e t h e same q u e s t i o n s were a l l o w e d d u r i n g v o i r d i r e a t t r i a l ) . "Therefore, t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s argument must 67 fail." CR-05-1767 See a l s o McGowan, s u p r a ; M a p l e s v . Crim. App.), In any aff'd, this past 758 2d 81 (Ala. and present relationships, So. 2d 1 (Ala. 1999). c a s e , when i t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n between the d i s t r i c t court So. S t a t e , 758 for disclosure associations, a t t o r n e y and p o t e n t i a l jurors, of and ties the trial stated: "Motion for disclosure of any past or present relationships, associations, or ties between district a t t o r n e y and prospective jurors. I've r e v i e w e d t h a t as w e l l . I t h i n k t h a t ' s due t o be denied. But what I t e n d t o say i n a l l c a s e s , e s p e c i a l l y a c a p i t a l c a s e , i s c o v e r w h a t e v e r you can during voir dire. And I think that a l l the a t t o r n e y s are under a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h a t i f t h e r e ' s something that they know o f t h a t ' s s a i d that's i n c o r r e c t , t h e n t h e y n e e d t o c o r r e c t i t . So i f t h e y d e n y some a s s o c i a t i o n a n d t h e d i s t r i c t attorneys know i t , I t h i n k t h e y a r e u n d e r a n o b l i g a t i o n t o l e t the Court and l e t you know t h a t someone said something t h a t wasn't r i g h t . But I ' l l deny the m o t i o n as i t ' s w r i t t e n . " (R. 2 7 - 2 8 . ) entered the With regard to t h i s motion, following the t r i a l 24.) court used During a jury the also order: "Denied. A t t o r n e y s w i l l be g i v e n an question potential jurors on voir attorneys are i n s t r u c t e d to n o t i f y o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l i f t h e y a r e aware o f have responded u n t r u t h f u l l y d u r i n g process." (C.R. court jury selection q u e s t i o n n a i r e and 68 opportunity to dire. A l l the Court and a n y j u r o r s who the v o i r dire proceedings, allowed the the trial parties to CR-05-1767 conduct individual veniremembers. voir learned relationship with the caused State. erred such that a person i n denying t h i s of or of the juror of the prosecution t o have a n a t u r a l b i a s we d o n o t f i n d t h a t had that a might i n favor of the t r i a l court motion. t e n t h argument i s t h a t t h e t r i a l denying h i s motion many h a s n o t a l l e g e d t h a t he h a s any veniremember a n y member Accordingly, Billups's examination Finally, Billups subsequently have dire f o r a change o f court erred i n venue. "'A trial court i s in a better position than an appellate court to d e t e r m i n e what e f f e c t , i f any, p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y might have i n a p a r t i c u l a r case. The t r i a l c o u r t h a s t h e b e s t o p p o r t u n i t y t o evaluate the effects of any pretrial p u b l i c i t y on t h e c o m m u n i t y as a w h o l e a n d on the individual members of the jury venire. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a motion f o r a change o f venue w i l l be r e v e r s e d o n l y when t h e r e i s a s h o w i n g t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t has abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . N e l s o n v . S t a t e , 440 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 0 ( A l a . C r . App. 1983).' " J o i n e r v. S t a t e , A p p . 19 9 4 ) . " Clemons v. S t a t e , aff'd, 720 So. 651 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 5 6 720 S o . 2 d 9 6 1 , 977 2d 985 ( A l a . 1998). 69 (Ala. Cr. ( A l a . C r i m . App. "The mere fact 1996), that CR-05-1767 publicity and sufficient to warrant Grayson[, must 479 show State, "'Moreover, So. that c o m m u n i t y was v. media attention a 2 d 76 he So. 2d the passage 2d 219, (Ala. 254 1989) So. 2d 224 with 193, venue. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 435 Ex parte appellant that prejudicial to t r i a l . ' " Rather, not prejudice actual 195 is held that the (Ala. 1988), ( A l a . C r i m . App. or publicity." Crim. App. ignored Whisenhant ( q u o t i n g D a n n e l l y v. S t a t e , 434, widespread o f t i m e c a n n o t be in bringing objectivity So. of ( A l a . 1985),] suffered saturated 606 change were aff'd, the Slagle 1992). as a f a c t o r v. S t a t e , 555 47 A l a . A p p . So. 2d 363, 555 235 364, 1971)). "In connection with p r e t r i a l publicity, there a r e two s i t u a t i o n s w h i c h mandate a c h a n g e o f v e n u e : 1) when the accused has demonstrated 'actual p r e j u d i c e ' a g a i n s t h i m on t h e p a r t o f t h e j u r o r s ; 2) w h e n t h e r e i s ' p r e s u m e d p r e j u d i c e ' r e s u l t i n g f r o m community s a t u r a t i o n w i t h such p r e j u d i c i a l p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y t h a t no i m p a r t i a l j u r y c a n b e s e l e c t e d . S h e p p a r d v . M a x w e l l , 384 U.S. 3 3 3 , 86 S. C t . 1 5 0 7 , 16 L. E d . 2 d 600 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ; R i d e a u [ v . L o u i s i a n a , 373 U.S. 7 2 3 , 83 S. C t . 1 4 1 7 , 10 L. E d . 2 d 663 (1963)]; E s t e s v . T e x a s , 381 U.S. 5 3 2 , 85 S. C t . 1 6 2 8 , 14 L. E d . 2 d 543 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; E x p a r t e G r a y s o n , 479 S o . 2 d 7 6 , 80 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 474 U.S. 8 6 5 , 106 S. C t . 1 8 9 , 88 L. E d . 2 d 157 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; C o l e m a n v . Z a n t , 708 F . 2 d 541 ( 1 1 t h . C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) . " Hunt v. S t a t e , 642 So. aff'd, 2d 1060 642 So. 2d 999, 1042-43 ( A l a . 1994). 70 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993), CR-05-1767 We must first determine resulted i n "presumptive presumed under that and this the p r e t r i a l publicity 2) t h a t t h e p r e j u d i c i a l an e x t r e m e l y was p r e j u d i c i a l must and pretrial publicity t o be show: inflammatory saturated the standard, a defendant of proof. "Hunt r e l i e s on t h e 'presumed p r e j u d i c e ' s t a n d a r d announced i n Rideau, and a p p l i e d by t h e U n i t e d States Supreme Court i n Estes and Sheppard[v. M a x w e l l , 384 U.S. 3 3 3 , 86 S. C t . 1 5 0 7 , 16 L. E d . 2 d 600 (1966)]. T h i s s t a n d a r d was d e f i n e d b y t h e E l e v e n t h F e d e r a l C i r c u i t Court o f Appeals i n Coleman v . Kemp, 778 F . 2 d 1 4 8 7 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) , cert. d e n i e d , 4 7 6 U.S. 1 1 6 4 , 1 0 6 S. C t . 2 2 8 9 , 90 L. E d . 2 d 730 (1986). The c o u r t stated: 'Prejudice i s presumed from pretrial publicity when pretrial publicity i s sufficiently prejudicial and inflammatory and t h e p r e j u d i c i a l p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y s a t u r a t e d t h e community where t h e t r i a l s were h e l d . ' 778 F . 2 d a t 1 4 9 0 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d [ i n H u n t ] ) . See a l s o H o l l a d a y v . S t a t e , 549 So. 2 d 1 2 2 , 125 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f i r m e d , 549 So. 2 d 135 (Ala.), c e r t . d e n i e d , 4 9 3 U.S. 1 0 1 2 , 110 S. C t . 5 7 5 , 107 L . Ed. 2 d 569 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . "In d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e 'presumed p r e j u d i c e ' standard e x i s t s the t r i a l court should look a t 'the totality of the surrounding facts.' Patton v. Y o u n t , 467 U.S. 1 0 2 5 , 104 S. C t . 2 8 8 5 , 81 L. E d . 2 d 847 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; M u r p h y v . F l o r i d a , 4 2 1 U.S. 7 9 4 , 95 S. 71 1) S e e C o l e m a n v . Kemp, 778 Under t h i s heavy burden publicity For prejudice the defendant was h e l d . 1487 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) . carries the p r e t r i a l prejudice." standard, community where t h e t r i a l F.2d whether CR-05-1767 C t . 2 0 3 1 , 44 L. E d . 2 d 5 8 9 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ; I r v i n v . Dowd, 366 U.S. 7 1 7 , 81 S. C t . 1 6 3 9 , 6 L . E d . 2 d 7 5 1 (1961). The p r e s u m p t i v e prejudice standard i s 'rarely' applicable, and i s reserved f o r only ' e x t r e m e s i t u a t i o n s ' . C o l e m a n v . Kemp, 778 F . 2 d a t 1537. 'In f a c t , our research has uncovered only a v e r y f e w ... c a s e s i n w h i c h r e l i e f was g r a n t e d o n the b a s i s o f presumed p r e j u d i c e . ' C o l e m a n v . Kemp, 778 F . 2 d a t 1 4 9 0 . "Hunt had the burden of showing that 'prejudicial pretrial publicity' saturated the community. Sheppard, supra. '[T]he burden p l a c e d upon t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o show t h a t p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y d e p r i v e d h i m o f h i s r i g h t t o a f a i r t r i a l b e f o r e an i m p a r t i a l j u r y i s an e x t r e m e l y heavy one.' Coleman v . Kemp, 778 F . 2 d a t 1 5 3 7 . ' P r e j u d i c i a l ' p u b l i c i t y u s u a l l y m u s t c o n s i s t o f much more t h a n s t a t i n g t h e charge, and o f reportage o f t h e p r e t r i a l and t r i a l processes. ' P u b l i c i t y ' and 'prejudice' a r e not t h e same t h i n g . E x c e s s p u b l i c i t y d o e s n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y or necessarily mean that the publicity was prejudicial. II "... I n o r d e r t o meet t h e b u r d e n o f s h o w i n g t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r a change o f venue due t o p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y on t h e g r o u n d s o f c o m m u n i t y s a t u r a t i o n , 'the a p p e l l a n t m u s t show more t h a n t h e f a c t " t h a t a case generates even widespread p u b l i c i t y . " ' Oryang v . S t a t e , 642 S o . 2 d 9 7 9 , 983 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) , quoting, Thompson v . S t a t e , 581 So. 2d 1216, 1233 (Ala. C r . App. 1991), cert. denied, [ 5 0 2 ] U.S. [ 1 0 3 0 ] , 112 S. C t . 8 6 8 , 1 1 6 L. E d . 2 d 774 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . "'"Newspaper articles alone would not n e c e s s i t a t e a c h a n g e i n v e n u e u n l e s s i t was shown t h a t t h e a r t i c l e s s o a f f e c t e d t h e general c i t i z e n r y through the i n s e r t i o n of such sensational, accusational or denunciatory statements, that a f a i r and 72 CR-05-1767 i m p a r t i a l t r i a l was i m p o s s i b l e . P a t t o n v . State, 246 Ala. 639, 21 So. 2d 844 [1945]."' " T h o m p s o n , 581 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 3 3 , q u o t i n g M c L a r e n v . S t a t e , 353 S o . 2 d 2 4 , 31 ( A l a . Cr. App.), cert. d e n i e d , 353 S o . 2 d 35 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) . "A r e v i e w o f t h e m e d i a c o v e r a g e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f p r i n t m e d i a c o v e r a g e was r e a s o n a b l y f a c t u a l a n d m o r e or l e s s o b j e c t i v e . We f i n d t h a t t h e r e p o r t a g e b y t h e news m e d i a d i d n o t r e s u l t i n t h e c o m m u n i t y b e i n g so 'pervasively saturated' with prejudicial publicity so as t o make t h e court proceedings n o t h i n g more t h a n a ' h o l l o w f o r m a l i t y . ' Rideau, supra." Hunt, 642 So. prejudice 2d under at 1043-44. this "To standard, justify the publicity e x t e n s i v e and s e n s a t i o n a l i n n a t u r e . factual as opposed u n d e r m i n e s any States support argued only previously against record 1169, of h i s motion about the media before or sensational, of p r e j u d i c e . " 1181 of veniremembers one or both d i d not present any argument materials about us, we cannot the conclude 73 both is this United (1st C i r . 1990). about He be f o r a change of venue, number l e a r n e d something him. the inflammatory F.2d must of I f the media coverage f o r a presumption v . A n g i u l o , 897 In about claim to a presumption cases. that of who the or had cases evidence Based media Billups on the materials CR-05-1767 contained prejudicial inflamed or emotional saturated tide against support a conclusion so one information t h e community him. that p r e t r i a l of p r e j u d i c e We must prejudiced "extreme because also against "The follows: that so Therefore, inherently or presumptively of those or media that publicity i n this does n o t c a s e was publicity. whether the jury was actually Billups. 'actual prejudice' "Coleman v. Zant, standard 708 F . 2 d a t 5 4 4 . " 642 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 4 3 . 74 an a presumption i s defined "'To find the existence of actual p r e j u d i c e , two b a s i c p r e r e q u i s i t e s must be satisfied. F i r s t , i t must be shown t h a t one o r m o r e j u r o r s who d e c i d e d t h e case e n t e r t a i n e d an o p i n i o n , b e f o r e h e a r i n g t h e evidence adduced at trial, that the d e f e n d a n t was g u i l t y . I r v i n v . Dowd, 3 6 6 U.S. [ 7 1 7 , ] 7 2 7 , 81 S. C t . [ 1 6 3 9 , ] 1 6 4 5 , [6 L. E d . 2 d 7 5 1 , 7 5 8 - 5 9 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ] . Second, t h e s e j u r o r s , i t must be d e t e r m i n e d , c o u l d not have laid aside these preformed o p i n i o n s a n d " r e n d e r [ e d ] a v e r d i c t b a s e d on the evidence presented i n c o u r t . " I r v i n v. Dowd, 3 6 6 U.S. a t 7 2 3 , 81 S. C t . a t 1 6 4 3 [6 L. E d . 2 d a t 7 5 6 ] . ' Hunt, was as t o c o n s t i t u t e s i t u a t i o n s " that warrant determine there the record prejudicial of p r e t r i a l attention as CR-05-1767 "Furthermore, i n order f o r a defendant to show prejudice, the '"proper manner for ascertaining whether adverse publicity may have biased the prospective jurors is through the voir dire examination." A n d e r s o n v . S t a t e , 362 S o . 2 d 1296, 1299 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 8 ) . ' Ex p a r t e G r a y s o n , 479 S o . 2 d 7 6 , 80 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 474 U.S. 8 6 5 , 106 S. C t . 1 8 9 , 88 L. E d . 2 d 157 (1985)." O r y a n g v. State, Billups actually the 642 has So. not 2d shown p r e j u d i c e d him. parties 979, individually 983 that During about the cases heard, read, i n v o l v i n g him. voir each dire publicity proceedings, veniremember t o the media and/or about knowledge Many o f t h e v e n i r e m e m b e r s However, v e r y few i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t be fair on that and the f o r cause. The on t h e y c o u l d s e t a s i d e any the one remaining p r e v i o u s l y o b t a i n e d about solely about information, veniremembers indicated knew s o m e t h i n g had the cases. that or pretrial 1993). of those seen App. or both based or any the questioned and e x t e n s i v e l y c o v e r e d e x p o s u r e (Ala. Crim. the cases evidence trial court excused veniremembers information they a n d make a d e c i s i o n presented during the based trial. A c c o r d i n g l y , B i l l u p s has n o t shown t h a t any o f t h e j u r o r s actually prejudiced against For these discretion reasons, the had were him. trial court i n denying B i l l u p s ' s motion 75 did not abuse i t s f o r a change of venue. CR-05-1767 XI. Finally, pursuant t o § 13A-5-53, A l a . Code sentence of death. capital course murder record imposed 53(b)(1), The or any outweighed four the f o r and the convicted of during the murder § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code reflect that of the arbitrary the sentence influence factor. 1975. of of death passion, See see § been involving § § I t found to committed the c a p i t a l while accomplice i n the or flight was convicted another of or t h r e a t Ala. 13A-5- Code o f , o r an capital the Billups sentence 2) of Billups offense or to the person 3) Billups 1975; engaged i n or attempt to c o m m i t t i n g or a t t e m p t i n g t o commit, 76 that 1) 1975; of v i o l e n c e o f f e n s e s w h i l e he was commission -- under A l a . Code 13A-5-49(2), an he 13A-5-49(1), the use pursuant after circumstances. aggravating circumstances offense previously felony and 1975. the m i t i g a t i n g proved are court found that the aggravating circumstances imprisonment, had other indicted committed result A l a . Code trial committed not the was he See does as prejudice, State because of a robbery. The was Billups we conviction r e q u i r e d to address the p r o p r i e t y of B i l l u p s ' s 1975, was commit, robbery, CR-05-1767 see §13A-5-49(4), A l a . was one of Billups, found a see series Code 1975; of intentional §13A-5-4 9 ( 1 0 ) , that there were circumstances in findings nonstatutory as to this and 4) the killings Ala. Code 1975. not any case. It made offense committed The trial statutory also mitigating capital the following "1. Testimony t h a t the Defendant's brother f r e q u e n t l y b e a t h i m up a s a c h i l d i s r e g a r d e d a s a very minor m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r . T h i s does not weigh h e a v i l y i n the Court's c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e as t o t h e e x t e n t o f t h e ' b e a t i n g s ' o r any i n j u r y t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t may have been suffered d u r i n g the i n c i d e n t s i n q u e s t i o n . This c o u l d have been normal c h i l d h o o d i n c i d e n t s between s i b l i n g s . "2. T h e r e was a l s o t e s t i m o n y t h a t a b o y f r i e n d o f t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s m o t h e r h i t t h e D e f e n d a n t w i t h an e x t e n s i o n c o r d on a f e w o c c a s i o n s . The C o u r t d o e s n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s t o be a m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e since h i s mother i n d i c a t e d t h a t he stopped the b e a t i n g i m m e d i a t e l y a n d t h a t i t was n o t a c o n t i n u i n g problem. The mother i n d i c a t e d t h a t the man in q u e s t i o n a c t u a l l y s e r v e d as a s t a b l e f a t h e r f i g u r e f o r the Defendant d u r i n g h i s childhood. the The "4. T h e r e was a l s o t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t was h i t w i t h a b r i c k and knocked out d u r i n g his childhood. A l t h o u g h t h e r e was t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h i s may h a v e r e s u l t e d i n s e i z u r e s b y t h e D e f e n d a n t , t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he g r e w o u t o f t h i s . T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e o r t e s t i m o n y t o s h o w t h a t t h i s a f f e c t e d t h e D e f e n d a n t i n a n y a d v e r s e way for any 77 court mitigating circumstances: "3. There was also testimony that Defendant's father died during h i s childhood. Court finds that t h i s i s a m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r . by CR-05-1767 extended p e r i o d of time. Therefore, this be r e g a r d e d a s a m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r . should not "5. The s t r o n g e s t f a c t o r i n m i t i g a t i o n f o r Defendant i s the j u r y ' s recommendation by a 7 t o 5 v o t e f o r L i f e W i t h o u t The P o s s i b i l i t y o f P a r o l e . The Court weighs t h i s recommendation s t r o n g l y i n favor o f the Defendant, b u t weight given t h i s f a c t o r by t h e C o u r t i s n o t as g r e a t as i f a unanimous recommendation f o r L i f e Without P a r o l e had been made." (C.R. 32-33.) weighed the The s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r shows t h a t t h e t r i a l aggravating and mitigating c o r r e c t l y sentenced B i l l u p s t o death. decision, a n d we a g r e e Section weigh death. mitigating and t o determine After and The r e c o r d s u p p o r t s i t s A l a . Code aggravating independently circumstances with i t s findings. 13A-5-53(b)(2), the court 1975, r e q u i r e s us t o mitigating the propriety independently c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we weighing find circumstances of the sentence the aggravating that the death of and sentence i s appropriate. As r e q u i r e d by § 13A-5-53(b)(3), determine excessive cases. robbery. whether when Billups the compared committed Similar sentence A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , we was to the penalty t h e murder crimes are 78 disproportionate imposed i n punished by or similar during the course being must of a death CR-05-1767 throughout (Ala. this Crim. state. App. 1995), Brooks v. S t a t e , 695 S o . 2 d 184 C r i m . App. v. State, was ( A l a . 1987). neither (Ala. Finally, Crim. T h e r e f o r e , we disproportionate So. 2d 1100 ( A l a . 1997); ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1996), a f f ' d , a f f ' d , 695 S o . 2 d 138 S o . 2 d 554 698 698 So. 2 d 1150 ( A l a . 1997); Bush v. S t a t e , 510 2 d 574 aff'd, 695 S o . 2 d 176 1995), So. See Gaddy v . S t a t e , nor 695 S o . 2 d 70 ( A l a . (Ala. App. find 1997); 1986), that Peoples aff'd, 510 the sentence excessive. we h a v e s e a r c h e d t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d f o r any e r r o r t h a t may h a v e a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d B i l l u p s ' s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s , a n d we have n o t found any. Accordingly, we See R u l e affirm 45A, A l a . R. A p p . Billups's convictions P. and sentences. AFFIRMED. Windom a n d M a i n , result. Welch, WELCH, J u d g e , I Irvin the agree J J . , concur. J., dissents, Kellum, J . , concurs i n the with opinion. dissenting. with v. S t a t e , the majority 940 S o . 2 d 331 r e s o l u t i o n of the f i r s t that ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005), issue 79 the p r i n c i p l e s quoted i n -- whether the t r i a l govern court CR-05-1767 erred i n admitting evidence, Evid., about the murders killed days after pursuant of Stevon the The record reason in the evidence this case was created; acts in Billups's this trial for murders to inadmissible from the the issue death and decision-making was murdered. a for four however. murder evidence of B i l l u p s ' s had process an in example of irreversible this as permitted a trial well. The jurors' minds responsibility impact case. the collateral purposes, d i v e r t e d the criminal of Lockett men of collateral-act evidence Hispanic were principles, prohibiting the who R. disagree textbook extensive men Ala. I f o r a l l i n t e n t s and collateral main Lockett's trial become, of rule the Hispanic of those presents exclusionary 404(b), four Lockett w i t h the m a j o r i t y ' s a p p l i c a t i o n to Rule on the for jury's Therefore, I must presented in this dissent. Although case might rule, the evidence its the have f i t w i t h i n an a n a l y s i s does not was not r e a s o n a b l y prejudicial might collateral-act have had. effect The evidence exception end with necessary court 80 the exclusionary that determination. f a r outweighed trial to The to the S t a t e ' s case, any probative committed value reversible and i t error CR-05-1767 when i t admitted entitled The Rule Billups been the rule i s t o be b a s e d which i s trial. i s One o f E x c l u s i o n . long has innocence with evidence. t o a r e v e r s a l o f h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d t o a new General It the c o l l a t e r a l - a c t he that a defendant's on e v i d e n c e relevant i s c u r r e n t l y charged. guilt to the Collateral or crime evidence i s generally forbidden, a n d t h a t r u l e o f e x c l u s i o n i s p r e m i s e d on the not-at-all novel concept the majority opinion that protect the defendant's prejudicial any admitting the evidence. 668 right includes probative i n the I r v i n the exclusionary to a e f f e c t of prior-crime outweigh also noted value fair that might The q u o t a t i o n a citation t o Ex p a r t e rule trial evidence quotation i n serves because is likely be Arthur, the prior-crimes impact upon Gamble, 1977).) might t h e minds McElroy's The decide "'has almost of the j u r o r s . ' " Alabama dangerous that evidence Evidence impact, because an (Quoting opinion recognized irreversible Charles 69.01(1) of course, a defendant 81 § from 472 S o . 2 d 6 6 5 , ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , i n w h i c h t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t that the to f a r gained i n the majority to (3rd ed. i s that committed W. the jury some other, CR-05-1767 similar he crime, i s then on he m u s t a l s o h a v e c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e trial. Exceptions just to that the might to the rule -- e x c e p t i o n s . general evidence of be criteria, f o r which rule prior allowed which of crimes i f the are also of exclusion e x i s t , The logical exclusion that would evidence quoted but they i n t e n t o f an is that, generally meets on exception occasion, be excluded certain specific i n the majority's Furthermore, the extensive quotation i n the majority's included the f o l l o w i n g s i g n i f i c a n t are opinion. opinion point: "'"However, t h e f a c t t h a t e v i d e n c e of a p r i o r bad a c t may f i t i n t o one o f t h e s e e x c e p t i o n s w i l l n o t alone justify i t s admission. '"Judicial inquiry does n o t end w i t h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e of another crime i s r e l e v a n t and p r o b a t i v e o f a necessary element of the charged offense. I t does not s u f f i c e s i m p l y t o see i f the evidence i s capable o f b e i n g f i t t e d w i t h i n an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r u l e . Rather, a balancing test must be applied. The e v i d e n c e o f a n o t h e r s i m i l a r c r i m e must n o t o n l y be r e l e v a n t , i t must a l s o be r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a r y t o t h e g o v e r n m e n t ' s c a s e , a n d i t m u s t be p l a i n , c l e a r , and c o n c l u s i v e , b e f o r e i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e w i l l be held to outweigh i t s potential prejudicial effects."' A v e r e t t e v . S t a t e , 469 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 1 , 1374 (Ala. C r . App. 1985), quoting United States v. Turquitt, [557 F.2d 464,] 468-69 [(5th C i r . 1977)]."'" So. 3d a t (quoting Irvin 82 v. S t a t e , 940 S o . 2 d 3 3 1 , 346 CR-05-1767 (Ala. So. C r i m . App. 2d 343, As light the 2005), quoting 347 (Ala. Crim. discussed of the App. that the a complete the e x t e n s i v e trial State, 528 1986)). analysis of court erred facts in inescapably r e l e v a n t l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s l e a d s me conclusion admitted below, i n t u r n R o b i n s o n v. the to t o r e v e r s a l when i t c o l l a t e r a l evidence about the quadruple murder. Purported The the Purposes for Admission of the Testimony. m a j o r i t y concludes t h a t evidence about the four motive, Hispanic and plan exclusionary males or rule. was admissible pattern However, the under exceptions trial court in did similar. i t s brief the solely (R. to State to 11-12.) this ever prove I also Court, the suggest intent. find State i t was The State intent, the general appeared to t h a t the asserts, "At offered this evidence killer." of the (State's brief, The evidence identity. was Although 18, in the n. 14.) no way admissible evidence 83 may point evidence identity murders no this and quadruple crimes offering to prove p l a n , motive, p. admit i t interesting that, primarily at of the to t h e e v i d e n c e b a s e d s o l e l y on i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n were killing have to of the plan or relevant to prove been CR-05-1767 show motive, this dissent, prove motive outweighed not f o r reasons The the evidence value i t s admission State permission was filed to no p u r p o s e when t h e t r i a l court into evidence the of necessary to of the evidence so considered exception d i d evidence. motion of seeking the the quadruple The S t a t e court's homicide at that time of the evidence, f o r the admission e v i d e n c e was a d m i s s i b l e part the motive p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. E v i d . declared subsequent impact that a pretrial admit in a not reasonably and t h e p r e j u d i c i a l i t s probative justify discussed but the issue i t stated " j u s t b a s e d upon t h e c l o s e that the proximity, f a c t t h a t t h e same w e a p o n was u s e d , a n d t h e f a c t t h a t are very similar." substantial the (R. 11.) The State devoted of the four v i c t i m s . and i t even displayed During the t r i a l , the court asked the State, "Under 4 0 4 ( b ) , what a r e t h e p a r t i c u l a r that i s looking the prosecutors State replied, at?" (R. 453.) the s i m i l a r motive: One things of the " W e l l , w e ' r e l o o k i n g a t t h e same o f d e a t h : m u l t i p l e g u n s h o t wounds t o t h e h e a d . at a p o r t i o n o f i t s opening argument t o i t s v e r s i o n o f f a c t s i n the quadruple-murder case, photographs then they to steal 84 drugs. We're cause We're looking looking at the CR-05-1767 same g u n u s e d multiple that i n both crimes. similarities." the State I mean, (R. 4 5 3 - 5 4 . ) d i d not argue that i t ' s multiple things, I t i s important to note evidence m u r d e r s was r e l e v a n t t o show o p p o r t u n i t y , knowledge, or absence of mistake testimony of Charles Billups's who testified Cooper, that j u r y that Cooper's testimony be the considered only an Stevon I Lockett's disagree offenses novel death." with the t r i a l murder exclusionary During the accomplice of participated i n the court instructed the believed absence intent, i t was or could "relevant to preparation, of mistake plan, accident in (R. 7 9 2 . ) the majority's were so s i m i l a r and p e c u l i a r quadruple or preparation, about the quadruple murders i f the jury identity, alleged had issues of motive, opportunity, knowledge, intent, or accident. he quadruple murders w i t h B i l l u p s , of the quadruple that manner, they thus admissible conclusion that t h e two w e r e c o m m i t t e d i n t h e same making as an evidence exception about to rule. "'[T]he plan, scheme, o r d e s i g n exception i s an extension of the i d e n t i t y exception -- w h e r e t h e charged crime and t h e c o l l a t e r a l crime a r e committed i n t h e same n o v e l o r p e c u l i a r m a n n e r , e v i d e n c e o f the c o l l a t e r a l crime i s a d m i s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y the d e f e n d a n t as t h e p e r p e t r a t o r o f t h e c h a r g e d c r i m e . ' 85 the the CR-05-1767 R e g i s t e r v . S t a t e , 640 So. 2d 3, 6 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1993). See a l s o E x p a r t e D a r b y , 516 So. 2d 7 8 6 , 789 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ( t h e common s c h e m e o r p l a n e x c e p t i o n h a s b e e n h e l d t o be 'coextensive w i t h the identity exception'). The c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c h a r g e d c r i m e and t h e c o l l a t e r a l c r i m e must ' e x h i b i t s u c h a g r e a t degree of s i m i l a r i t y t h a t anyone v i e w i n g the two o f f e n s e s w o u l d n a t u r a l l y assume them t o have been c o m m i t t e d b y t h e same p e r s o n . ' B r e w e r v . S t a t e , 440 So. 2 d 1 1 5 5 , 1161 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1983)." McClain v. , [Ms. CR-07-1585, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 06-1609, 2009), -- State, November this Court requiring 13, 2009). 2009] June So. 3d that by the distinguished evidence under of the a two robbery c r i m e be After crimes, had r e v i e w i n g the this been Court admitted e x c e p t i o n i n Moore's trial The times o f s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e s e two L o c k e t t , an e x p e r i e n c e d d r u g in the head and once CRApp. under similar factors held in 86 the that erroneously on charges and a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r , n o t i n g t h a t t h e y had i n a novel or p e c u l i a r great. admitted c r i m e s a r e so committed degree [Ms. 3d n a t u r a l l y assume t h a t t h e y were person. the prior identity burglary-murder been same State, (Ala. Crim. t h e i d e n t i t y e x c e p t i o n o n l y when t h e two committed So. the f o r e g o i n g p r i n c i p l e s of a p r i o r t h a t anyone v i e w i n g them w o u l d 2009] In Moore v. again acknowledged that evidence 26, of not manner. dealer, back c r i m e s was was shot while he not several was at CR-05-1767 Billups's with residence Billups, attack who own set afire, told the police blood presumably where the shooting Billups also on the morning with testified that gave Lockett was Lockett after he h a d p u r c h a s e d the cocaine had been a g e n t " a n d t h a t he h a d t o l d L o c k e t t Billups. Cooper Billups testified Billups told marijuana, Lockett. not like and Cooper refunded that him Cooper after cocaine that some he time took said that Lockett. 87 from and on h i s h a n d s two bags killed. Lockett with a had a Cooper "cutting t o g e t h i s money b a c k after a money, pistol, ounces Billups Cooper Lockett was eight of told from said. killed, pounds cocaine him that of Cooper Billups. diluted Lockett's four-and-one-half also were occurred, had blood he h a d met t e s t i f i e d that problem and v e h i c l e cleaning when marijuana the scene i n and h i s g i r l f r i e n d were h i s kitchen Billups. was Cooper that Billups saw body the evidence. Cooper t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l he t o Cooper, the from body to destroy transaction Lockett's and removed and L o c k e t t ' s that B i l l u p s from According spontaneous. basement vehicle, then the had been to Billups's Lockett's i n another drug was h i s f r i e n d . by B i l l u p s dragged participating of from he d i d CR-05-1767 The d e t a i l s Two Hispanic of the c o l l a t e r a l men, Pablo B i l l u p s ' s residence at Billups's guns, with a n d Osman to purchase i l l e g a l residence, assaulted duct Stuart including and t h r e a t e n e d tape. crime are v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t . Valladres drugs. Billups t h e men, was Valladres, forced went t o Several people and Cooper, then drew restrained to telephone them other men t o e n c o u r a g e them t o b r i n g d r u g s t o h i s a p a r t m e n t , and B i l l u p s and h i s confederates dealers the quantity the men not lured were four then of drugs, those i n the apartment; attempt to indicating victims them. that dealers men the The c i r c u m s t a n c e s and they Stuart with a and large shot and k i l l e d , and them were s t o l e n . The b o d i e s were or k i l l e r s murders. had any There animus surrounding certainly The d i f f e r e n c e s four apartment, arrived were the k i l l e r Billups residence. to Valladres's four The d i d nothing was no toward any between 88 the shootings do n o t e s t a b l i s h a t h e two c r i m e s to evidence o r t h a t he h a d h a d a n y p r i o r d i s a g r e e m e n t s w i t h similar, crime. conceal to Billups's drug Hispanic to rob the drug residence. taken drugs they brought with left all were Valladres when plans when t h e y a r r i v e d a t V a l l a d r e s ' s Hispanic and allegedly discussed of the any o f are not at signature a r e f a r more CR-05-1767 evident than dealers are were shot unfortunately, The the similarities. and neither majority killed unique notes that That during young male drug drug deal i s , a or p e c u l i a r today. a l l the victims were shot i n the h e a d , b u t t h e f o r e n s i c p a t h o l o g i s t who c o n d u c t e d t h e autopsies of numerous a l lthe victims other gunshot was wounds also shot testified that that as w e l l i n the back, i t appeared the Hispanic the back the chest, sustained and the w r i s t . i s considered location that these in light and crimes were novel were indicating majority that the shot forensic was t h e same still that sustained. i n t h e head on t h i s also "there at both when i n their and neck, t h e arm, victims regarding when the Thus, t h e f a c t fails of the ground, that g u n was u s e d 89 shot remarkable of a l l the evidence states alive a l lthe i s less and p e c u l i a r ; a d m i s s i o n also pathologist i n the face fact t o the head shot Lockett the h i p , the thigh, The was n o t s u s t a i n a b l e The sustained t o the head. Lockett o f t h e wounds t h e v i c t i m s the victims evidence as s h o t s the back, g u n s h o t wounds they In addition to being victims of shoulder, that that w o u n d was i n f l i c t e d . heads, it testified t o make collateral either. was evidence crime scenes." CR-05-1767 So. that To t h e e x t e n t the record. that men. found bullets further attorney recovered from connection between lake. testimony No casings a l lthe b u l l e t s but testimony a l l the b u l l e t s into the bodies casing found established only Those of a shell shell casings the victims' alleged i n a lake, shell lake. Billups No and t h e gun established when frankly admitted told his recovered the came testimony Testimony Cooper and a d i v e r casings from the established recovered o r how from either at the crime to the t r i a l gun any the of the scenes. court: "The o n l y t h i n g t h a t c o n n e c t s t h e t w o s c e n e s a s f a r as guns o r b a l l i s t i c s o r a n y t h i n g a r e t h o s e two s h e l l c a s i n g s and t h a t gun f r o m t h e l a k e . Those two s h e l l c a s i n g s match t h e gun f r o m t h e l a k e . So t h e 90 was d i d not match bodies. accomplice came t o b e d e p o s i t e d the prosecutors established shell matching the into that a about a handgun The of fired The S t a t e that weapon. fatal shooting any established imply The g u n i n t h e q u a d r u p l e apartment. from to the same g u n f i r e d a t B i l l u p s ' s house matched at V a l l a d r e s ' s intends i m p l i c a t i o n i s not supported b o d y was n e v e r r e c o v e r e d , also never recovered. shell this The w e a p o n t h a t the Hispanic the that a d i f f e r e n t weapon f i r e d casing the majority established at both crime scenes, Lockett's of . the evidence shots by 3d One CR-05-1767 s i g n i f i c a n c e i s i t corroborates the testimony i n the [quadruple-murder] c a s e t h a t t h e r e was one s h o o t e r o r p r e d o m i n a n t l y one s h o o t e r . T h e r e w e r e 1 1 s h e l l c a s i n g s from the [quadruple-murder] scene t h a t a l l m a t c h e d a n d one t h a t d i d n ' t . The w i t n e s s e s said that everything at the [quadruple-murder] scene p o i n t e d t o p r e d o m i n a n t l y one s h o o t e r o t h e r t h a n t h a t one s h e l l c a s i n g . " (R. 489.) The majority's conclusion that crime scenes novel and majority's Hurley Court that v. established peculiar way that the crimes i s not conclusion i s also State, 971 e x p l a i n e d what So. the s i m i l a r i t i e s supported were committed by evidence. not supported by ( A l a .Crim. App. 2006), in a The the law. 2 d 78 t h e p r o s e c u t i o n must p r o v e the identity/common i n the to p l a n e x c e p t i o n s h o u l d be this establish applied: "'Much more i s demanded than t h e mere repeated commission o f c r i m e s o f t h e same c l a s s , s u c h as repeated ... rapes. The pattern and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e c r i m e s m u s t be s o u n u s u a l a n d d i s t i n c t i v e as t o be l i k e a s i g n a t u r e . ' 1 McCormick on Evidence § 190 at 801-03 (4th ed. 1992) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . S e e , e . g . , E x p a r t e B a k e r , 780 So. 2 d 6 7 7 , 6 7 9 - 8 0 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; B i g h a m e s v . S t a t e , 440 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 3 3 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) . "There are s i m i l a r i t i e s between the p r e s e n t charge and t h e c o l l a t e r a l o f f e n s e : i . e . , H u r l e y by a p p e a r i n g t o be a ' n i c e g u y ' and a 'gentlemen,' g a i n e d t h e t r u s t o f t h e v i c t i m s ; b o t h v i c t i m s were young; and both victims were raped. These s i m i l a r i t i e s , s t a n d i n g a l o n e , h o w e v e r , do n o t show a common s c h e m e o r p l a n , s o t h a t a n y o n e v i e w i n g t h e 91 In CR-05-1767 o f f e n s e s w o u l d s a y t h a t t h e now c h a r g e d c o m m i t t e d i n t h e same n o v e l o r p e c u l i a r the p r e v i o u s crime." 971 So. 2d a t 83. Considering the a l l the circumstances collateral person the viewing same Lockett's These t h e two took from Lockett's peculiar way crimes. The toward proving crime a naturally as both to that test illegal and reasonable assume that collateral-act that Billups make body drugs, had to destroy committed evidence in Reasonable Necessity evidence quoted such by a n d Undue the majority, of another be applied 92 to novel or quadruple scheme, rule. crime must to the exclusionary rule, must a the and evidence. o r common p l a n , to the exclusionary State, truck, the regarding he transported i n Lockett's under the i d e n t i t y Test: v. Lockett's not an e x c e p t i o n balancing that would both and were Irvin recognized believe h i s residence exceptions The B a l a n c i n g within offenses truck murders a d m i s s i b l e design not of charged o r s c h e m e a n d t h a t he e x e c u t e d t h a t p l a n when body crimes In do committed Lockett, burned I contributed nothing a common p l a n killed crime, person evidence or c r i m e was manner as Prejudice. this Court not only f i t but also that determine whether a the CR-05-1767 evidence is whether its prejudicial reasonably necessary probative effects. to value For the reasons of the quadruple m u r d e r s was to the State's and outweighed by its i t s prejudicial State's outweighs evidence case, the case its potential explained below, not r e a s o n a b l y probative effects. A the collateral-act The State's evidence evidence against shooting was substantial. indicated that Lockett several times before was value was balancing Billups Billups Lockett left Billups Cooper testified cleaning the that day had blood after he testified had money a n d that from that that to he the Lockett had conversation previously had in the Lockett telephone spoken his residence kitchen was kill Lockett h i s drugs, had and in Billups floor killed, Billups he engaged saw records by telephone to complete that night he told 93 Lockett his Cooper Lockett girlfriend residence Billups before. again and a transactions. of B i l l u p s ' s and the drug and acknowledged killed of a l l conclusion drug t r a n s a c t i o n . Lockett's g i r l f r i e n d t e s t i f i e d that and far inadmissible. Cellular and the necessary the r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s i n t h i s case leads o n l y to the that and had t h a t he in told him Cooper another stolen d i d not his like CR-05-1767 Lockett. with bloodstains stairs was Lockett's DNA in the t h a t l e d from the found i n B i l l u p s ' s Lockett's motive shooter and therefore, establish not any the similar about the the motive, in indicating did not need for the was no there if, even as the d r u g s and real the was murders and the of the Lockett's gun of B i l l u p s as doubt, nor to the was his murders quadruple was, State's to hold admissible was common two evidence relevant plan crimes case that to the to about shot intent, As I murder and prove the evidence to the State's motive and intent, Billups's Lockett, have or p e c u l i a r collateral As was evidence prove motive or r o b b e d him burned h i s body i n h i s v e h i c l e . 94 i t that scheme. exception. order a l l e g e d , he to Lockett's so evidence because committed i n a novel that in or -- crime, question money, a n d bottom identity appeared murders f i t within State any of court a signature real The necessary q u a d r u p l e m u r d e r s -- w e r e n o t way the murder, the m a j o r i t y holds quadruple above, at along issues. trial identity, discussed not those to L o c k e t t ' s and house, k i t c h e n to the garage. Evidence quadruple in Billups's kitchen reasonably of found residence. was intent. Although about was intent of his Evidence CR-05-1767 that Billups necessary Lockett, to robbed to and murdered establish Billups's and t h e e v i d e n c e Jackson, (Ala. within f o r that of Jackson's even purpose, i f we to See Ex So. 3d to conclude somehow t h e S t a t e has not was r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a r y to addition quadruple murders the was fact State presented that unnecessary e v i d e n c e was o v e r w h e l m i n g l y , that fell such the quadruple-murder demonstrated to i t s case."). the evidence about the to the State's case, the and u n d u l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o B i l l u p s . substantial case, evidence beginning and victims, crimes i n this trial. j u r y c o u l d have e x c l u d e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n evidence of the four t h a t t h e r e c o r d r e a d s a l m o s t as i f B i l l u p s were b e i n g f o r both detailed argument i n i t s opening a r g u m e n t t o t h e j u r y when i t d i s p l a y e d p h o t o g r a p h s tried as o n e o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s i n R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. E v i d . , t o the evidence about intent either. were In The or capital-murder conviction the g e n e r a l e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e , that motive d e a l e r s was n o t [Ms. 1 0 8 0 3 9 0 , A u g . 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 ] 20 0 9 ) ( " F i n a l l y , evidence drug was n o t a d m i s s i b l e a s a n e x c e p t i o n the exclusionary rule parte other collateral and t h e r e evidence was a as was no way t h e o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n t and impermissible substantial 95 There danger that character the jury CR-05-1767 would have made collateral killer an impermissible evidence, that Billups s o he p r o b a b l y k i l l e d to hear the c o l l a t e r a l probative of admissible was Lockett, based a depraved on the massacring too. Allowing the jury e v i d e n c e was f a r m o r e p r e j u d i c i a l find, State, 1974), 53 as t h i s A l a . App. "Without prejudicial, issues Court majority previously 3 7 1 , 300 question, adding the So. stated 2d 414 increments of 300 S o . 2 d a t 4 1 5 , q u o t e d ( A l a . 2004), 811, 817 quoted (Ala. Crim. App. light of a l l the relevant court abused State to present v. App. guilt to the 53 A l a . A p p . a t 3 7 3 , Casey, 889 S o . 2 d 6 1 5 , 910 S o . 2 d 2005). on a r e v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n legal principles, that the trial i t s s u b s t a n t i a l d i s c r e t i o n when i t p e r m i t t e d t h e evidence of the quadruple I n s t r u c t i o n s Were A l s o Although reversed was t e s t i m o n y was i n t u r n i n Osborn v. S t a t e , I can only conclude, based The J u r y ( A l a .Crim. unrelated i n Ex p a r t e i t i n Stephens the admission of t h i s w e i g h i n g pans o f t h e s c a l e s o f j u s t i c e . " 620 contends than to prove. I the inference, based I believe that Faulty. Billups's on t h e i m p r o p e r 96 murders. conviction admission should be of the s u b s t a n t i a l CR-05-1767 and am unduly prejudicial compelled to note, instructions to evidence the actually exacerbated evidence. First, trial c o u r t , the details of evidence trial. any the Second, quadruple additionally, jury without caused any a case just p r e s e n t e d by given accomplice C h a r l e s Cooper t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d p l e a d e d g u i l t y men a and t h a t he was sentence began life testifying kidnapping the of jury and as "You're incident t h a t Mr. case. court's that i t of the from the argument the presented to prove evidence about State at t r i a l to the they of instruction the at the without jury. Third, f o r t h e S t a t e and admitted against Billups imprisonment quadruple and I to the murders of the f o u r H i s p a n i c testifying about trial i t planned the crime, the admission as amount being the i n i t s opening that significant instruction by limiting murders, Lockett that inadequate State presented m u r d e r s was limiting were the e r r o r quadruple in about the c o l l a t e r a l his and i n that Billups's murders, the i n exchange f o r case. After involvement trial court Cooper in instructed follows: hearing testimony today about another t h a t a l l e g e d l y o c c u r r e d , n o t t h e same one B i l l u p s i s a c t u a l l y charged with i n t h i s 97 the CR-05-1767 "The l a w i s c l e a r t h a t e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r c r i m e s , wrongs, or a c t s i s not admissible to prove the c h a r a c t e r o f a p e r s o n i n o r d e r t o show a c t i o n a n d conformity therewith. In o t h e r words, e v i d e n c e of other crimes a l l e g e d l y c o m m i t t e d by t h e defendant c a n n o t be u s e d t o show b a d c h a r a c t e r . "The evidence being presented regarding other a c t s a l l e g e d l y c o m m i t t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t can be considered by you only for the purpose of determining either 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 m i s t a k e or a c c i d e n t . I'm g o i n g t o r e p e a t those for you. But i f you t h i n k t h e e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e other case i s r e l e v a n t to the i s s u e s of motive, o p p o r t u n i t y , i n t e n t , p r e p a r a t i o n , p l a n , knowledge, identity, or absence of m i s t a k e or accident in S t e v o n L o c k e t t ' s d e a t h , t h e n you can c o n s i d e r this evidence. But i t c a n n o t be u s e d b y y o u for any other purpose; a l l r i g h t ? " (R. 791-92.)(Emphasis the conclusion of a l l the instructed the jury considered as to preparation, plan, or added.) that issues In i t s charge evidence, the the motive, trial collateral of to the jury court evidence at again could be opportunity, or absence of knowledge, i d e n t i t y , intent, mistake accident. Thus, a l t h o u g h trial court instructions did t h e m a j o r i t y has issue were wrong accepted the State's instruct the jury as "limiting" a matter invitation that correctly i t could 98 at stated that instructions, of those law. The trial trial (R. 779-80) use the the court to collateral-act CR-05-1767 evidence though for f o r any o f t h e r e a s o n s the State never argued most of evidence those about exceptions listed 404(b), even t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was a d m i s s i b l e purposes. the i n Rule The never argued that murders quadruple State fell within the i n the exclusionary rule f o r evidence related to o p p o r t u n i t y , p r e p a r a t i o n , knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident. Thus, the t r i a l instructions, greatly evidence the quadruple about erroneous illegal enhanced instructions evidence court, by issuing the i t s erroneous prejudice caused when m u r d e r s was a d m i t t e d b e c a u s e t h e permitted the jury to consider the f o r many i s s u e s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e f o r w h i c h i t was p u r p o r t e d l y a d m i t t e d . This Court considered a similar issue i n McAdory State, 895 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 9 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) , court incorrectly relative to which instructed evidence c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d . instruction illegal jury only evidence could knowledge the stated: the and i n t e n t considered because about 99 i s legally the p r i o r neither the issues prior crimes "A l i m i t i n g prejudicial i f the i n s t r u c t i o n n o t have when t h e t r i a l of the defendant's The C o u r t mitigates jury v. curative admission of sound. The convictions was a t i s s u e . " for 895 S o . CR-05-1767 2d at 1036. Thus, not only was substantial, prejudicial evidence about the quadruple murders e r r o n e o u s l y admitted, the j u r y it also received misleading instructions to c o n s i d e r that p r e j u d i c i a l evidence those for which the evidence was but that permitted f o r i s s u e s f a r beyond initially admitted. The c o n f u s i o n o f t h e j u r y and the probable p r e j u d i c e to B i l l u p s i s obvious the from the defense the and erroneous counsel record Billups's the exacerbated as Therefore, and this of the o b j e c t to the whole, substantial fairness App. admission d i d not a d e v a s t a t i n g harm I believe rights and integrity of plain reversible error Although instructions, the based on error affected i t seriously that constitutes resulted testimony. that the that affected proceeding error. Rule against 45A, him. Ala. R. P. Conclusion Significant court admitted vast horrendous crime principles governing Billups For against is entitled a l l the amounts the of four occurred evidence victims, admission to a r e v e r s a l about an and I the a new trial. dissent. trial unrelated, in violation of o t h e r - c r i m e s foregoing reasons, 100 when of the evidence.
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.
