Sylvia Ross v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 12/18/2009 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-07-2244 Sylvia Ross v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from W i l c o x C i r c u i t (CC-07-07) Court PER C U R I A M . The appellant, misapplication Code of property, 1975, and using County Water Sylvia Works Ross, was a violation convicted of the o f § 13A-9-51, Ala. h e r p o s i t i o n as a c l e r k a t t h e W i l c o x f o rpersonal gain, a violation ofthe CR-07-2244 State's Ross ethics law codified was sentenced property conviction conviction. The Ross t o serve a fine of The the to § year and trial five 1 at to court y e a r s on 36-25-5, for 10 the years Code 1975. misapplication-offor suspended the supervised Ala. the ethics-law sentence, probation, ordered and imposed $10,000. State's evidence m o r n i n g o f May 3, tended 2006, E m i l y to show Tyler, the On examiner with an following. the Alabama Department of Examiners of P u b l i c Accounts, a r r i v e d at t h e W i l c o x C o u n t y W a t e r W o r k s t o c o n d u c t an u n s c h e d u l e d Ross and said Towanda T a i t e were c l e r k s a t t h e W a t e r W o r k s . that she and the cash on for four days Water Works account that at later hand on and had examiner, examined in April but the another not the 2 0 0 6 money been May 3 deposits books had Bank. were Tyler 1 C h r i s t i n a Smith, and been deposited Camden N a t i o n a l audit. in She made at counted determined received the the at Water further bank that the Works testified for the T a i t e was a l s o c o n v i c t e d o f t h e m i s a p p l i c a t i o n o f f u n d s and v i o l a t i n g t h e S t a t e ' s e t h i c s law. She a p p e a l e d t o t h i s Court. This Court recently reversed Taite's conviction because extraneous information was admitted during jury deliberations. See T a i t e v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 2 2 4 6 , Nov. 13, 2009] So. 3 d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009). 1 2 CR-07-2244 missing four calculations for. days in April. Tyler a p p r o x i m a t e l y $11,000 said t w o i n d i v i d u a l s who h a d t o t h e funds were Ross and T a i t e . Betty testified Dennis, that an employee of Camden o n May 3, 2 0 0 6 , T a i t e a s i f money h a d b e e n d e p o s i t e d . w o u l d b r i n g t h e money i n l a t e r . the bank Evans, chief Ross, that signed a waiver-of-rights he read she and T a i t e They conducted t h e i r convicted 2 Dennis declined that of deposit and n o t i f i e d form. Works money unscheduled and T a i t e were 2 Wilcox rights, County and that she Evans s a i d t h a t Ross t o l d him t h e money f r o m t h e n i g h t l y and l a t e r on the o n May 3, 2 0 0 6 , h e t a l k e d t o had been u s i n g the at her her Miranda a t t h e Water returned Ross copies an T a i t e t o l d h e r t h a t she deputy Sheriff's Office, testified deposits Bank, manager. Earnest that National came t o t h e b a n k w i t h empty b a g and a s k e d h e r t o stamp d u p l i c a t e slips b a s e d on h e r was i n i t i a l l y u n a c c o u n t e d She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e o n l y access that the replacing same day t h e money. the examiners audit. tried together. After they were b u t b e f o r e t h e y w e r e s e n t e n c e d , R o s s m o v e d f o r a new M i r a n d a v. A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. 3 436 (1966). CR-07-2244 trial. She argued presented extrinsic jury-deliberation When denying that one evidence of the jurors, to h i s fellow jurors F.G., had 3 during the process. relief on this claim the circuit court stated: " T h e o n l y i s s u e i n t o w h i c h t h e C o u r t may i n q u i r e is whether t h e r e was any outside influence or [ w h e t h e r ] e x t r a n e o u s i n f o r m a t i o n was b r o u g h t into the d e l i b e r a t i o n s . The C o u r t a l l o w e d t h i s i n q u i r y a n d 10 o f t h e j u r o r s t e s t i f i e d a b o u t t h i s m a t t e r . The C o u r t f i n d s a s a f a c t t h a t a s t a t e m e n t r e g a r d i n g h e r c o d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i o r c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n was made by one of the j u r o r s d u r i n g the deliberations. E v e r y j u r o r who was q u e s t i o n e d , e x c e p t 2, t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t was m e n t i o n e d . The o t h e r 2 d i d n o t t e s t i f y t h a t i t was n o t m e n t i o n e d , b u t t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t recall. Every juror except the 3 who gave a f f i d a v i t s s a i d i t h a d no e f f e c t on t h e v e r d i c t . Those 3 s a i d t h a t i t d i d a f f e c t them, b u t t h e s e a r e a l s o t h e same 3 who, i n t h e i r a f f i d a v i t s , testified that they e i t h e r d i d not vote g u i l t y or only voted g u i l t y because t h e foreman t o l d them t h a t t h e y had to. While t h e C o u r t has found that there was e x t r a n e o u s i n f o r m a t i o n b r o u g h t i n by the mention of the co-defendant's p r i o r c r i m i n a l record, the Court does not b e l i e v e t h a t e i t h e r the j u r y or i t s v e r d i c t was t h e r e s u l t o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . W h i l e p r e j u d i c e i s presumed, the Court f i n d s t h a t t h i s presumption i s overcome by the t o t a l i t y o f the e v i d e n c e . [ ] I t 4 To protect initials. 3 the jurors' anonymity we are using their Although the c i r c u i t court a p p l i e d the i n c o r r e c t standard i n t h i s c a s e , s e e o u r d i s c u s s i o n l a t e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n , we may a f f i r m a c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s r u l i n g i f i s c o r r e c t f o r any r e a s o n . 4 4 CR-07-2244 a p p e a r s t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was a p a s s i n g remark made t h a t d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e v e r d i c t . The j u r o r s t h e m s e l v e s s t a t e d t h a t e i t h e r i t d i d n o t a f f e c t them or they initially gave a d i f f e r e n t reason f o r attacking the verdict. T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h i s s t a t e m e n t w a s made r e g a r d i n g Ms. R o s s . T h e r e was n o e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t h a d a n y e f f e c t o n the verdict against Ms. R o s s . Even i f i t d i d p r e j u d i c e Ms. T a i t e , w h i c h t h e C o u r t b y separate order has found that i t d i d not, there i s no evidence that i taffected the v e r d i c t against this defendant." (C.R. 54-55.) Ross This argues appeal that the c i r c u i t motion f o r a new t r i a l been exposed to deliberations. F.G., followed. court made o n t h e b a s i s extrinsic erred i n denying her that the j u r o r s had information Specifically, Ross asserts during that t o l d his fellow j u r o r s that her codefendant, a previous At c o n v i c t i o n and had served the questioned hearing on her See during the deliberation McNabb v . S t a t e , T a i t e , had motion, affidavits. process. Ross The A l a b a m a Rules o f Evidence p r o h i b i t a j u r o r from t e s t i f y i n g occurred one j u r o r , time. postjudgment t h e j u r o r s and submitted their about what However, Rule 991 So. 2 d 313 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) . 5 CR-07-2244 606(b), A l a . R. Evid., contains one exception to this general rule: "Upon an i n q u i r y i n t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f a v e r d i c t o r i n d i c t m e n t , a j u r o r may n o t t e s t i f y i n i m p e a c h m e n t o f t h e v e r d i c t o r i n d i c t m e n t as t o any m a t t e r o r statement o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g the course of the j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s or t o the e f f e c t of a n y t h i n g upon t h a t o r any o t h e r j u r o r ' s m i n d o r e m o t i o n s as i n f l u e n c i n g the j u r o r to assent to or d i s s e n t from the v e r d i c t or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes i n connection therewith, except that a j u r o r may t e s t i f y on t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r e x t r a n e o u s p r e j u d i c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside i n f l u e n c e was i m p r o p e r l y b r o u g h t t o b e a r upon any juror. N o r may a j u r o r ' s a f f i d a v i t o r e v i d e n c e o f any s t a t e m e n t by the j u r o r c o n c e r n i n g a m a t t e r about w h i c h t h e j u r o r w o u l d be p r e c l u d e d f r o m t e s t i f y i n g be r e c e i v e d f o r these purposes. Nothing herein p r e c l u d e s a j u r o r from t e s t i f y i n g i n support of a v e r d i c t or i n d i c t m e n t . " The Evid., Advisory Committee's further provide, Notes in pertinent to Rule 606(b), Ala. part: "Many f e d e r a l c o u r t s h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d F e d . R. E v i d . 606(b) t o a l l o w j u r o r s t o t e s t i f y as t o t h e purely objective facts about the extraneous i n f o r m a t i o n or o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e , but not about how t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was o r was n o t c o n s i d e r e d . That i s , those c o u r t s have not allowed j u r o r s to testify about whether or not the extraneous i n f o r m a t i o n or o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e a f f e c t e d t h e v e r d i c t o f any j u r o r o r t h e j u r y as a w h o l e . I n those c o u r t s the judge must d e c i d e , b a s e d o n l y on the objective facts, w h e t h e r p r o b a b l e p r e j u d i c e o c c u r r e d . See, e.g., 3 J . Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence § 606[05] (1990); C. Mueller & L. Kirkpatrick, 3 Federal Evidence § 254 (2d ed. 6 R. CR-07-2244 1 9 9 4 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Howard, 506 F . 2 d 865 ( 5 t h Cir. 1975). This rule i s not intended as an adoption of the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n given by those federal courts. The c o m m i t t e e i n t e n d s t h i s r u l e n o t t o a l t e r p r e e x i s t i n g A l a b a m a l a w on t h i s issue, which i s t o the e f f e c t that j u r o r s are not l i m i t e d t o t e s t i f y i n g m e r e l y t h a t e x t r a n e o u s i n f o r m a t i o n was brought before t h e m b u t a l s o may t e s t i f y as t o whether they were influenced by the extraneous information. W h i t t e n v . A l l s t a t e I n s . C o . , 447 S o . 2 d 655 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . Of course, j u r o r s ' t e s t i m o n y a b o u t t h e e f f e c t on them a n d t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s i s n o t c o n t r o l l i n g ; t h e t r i a l j u d g e may c o n s i d e r other factors i n determining whether p r e j u d i c e occurred. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e v . B o l l i n g e r , 837 F . 2 d 4 3 6 , 400 (11th C i r . 1988)." During the hearing, e i g h t o f t h e j u r o r s r e c a l l e d t h a t one j u r o r h a d made t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t time. The jurors' responses i t was Taite had p r e v i o u s l y varied made. as statement a n d when testified that the statement was determined that Ross and T a i t e t o who The j u r y were g u i l t y . made served made foreman, after the M.M., the jury Juror S.A. had said t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t w a s made n e a r t h e t i m e t h e j u r o r s v o t e d a n d that i td i d affect her verdict. J u r o r P.O. t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t w a s made i n t h e m i d d l e o f d e l i b e r a t i o n s a n d t h a t i t did not affect her verdict. one t i m e , it, what Juror M.B. i t a f f e c t e d me b u t t h e n a g a i n , i tr e a l l y didn't I was g o i n g b o t h e r me b e c a u s e to vote." (R. 2 1 2 . ) 7 testified: "Well, when I t h o u g h t I had already Juror N.F. at about decided testified CR-07-2244 that before a verdict was reached another juror said that T a i t e h a d b e e n t o p r i s o n a n d t h a t " [ r ] e a l l y my v e r d i c t w a s n o t guilty because I really think the State e v i d e n c e no way t o c o n v i c t h e r . " didn't (R. 2 1 5 . ) have Juror enough F.G. s a i d t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t was made b u t i t d i d n o t a f f e c t h e r v e r d i c t . Juror B.H. statement did testified w a s made. not affect that Juror s h e was R.M. her vote. not sure testified that Juror E.S. that such a the statement testified that the s t a t e m e n t w a s made a t t h e e n d o f d e l i b e r a t i o n s a n d t h a t i t d i d not a f f e c t h e r v e r d i c t . Juror statement 5 The h a d b e e n made. statement by S.C. c o u l d n o t r e c a l l one juror during deliberations c o n c e r n i n g T a i t e ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n was e x t r a n e o u s -- i t w a s n o t a d m i t t e d a s e v i d e n c e d u r i n g v. S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 2 2 4 6 , N o v . 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 ] t h a t any information the t r i a l . So. 3d In Taite (Ala. Ross a l s o sought t o introduce evidence from jurors c o n c e r n i n g c o m m e n t s a n d s t a t e m e n t s t h a t w e r e made d u r i n g t h e deliberation process. Specifically, Ross introduced a statement a l l e g e d l y made b y t h e j u r y f o r e m a n t h a t "they couldn't c o n v i c t one a n d a c q u i t t h e o t h e r . " H o w e v e r , we c a n n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s s t a t e m e n t . The " d e b a t e s a n d d i s c u s s i o n s " of t h e j u r y a r e p r o t e c t e d from i n q u i r y . See Jimmy Day P l u m b i n g & H e a t i n g , I n c . v . S m i t h , 964 S o . 2 d 1, 8 ( A l a . 2007). 5 8 CR-07-2244 C r i m . App. Taite was 2009), t h i s Court, prejudiced as in a p l u r a l i t y opinion held a matter of that law: "[I]nformation about Taite's alleged prior c o n v i c t i o n w o u l d have s u g g e s t e d t h a t T a i t e had a propensity to commit illegal acts, which was ' " c r u c i a l i n r e s o l v i n g a key m a t e r i a l i s s u e i n the case."' D a w s o n v . S t a t e , 710 So. 2 d 4 7 2 , 475 (Ala. 1997) ( c i t i n g H a l l m a r k v . A l l i s o n , 451 S o . 2 d 270, 271 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , a n d E x p a r t e T h o m a s , 666 So. 2 d 855 (Ala. 1995)). The j u r o r ' s s t a t e m e n t a b o u t T a i t e ' s a l l e g e d p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n made i t m o r e l i k e l y that t h e j u r y f o u n d T a i t e g u i l t y b a s e d on t h e jury's b e l i e f t h a t s h e was o f bad c h a r a c t e r and t h a t t h e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n t e n d e d t o show h e r g u i l t i n t h e case under c o n s i d e r a t i o n by the j u r y . The jury's e x p o s u r e t o and c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s inherently p r e j u d i c i a l and u n p r o v e n s t a t e m e n t i s i n the l i m i t e d c a t e g o r y o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t r e s u l t s i n p r e j u d i c e as a matter of law." So. federal Eighth 1227 3d at . caselaw. Circuit The Our United in United (8th C i r . 1997), holding in Taite States States v. Court i s consistent of Appeals Rodriquez, 116 for F.3d stated: "This Court has considered what types of influences will be considered extrinsic or e x t r a n e o u s t o d e l i b e r a t i o n s , so t h a t a j u r o r may testify about them. Extrinsic or extraneous i n f l u e n c e s i n c l u d e ' p u b l i c i t y r e c e i v e d and d i s c u s s e d i n t h e j u r y room, m a t t e r s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e j u r y b u t not admitted i n t o evidence, and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s o r o t h e r c o n t a c t between j u r o r s and o u t s i d e p e r s o n s . ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B a s s l e r , 651 F.2d 600, 602 (8th C i r . 1 9 8 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 454 U.S. 1151, 102 S.Ct. 1018, 71 L . E d . 2 d 305 (1982). A p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n of a defendant, f o r e x a m p l e , when n o t admitted as 9 with the 1225, CR-07-2244 evidence at t r i a l , but which nonetheless entered into the jury's d e l i b e r a t i o n s through personal knowledge of a juror, has been held to be 'extraneous p r e j u d i c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n . ' U n i t e d States v . S w i n t o n , 75 F . 3 d 3 7 4 , 3 8 1 ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) . " However, evidence that not that a the Appeals has as a matter F.2d 1429 extraneous the defendant codefendant prejudice 733 when a t o remand Circuit a case States the United addressed f o r a hearing concerns conviction but conviction, In United (11th C i r . 1984), f o r the Eleventh necessary has a p r i o r prior of law. information there i s no v. B r a n t l e y , States Court whether of i t was on a l l e g a t i o n s o f j u r o r m i s c o n d u c t when d u r i n g d e l i b e r a t i o n s one j u r o r t o l d h i s f e l l o w j u r o r s t h a t o n e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a d " b e e n i n t h e same kind of trouble before." The c o u r t stated: "The e x t r i n s i c f a c t t h a t Murray had been i n t h i s k i n d o f t r o u b l e b e f o r e p e r t a i n e d o n l y t o Murray and any spillover prejudice t o the other defendants would have been n e g l i g i b l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view o f the overwhelming evidence a g a i n s t these defendants. See U n i t e d S t a t e s v . W i n k l e , 587 F . 2 d 7 0 5 , 7 1 5 ( 5 t h Cir.)(considering weight of evidence against defendants i n determining prejudice of extrinsic e v i d e n c e ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 444 U.S. 8 2 7 , 100 S . C t . 5 1 , 62 L . E . 2 d 34 (1979)." 733 865, F.2d a t 1440-41. 872 applies ( A l a . 2001) only See a l s o Ex p a r t e ("Generally, i n a case i n which 10 Apicella, a presumption 809 So. 2 d of prejudice the jury's consideration of CR-07-2244 the extraneous material was '"crucial i n resolving m a t e r i a l i s s u e i n t h e c a s e . " ' Dawson v. S t a t e , 475 ( A l a . 1997) 271 ( A l a . 1984), (citing Hallmark and Ex p a r t e key 710 S o . 2 d 4 7 2 , v. A l l i s o n , Thomas, a 451 So. 2 d 2 7 0 , 666 S o . 2 d 8 5 5 ( A l a . 1995))."). "'The ruling trial will abuse of of the t r i a l n o t be d i s t u r b e d discretion, presumption i n favor Reynolds City v. and of judge App. 1998), quoting (Ala. Crim. a motion i n the absence this Court 723 So. of 2d indulge his every 8 2 2 , 824 ( A l a . 348 S o . 2 d 8 7 0 , 8 7 5 " ' J u r o r m i s c o n d u c t w i l l j u s t i f y a new t r i a l w h e n it indicates bias or corruption, o r when t h e m i s c o n d u c t a f f e c t e d t h e v e r d i c t , o r when f r o m t h e extraneous facts prejudice may b e p r e s u m e d a s a m a t t e r o f l a w . ' W h i t t e n v . A l l s t a t e I n s . C o . , 447 S o . 2 d 6 5 5 , 658 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . A s a g e n e r a l rule, '[w]here extraneous m a t e r i a l [ i s ]introduced into the jury's deliberations, ... actual prejudice [must] be shown t o work a r e v e r s a l o f t h e v e r d i c t . ' N i c h o l s v . S e a b o a r d C o a s t l i n e Ry., 341 So. 2d 6 7 1 , 672 ( A l a . 1976). However, i n some cases, 'the c h a r a c t e r a n d n a t u r e o f t h e e x t r a n e o u s m a t e r i a l ... constitutes prejudice as a m a t t e r o f l a w a n d no s h o w i n g t h a t t h e j u r y was i n f a c t i n f l u e n c e d t h e r e b y in a r r i v i n g at their verdict i s necessary.' Id. ( p r e j u d i c e presumed as a m a t t e r o f l a w from j u r y ' s consulting encyclopedia and d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n s of 'negligence,' 'contributory negligence,' 11 of ruling.'" 1997). App. H a l l v. S t a t e , f o r new of a showing will the correctness of Birmingham, Crim. denying CR-07-2244 'subsequent negligence,' contributory negligence')." and M i n s h e w v . S t a t e , 594 S o . 2 d 7 0 3 , 7 1 6 "Of course, their jurors' testimony deliberations consider other occurred." 'subsequent (Ala. Crim. about the effect i s not controlling; factors Advisory in judge whether Notes, Rule 1991). on them the t r i a l determining Committee's App. and may prejudice 6 0 6 , A l a . R. Evid. In this evidence case, there concerning deliberations. Ross i s no i n d i c a t i o n Ross was admitted also confessed taken. concerning The c i r c u i t each prior issue of resolving facts would Taite's guilt; the issue presented Certainly, have been however, of Ross's i n this case, the i t was we c a n n o t jury evidence crucial guilt. 12 from instructions of Taite's i n resolving not Based on crucial the the i n unique say that the c i r c u i t court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying Ross's motion trial. jury's r e p l a c e t h e money s h e c o u r t gave s e p a r a t e defendant. conviction during extrinsic t h a t s h e t o o k money t h e Water Works and t h a t she w o u l d l a t e r had t h a t any f o r a new CR-07-2244 II. Ross a l s o argues t h a t her motion failed to for a new disclose knowledge of Taite's the trial during prior circuit after voir one dire court of that erred the he in denying jurors, had personal conviction. "'It i s t r u e t h a t the p a r t i e s i n a case are entitled to true and honest a n s w e r s t o t h e i r q u e s t i o n s on v o i r d i r e , s o t h a t t h e y may exercise their peremptory s t r i k e s w i s e l y . See F a b i a n k e v . W e a v e r , 527 So. 2 d 1253 ( A l a . 1988). However, not e v e r y f a i l u r e to respond properly to questions propounded during v o i r d i r e " a u t o m a t i c a l l y e n t i t l e s [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] t o a new t r i a l o r r e v e r s a l o f t h e c a u s e on a p p e a l . " Freeman v . H a l l , 286 A l a . 1 6 1 , 1 6 6 , 238 So. 2 d 3 3 0 , 335 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; see a l s o Dawson v. S t a t e , [710 So. 2 d 472] a t 474 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ] ; and Reed v . S t a t e , [547 S o . 2 d 596 (Ala. 1989)]. As s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , the proper standard to apply i n determining whether a p a r t y i s entitled to a new trial in this circumstance is "whether the defendant might have been prejudiced by a veniremember's f a i l u r e t o make a p r o p e r r e s p o n s e . " Ex p a r t e Stewart, 659 So. 2d [122] a t 124 [(Ala. 1993)]. Further, the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether a p a r t y might have been p r e j u d i c e d , i . e . , whether t h e r e was probable p r e j u d i c e , i s a matter w i t h i n the t r i a l court's d i s c r e t i o n . ' "Ex p a r t e D o b y n e , 805 So. 2 d 7 6 3 , 7 7 1 - 7 2 ( A l a . 2001) (footnote omitted). In a p p l y i n g t h i s standard we look at 'the temporal remoteness of the matter inquired about, the ambiguity of the question propounded, the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s inadvertence or 13 F.G., CR-07-2244 w i l l f u l n e s s i n f a l s i f y i n g or i n f a i l i n g t o answer, the failure of the j u r o r to r e c o l l e c t , and the m a t e r i a l i t y of the matter i n q u i r e d about.' DeBruce v . S t a t e , 890 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 8 , 1078 (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 0 3 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e J e n k i n s , 972 S o . 2 d 159 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . " Hooks v. State, , Ross. At a the concerned F.G. was asked voir dire. t o l d his fellow jurors during conviction. establishing that she Accordingly, convictions Ross was for a r e due 2008] Ross's to v o i r dire questions. were a s k e d d u r i n g prior 29, So. 3d 2008). question the hearing responses questions he CR-04-2220, August ( A l a . C r i m . App. Here, his [Ms. t o be questions Nor d i d he Also, entitled to assert what denied F.G. meet to r e l i e f foregoing her on not concerning that deliberations that failed the no codefendant, Taite had burden of this reasons, claim. Ross's affirmed. AFFIRMED. Wise, P . J . , and K e l l u m , i n the r e s u l t . Welch, Main, J., dissents, J . , concur. Windom, J . , c o n c u r s J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , with with opinion. 14 opinion. CR-07-2244 MAIN, J u d g e , The concurring trial entitled to any challenging considered The court note that the opinion of the that on her verdict Sylvia motion on the information basis during favorable the conviction State, 3d of [Ms. I continue to adhere to the in my in Taite. J., juror, the provided regarding made n e a r t h e verdict. I a albeit jury in I dicta, codefendant, I disapprove the wrong holding p r i n c i p l e s espoused State, write sworn that the to each of notes that juror Taite having regard main o p i n i o n statement t i m e was I note facts with the the So. 3d at dissenting). Additionally, relevant trial sentences. 2009). T a i t e , and (Main, and r e l i a n c e on w h a t I f e e l was T a i t e v. new that Ross's ( A l a . C r i m . App. See not CR-07-2246, November in dissent a was i t s deliberations. favorably, T a i t e v. See So. cites Ross for a f f i r m s Ross's c o n v i c t i o n s reversing 2009] concluded main o p i n i o n Towanda T a i t e . 13, jury extraneous the result. relief the main o p i n i o n i n the time the the sets jurors. S.A. that she out the to one As indicated previously note i n which 15 opinion j u r y v o t e d and s p e c i a l l y to affidavit main did affect juror also served S.A. indicated that jail her also that CR-07-2244 her vote was initially "not g u i l t y " b e l i e v e the State had proven guilty; because she that e i t h e r of the defendants was she s t a t e d t h a t t h e j u r y foreman t o l d t h e j u r y t h a t i t h a d t o r e t u r n t h e same v e r d i c t f o r b o t h d e f e n d a n t s , it d i d not had t o e i t h e r find both guilty or find both i . e . , that not guilty. T h u s , t h e r e was c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e f a c t f i n d e r c o u l d have inferred court obviously determine verdict. For that err each juror's vote, resolved those c o n f l i c t s the comment d i d not and t h e adversely aversely circuit t o Ross t o affect her 6 these WELCH, J u d g e , The impacted reasons, I concur i n the result. dissenting. main o p i n i o n concludes when i t d e n i e d S y l v i a R o s s ' s that the t r i a l motion court d i dnot f o r a new t r i a l , after The c i r c u i t c o u r t , i n i t s order denying t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l , f o u n d , i n p a r t , t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was a p a s s i n g r e m a r k t h a t d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e v e r d i c t and t h a t t h e j u r o r s i n d i c a t e d e i t h e r t h a t t h e remark d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e i r v e r d i c t o r t h a t t h e y i n i t i a l l y gave a different reason f o r challenging the verdict. The m a i n o p i n i o n h a s , i n my v i e w , c o r r e c t l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t a n y a l l e g e d comment b y t h e j u r y f o r e p e r s o n t h a t t h e j u r y m u s t e i t h e r convict both defendants or acquit both defendants i m p e r m i s s i b l y invades t h e d i s c u s s i o n and debate o f t h e j u r y . So. 3 d a t , n . 5. 6 16 CR-07-2244 determining that unverified the statement extraneous that Towanda T a i t e , had been i m p r i s o n e d p r e v i o u s l y the j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s d i d not Ross's case. I disagree. were b a s e d the r e f l e c t s t h a t the -- same a l l e g e d cases against together the before, trial filed on court, at Ross and by introduction the during, of the verdicts codefendants. the The and was Ross and on the the unique about verdict Taite against did affect Ross. and of the the i t s effect on the j u r y was that As an I exposed concerning the am trial the court for a new I respectfully dissent. the opinion State, two case, a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n when i t d e n i e d R o s s ' s m o t i o n trial, motions about this i t s deliberations Because I b e l i e v e Significantly, between facts record considered jurors information Taite The postjudgment questioned during R o s s and T a i t e were distinguishing on codefendant, jury's verdict in even a f t e r t r i a l . hearing juror's introduced a f f e c t the convinced t h a t the extraneous i n f o r m a t i o n to Ross's a c r i m i n a l conduct. extraneous Based that -- charges against Taite without information [Ms. main opinion reversing the CR-07-2246, notes, this judgment November 17 Court against 13, 2009] recently Taite. released Taite So. 3d v. CR-07-2244 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). extraneous information deliberations presumptive Court deliberations of during and a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e extraneous i n Taite the Ross and T a i t e set forth i n the opinion introduction determined introduced of the cases against prejudice same r e a s o n s the This jury's resulted i n to Taite. For the i n Taite, I believe evidence during resulted i n actual prejudice that the that jury's t o Ross. " G e n e r a l l y , under Alabama law, j u r o r misconduct i n v o l v i n g the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f extraneous materials w a r r a n t s a new t r i a l when o n e o f t w o r e q u i r e m e n t s i s met: 1) t h e j u r y v e r d i c t i s s h o w n t o h a v e b e e n a c t u a l l y p r e j u d i c e d by t h e extraneous m a t e r i a l ; o r 2) t h e e x t r a n e o u s m a t e r i a l i s o f s u c h a n a t u r e a s t o c o n s t i t u t e p r e j u d i c e as a m a t t e r o f l a w . K n i g h t v . S t a t e , 710 S o . 2 d 5 1 1 , 517 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) . " Ex parte Apicella, 809 S o . 2 d 8 6 5 , 870 The m a i n o p i n i o n extraneous affected "Juror statement about acknowledges that the j u r o r ' s Taite's the verdict against Ross. alleged prior conviction The m a i n o p i n i o n states, S.A. s a i d t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t w a s made n e a r t h e t i m e t h e j u r o r s v o t e d and t h a t at implicitly ( A l a . 2001). (emphasis S.A. testified that s h e was i td i d a f f e c t her v e r d i c t . " added). The r e c o r d at the hearing going to vote another j u r o r stated that supports that on t h e m o t i o n s to acquit statement. f o r a new the defendants T a i t e had a p r i o r 18 So. 3d felony trial until conviction. CR-07-2244 Thereafter, S.A. voted to convict demonstrating, without question, about Taite Ross's case influenced as w e l l . the The that only the extraneous information support for a prejudicial information v e r d i c t s had Taite. determination been Ross. reached, conclusion The that and that J u r o r N.F. Juror evidence verdict F.G. is in that not received record contains the extraneous, about T a i t e ' s a l l e g e d p r i o r T a i t e had been t o p r i s o n further the Ross i f i t had about a f f e c t e d the v e r d i c t against before and reasonable not have c o n v i c t e d defendants, the extraneous deliberations the j u r y would additional both conviction testified had that, stated that s h e n e e d e d t o go b a c k . N.F. testified: "We w e r e g e t t i n g r e a d y t o r e a c h t h e v e r d i c t a n d we w a n t e d t o do - - [ J u r o r R.M.] a s k e d c o u l d we do S y l v i a R o s s [ ' s ] c a s e f i r s t b e c a u s e we d i d n ' t h a v e no e v i d e n c e on T o w a n d a T a i t e . A n d t h a t ' s when [ F . G . ] s a i d how c o u l d we do h e r c a s e f i r s t when b o t h t h e m did the crime together. A n d s h e s a i d we l e t t h e m get o f f , they going to get they job back. Then she s a i d s h e a l r e a d y b e e n i n p r i s o n a n d s h e n e e d s t o go back." (R. 215.) trial that had Additionally, several jurors testified hearing i f one t o be that the defendant found jurors was guilty. were found guilty, Although 19 told by the then the main at the jury both opinion post- foreman defendants concludes CR-07-2244 that 1 J i m m y Day (Ala. 2007), the jurors So. 3d case Plumbing too precludes regarding at n.5, broadly. Plumbing held that jurors regarding as Inc. v. Smith, consideration of the the statement I believe that The the D a y ' s m o t i o n f o r a new reasoning, & Heating, Alabama trial trial by the the d i d not t h a t was Court The from in reads that Jimmy affidavits from Court explained i t s " N o t h i n g c o n t a i n e d i n the a f f i d a v i t s o f f e r e d by Day i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e j u r y a c t u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d any extraneous facts. The affidavits provide no evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the jury consulted any o u t s i d e s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n o r t h a t a n y j u r o r was influenced by any outside information. The affidavits merely reflect some of the jurors' discussions, which, 'without regard to their p r o p r i e t y or l a c k t h e r e o f , are not extraneous f a c t s t h a t w o u l d p r o v i d e an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e of e x c l u s i o n of j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s to impeach the verdict.' S h a r r i e f [ v . G e r l a c h ] , 798 So. 2 d [ 6 4 6 , ] 653 [(Ala. 2001)]. Consequently, the t r i a l court d i d n o t e r r i n d e n y i n g D a y ' s m o t i o n f o r a new trial i n s o f a r a s t h a t m o t i o n was p r e m i s e d on t h e j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t a x l i a b i l i t y and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e damages a w a r d . 3 " We h a v e n o t o v e r l o o k e d C l a r k e - M o b i l e Counties Gas D i s t r i c t v . R e e v e s , 628 So. 2 d 368 (Ala. 1993), a p l u r a l i t y d e c i s i o n of t h i s C o u r t , upon w h i c h Day relies. However, i n t h a t c a s e , u n l i k e t h i s c a s e , a j u r o r ' s a f f i d a v i t r e v e a l e d t h a t e x t r a n e o u s f a c t s had 20 Day denied follows: 3 2d foreman, e r r when i t b a s e d on their deliberations. So. evidence main o p i n i o n Supreme court jury 964 CR-07-2244 been made known deliberations." 964 to So. 2d a t 9 (emphasis added). Thus, Jimmy from I believe Day P l u m b i n g the jurors proper i n this a fair indicates about case. that the reading that the jury jury i t s of the opinion i n consideration foreman's A majority during of evidence statement w o u l d be of the jurors t e s t i f i e d t h e e x t r a n e o u s i n f o r m a t i o n w a s made k n o w n t o t h e m d u r i n g deliberations. Moreover, as t h e q u o t a t i o n of the that their Advisory C o m m i t t e e ' s N o t e s f o l l o w i n g R u l e 6 0 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. E v i d . , i n t h e main opinion demonstrates, that consideration of a l l testimony information Rule does not preclude about t h e e f f e c t o f extraneous on d e l i b e r a t i o n s a n d t h e v e r d i c t : "Many f e d e r a l c o u r t s h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d F e d . R. E v i d . 606(b) t o a l l o w j u r o r s t o t e s t i f y as t o t h e purely objective facts about the extraneous i n f o r m a t i o n o r o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e , b u t n o t a b o u t how t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was o r was n o t c o n s i d e r e d . That i s , those c o u r t s have n o t a l l o w e d jurors to testify about whether o r n o t t h e extraneous i n f o r m a t i o n o r outside i n f l u e n c e a f f e c t e d t h e v e r d i c t o f any j u r o r or t h e j u r y as a whole. In those courts t h e judge must d e c i d e , b a s e d o n l y on t h e o b j e c t i v e facts, whether probable p r e j u d i c e occurred. ... T h i s r u l e i s n o t i n t e n d e d as an a d o p t i o n o f t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n given by those federal courts. The committee i n t e n d s t h i s r u l e n o t t o a l t e r p r e e x i s t i n g Alabama law on t h i s issue, which i s t o the e f f e c t that jurors are not l i m i t e d t o t e s t i f y i n g merely that e x t r a n e o u s i n f o r m a t i o n was b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e m b u t 21 CR-07-2244 a l s o may t e s t i f y a s t o w h e t h e r t h e y w e r e i n f l u e n c e d by the e x t r a n e o u s i n f o r m a t i o n . W h i t t e n v. A l l s t a t e I n s . Co., 447 So. 2 d 655 (Ala. 1984). Of course, j u r o r s ' t e s t i m o n y a b o u t t h e e f f e c t on t h e m a n d t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s i s not c o n t r o l l i n g ; the t r i a l judge may consider other f a c t o r s i n determining whether prejudice occurred." Rule 606(b), (emphasis Ala. R. Evid., Advisory Committee's added). Clearly, the Advisory Committee on the Alabama Rules Evidence a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t , i n cases i n v o l v i n g the of extraneous effect that The information not prejudice information, information verdict. and just in to Ross. its had the on Taite's Under jury's allegation would their deliberations case, the and that unique that she suffered Taite. I respectfully 22 the The dissent. for case, resulted actual trial the extraneous i n Ross's i t the and of in this prejudice deliberations d i s c r e t i o n when i t d e n i e d R o s s ' s m o t i o n Therefore, about circumstances exposure during regarding testify that of introduction deliberations indicates jury's established a r e s u l t of the unproven jurors evidence affected c a s e , R o s s has as Notes to the court abused a new trial.

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.