Towanda Taite 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-07-2246 Towanda Taite v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WELCH, was appeal theWilcox Taite Court Judge. This from from W i l c o x C i r c u i t (CC-07-06) arises out of the misappropriation County Water/Waste and codefendant charged by a Wilcox Sylvia Ross County Department, had been of funds where employed. grand j u r y i n case Towanda Taite no. CC-07- CR-07-2246 2006 with of § theft 13A-8-3, State of property Ala. Code e t h i c s l a w s -- personal gain, Identical a violation year conviction a conviction. The ordered to five Taite years i m p o s e d an of trial for trial serve Sylvia for further the or o f f i c e for Code Ross i n case trial 1975. no. Ross and i m p o s e d on for suspended years' the and of the Taite a 1- the ethics-laws sentences imprisonment probation. a s s e s s m e n t o f $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 and remand of misapplication-of-property sentence court violation Ala. jury court the two supervised Crime V i c t i m s a violation position consolidated 10-year to the a 36-25-5, against The 1 sentence and with official § degree, of m i s a p p l i c a t i o n of p r o p e r t y violation. jail a first and of filed Following T a i t e were c o n v i c t e d ethics-laws 1975, u s i n g her c h a r g e s were CC-07-2007. i n the The an trial followed court We by further a s s e s s m e n t t o be Compensation Commission. and paid reverse and proceedings. Facts The routine evidence presented audit the of Wilcox at trial County tended to Water/Waste show that Department R o s s has f i l e d a s e p a r a t e a p p e a l f r o m h e r c o n v i c t i o n s sentences. A p p e a l no. C R - 0 7 - 2 2 4 4 . As o f t h e t i m e o f r e l e a s e of t h i s o p i n i o n , Ross's appeal i s s t i l l pending. 1 2 a and the CR-07-2246 ("the as Water more t h a n where revealed clerks, Department"), the Water $11,000 that i n receipts that on t h e m o r n i n g o f t h e a u d i t . and Taite were Department's that the only could Daily with reports employed had received n o t be a c c o u n t e d f o r The a u d i t o r received testified access that t o the Water f o r s i x days one of the a u d i t o r s that r e c e i p t s were a t t h e bank, so T a i t e a n d two a u d i t o r s went then told the deposits. Taite the auditors No Taite Water spoke to a t e l l e r that the t e l l e r deposits employees s t a t e d that there told were and the County S h e r i f f ' s During Wilcox had not y e t p r o c e s s e d ever The County D e p a r t m e n t was also only duplicate T a i t e asked the head t e l l e r bank Taite took Wilcox a bank bag a t t h e bank where the the bag c o n t a i n e d copies of deposit t o stamp t h e c o p i e s 3 The their notified. Department t o a t e l l e r or currency, and contacted Commission. Water D e p a r t m e n t ' s funds were d e p o s i t e d ; checks produced, auditors the morning of the audit, the Water a t t h e bank and w e r e no u n d e p o s i t e d f u n d s f r o m t h e Department at the bank. supervisors but had revealed been at the bank. at the o f f i c e Ross not to the bank together. from and Ross were Department two p e o p l e receipts. money h a d b e e n deposited the Taite of the no slips. deposit CR-07-2246 slips as i f t h e money deposited. Taite represented assured the t e l l e r money t o t h e b a n k l a t e r . transaction, by that The t e l l e r and she n o t i f i e d the slips had been she would b r i n g t h e refused to complete the her supervisor and t h e bank's auditor. After money the Wilcox was missing interviewed the deputy that the Water auditors then and t h a t conducted Water Department's envelope that asked office. This had n o t been Taite where count replacing that money had been, conducted. Five than $9,000, made a t t h e b a n k of additional t h e r e c e i p t s was a c c o u n t e d After which the t r i a l , she a l l e g e d , Taite among from t h e i t . deposits, that The at the money i n previously. been during told of the cash t h e money h a d b e e n a t t h e b a n k when t h e i n i t i a l money t h a t h a d b e e n m i s s i n g Ross money that were was cash count revealed counted that Ross deputy. using had been second notified Department, had been they a was sheriff's she and T a i t e deposit auditors from Commission by a W i l c o x County nightly an County When t h e Taite said count had comprising afternoon. more A l l the the a u d i t o r s ' i n i t i a l count f o r by t h e end of t h e day. filed other 4 a motion things, f o r a new t r i a l i n one of the jurors, CR-07-2246 F.G., had p r e s e n t e d e x t r i n s i c during F.G. jury deliberations. had s t a t e d conviction jurors Juror were M.B. during stated along to her fellow Specifically, deliberations and had been filed evidence imprisoned. with that alleged Taite "I was a j u r o r i n t h e above i n v o l v i n g S y l v i a R o s s a n d Towanda from three new for a i n relevant that had a p r i o r Affidavits the motion i n her a f f i d a v i t , Taite jurors trial. part: referenced Taite. cases "When we w e r e i n t h e j u r y r o o m , s o m e o n e i n t h e j u r y room s a i d t h a t Towanda T a i t e h a d a l r e a d y b e e n i n p r i s o n one t i m e . I can not s a y f o r sure which juror said this. I do b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s h a d a n e f f e c t on t h e j u r o r s [ ' ] v o t e o f g u i l t y . My f i r s t v o t e was n o t g u i l t y . [ J u r y f o r e m a n M.M.] t o l d a l l t h e j u r o r s t h a t we w e r e g o i n g t o v o t e g u i l t y o n t h e s e c o n d a n d t h i r d c h a r g e s a g a i n s t e a c h d e f e n d a n t . He s a i d t h a t e v e r y o n e had t o v o t e g u i l t y as t h e f i r s t v o t e was s e v e n g u i l t y a n d f i v e n o t g u i l t y . [M.M.] t o l d u s t h e c h a r g e s we w e r e v o t i n g g u i l t y f o r w e r e lesser charges. I thought that both g u i l t y charges were f o r l e s s e r c h a r g e s . S o m e o n e s a i d t h a t we h a d to f i n d both defendants g u i l t y . T h a t we c o u l d n o t f i n d one d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y a n d one d e f e n d a n t n o t guilty. "When t h e j u d g e polled the j u r y after the v e r d i c t , I d i d n o t s a y t h a t t h i s was my v e r d i c t . T h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t s w e r e n o t my v e r d i c t s . " (C. 61.) Juror relevant S.A. submitted an part: 5 affidavit that stated, in CR-07-2246 Taite " [ J u r o r F.G.] s a i d i n t h e j u r y room t h a t had had a p r i o r felony. Towanda " [ J u r y f o r e m a n M.M.] s a i d t h a t we h a d t o f i n d b o t h d e f e n d a n t s t h e same. T h a t we c o u l d n ' t f i n d one g u i l t y a n d one n o t g u i l t y . " I d i d not b e l i e v e t h a t the s t a t e had enough e v i d e n c e or p r o o f t h a t e i t h e r of the d e f e n d a n t s were guilty. My v o t e f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g was n o t g u i l t y . " (C. 63.) Finally, relevant J u r o r N.F. s u b m i t t e d an a f f i d a v i t and stated, i n part: "I was a juror in i n v o l v i n g S y l v i a Ross the above referenced and Towanda T a i t e . cases "When we f i r s t t o o k a v o t e i n t h e j u r y r o o m , t h e v o t e was s e v e n g u i l t y and f i v e n o t g u i l t y v o t e s . [ J u r y f o r e m a n M.M.] t o l d us t h a t t h e g u i l t y v o t e s outweighed t h e n o t g u i l t y a n d t h a t we h a d t o go along w i t h the g u i l t y . I h a d n e v e r b e e n on a j u r y b e f o r e a n d I t h o u g h t i t was w h a t I h a d t o d o . My v o t e was not g u i l t y . I d i d not v o l u n t a r i l y vote guilty. I d i d not vote g u i l t y at a l l . "One o f t h e j u r o r s , [ F . G . ] , t o l d us t h a t i f we d i d n ' t c o n v i c t , that they would both get t h e i r j o b s back. She a l s o t o l d us t h a t Towanda T a i t e had b e e n t o p r i s o n one t i m e a n d t h a t s h e n e e d e d t o go b a c k . both then " [ J u r y f o r e m a n M.M.] t o l d u s t h a t we h a d d e f e n d a n t s t h e same. T h a t i f one was b o t h were g u i l t y . to f i n d guilty, " I d i d not b e l i e v e t h a t the s t a t e had enough e v i d e n c e or p r o o f t h a t e i t h e r of the d e f e n d a n t s were guilty." 6 CR-07-2246 (C. 65.) The trial jurors testified including comments trial court prior another court the juror conducted on t h e m o t i o n . hearing pursuant h a d made during the questioning, conviction. such testified about put i n j a i l , Eight and asked of the jurors a statement previously testified each The of the being testified made. that The j u r y a they foreman, He s a i d t h a t when she h a t e d t o s e e t h e d e f e n d a n t s be another j u r o r stated that " i t shouldn't matter to S.A., testified about t h e t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t was made a f t e r t h e j u r y h a d Towanda T a i t e b e c a u s e statement subpoenas, one o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' h a v i n g of the jurors said that Juror to deliberations. d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Ross and T a i t e were g u i l t y . one Ten o f 12 he o r s h e r e c a l l e d a n y j u r o r m a k i n g a s t a t e m e n t deliberations remembered M.M., at a hearing t h e 3 j u r o r s who h a d s u b m i t t e d a f f i d a v i t s j u r o r s whether during held who that was had given a been fellow made S.A. near the already an been i n j a i l . " affidavit juror convicted that Specifically, she's of a had "Before 7 that S.A. the jury information testified, stated felony. the time about the matter, Taite stated voted, affected that (R. 2 0 5 . ) her had that and she vote. was m e n t i o n e d , I CR-07-2246 was p l a n n i n g on v o t i n g -- a t t h e time that -- not g u i l t y . do." (R. 2 0 8 - 0 9 . ) middle of d e l i b e r a t i o n s time." affect (R. 2 1 0 . ) was Juror P.O. her v e r d i c t . affidavit the vote P.O. a juror stated testified that Juror M.B., had p r e v i o u s l y asked M.B. how the comment Juror S.C. during decided testified deliberations e i t h e r defendant. had what that that I mind t o during Taite had the statement had that also had was didn't going she c o u l d of a p r i o r a j u r o r had "done d i d not an stated When t h e t r i a l affected h e r , M.B. again, b o t h e r me b e c a u s e to vote." not r e c a l l conviction J u r o r N.F. t e s t i f i e d the provided i t a f f e c t e d me b u t t h e n when I t h o u g h t a b o u t i t , i t r e a l l y already that had been t o p r i s o n . a n s w e r e d , " W e l l , a t one t i m e , had who I can say I h a d i n my testified a f t e r the t r i a l , t e s t i f i e d that Taite court That -- I reckon I (R. 2 1 2 . ) any mention or sentence f o r t h a t , before a verdict b e e n r e a c h e d , J u r o r F.G. h a d s t a t e d t h a t T a i t e h a d b e e n t o prison and that she needed to go back. N.F. further 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 8 CR-07-2246 get o f f , they going t o get they s a i d she a l r e a d y been i n p r i s o n back." (R. j o b back. Then she a n d s h e n e e d s t o go 215.) When affected guilty the t r i a l h e r v o t e , N.F. because evidence I N.F. me think when replied, on a j u r y s o I anything." whether N.F. the State "Yeah. (R. 2 1 5 . ) The the j u r y had b e l i e v e d stronger case against T a i t e , a n d N.F. Ross replied, than v e r d i c t was n o t have [ w a s ] my court then the State i t had "No, n o t r e a l l y . enough The c o u r t asked was first t h a t , you know, I trial that statement you t h a t , that This think the didn't (R. 2 1 5 . ) I asked didn't whether " R e a l l y my no w a y t o c o n v i c t h e r . " verdict?" know asked replied, really N.F., "Yet you t o l d being court your time didn't asked N.F. had p r e s e n t e d presented F i r s t , we a against -- s e e S y l v i a Ross w r o t e t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t s a i d t h a t h e r and Towanda did no take t h e money f r o m t h e n i g h t handwriting Juror of F.G. t h a t Towanda d i d a n y t h i n g . " denied the defendants incarcerated. deposit. stating during had p r e v i o u s l y been B u t we d i d n ' t see (R. 2 1 6 . ) deliberations that convicted one or had been F.G. s a i d t h a t s h e h e a r d s o m e o n e e l s e make t h a t statement about T a i t e , however. 9 F.G. t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e c o u l d CR-07-2246 not recall the point was made, and she s a i d t h e statement d i d n o t a f f e c t When t h e t r i a l statement court being defendants having recalled indicating that conviction. affect end asked made Juror testified Taite a conviction that statement The motion time." d i d not affect trial she r e c a l l e d or from court having been Juror or had juror a prior the statement d i d not that near the someone s t a t e t h a t T a i t e h a d (R. 2 2 1 ) E.S. t e s t i f i e d that the her vote. entered f o r a new t r i a l . a one o f t h e another F i n a l l y , J u r o r E.S. t e s t i f i e d "served her vote. not sure. imprisoned that hearing o f d e l i b e r a t i o n s , she h e a r d previously s h e was statement had been R.M. t e s t i f i e d B.H. w h e t h e r d e l i b e r a t i o n s about previous hearing her vote. d e l i b e r a t i o n s when t h e s t a t e m e n t during a i n c a r c e r a t e d , B.H. R.M. during a written The t r i a l court order denying stated, i n relevant part: "The 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 there was a n y o u t s i d e influence or extraneous information ... brought into the deliberations. The C o u r t a l l o w e d t h i s i n q u i r y and 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 as a f a c t t h a t a s t a t e m e n t regarding T a i t e ' 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 b y o n e o f the j u r o r s d u r i n g t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n s . Every 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 mentioned. T h e 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 10 the CR-07-2246 not m e n t i o n e d , but t h a t they could not r e c a l l . E v e r y j u r o r e x c e p t t h e 3 who g a v e 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 t h e m , b u t t h e s e a r e a l s o t h e same 3 w h o , in t h e i r a f f i d a v i t s , t e s t i f i e d that they e i t h e r d i d not vote g u i l t y or only v o t e d g u i l t y because the foreman t o l d them t h a t t h e y had t o . W h i l e t h e C o u r t has found that t h e r e was e x t r a n e o u s information b r o u g h t i n by t h e mention o f T a i t e ' s p r i o r c r i m i n a l r e c o r d , t h e C o u r t does n o t b e l i e v e t h a t e i t h e r t h e jury or i t s verdict was the r e s u l t of this information. While prejudice i s presumed, the Court finds that this presumption i s overcome by t h e totality of the evidence. I t appears that the 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 made t h a t d i d n o t affect the v e r d i c t . The j u r o r s t h e m s e l v e s stated 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 o r t h e y i n i t i a l l y gave a d i f f e r e n t r e a s o n f o r a t t a c k i n g t h e v e r d i c t . As previously stated, the evidence clearly e s t a b l i s h e d the Defendant's guilt." (C. 81-82.) Analysis On appeal, Taite that the t r i a l trial based Juror F.G. f a i l e d she knew omission jury. when on that told two i s s u e s . First, she e r r e d when i t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n alleged juror to reveal Taite prevented Second, F.G. court raises had during a prior her from Taite argues the other misconduct when v o i r dire examination that c o n v i c t i o n , and t h a t this a that juror jurors during T a i t e had p r e v i o u s l y been c o n v i c t e d 11 f o r a new occurred receiving that argues fair and i m p a r t i a l misconduct occurred deliberations of a crime or that that she had CR-07-2246 served a term o f i m p r i s o n m e n t ; she f u r t h e r extraneous information her convictions A trial not be be discretion ruling on a p p e a l when this that reversed. court's reversed that and r e q u i r e s resulted i n prejudice argues on a m o t i o n unless i t entered f o r a new the t r i a l the r u l i n g . trial court E.g., abused i t s A p i c e l l a v. State, 809 S o . 2 d 8 4 1 , 847 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000), So. 865 Woodson 1230 2d (Ala. (Ala. Crim. Extraneous Rule 2001); App. v. State, 794 will a f f ' d , 809 So. 2d 1226, 2000). evidence 6 0 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. E v i d . , provides, i n pertinent part: " [ 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 ... a s t o a n y m a t t e r o r s t a t e m e n t o c c u r r i n g during the course of the j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s or to the e f f e c t of anything upon that o r any other 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 t h e j u r o r t o 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 in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous p r e j u d i c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n was i m p r o p e r l y 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." (Emphasis The for a new added.) trial trial court that stated i n i t s order denying t h e m e n t i o n by a j u r o r 12 the motion of Taite's prior CR-07-2246 conviction verdicts constituted were not a f f e c t e d evidence. We statement during conviction or We note, whether with initially, Rule general impeaching their relates intrinsic to public policy guards the s a n c t i t y Coastline produced a previously the 341 had during trial conviction court or constituted the t r i a l been and Crim. process. well was P. that entirely "We are not jurors from entrenched rule on the which Nichols v. Seaboard Taite of a f f i d a v i t s that information was that Taite not d i d not argue i n statement about T a i t e ' s not sound zealously ( A l a . 1976). State into improperly was i s based 673 The did 13 inquiry deliberations imprisoned; imprisonment misconduct. forbids a n d t e s t i m o n y b y way during prior court's room." 671, the juror's that juror's juror administration of the jury the t r i a l that A l a . R. influence 2d to the process This So. the Taite's information which disclosed had court regarding rule judicial allegations juror gained of Ry., that verdict. own that trial deliberative 606(b), but exposure prejudicial the the that evidence the j u r o r s ' the incarceration with with by deliberations into consistent faced agree extraneous introduced extraneous constitute prior extraneous CR-07-2246 evidence; jurors' argue the S t a t e d i d not argue affidavits in the questioned about argued had trial had the So. request 2d had affidavits from a her scene to cited Reynolds App. a motion relevant allegations from a the State for a case, The City's several jurors of j u r o r misconduct. 14 so t h a t i t a l s o about of the Birmingham, support of i t s In Reynolds, new trial before the based the juror her that that, testified and observations. affidavits to in jurors. for be the City 1998), not effect jurors v. d i d not the motion on the the statement the c o n t r a r y , question j u r o r s who observations State the s h o u l d be c o n t i n u e d i n t e r v i e w the filed that should about at the hearing i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s , another visited those court to the jurors To ( A l a . Crim. f o r time defendant about verdicts. their and the and State 822 that conviction opportunity The stricken; court t h e y h e a r d a j u r o r make t h e that the hearing allegation. began prior on be court about whether to the t r i a l new 723 trial Taite's statement should i n the t r i a l i n the had opinion told i n the attorneys to In t h i s case then dispute jury who other case on had jurors based on obtained Reynolds's case, the State also CR-07-2246 wanted and to question i t s effect, the j u r o r s about i f any, on their The trial court found dispute i n the trial court, incarceration In 2d (Ala. allegations a permission, one "'Clarke-Mobile s o n ' s l a n d and So. 2d at 370. the and the State did on juror Counties Gas private told Counties statement about Taite's D i s t r i c t v . R e e v e s , 628 a case Gas District without District and of d i d not the the had owner's jury that across her ask p e r m i s s i o n . ' " 628 had gone Supreme C o u r t stated: "Commonly, s t a t e m e n t s f a l l i n g w i t h i n t h e 'extraneous f a c t s ' e x c e p t i o n -- s t a t e m e n t s t h a t i n f l u e n c e the 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 b u t do n o t c o n c e r n t h e 'debates and discussions of the case' during d e l i b e r a t i o n s -' a r e made t o t h e j u r y b y s o m e o n e n o t on t h e j u r y . ' Id. T h i s i s , however, not always the case. See, e.g., H a l l m a r k v . A l l i s o n , 451 So. 2 d 270 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . Here, although the statement i n question came f r o m a j u r o r , i t nonetheless fits w i t h i n the 'extraneous facts' exception. The juror s t a t e d , i n t e r a l i a , t h a t a f t e r the j u r y had r e t i r e d t o d e l i b e r a t e , t h e s e c o n d j u r o r ' a d v i s e d me a n d t h e other jurors that Clarke-Mobile Counties Gas D i s t r i c t had gone a c r o s s h e r s o n ' s l a n d and m e s s e d i t up a n d d i d n o t a s k p e r m i s s i o n . This statement ... was t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t b y me a n d i n f l u e n c e d my 15 So. involving o t h e r members o f t h e Gas A plurality Counties property the m e s s e d i t up not evidence. Clarke-Mobile line evidence verdicts. fact, that extraneous 1993)(plurality opinion), that gas a extraneous Clarke-Mobile 368 buried was as the CR-07-2246 decision i n the case.' R. 9 1 . This testimony clearly relates to an extraneous matter that i n f l u e n c e d t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n s and t h e v e r d i c t i n t h i s case." 628 S o . 2 d a t 370 (emphasis The i n f o r m a t i o n on introduced the j u r o r ' s personal discussion implicitly correctly scope t o t h e j u r y h e r e was n o t b a s e d experiences as p a r t deliberations. during originated outside State added). Rather, the scope of the t r i a l conceded determined of the exception -- at trial and extraneous provided o f t h e debate and the information a n d i t was -- a s t h e as the t r i a l information f o r i n Rule court within 606(b). the 2 Prejudice Although that its we extraneous agree with evidence d e l i b e r a t i o n s and w i t h the t r i a l was court's introduced the court's determination to the j u r y apparent during determination I n h i s d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n , Judge Main s t a t e s t h a t the j u r o r ' s comment a b o u t T a i t e ' s c o n v i c t i o n was n o t i m p r o p e r , a n d t h a t j u r o r s s h o u l d be p e r m i t t e d t o a p p l y t h e i r "community knowledge" during the d e l i b e r a t i v e process. Jurors are permitted to rely on t h e i r "common k n o w l e d g e , " w h i c h i s d e f i n e d a s " [ a ] f a c t t h a t i s s o w i d e l y known t h a t a c o u r t may a c c e p t i t a s t r u e w i t h o u t p r o o f , " B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 293 (8th ed. 2004). The t e r m " c o m m u n i t y k n o w l e d g e , " h o w e v e r , i s undefined i n the d i c t i o n a r y or i n Judge Main's d i s s e n t . To the e x t e n t a "community's knowledge" might i n c l u d e g o s s i p and h e a r s a y , t h a t c a n n e v e r be t h e p e r m i s s i b l e b a s i s f o r a j u r y ' s decision. 2 16 CR-07-2246 that prejudice evidence was conclusion totality In App. a result presumed, that of the Apicella 2000), guilt as we case. v. State, 809 or a hearing juror testified 2d h i s vote. a with that court's overcome by t h e h i s attorney Juror principle ( A l a . Crim. 2001 ), during The t r i a l court Apicella a about the law relevant to the f o r a new trial, Alabama during the a n d he t e s t i f i e d that h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the law denied v. S t a t e , A p i c e l l a ' s motion fora a f f i r m e d A p i c e l l a ' s c o n v i c t i o n and 809 S o . 2 d 841 Supreme Apicella, Court ( A l a . C r i m . App. affirmed 809 S o . 2 d 865 this Court's (Ala. 2001), stated: with the S.B. c o n t a c t e d he h a d g a i n e d friend, d i d not a f f e c t Ex p a r t e (Ala. 847 t h a t he h a d n o t c o m m u n i c a t e d t o t h e o t h e r sentence. judgment, 841 , on A p i c e l l a ' s m o t i o n Court The somehow trial, legal and t h i s 2000). of the t r i a l and asked t h e f r i e n d new t r i a l , it 8 65 of the jury the information conversation with 8 0 9 So. 2d So. to complicity, conversation consideration evidence. aff'd, During members the was phase of a c a p i t a l - m u r d e r relating the disagree the prejudice f r i e n d who was a n a t t o r n e y the of " [ J u r o r ] S.B. t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n T.R.[, t h e a t t o r n e y , ] l a s t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 17 and CR-07-2246 1/2 m i n u t e s , t h a t T.R. was d i s t r a c t e d d u r i n g t h e conversation, and t h a t they d i s c u s s e d the law of c o m p l i c i t y o n l y i n t h e most g e n e r a l o f t e r m s . S.B. f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t T.R.'s c o m m e n t s d i d n o t e n t e r i n t o h i s thoughts d u r i n g d e l i b e r a t i o n s and that t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e l a w o f c o m p l i c i t y were ' c r y s t a l c l e a r . ' T h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n that S.B.'s a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d m i s c o n d u c t . At issue i s w h e t h e r t h i s m i s c o n d u c t w a r r a n t s a new t r i a l . " G e n e r a l l y , under Alabama law, j u r o r m i s c o n d u c t involving the introduction of 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 law. Knight 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 ) . We c o n c l u d e t h a t n e i t h e r o f t h o s e r e q u i r e m e n t s h a s b e e n met i n t h i s c a s e . "Apicella argues that when a court i s determining whether a j u r o r ' s conduct has caused a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e t h e standard a p p l i e d i swhether t h e extraneous material 'might have influenced that j u r o r a n d o t h e r s w i t h whom he d e l i b e r a t e d , ' R o a n v . S t a t e , 2 2 5 A l a . 4 2 8 , 4 3 5 , 143 S o . 4 5 4 , 460 ( 1 9 3 2 ) . A p i c e l l a r e l i e s h e a v i l y upon t h i s s t a t e m e n t i n Roan: "'The test of v i t i a t i n g influence i s not t h a t i t d i d i n f l u e n c e a member o f t h e j u r y to a c t without t h e evidence, but that i t might have u n l a w f u l l y i n f l u e n c e d t h a t j u r o r a n d o t h e r s w i t h whom he d e l i b e r a t e d , a n d might have unlawfully influenced i t s v e r d i c t rendered.' "225 Ala. a t 4 3 5 , 143 S o . a t 4 6 0 . "On i t s face, this standard would require n o t h i n g more t h a n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t e s t a b l i s h t h a t juror misconduct occurred. As A p i c e l l a a r g u e s , t h e 18 CR-07-2246 word 'might' encompasses the entire realm of possibility and the c o u r t cannot rule out a l l p o s s i b l e s c e n a r i o s i n which the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t might have been a f f e c t e d . "However, as o t h e r A l a b a m a c a s e s e s t a b l i s h , more i s r e q u i r e d of the defendant. I n R e e d v . S t a t e , 547 So. 2 d 5 9 6 , 598 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , t h i s C o u r t a d d r e s s e d a ismilar case of j u r o r misconduct: "'We b e g i n b y n o t i n g t h a t no single f a c t or c i r c u m s t a n c e w i l l determine whether the v e r d i c t r e n d e r e d i n a g i v e n c a s e m i g h t have been unlawfully influenced by a juror's [misconduct]. Rather, i t i s a c a s e ' s own p e c u l i a r s e t o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s that w i l l decide the i s s u e . In t h i s case, i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e j u r o r t o l d none of t h e o t h e r members o f t h e j u r y o f h e r e x p e r i m e n t u n t i l a f t e r the v e r d i c t had been r e a c h e d . W h i l e t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r she might have been u n l a w f u l l y i n f l u e n c e d by the experiment still remains, the juror t e s t i f i e d a t t h e p o s t - t r i a l h e a r i n g on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l t h a t h e r vote had not been affected by the [misconduct].' " I t i s c l e a r , then, t h a t the q u e s t i o n whether the j u r y ' s d e c i s i o n might have been a f f e c t e d i s a n s w e r e d n o t by a b a r e s h o w i n g o f j u r o r m i s c o n d u c t , b u t r a t h e r b y an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s p a r t i c u l a r to the case. I n t h i s c a s e , as i n R e e d , the e f f e c t o f t h e m i s c o n d u c t was c o n f i n e d to the j u r o r who c o m m i t t e d t h e m i s c o n d u c t . The R e e d C o u r t stated: "'We cannot agree w i t h the defendant that the verdict rendered might have been u n l a w f u l l y i n f l u e n c e d , where the r e s u l t s of t h e [ m i s c o n d u c t ] w e r e known o n l y t o t h e one j u r o r who [ c o m m i t t e d t h e m i s c o n d u c t ] a n d 19 CR-07-2246 that juror remained [misconduct].' unaffected by the "547 So. 2d a t 598. B e c a u s e no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t S.B. s h a r e d t h e c o n t e n t o f h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h t h e o t h e r members o f t h e j u r y a n d b e c a u s e no evidence indicates that S.B.'s own vote was a f f e c t e d , we c a n n o t s a y t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f i n d i n g no a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e . " 809 So. 2d a t 870-71. "Extraneous result facts introduced i n actual prejudice or i n prejudice also c a l l e d presumed p r e j u d i c e . " 981, 983 (Ala. 2002). Apicella discussed and actual i n jury Ex p a r t e The A l a b a m a deliberations as a m a t t e r o f l a w , Arthur, Supreme C o u r t 835 So. 2 d i n Ex t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between presumed " A p i c e l l a a l s o a r g u e s t h a t we s h o u l d h o l d t h e extraneous material introduced through S.B.'s c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h T.R. t o b e p r e j u d i c i a l a s a m a t t e r of l a w . A p i c e l l a s u p p o r t s t h i s argument w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g l a n g u a g e f r o m 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 ) ] : " ' " 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 trial ... w h e n f r o m t h e e x t r a n e o u s f a c t s p r e j u d i c e may b e p r e s u m e d a s a m a t t e r o f law." 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 ) .... However, i n some c a s e s , " t h e c h a r a c t e r a n d n a t u r e o f the extraneous material [constitute] p r e j u d i c e a s a m a t t e r o f l a w a n d no s h o w i n g that the jury was i n fact influenced thereby i n a r r i v i n g at t h e i r v e r d i c t i s necessary." I d . ( p r e j u d i c e presumed as a parte prejudice prejudice: 20 can CR-07-2246 matter of law from jury's encyclopedia and dictionary ...).' " ( Q u o t i n g Minshew v. S t a t e , (Ala.Crim.App. 1991)). 594 consulting definitions So. 2d 703, 716 "On t h e o t h e r h a n d , we h a v e a l s o h e l d t h a t ' m e r e e x p o s u r e t o [a] d e f i n i t i o n d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a new t r i a l as a m a t t e r o f l a w . ' P e a r s o n v . Fomby, 688 S o . 2 d 2 3 9 , 245 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . O u r h o l d i n g i n P e a r s o n serves to emphasize the l i m i t a t i o n s of the d o c t r i n e of ' p r e j u d i c e as a m a t t e r o f l a w . ' "Generally, a presumption of prejudice applies only i n a case i n which the j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e e x t r a n e o u s m a t e r i a l 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."' Dawson v . State, 710 S o . 2 d 4 7 2 , 475 ( A l a . 1997) (citing H a l l m a r k v. A l l i s o n , 451 S o . 2 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 1 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , a n d E x p a r t e T h o m a s , 666 S o . 2 d 855 ( A l a . 1995)). "We a r e n o t w i l l i n g t o p r e s u m e p r e j u d i c e a s a matter of law i n t h i s case. No e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s that extraneous information arising from S.B.'s conversation i n f l u e n c e d S.B.'s v o t e o r t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was e v e r c o n s i d e r e d b y a n y o t h e r member of the j u r y . This case i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from c a s e s s u c h as 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 R a i l w a y , 3 4 1 S o . 2 d 671 ( A l a . 1 9 7 6 ) ( p r e j u d i c e f o u n d as a m a t t e r o f law where j u r o r b r o u g h t d e f i n i t i o n s i n t o t h e j u r y room d u r i n g d e l i b e r a t i o n s a n d c o p i e d them onto a chalkboard). We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r circumstances of t h i s case provide no b a s i s f o r f i n d i n g p r e j u d i c e as a m a t t e r o f l a w . " 809 So. 2d a t Guided and the 871-72. by the p r i n c i p l e s d i s c u s s e d cases cited therein, we 21 have i n Ex p a r t e examined the Apicella specific CR-07-2246 circumstances of this circumstances lead case, and necessarily to we find that the conclusion j u r y ' s exposure t o and c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f extraneous resulted i n prejudice prejudice as a m a t t e r T h e r e was no d i s p u t e previous the conviction other a jurors matter law the information and in actual of law that conveyed during of that to Taite. Prejudice as those t h e j u r o r who this their knew o f extraneous Taite's information deliberations. The to juror's s t a t e m e n t a b o u t T a i t e ' s i m p r i s o n m e n t was n o t b a s e d on e v i d e n c e submitted jurors should Reynolds Crim. 954 at t r i a l . v. " I ti s fundamental consider City only the evidence presented of Birmingham, App. 1998). See a l s o (Ala. 1984)("It to a fair 723 Ex p a r t e i s a well settled So. 2d Troha, 822 , principle i ti s fundamental to a f a i r trial, consider only the evidence presented defendant's prior conviction trial." 824 ( A l a . of law, and, at t r i a l . " ) . a at that jurors i s that 462 S o . 2 d 9 5 3 , further, about trial should Information unquestionably p r e j u d i c i a l , p a r t i c u l a r l y when t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n i s u n v e r i f i e d , is not revealed cross-examination as properly during admitted the 22 trial evidence process, subject and to i s CR-07-2246 unaccompanied limited by any jury instruction with regard to i t s use. "[The Alabama S u p r e m e ] C o u r t has a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e inherently prejudicial nature of evidence of a defendant's p r i o r convictions. C o f e r v . S t a t e , 440 So. 2 d 1 1 2 1 , 1124 ( A l a . 1983) ('[e]vidence of p r i o r bad a c t s of a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t i s p r e s u m p t i v e l y prejudicial to the defendant'). 'The general e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e bars the s t a t e from introducing e v i d e n c e o f an a c c u s e d ' s p r i o r c r i m i n a l a c t s f o r t h e sole purpose of p r o v i n g the p r o p e n s i t y of the a c c u s e d t o commit t h e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e . ' Hobbs v. S t a t e , 669 So. 2 d 1 0 3 0 , 1032 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995). Thus, e v i d e n c e of p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s i s a d m i s s i b l e only f o r l i m i t e d purposes. 'The b a s i s f o r t h e r u l e l i e s i n the b e l i e f 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 c r i m e s w i l l f a r o u t w e i g h any p r o b a t i v e v a l u e t h a t m i g h t be g a i n e d f r o m t h e m . Most agree that such evidence of prior crimes has almost an i r r e v e r s i b l e i m p a c t upon the minds of t h e j u r o r s . ' Cofer, 440 So. 2d at 1123 (quoting Charles W. G a m b l e , 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 . 1977)). The g e n e r a l e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e ' p r o t e c t s t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o a f a i r t r i a l ' by s e e k i n g ' " t o p r e v e n t c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d on a j u r y b e l i e f t h a t [ t h e ] a c c u s e d i s a p e r s o n of bad c h a r a c t e r . The jury's d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f g u i l t o r i n n o c e n c e 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 c r i m e c h a r g e d . " ' Cofer, 440 So. 2 d a t 1123 (citation omitted). Thus, i t n a t u r a l l y f o l l o w s that the t r i a l c o u r t should take all necessary precautions to ensure that when evidence of a defendant's prior convictions is admitted into evidence, the jury is properly i n s t r u c t e d on t h e p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h i t may c o n s i d e r that evidence. This i n c l u d e s i n s t r u c t i n g the j u r y , s u a s p o n t e , t h a t i t may n o t c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e defendant committed the charged o f f e n s e . " Ex parte Minor, 780 So. 2d 796, 23 802 ( A l a . 2000). CR-07-2246 The with affidavits Taite's preliminary about that was motion vote Taite's the Taite v. not Allison, Thomas, 666 451 So. 2d that belief that conviction the jury she tended of to by the consideration of this statement in the results should that in prejudice have g r a n t e d extrinsic at extrinsic 271-72 as a her we suggested acts, which case.'" (citing 1997 ) (Ala. 1984), The in jury's had on and Ex juror's of of law. f o r a new been are unable 24 to the prior under exposure and to and unproven information The trial that trial court a f t e r i t found introduced H a l l m a r k v. jury's case the t h a t presumed p r e j u d i c e See the that prejudicial category matter based and guilt The motion evidence ("Although character limited evidence. have 1 995)). guilty inherently d e l i b e r a t i o n p r o c e s s and the bad jury. the jury's i s s u e i n the 271 (Ala. Taite show consideration is 855 the (Ala. 475 270, along 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 found was would material 2d N.F. information commit i l l e g a l 472 , So. statement about T a i t e ' s likely to 2d and Therefore, conviction i n r e s o l v i n g a key So. M.B. indicated that unanimous. prior 710 Jurors trial a propensity State, H a l l m a r k v. parte was had by f o r a new alleged "'crucial Dawson submitted the r e s u l t e d from Allison, determine into 451 So. whether 2d the CR-07-2246 introduction of the crucial of the extraneous jurors, that the i n t r o d u c t i o n Actual Even court could not as a extraneous issue decision facts i n the case, and not r e a s o n a b l y have facts was into the we found jury's prejudicial."). matter of information law, we had would to the record Taite. contains submitted with Taite's testimony at the hearing extraneous not resulted reverse As information detailed in trial affected resulted i n earlier in this undisputed evidence i n a f f i d a v i t s motion on the information and t h e v e r d i c t s and, t h e r e f o r e , prejudice opinion, the prejudice deliberations three the judgment because the extraneous actual the d i d change of the extraneous i f the extraneous prejudice court's was of a key m a t e r i a l the t r i a l deliberations the consideration i n resolving conclude that facts for a new the motion affected trial and f o r a new the votes i n the trial of at that least jurors. In Ex parte Lasley, 505 So. 2d 1263 ( A l a . 1 987), A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h i s C o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t Lasley's convicted placing convictions of for first-degree assault; severely or holding them burning two i n scalding 25 affirming Lasley had been by allegedly Lasley testified children water. the CR-07-2246 that while knock the it bathing a t t h e door t h e c h i l d r e n , he h a d b e e n d i s t r a c t e d b y a and t h a t c h i l d r e n were s t a n d i n g was d i s c o v e r e d experiments jurors Court that to test had also when he r e t u r n e d to the bathroom i n scalding water. After the t r i a l three jurors the defense's consulted conducted theory a law book. separate and t h a t home one o f t h e The A l a b a m a Supreme stated: "The i n t e g r i t y o f t h e f a c t f i n d i n g p r o c e s s i s t h e h e a r t and s o u l o f our j u d i c i a l system. Judicial control of the jury's knowledge o f t h e case i s fundamental. Our r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e a r e d e s i g n e d , so f a r as humanly p o s s i b l e , t o p r o d u c e t h e t r u t h and t o e x c l u d e from t h e j u r y those f a c t s and o b j e c t s which tend t o p r e j u d i c e and c o n f u s e . Evidence presented must be s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n a n d r e b u t t a l . The defendant's constitutional rights of c o n f r o n t a t i o n , o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , and o f c o u n s e l are a t s t a k e . " 505 So. 2d a t 1264. their verdicts information had because The j u r o r s h a d a p p a r e n t l y not been the Court affected also by testified the extraneous stated: " C o n s i d e r i n g t h r e e s e p a r a t e home e x p e r i m e n t s a n d the consultation o f l a w b o o k s b y o n e j u r o r , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u r y might have been i n f l u e n c e d , notwithstanding the jurors' statements to the contrary. The j u r o r s c a n n o t i n e v e r y c a s e d e t e r m i n e the q u e s t i o n o f whether t h e y were, o r might have been, improperly influenced." Id. 26 that CR-07-2246 The t e s t i m o n y extraneous information verdicts. her Juror vote, S.A. vote affidavit believed affected testified until submitted that the " a t one t i m e " testimony trial the of jurors's that found that of extraneous here had evidence information was shared introduction consideration of deliberations and Supreme in this Court case. Unlike i n which actual by the at the hearing that set forth had the for a new influenced other information The Supreme a juror, the that the the 27 trial the trial extraneous members and that affected the jury's criteria the Alabama for finding actual prejudice Therefore, Court from jury by i n Ex resulted by indicating i t s verdicts. from the circumstances material with Thus t h e and the motions the Alabama prejudice that t h e she affected the a f f i d a v i t s on a information. had a f f e c t e d her v o t e . the hearing supra, to cast indicated that were the affected intended the extraneous votes from no court she had and she t e s t i f i e d information. Apicella, and the information t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n s and v e r d i c t s were extraneous parte at deliberations b y j u r o r M.B. c l e a r proof S.A. that that the information reveals the she h e a r d extraneous information, record case, however, e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t the and s p e c i f i c a l l y , not-guilty The i n this court could were not met have CR-07-2246 reasonably concluded that the consideration information d i d not r e s u l t deliberations See Jordan conclude that extraneous i n prejudice to Taite. and t h e v e r d i c t s v. B r a n t l e y , evidence influenced affected was not p r e j u d i c i a l , one found because told deliberations the other that the there p r o c e s s , and another trial, "'This statement and i n f l u e n c e d my d e c i s i o n plurality evidence from members of material was had v. Reeves, supra, the during jury about i n f o r m a t i o n she had g a i n e d o u t s i d e o f t h e the The extraneous C l a r k e - M o b i l e C o u n t i e s Gas D i s t r i c t juror trial the undisputed. jurors."). In that That t h e ( A l a . 1991)("We c o u r t c o u l d n o t have was undisputed were 589 S o . 2 d 6 8 0 , 682 the t r i a l material of the extraneous juror t e s t i f i e d by a f f i d a v i t ... was t a k e n i n the case.'" i n Clarke-Mobile a juror warranted found reversal into account after b y me 628 S o . 2 d a t 3 7 0 . that the extraneous o f t h e judgment, and stated: " H e r e , a l t h o u g h t h e s t a t e m e n t i n q u e s t i o n came f r o m a j u r o r , i t nonetheless f i t s w i t h i n the 'extraneous facts' exception. The j u r o r s t a t e d , i n t e r alia, t h a t a f t e r the j u r y had r e t i r e d t o d e l i b e r a t e , the s e c o n d j u r o r ' a d v i s e d me a n d t h e o t h e r j u r o r s t h a t C l a r k e - M o b i l e C o u n t i e s Gas D i s t r i c t h a d gone a c r o s s h e r s o n ' s l a n d a n d m e s s e d i t up a n d d i d n o t a s k permission. This statement ... was t a k e n into a c c o u n t b y me a n d i n f l u e n c e d my d e c i s i o n i n t h e 28 CR-07-2246 case.' R. 9 1 . T h i s t e s t i m o n y c l e a r l y r e l a t e s t o an extraneous matter t h a t i n f l u e n c e d the d e l i b e r a t i o n s and the verdict in this case. Accordingly, we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t and remand t h i s c a s e f o r a new trial." 628 So. 2d As that at in 370. Clarke-Mobile, a j u r o r had there extraneous was communicated information was considered several and jurors the extraneous information Supreme every Court case has a 2d at prior conviction ignore. Taite The The clear receive B e c a u s e we a new other other at the that in and note that, question of even hearing prejudicial would have proof of impact the the though the Alabama cannot in were, or they Ex p a r t e of that that jurors whether influenced." that affected affect their votes, "[t]he case extraneous j u r o r s , and posttrial that this the jurors We the recognized determine 1264. by d i d not might have been, i m p r o p e r l y So. to verdicts. testified dispute information, information deliberations i s no Lasley, information 505 about been virtually impossible actual prejudice requires to that trial. have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t j u r o r misconduct to the j u r o r s ' c o n s i d e r a t i o n of extraneous e v i d e n c e Taite, we need not discuss raises on appeal. For the a l l the 29 other a l l e g a t i o n of foregoing reasons, leading prejudiced error we she reverse CR-07-2246 the trial court's denial of the motion f o r a new remand t h e case f o r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t R E V E R S E D AND Kellum, in Wise, trial court's new with opinion. dissenting. respectfully dissent the opinion. P . J . , a n d Windom, J . , c o n c u r Main, J . , d i s s e n t s , MAIN, J u d g e , I this and REMANDED. J . , concurs. the result. with trial t h e main opinion d e n y i n g Towanda T a i t e ' s reversing trial. Initially, order from what was destruction conference intended to be that such leads deliberation, and freedom attacks should United States, 483 U.S. 107 to the of d i s c u s s i o n be limited. J u s t i c e O'Conner o b s e r v e d , w r i t i n g f o r t h e m a j o r i t y , v. and As i n Tanner (1987): "There i s little doubt that postverdict i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o j u r o r m i s c o n d u c t w o u l d i n some instances lead to the invalidation of verdicts reached after irresponsible or improper juror behavior. I t i s n o t a t a l l c l e a r , however, t h a t t h e j u r y system could s u r v i v e such e f f o r t s t o p e r f e c t A l l e g a t i o n s of j u r o r misconduct, incompetency, it. o r i n a t t e n t i v e n e s s , r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e ... 30 with to public investigation private of a l l frankness and fora I believe that attacking a jury's verdict a j u r o r ' s comment i m p e r m i s s i b l y of motion CR-07-2246 after the verdict, seriously disrupt the f i n a l i t y of the process. Moreover, f u l l and frank d i s c u s s i o n i n the j u r y room, j u r o r s ' w i l l i n g n e s s t o r e t u r n an unpopular v e r d i c t , and t h e community's t r u s t i n a s y s t e m t h a t r e l i e s on t h e d e c i s i o n s o f l a y p e o p l e w o u l d a l l be undermined b y a b a r r a g e o f p o s t v e r d i c t s c r u t i n y of j u r o r conduct." 483 U.S. a t 1 2 0 - 2 1 In the history laypeople and of our jurisprudence, to the j u d i c i a l the t r i a l considering verdict, court the evidence i n this Pattern Jury Instructions m u s t u s e common s e n s e , a s a common women u n d e r g i v e n 2d 429 have the jury case as and (R. 1 9 6 . ) and caselaw common r e a s o n , knowledge reaching circumstances."'" acts t h e Alabama "'"juries observation o f men a n d A s h u r s t v. S t a t e , (1926). 21 A l a . C f . Alabama P a t t e r n 1 9 9 3 ) ("You may t a k e 462 S o . German v . S t a t e , So. 2d 1138, 1143 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 2 ) , q u o t i n g v. S t a t e , your o f men a n d that a n d common of the usual i n this follows: "In Likewise, guide been experience, Similarly, 999, 1006 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 4 ) , q u o t i n g Thompson ed. jurors you have t h e r i g h t t o use your knowledge a n d common s e n s e . " well system. instructed affairs as omitted). who b r i n g t h e i r common s e n s e , k n o w l e d g e , education case, (citations i n turn A p p . 4 9 8 , 4 9 9 , 109 S o . 5 5 7 , 557 Jury Instructions: Civil into consideration 31 1.07 ( 2 d any matter which CR-07-2246 you would in truthfulness light your (stating court common o b s e r v a t i o n v. S t a t e , that formulating a trial and e x p e r i e n c e the ...."). See ( A l a . C r i m . App. has 2007) broad discretion a n d f i n d i n g no e r r o r pattern i s to apply upon Weigh t h e t e s t i m o n y i n t h e court accepted mission i n passing 2 S o . 3 d 8 8 0 , 914 i t s instructions followed jurors' affairs, ... o f t h e t e s t i m o n y . of your also Harris everyday the facts trial instruction). jury where The of the case as they d e t e r m i n e them t o t h e l a w as g i v e n t o them by t h e t r i a l through the jury instructions. juror frank discussion. his or her education There i s juror's community to this a deliberative knowledge knowledge, process process and even juror of between the i f juror allowing a juror everyday case was misconduct warrant the jurors' a 32 do to experience, and injection community I each t o engage i n f u l l i s t o be p r e s e r v e d misconduct. in this does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y court opinion, distinction comment Moreover, I n my court In t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s , i s encouraged by the t r i a l in not and find and apply and protected. into the personal that the shown t o be impermissible. did exist, the misconduct reversal. CR-07-2246 "Alabama juror of law has long misconduct warrants which one, each case-by-case b a s i s . " C r i m . App. that reversal. j u r o r misconduct subjective (Ala. held warrants instance Knight 1997). v. not every Because a new must State, be 710 the d e l i b e r a t i o n s ; however, s u b j e c t t o an e x c e p t i o n have improperly Knight, State, 547 So. State, 227 Ala. Rule 254, 606(b), "distinction, the 2d 596, discussions of Sharrief Gerlach, Rule 606(b), r e p o r t of the verdict, events general rule i s v. v. 149 a 2d So. law, which by So. 2d Ala.R.Evid., at 687, 516, 689 between a are 646, jury and (1933). the provides, important 'extraneous or jurors the protected 652 found quoting recognizes verdict, j u r y , ' which 798 might Reed So. "'when not (Ala. 1989), c i t i n g i n t u r n B e l l 256, impeach the 515-16 be 710 597 of to 511, a to under Alabama sufficient v. the Ala.R.Evid., consideration 2d on for extraneous information that influenced p r e j u d i c i a l . '" highly Ordinarily, a jury's verdict w i l l in of is a decided So. u p s e t on t h e b a s i s o f a j u r o r ' s p o s t - t r i a l of determination trial be course a instance (Ala. facts,' may 'debates and from i n q u i r y . " 2001). in pertinent part: "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 33 be CR-07-2246 of 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 occurring during the course of the jury's d e l i b e r a t i o n s o r t o t h e e f f e c t o f a n y t h i n g upon t h a t or a n y 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 t o assent t o o r d i s s e n t from t h e 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 o n 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 i m p r o p e r l y b r o u g h t t o 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 u p o n a n y 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 b y t h e j u r o r c o n c e r n i n g a m a t t e r about which the 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 t h e s e p u r p o s e s . " This r u l e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r t o Rule 606(b), In (Ala. Bethea 2002), v. S p r i n g h i l l t h e Alabama Memorial Hospital, Supreme C o u r t Fed.R.Evid. 833 So. 2 d 1 held: "[I]n o r d e r f o r i n f o r m a t i o n t o come w i t h i n t h e extraneous-information exception t o Rule 606(b), the information must come t o t h e j u r o r s from some e x t e r n a l a u t h o r i t y o r t h r o u g h some p r o c e s s o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f t h e t r i a l , e i t h e r (1) d u r i n g t h e t r i a l o r t h e j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s o r (2) b e f o r e t h e t r i a l but f o r the purpose of i n f l u e n c i n g t h e p a r t i c u l a r trial." 833 So. 2d information crime scene l e g a l terms general at 8. The i s typically by a j u r o r , Court limited further noted that such " ' " t othe v i s i t a t i o n of a the introduction of the definition of i n t h e j u r y room, a n d t h e r e a d i n g o f c o n c e p t s r e f e r e n c e books."'" Bethea, 34 from 8 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 7, q u o t i n g CR-07-2246 Lance, 1999). I n c . v. 731 So. 2d 1204, 1214 (Ala. 3 Upon the Ramanavskas, a showing that complained-of extraneous-information prejudice material exception, r e s u l t i n g from the j u r o r a party comes within must show misconduct. "[J]uror misconduct i n v o l v i n g the i n t r o d u c t i o n of e x t r a n e o u s m a t e r i a l s w a r r a n t s a new t r i a l w h e n o n e o f t w o r e q u i r e m e n t s i s m e t : 1) t h e j u r y v e r d i c t i s shown t o have been actually prejudiced by the e x t r a n e o u s 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 such a n a t u r e as t o c o n s t i t u t e p r e j u d i c e as a matter of law." Ex parte Knight v. A p i c e l l a , 809 State, 710 j u r o r had d i s c u s s i o n So. So. 2d 2d 865, at 870 517) ( A l a . 2001) (citing (verdict upheld about law of c o m p l i c i t y w i t h h e knew, b u t d i d n o t r e v e a l t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n an where attorney to other j u r o r s ) . "As a g e n e r a l r u l e , '[w]here extraneous material [ i s ] i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s , ... a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e [must] be shown t o w o r k 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., 3 4 1 S o . 2 d 6 7 1 , 672 ( A l a . 1 9 7 6 ) . H o w e v e r , i n some cases, 'the c h a r a c t e r and n a t u r e o f t h e extraneous m a t e r i a l ... c o n s t i t u t e s p r e j u d i c e a s a m a t t e r o f law a n d no showing that t h e j u r y was i n fact influenced thereby i n a r r i v i n g at their v e r d i c t i s necessary.' I d . ( p r e j u d i c e presumed as a m a t t e r o f law from jury's consulting encyclopedia and dictionary definitions of 'negligence,' 'contributory negligence,' 'subsequent negligence,' and ' s u b s e q u e n t c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence')." 3 I recognize that this list 35 i s not all-inclusive. CR-07-2246 Minshew v. See also State, Ex parte ("Extraneous in 594 facts introduced i s well rests within E.g., Bethea, the motion of a the supra. f o r new showing indulge ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 981, 983 1991). ( A l a . 2002) i n j u r y d e l i b e r a t i o n s can r e s u l t of trial as a m a t t e r o f law, ruling will of on a motion d i s c r e t i o n of new trial, allegations the of also i n favor (citing 2d 832, 19 S o . 1977). h i s motion State, Anderson 833 v. (1971), and 2d 81, 84 denying i n the absence this Court will of h i s So. 2d 822, H a l l v. S t a t e , 348 So. the the So. 46 Jones v. (1944)). We f i n d i n g o f "no p r e j u d i c e " 36 of 703 will for a proving of 546, the 547, 31 A l a . A p p . not reverse i f the t r i a l court the 824 870, (Ala. Crim. A l a . App. State, 2d a motion satisfaction 2d 700, State, on burden new court. 723 has 624 trial of the correctness "At a h e a r i n g to for a judge disturbed d i s c r e t i o n , and defendant M i l e s v. the of the t r i a l n o t be 1998), quoting ( A l a . C r i m . App. court's ruling R e y n o l d s v. C i t y o f Birmingham, 875 1993) a sound "'The abuse C r i m . App. court." that every presumption ruling.'" 507, So. or i n prejudice settled trial So. 835 716 presumed p r e j u d i c e . " ) . It (Ala. 2d 703, Arthur, actual prejudice called So. the trial App. 245 504, trial properly CR-07-2246 investigates accord 1018, with the alleged competent misconduct evidence. Baker 1019 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1990). 2d a t 597. "Once t h e t r i a l court a n d f i n d s , b a s e d on c o m p e t e n t 597 (citing Crim. App. (Ala. 1997); seeking burden the by Bascom 1977). See Knight, a new trial of proving on a and State, not reverse." State, 344 So. 2d State, at So. 710 517. prejudice 218, So. Thus, So. misconduct R e e d , 547 2d 2d 547 So. 222 2d a 475 defendant has jurors did in fact t h e d e f e n d a n t was 2d (Ala. 472, of j u r o r misconduct j u r o r or that So. is in 574 i n v e s t i g a t e s the the basis that v. See R e e d v . S t a t e , Dawson v. 710 a l l e g e d misconduct that v. i t s finding evidence, the a l l e g e d t o be l a c k i n g , t h i s C o u r t w i l l at and the commit prejudiced misconduct. L i m i t e d to the f a c t s of t h i s case, I b e l i e v e i t cannot be held that the t r i a l court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying the motion trial. this for majority indicated a new o f t h e j u r o r s who that the In testified comment from case, the overwhelming or submitted a fellow affidavits juror d e l i b e r a t i o n s t h a t T a i t e had a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n d i d not t h e i r v o t e i n a n y way. the main opinion to As f o r the three reverse the 37 trial during impact j u r o r s r e l i e d upon court's order, by only CR-07-2246 Juror S.A. indicated at the hearing i m p a c t on h e r v e r d i c t ; however, that the foreman verdicts identical had f o r both not convict the trial court credibility impacted there before the choices by was this properly factors conclusion the t r i a l in appellant. There i s simply conclusion the part resolving to return Thus, i t could I believe i t s discretion to these that resolve jurors' verdict and thus that the advanced by T a i t e court abused choices its was that record support considerable adversely to the not s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support of the jurors i n reaching f o r a new t r i a l . stated i . e . , that not believe those S.A. had t h e comment, i n t h e main o p i n i o n I do n o t t h i n k t h e t r i a l motion than I do discretion the the other. o r t h e arguments that they defendants, and found t h a t no p r e j u d i c e . Court that exercised other t h e comment h a d a n i n her a f f i d a v i t , indicated one a n d a c q u i t that court t h a t t h e r e was p r e j u d i c e their verdict. on Therefore, committed e r r o r by denying t h e I would dissent. 38 affirm. Therefore, I must

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.