Jerry Wade Rich 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 be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-08-1078 J e r r y Wade R i c h v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal PER from Court CURIAM. The appellant, Jerry receiving stolen property § Jefferson Circuit (CC-08-1532) 13A-8-18, A l a . Code imprisonment; that serve appeal one y e a r followed. Rich, was convicted of i n the second degree, a v i o l a t i o n o f 1975. sentence followed Wade He was s e n t e n c e d was s p l i t , b y two y e a r s t o 10 years' a n d h e was o r d e r e d t o on p r o b a t i o n . This CR-08-1078 The State's evidence tended October 2007, R i c k F r e e s e , Target Corporation, Department to met the discuss police merchandise Salser, who at an conducting in Pawn sold three iPods stolen, Rich, an turn, employee Department two of the Detective t h a t he h a d iPods and sting Shop. Department, to following. In investigator with operation Police at Jim's Target agreed to f u r n i s h merchandise would, Jim's a officer confessed the a loss prevention undercover to show w i t h members o f t h e T r u s s v i l l e Pawn S h o p i n T r u s s v i l l e . to to Todd In with that 1 attempt of October the he of the f a l s e l y recorded that pawn Birmingham the pawnshop Pawn that 2007, represented Jim's Posey to Scott Police had been Shop. Rich Trussville Police t h e s e r i a l numbers often received on stolen property. R i c h a r g u e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was his conviction argues, the "stolen." in Ex p a r t e State, 231 for State He failed relies Walls, A l a . 60, receiving to insufficient stolen prove property that the to s u s t a i n because, property on t h e A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s 711 163 So. So. 2 d 490 394 ( A l a . 1997), and 2 was decisions Farzley v. (1935). An i P o d i s a p o r t a b l e m e d i a p l a y e r m a n u f a c t u r e d by A p p l e , I n c . 1 he and sold CR-08-1078 In 1997, addressed receive the whether the status." Supreme would apply i t been r e c o v e r e d The Court in Ex parte s t a t u t e making i t a c r i m i n a l stolen property been s t o l e n or had "stolen Alabama Supreme C o u r t had the Walls, offense property from p o l i c e and never lost i t s stated: "It i s undisputed t h a t e i g h t of the radios s u p p l i e d t o t h e p o l i c e by B a k e r and l a t e r p u r c h a s e d by W a l l s had n e v e r been s t o l e n . T h e r e f o r e , under F a r z l e y [ v . S t a t e , 231 A l a . 60, 163 So. 394 (1935)], they cannot be the subject of the offense of r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y . ' [ I ] f as a m a t t e r o f f a c t [ t h e g o o d s ] h a d n o t b e e n s t o l e n , t h e r e c o u l d be no conviction, no matter how strong the evidence tending t o show t h a t a d e f e n d a n t h a d reasonable grounds f o r b e l i e v i n g t h e y were s t o l e n . ' Smitherman v . S t a t e , 340 So. 2d 8 9 6 , 900 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1976), i n t e r p r e t i n g F a r z l e y . In o t h e r words, a defendant may possess the r e q u i s i t e g u i l t y mind, but i f the p r o p e r t y i s not a c t u a l l y s t o l e n p r o p e r t y , then a circumstance t h a t i s unknown t o him p r e v e n t s him from committing the c o m p l e t e d a c t p r o h i b i t e d by statute, i . e . , the offense of receiving stolen property. "The state nonetheless u r g e s t h a t we should allow a conviction for receiving stolen property u n d e r § 13A-8-16 whenever a d e f e n d a n t has reasonable g r o u n d s t o b e l i e v e t h a t p r o p e r t y r e c e i v e d has been stolen, without respect to whether the property r e c e i v e d h a d b e e n s t o l e n i n f a c t . The s t a t e r e f e r s us t o c a s e s f r o m o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n w h i c h c o u r t s h a v e h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t may be c r i m i n a l l y l i a b l e for receiving, notwithstanding t h a t the property r e c e i v e d was n o t i n f a c t s t o l e n p r o p e r t y . See S t a t e v . B u j a n , 274 N . J . S u p e r . 1 3 2 , 643 A . 2 d 628 (App.Div. 1 9 9 4 ) ; S t a t e v . S w e e n e y , 701 S.W.2d 420 (Mo. 1985); S t a t e v . P a p p a s , 705 P.2d 1169 (Utah 1985). These 3 to CR-08-1078 c a s e s d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t some s t a t e s h a v e e l i m i n a t e d from their statutory 'receiving' offense the requirement that the property r e c e i v e d have been stolen i n fact. While our legislature could s i m i l a r l y e l i m i n a t e t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t as an e l e m e n t of t h e completed ' r e c e i v i n g ' o f f e n s e i n t h i s s t a t e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t o a d o p t s u c h a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f § 13A-8-16, as t h a t s e c t i o n p r e s e n t l y r e a d s , w o u l d be d i r e c t l y c o n t r a r y t o t h e s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e . "As n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , § 1 3 A - 8 - 1 6 ( a ) s t a t e s t h a t '[a] p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n property i f he i n t e n t i o n a l l y r e c e i v e s , r e t a i n s o r d i s p o s e s of s t o l e n p r o p e r t y knowing t h a t i t has been s t o l e n or having reasonable grounds to b e l i e v e i t has b e e n s t o l e n . ' ( E m p h a s i s added.) Thus, t h e s t a t e w o u l d have us r e a d o u t o f t h e s t a t u t e t h e e x p r e s s requirement that the property received, retained, or d i s p o s e d o f by t h e d e f e n d a n t have been s t o l e n . T h i s we d e c l i n e t o d o . "'"A b a s i c r u l e o f r e v i e w i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s i s t h a t c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s a r e t o be strictly construed i n favor of those p e r s o n s s o u g h t t o be s u b j e c t e d to their operation, i . e . , defendants. Schenher v. S t a t e , 38 A l a . A p p . 5 7 3 , 90 S o . 2 d 2 3 4 , c e r t . d e n i e d , 2 6 5 A l a . 7 0 0 , 90 S o . 2 d 238 (1956). "'"One who c o m m i t s an a c t w h i c h d o e s n o t come w i t h i n t h e w o r d s o f a c r i m i n a l statute, according to the general and p o p u l a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h o s e w o r d s , when t h e y a r e n o t u s e d t e c h n i c a l l y , i s n o t t o be punished thereunder, merely because the a c t may c o n t r a v e n e t h e p o l i c y o f t h e s t a t u t e . F u l l e r v . S t a t e , [257 A l a . 5 0 2 , 60 S o . 2 d 202 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , ] c i t i n g Y o u n g ' s C a s e , 58 A l a . 358 (1877)."' 4 CR-08-1078 "Ex p a r t e (emphasis 711 So. 2d a t 494. reach i t s decision The State decision the M u t r i e , 658 S o . 2 d 3 4 7 , 34 9 omitted)." argues that the Alabama statute was a m e n d e d after Walls that § i n 2003, definition such on F a r z l e y 13A-8-2(3), enables as one law because, which was law enforcement in this Supreme case Court's i t asserts, was r e l e a s e d . added to to carry and the degree. indicted for receiving The i n d i c t m e n t reads stolen It theft out s t i n g broadened of theft i n the receiving-stolen-property was property 16) (capitalization original). 5 the statute. i n the as f o l l o w s : " J E R R Y WADE R I C H , w h o s e name i s t o t h e g r a n d j u r y otherwise unknown, did, intentionally receive, r e t a i n , o r d i s p o s e o f s t o l e n p r o p e r t y , t o - w i t : one I p o d o f t h e v a l u e o f $ 2 4 9 . 9 9 ; one I p o d o f t h e v a l u e o f $199.99 a n d one I p o d o f t h e v a l u e o f $59.98, t h e p r o p e r t y o f C I T Y OF T R U S S V I L L E P O L I C E DEPARTMENT, A M U N I C I P A L CORPORATION k n o w i n g t h a t i t was s t o l e n o r h a v i n g r e a s o n a b l e grounds t o b e l i e v e i t had been s t o l e n and n o t h a v i n g t h e i n t e n t t o r e s t o r e i t t o i t s owner, i n v i o l a t i o n o f S e c t i o n 13A-8-18 o f t h e Alabama C r i m i n a l Code, a g a i n s t t h e peace and d i g n i t y of t h e S t a t e of Alabama." (C. to i n Walls. good operations second relied i s no l o n g e r contends Rich Court i n Walls theft statute The S u p r e m e ( A l a . 1993) CR-08-1078 Section receiving 13A-8-16, stolen Ala. Code 1975, defines the crime of property: "(a) A p e r s o n commits the c r i m e of r e c e i v i n g stolen property i f he intentionally receives, r e t a i n s or d i s p o s e s of s t o l e n p r o p e r t y knowing t h a t i t has been s t o l e n o r h a v i n g r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s t o b e l i e v e i t has been s t o l e n , u n l e s s t h e p r o p e r t y i s received, r e t a i n e d or d i s p o s e d of w i t h i n t e n t to r e s t o r e i t to the owner." Section stolen 13A-8-18(a)(1), property property but in that does not value." 1975, as: property, When mind the in the exceeds Code second "five e x c e e d two "Stolen" Ala. 1975, degree hundred defines as receiving dollars ($500) thousand f i v e hundred d o l l a r s i s defined in § "[o]btained by theft robbery, receiving stolen in value ($2,500) extortion." examining or the theft, relevant f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s of 13A-8-1(12), A l a . by appropriating statutes, statutory we must keep construction: " ' " [ I ] t i s well established that criminal statutes s h o u l d n o t be ' e x t e n d e d b y c o n s t r u c t i o n . ' " ' Ex p a r t e M u t r i e , 658 So. 2d 3 4 7 , 349 ( A l a . 1993) (quoting Ex parte Evers, 434 So. 2d 813, 817 (Ala. 1983), q u o t i n g i n t u r n L o c k l e a r v . S t a t e , 50 A l a . App. 679, 282 So. 2d 116 (1973)). "'A b a s i c r u l e o f r e v i e w i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s i s t h a t c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s a r e t o be strictly construed in favor of those p e r s o n s s o u g h t t o be subjected to their operation, i . e . , defendants. Schenher v. 6 Code lost in CR-08-1078 S t a t e , 38 A l a . A p p . 5 7 3 , 90 S o . 2 d 2 3 4 , c e r t . d e n i e d , 2 6 5 A l a . 7 0 0 , 90 S o . 2 d 238 (1956). "'Penal statutes are to reach no further i n meaning than their words. F u l l e r v . S t a t e , 257 A l a . 5 0 2 , 60 S o . 2 d 202 (1952). "'One who c o m m i t s a n a c t w h i c h does n o t come w i t h i n t h e w o r d s o f a c r i m i n a l statute, according t o t h e g e n e r a l and p o p u l a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h o s e w o r d s , when t h e y a r e n o t u s e d t e c h n i c a l l y , i s n o t t o be punished thereunder, merely because the a c t may c o n t r a v e n e t h e p o l i c y o f t h e s t a t u t e . F u l l e r v. S t a t e , supra, c i t i n g [Young v. S t a t e ] , 58 A l a . 358 ( 1 8 7 7 ) . "'No p e r s o n i s t o b e made s u b j e c t t o penal statutes by i m p l i c a t i o n and a l l doubts concerning t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n are to predominate i n favor of the accused. F u l l e r v. S t a t e , s u p r a . ' " C l e m e n t s v . S t a t e , 370 S o . 2 d 7 2 3 , 725 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ( q u o t e d i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t i n E x p a r t e M u r r y , 455 So. 2 d 72 , 7 6 ( A l a . 1984 ) , a n d i n E x p a r t e W a l l s , 711 S o . 2 d 4 9 0 , 494 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ) ( e m p h a s i s added). " ' " S t a t u t e s c r e a t i n g c r i m e s a r e t o be s t r i c t l y construed i n favor of the accused; t h e y may n o t b e h e l d t o a p p l y t o c a s e s n o t c o v e r e d by t h e words used United S t a t e s v . R e s n i c k , 2 9 9 U.S. 207 , 20 9, 57 S.Ct. 1 2 6 , 1 2 7 , 81 L . E d . 127 ( 1 9 3 6 ) . S e e a l s o , E x p a r t e E v e r s , 434 S o . 2 d 8 1 3 , 816 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ; F u l l e r v . S t a t e , 257 A l a . 5 0 2 , 60 S o . 2 d 2 0 2 , 2 0 5 ( 1 9 5 2 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , 614 S o . 2 d 4 0 5 , 406 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) (emphasis added). '[T]he fundamental r u l e [ i s ] t h a t 7 CR-08-1078 criminal statutes are construed s t r i c t l y against the S t a t e . See Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , 614 S o . 2 d 405 ( A l a . 1 993).' E x p a r t e H y d e , 778 S o . 2 d 2 3 7 , 2 3 9 n . 2 (Ala. 2 0 0 0 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . The ' r u l e o f l e n i t y r e q u i r e s t h a t " a m b i g u o u s c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e [ s ] ... b e construed i n favor of the accused."' C a s t i l l o v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 530 U.S. 1 2 0 , 131 , 120 S . C t . 20 90 , 147 L.Ed.2d 94 (2000) (paraphrasing Staples v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 5 1 1 U.S. 600 , 61 9 n. 1 7 , 114 S . C t . 1 7 9 3 , 128 L . E d . 2 d 608 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ) . " Ex parte Bertram, 884 S o . 2 d 8 8 9 , 8 9 1 - 9 2 (Ala. 2003). " ' M o r e o v e r , "one ' i s n o t t o be s u b j e c t e d t o a p e n a l t y u n l e s s t h e words o f t h e s t a t u t e plainly impose i t , ' Keppel v. Tiffin S a v i n g s B a n k , 197 U.S. 3 5 6 , 3 6 2 , 25 S . C t . 443, 49 L . E d . 790 [ ( 1 9 0 5 ) ] . '[W]hen c h o i c e h a s t o b e made b e t w e e n t w o r e a d i n g s o f w h a t c o n d u c t C o n g r e s s h a s made a c r i m e , it i s a p p r o p r i a t e , b e f o r e we c h o o s e t h e harsher alternative, to require that Congress s h o u l d have spoken i n language t h a t i s c l e a r and d e f i n i t e . ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v . U n i v e r s a l C . I . T . C r e d i t C o r p . , 34 4 U.S. 218, 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 , 73 S . C t . 2 2 7 , 2 2 9 - 2 3 0 , 97 L.Ed. 260 [(1952)]." United States v. C a m p o s - S e r r a n o , 404 U.S. 2 9 3 , 2 9 7 , 92 S . C t . 4 7 1 , 4 7 4 , 30 L . E d . 2 d 457 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . ' " [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v.] B r i d g e s , [(5th C i r . 1974)]. 4 9 3 F . 2 d [ 9 1 8 ] a t 923 "'Words u s e d i n t h e s t a t u t e must be g i v e n t h e i r n a t u r a l , p l a i n , o r d i n a r y , and commonly understood m e a n i n g . ' A l a b a m a Farm B u r e a u M u t . C a s u a l t y I n s . Co. v . C i t y o f H a r t s e l l e , 460 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 3 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . The g e n e r a l rule of construction f o r the p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e A l a b a m a C r i m i n a l Code i s f o u n d i n Ala. Code 1 9 7 5 , § 13A-1-6: ' A l l p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s title shall be c o n s t r u e d according to the f a i r import o f t h e i r terms t o promote j u s t i c e and t o 8 CR-08-1078 effect the objects of the law, i n c l u d i n g the purposes stated i n section 1 3 A - 1 - 3 . ' Among t h e purposes stated i n § 13A-1-4 i s that found i n subsection ( 2 ) : 'To g i v e f a i r w a r n i n g o f t h e n a t u r e of the conduct p r o s c r i b e d . ' " Carroll v. State, 599 So. 2d 1253, 1265 ( A l a . Crim. App. theft statute add provides that 1992). The § legislature 13A-8-2(3), commits has A l a . Code the crime amended the 1975, w h i c h of t h e f t of property to a person i f he o r s h e : "(3) K n o w i n g l y o b t a i n s o r e x e r t s c o n t r o l o v e r p r o p e r t y i n the custody of a law enforcement agency w h i c h was e x p l i c i t l y r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e p e r s o n b y a n agent of the law enforcement agency as being stolen." However, t h i s same p r o v i s i o n was n o t a d d e d t o t h e r e c e i v i n g - stolen-property statute "stolen" 13A-8-1(12), in legislature property it § § intended or to to the Ala. broaden general Code the definition 1975. definition Had of of the stolen f o r purposes of the r e c e i v i n g - s t o l e n - p r o p e r t y statute c o u l d h a v e e a s i l y amended § 1 3 A - 8 - 1 ( 1 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975, o r 13A-8-16, A l a . Code adding subsection legislature stolen provided property (3) 1975; i t d i d not. to harsher § 13A-8-2, penalties as a r e s u l t o f a s t i n g 9 I t appears A l a . Code 1975, f o r t h o s e who operation that i n the receive and enabled CR-08-1078 the S t a t e of to prosecute those offenders the statutes 13A-8-1(12), A l a . this case, and at they decision i n Walls, issue Code 1975, have d i d not are not Court's decision i n Walls. of offense theft. Moreover, § f o r the g r e a t e r been The i n Walls, the § 13A-8-16 same o n e s i n v o l v e d amended s i n c e or even c i t e the " t h e f t " c o d i f i e d i n § 13A-8-2, A l a . Code 1975, r e l i e d on the statute. relevant unless and until the convicted his Walls the of We have was receiving Rich's that is we still no not s e c o n d d e g r e e m u s t be Supreme its definition but strictly instead binding on construe this the Court, receiving-stolen- a l t e r n a t i v e but to "stolen," could stolen conviction in receiving-stolen-property l e g i s l a t u r e amends t h e property Accordingly, in requires statute. because the law statutes. property in s t r i c t wording of the The the Supreme C o u r t , i n r e a c h i n g r e l y on and Rich that not be See Walls. for receiving stolen property reversed property. hold and a judgment rendered favor. R E V E R S E D AND Wise, Main, JUDGMENT RENDERED. P . J . , and W e l c h , Windom, and J., dissents, with opinion. 10 Kellum, JJ., concur. CR-08-1078 MAIN, J u d g e , I dissenting. respectfully dissent reversing Jerry Wade receiving stolen property from Rich's the per conviction and curiam for rendering a opinion second-degree judgment in his favor. Rich was charged receiving stolen Code 1975. The principles is in opinion those out, with v i o l a t i o n of statutory with sets a curiam opinion regarding also indictment property, per accordance by has set § receiving stolen 13A-8-18, out construction, principles. second-degree As the and Ala. applicable my analysis the per curiam property is defined as: "A p e r s o n commits the c r i m e of receiving stolen p r o p e r t y i f he i n t e n t i o n a l l y r e c e i v e s , retains or d i s p o s e s of s t o l e n p r o p e r t y k n o w i n g t h a t i t has b e e n s t o l e n or h a v i n g r e a s o n a b l e grounds to b e l i e v e i t has b e e n s t o l e n , u n l e s s t h e p r o p e r t y i s received, r e t a i n e d or d i s p o s e d of w i t h i n t e n t to r e s t o r e i t to the owner." § 13A-8-16(a), A l a . second-degree when t h e Code 1975. receiving stolen property i n v a l u e but does not ($2,500) value in A person stolen property, "exceeds f i v e e x c e e d two § commits the a C thousand f i v e hundred Ala. of felony, hundred d o l l a r s 13A-8-18(a)(1), 11 Class crime ($500) dollars Code 1975. CR-08-1078 The General Theft as: -- Definitions 1975. 8 -- which are a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s "[o]btained property, to Chapter by robbery, Theft definitions theft, theft or e x t o r t i o n . " case, by defines Involving "stolen" appropriating § 13A-8-1(12), i s n o t one o f t h e t e r m s s e c t i o n of Chapter Offenses defined 8 -- O f f e n s e s lost A l a . Code i n the general Involving Theft. However, t h e Commentary t o § 13A-8-16, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , c r o s s references § definitions f o r "property," Commentary 13A-8-1, also states that: references 8-2, specifically, the " r e c e i v i n g , " and " s t o l e n . " The cross-references "theft of property." 16 A l a . Code Additionally, "'[s]tolen' "Section § means 13A-8-1(12)." 1975, 13A-8-2, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , t h e Commentary t o § 13A-8'obtained Theft by t h e f t . ' " and i s defined i n § 13A- of of i n pertinent part, as: "A person commits the p r o p e r t y i f he o r s h e : crime theft fi "(3) K n o w i n g l y o b t a i n s o r e x e r t s c o n t r o l over property i n the custody of a law enforcement agency which was explicitly r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e p e r s o n b y an a g e n t o f t h e law e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c y as b e i n g s t o l e n , The " H i s t o r y " t o § 13A-8-2, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s legislature that the a d d e d s u b d i v i s i o n (3) b y amendment i n 2 0 0 3 . 12 Thus, CR-08-1078 i n my in o p i n i o n , t h e t h r e e i P o d s were " s t o l e n " b e c a u s e t h e y the custody Posey, an represented of the T r u s s v i l l e agent to Rich of the that Police Department; Trussville they were Police i n fact o b t a i n e d t h e p r o p e r t y f o r J i m ' s Pawn S h o p . affirm Rich's conviction. Therefore, 13 Detective Department, stolen; Therefore, I dissent. were and Rich I would

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.