State of Alabama v. C. B. D.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/09/2009 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-08-1245 S t a t e o f Alabama v. C.B.D. A p p e a l from H o u s t o n C i r c u i t C o u r t (JU-06-165.02 t h r o u g h JU-06-165.14) MAIN, Judge. C.B.D., a juvenile, was p e t i t i o n s with the possession visual reproduction charged i n 13 delinquency o f obscene matter c o n t a i n i n g a o f a p e r s o n u n d e r t h e age o f 17 y e a r s , v i o l a t i o n s o f § 1 3 A - 1 2 - 1 9 2 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. C.B.D. moved CR-08-1245 to suppress evidence law-enforcement o f f i c i a l s s e i z e d from h i s r e s i d e n c e a n d s t a t e m e n t s he made t o l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t in connection with that the State the search of h i s residence on t h e b a s i s f a i l e d t o e f f e c t u a t e the return of the search w a r r a n t a f t e r i t was e x e c u t e d . State officials indicated that A f t e r a hearing, a t which the the search j u v e n i l e court granted w a r r a n t had been lost, the C.B.D.'s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s . Pursuant to Rule 15.7, A l a . R . C r i m . P . , court's ruling. The lost. the State appeals the juvenile r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l s e a r c h w a r r a n t was The S t a t e sought t o o f f e r the testimony of the law- e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r who h a d e x e c u t e d t h e w a r r a n t as p r o o f o f the existence evidence. contents of the warrant as secondary However, on t h e d a y o f t h e h e a r i n g , t h e o f f i c e r was unavailable juvenile and to testify judge r e f u s e d because o f a f a m i l y emergency. t o allow a continuance The t o permit the S t a t e t o produce the witness. On warrant appeal, is a suppression. the State argues ministerial defect that that the return does not The S t a t e a v e r s t h a t i t s h o u l d have b e e n t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e and c o n t e n t s 2 of the require allowed of the warrant through CR-08-1245 secondary evidence and thus that i t s failure to return the o r i g i n a l w a r r a n t does n o t r e q u i r e s u p p r e s s i o n . We a g r e e . " T h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s de novo a c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n on a motion t o suppress dispute. 1996); evidence See S t a t e v . H i l l , S t a t e v. O t w e l l , 1999)." Here, the facts are not i n 690 So. 2 d 1 2 0 1 , 1203 (Ala. 733 So. 2 d 950, 952 ( A l a . C r i m . App. S t a t e v. Skaggs, 2004). when 903 So. 2d 180, 181 ( A l a . C r i m . App. the only issue i s the c i r c u i t Therefore, this Court court's application of the law. affords presumption no i n favor of the juvenile court's ruling. S e c t i o n 15-5-12, A l a . Code 1975 p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ a ] s e a r c h warrant must be e x e c u t e d magistrate and r e t u r n e d t o t h e judge b y whom i t was i s s u e d within 10 d a y s after i t s date; i f n o t executed a f t e r such time, i t i s v o i d . " 12, A l a . Code 1975. Ala.R.Crim.P.; See R u l e 3.10, A l a . R . C r i m . P . ; a n d R u l e 3.14, A l a . R . C r i m . P . commands t h e l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t or the § 15-5¬ R u l e 3.11, (a s e a r c h w a r r a n t o f f i c e r t o whom i t i s d i r e c t e d t o e f f e c t u a t e t h e search w i t h i n a s p e c i f i e d p e r i o d not t o exceed 10 d a y s a n d t o make a p r o m p t r e t u r n a c c o m p a n i e d i n v e n t o r y t o t h e i s s u i n g judge o r m a g i s t r a t e ) . 5-12, by a w r i t t e n A l t h o u g h § 15¬ A l a . Code 1975, c l e a r l y p r o v i d e s t h a t a w a r r a n t i s v o i d 3 CR-08-1245 if not executed invalidation See in 10 i t does not provide for the o f t h e w a r r a n t upon i t s f a i l u r e t o be r e t u r n e d . Donovan v. S t a t e , 1978); days, 359 L o v e v. R i d d i c k , So. 226 2d 1181, 1183 A l a . 234, 234, ( A l a . Crim. 146 So. App. 617, 618 (1933) ( " [ F ] a c t t h a t t h e w a r r a n t was n o t s u b s e q u e n t l y r e t u r n e d d i d not d e s t r o y i t s v a l i d i t y or prevent a j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the s e a r c h made t h e r e u n d e r . " ) . F u r t h e r , t h i s C o u r t has h e l d " t h a t the f a i l u r e to execute does not seized ... under render that ten-day p e r i o d . " and return a warrant w i t h i n inadmissible warrant into which Donovan, 359 was So. evidence executed 2d a t t e n days the fruits within the 1183. We have a l s o c o n s i s t e n t l y s t a t e d t h a t m i n i s t e r i a l d e f e c t s do n o t n u l l i f y o t h e r s e a r c h - w a r r a n t p r o c e d u r e s and have u p h e l d such search warrants, absent a Money v. S t a t e , 717 So. 2d 38, 44 requirement i n Rule warrant endorsed be ministerial 3.10[, with showing of ( A l a . C r i m . App. Ala.R.Crim.P.] the prejudice. hour of that its 1997) the See ("the search issuance is o r d i r e c t o r y i n n a t u r e " and t h e f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y does n o t v o i d an o t h e r w i s e v a l i d s e a r c h , a b s e n t a s h o w i n g of p r e j u d i c e ) ; U s e r y v. S t a t e , 668 So. 2d 919, 921-22 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1995) ( d e c l i n i n g t o construe c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s of Rule 4 CR-08-1245 3.10, Ala.R.Crim.P. i n a h y p e r t e c h n i c a l manner and t h a t a s e a r c h w a r r a n t was holding n o t i n v a l i d on t h e g r o u n d s i t was n o t d i r e c t e d t o a s p e c i f i c "law enforcement (1) t h a t officer" t h a t term i s d e f i n e d i n Rule 1.4(p), Ala.R.Crim.P.; i t d i d not d e s i g n a t e a s p e c i f i c was to execute the warrant; t h a t t h e w a r r a n t was t o be "law enforcement and (Ala. C r i m . App. 1994) State, 644 that officer" (3) t h a t i t d i d n o t executed w i t h i n d a t e o f i t s i s s u a n c e ) ; C o o p e r v. (2) who specify 10 d a y s f r o m So. as 2d 480, (the f a i l u r e t o s e r v e a p r o p e r copy the 481 of t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t a t t h e t i m e o f e x e c u t i o n has no e f f e c t upon t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i m p e r a t i v e s f o r i t s i s s u a n c e and does n o t diminish State, the r e l i a b i l i t y 659 So. w a r r a n t was not 2d 215, of the evidence 218 invalid, ( A l a . C r i m . App. even though t i m e and d a t e o f i s s u a n c e as 10 p.m., execution proved, who was 8:35 p.m. seized); on the same C a r t e r v. 1994) the warrant (a s e a r c h stated and t h e a c t u a l t i m e date, when the through the testimony of the law-enforcement o b t a i n e d t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t , an o f f i c e r who w a r r a n t , and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t j u d g e who and issuance the and 5 officer the i s s u e d the warrant, i s s u e d by a j u d g e b e f o r e i t was both of State executed t h a t t h e w a r r a n t was that the execution of the executed warrant CR-08-1245 o c c u r r e d on t h e same d a t e ) ; (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) 3.11, A l a . R . C r i m . P . copy of the State (holding v. H e f l i n , that 611 So. the p r o v i s i o n 2d of 441 Rule t h a t the law-enforcement o f f i c i a l leave a search warrant and the inventory with the defendant or at the premises searched at the time of a search was merely ministerial therefore, failure invalidate the P a l m e r v. S t a t e , or to comply search 426 directory with conducted So. 2d 950, i n nature, the court," as warrant that merely 1244 the by statute, properly ministerial did issued a c t ) ; M c C o r d v. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1979) 1983) improperly returned to d i d not and not the w a r r a n t ) ; i s s u e d w a r r a n t , i n s t e a d o f t o "any required was to that, ( A l a . C r i m . App. ( h o l d i n g t h a t s e a r c h w a r r a n t t h a t was m u n i c i p a l j u d g e who provision pursuant 953 and i n v a l i d a t e search s e r v e d , as State, state 373 return So. 2d was 1242, (where w a r r a n t was e x e c u t e d w i t h i n 10-day r e q u i r e m e n t i t was n o t i n v a l i d a t e d by l a c k o f t h e m a g i s t r a t e ' s s i g n a t u r e and a d a t e on t h e r e t u r n ) ; c f . L a w r e n c e v. S t a t e , "that 601 So. 2d 194, the 48-hour 195 ( A l a . C r i m . App. requirement of Rule 1992) (holding 19(A)(5) ( a ) [ , Ala.R.Crim.P.] i s a m i n i s t e r i a l or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e act designed 6 CR-08-1245 to ensure the a c c o u n t a b i l i t y enforcement UTTC i s s u e d t o a law agency"). However, nor of each when t h e o r i g i n a l available for inspection warrant i s neither by a d e f e n d a n t ' s returned counsel, the defendant's a b i l i t y to r a i s e c h a l l e n g e s t o the issuance of the warrant and the compromised. 402, 414 manner i n which i t was executed may be Owens v. S t a t e , 51 A l a . App. 50, 62, 282 So. 2d (1973) ("A s e c r e t o r h i d d e n c o u r t document c o u l d w e l l p r e v e n t a l a w y e r from a d e q u a t e l y p r e p a r i n g a defense client."). forhis Thus, t h e l a w i s c l e a r t h a t s e c o n d a r y e v i d e n c e i s a d m i s s i b l e t o show t h e e x i s t e n c e and c o n t e n t s o f an a f f i d a v i t and search warrant once i t has been reasonable s a t i s f a c t i o n of the t r i a l was l o s t , Rule Ala.R.Evid. evidence of (allows the contents proponent of that evidence has duplicate of writing, absent the M c E l r o y ' s Alabama E v i d e n c e (recognizing original to original of a neither bad writing" 7 or when the o r i g i n a l faith); §§ 212.01, 214.01 i s lost See f o r the a d m i s s i b i l i t y circumvention of best-evidence where the judge, t h a t the warrant a b s e n t b a d f a i t h on t h e p a r t o f t h e p r o p o n e n t . 1004(1), "other established, C. of the nor a Gamble, (5th ed. 1996) preference f o r destroyed). See also CR-08-1245 C r a w f o r d v . S t a t e , 44 A l a . App. 3 9 3 , 393, 210 So. 2d 685, 686 (1967), cert. denied, 282 A l a . 725, 210 So. 2d 688 (1968) ( t r i a l court properly admitted testimony of several witnesses to account f o r absence o f f o r m a l warrant t o s e a r c h automobile belonging t o defendant violation, whom o f f i c e r s together with affidavit suspected of narcotics made before justice of p e a c e who i s s u e d t h e w a r r a n t ) ; c f . T a y l o r v . S t a t e , 337 So. 2d 773, 775 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1976) (motion t o suppress i m p r o p e r l y d e n i e d where p o l i c e c h i e f h a d t o l d d e f e n d a n t was that he h a d s e a r c h w a r r a n t , t h e n s e a r c h e d p r e m i s e s a n d s e i z e d i t e m s that were h i d d e n suppress was and p o l i c e heard, chief purported was d e a d when m o t i o n search warrant was to not a v a i l a b l e , a n d t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e as t o c o n t e n t s o f w a r r a n t or contents warrant). o f any a f f i d a v i t that authorized issuance of 1 We n o t e t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t s e c o n d a r y e v i d e n c e i s a d m i s s i b l e t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e and c o n t e n t o f a l o s t document when t h e p r o p o n e n t e s t a b l i s h e d , t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s s a t i s f a c t i o n , t h a t a d i l i g e n t b u t f u t i l e s e a r c h was p e r f o r m e d . See Woods v . S t a t e , 641 So. 2d 316 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 513 U.S. 934 (1994) ( t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d p h o t o c o p i e s o f c h e c k s as s e c o n d a r y e v i d e n c e u n d e r b e s t - e v i d e n c e r u l e ) ; Edwards v. S t a t e , 505 So. 2d 1297, 1299 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1987) ( p h o t o c o p y o f m u r d e r e r ' s c o n f e s s i o n statement was properly admitted into evidence, where prosecution h a d made t h o r o u g h and d i l i g e n t search f o r 1 8 CR-08-1245 In t h i s case, the j u v e n i l e court h e l d the State accountable for i t s failure search warrant, case. We c o n c l u d e should have evidence suppressed to effectuate the evidence, t h a t t h i s was e r r o r . afforded the State sufficient and to establish the contents a return of the and d i s m i s s e d t h e The j u v e n i l e court the opportunity to offer t o demonstrate e x i s t e d a n d t h a t i t was n o t l o s t strictly that through the search fault of the l o s t warrant of the State warrant through o r i g i n a l , a n d s t a t e m e n t was i n t r o d u c e d t h r o u g h t e s t i m o n y o f officer who t o o k i t a n d who was p r e s e n t when i t was t r a n s c r i b e d a n d r e a d a n d s i g n e d b y a c c u s e d a n d who t e s t i f i e d t h a t c o p y was t r u e a n d c o r r e c t ) ; S p e l l m a n v . S t a t e , 500 So. 2d 110, 112-13 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986) ( t r i a l c o u r t was w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n admitting p a r o l evidence of contents of l o s t document where d i l i g e n t s e a r c h was c o n d u c t e d ) ; Howton v . S t a t e , 391 So. 2d 147, 150 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1980) ( e x c e p t i o n to best-evidence rule requiring introduction of o r i g i n a l w r i t i n g u n l e s s o r i g i n a l i s l o s t , has b e e n d e s t r o y e d , o r i s o t h e r w i s e u n a v a i l a b l e e x i s t s so t h a t , i f o r i g i n a l i s i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a c c u s e d , s t a t e may o f f e r s e c o n d a r y e v i d e n c e o f i t s c o n t e n t s w i t h o u t a t t e m p t i n g t o p r o c u r e i t from o r g i v i n g n o t i c e t o produce i t t o accused); R e i l i n g v. S t a t e , 339 So. 2d 115, 116 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1976) ( t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y admitted carbon copy of defendant's statement of h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d w a i v e r o f h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s when l o s s o f document was e s t a b l i s h e d t o s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t r i a l court); C o f i e l d v . S t a t e , 41 A l a . App. 469, 473, 136 So. 2d 897, 901, c e r t . d e n i e d , 273 A l a . 706, 136 So. 2d 904 (1961) ( " N e g l i g e n t d e s t r u c t i o n o f a document i s no b a r t o i t s p r o o f b y s e c o n d a r y evidence. While i t s f r a u d u l e n t d e s t r u c t i o n would exclude secondary evidence, a f r a u d u l e n t d e s t r u c t i o n w i l l n o t be p r e s u m e d b u t must be made t o a p p e a r . " ) . 9 CR-08-1245 secondary evidence. evidence to e s t a b l i s h lost or misplaced decisions States. of t h i s Our conclusion permitting secondary b o t h t h e e x i s t e n c e and m a t e r i a l t e r m s o f warrants Court is consistent with and d e c i s i o n s o f o t h e r previous courts See, e.g., Thomas v. S t a t e , 37 A l a . App. 118, 119-20, 66 So. 2d 103, 104 (1953) ( s e c o n d a r y e v i d e n c e becomes p r i m a r y e v i d e n c e by p r o o f o f d e s t r u c t i o n o r l o s s o f o r i g i n a l d o c u m e n t ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. P r a t t , Cir. 2006) prohibit and and ("We hold that the contents of a l o s t 438 F.3d 1264, 1266 ( 1 1 t h the Fourth t h e use o f o t h e r evidence primary Amendment to establish does not the existence s e a r c h w a r r a n t . " ) ; S t a t e v. H a l l , 342 So. 2d 616, 622 ( L a . 1977) ( p a r o l e e v i d e n c e u s e d t o p r o v e e x i s t e n c e o f m i s p l a c e d w a r r a n t ) ; Commonwealth v. O c a s i o , Mass. 1, 746 N.E.2d 469 (2001) to (vacating order of suppression a l l o w Commonwealth t o e s t a b l i s h warrant through application of the contents the of the l o s t best-evidence rule); A n d e r s o n v. S t a t e , 9 Md. App. 532, 267 A . 2 d 296, 300 (where original document was not intentionally destroyed, prosecution e n t i t l e d to offer B o y d v. S t a t e , 164 M i s s . ("If the a f f i d a v i t 434 secondary lost 10 warrant have b e e n or evidence); 610, 611, 145 So. 618, 619 and s e a r c h (1970) (1933) lost, the CR-08-1245 p r o o f must show n o t o n l y t h e l o s s b u t a l s o s u b s t a n t i a l l y their contents."). Based granting against on f o r e g o i n g , the motion C.B.D. t h e judgment t o suppress i s reversed. and d i s m i s s i n g This proceedings consistent with t h i s of the juvenile cause court t h e case i s remanded f o r opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Kellum, J . , concurs. in the result. Welch, W i s e , P . J . , a n d Windom, J . , c o n c u r J . , dissents. 11

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.