Shonda Nicole Johnson, alias v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/02/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 sheets o f Southern Reporter. Readers a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), o f any 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 Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2008-2009 CR-99-1349 Shonda N i c o l e Johnson v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Walker C i r c u i t (CC-99-19) Court A f t e r Remand f r o m A l a b a m a Supreme Court MAIN, J u d g e . Shonda N i c o l e J o h n s o n was c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r , i n v i o l a t i o n o f § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( 1 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975, f o r i n t e n t i o n a l l y m u r d e r i n g Randy M c C u l l a r i n a c r i m i n a l proceeding, who h a d t e s t i f i e d o r was t o t e s t i f y s p e c i f i c a l l y a bigamy case, against CR-99-1349 J o h n s o n , where t h e m u r d e r stemmed f r o m h i s r o l e as a in t h e bigamy case. trial by J o h n s o n was witness s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h by t h e c o u r t f o l l o w i n g an a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t b y t h e j u r y o f d e a t h a vote without o f 11 parole. i n favor This 1 of death Court reversed c o n v i c t i o n because, although were a d m i s s i b l e Court h e l d the t r i a l and remanded to the exclusionary court should ( A l a . Crim. ___ rule, remanded 2005). this The reversed and Court's limiting i n s t r u c t i o n s by t h e t r i a l Alabama decision, court this limiting evidence. [Ms. CR-99-1349, M a r c h 11, 2005] App. life Johnson's have g i v e n i n s t r u c t i o n s as t o t h e j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h i s J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , of h e r p r i o r b a d a c t s and c o n v i c t i o n as e x c e p t i o n s that to 1 i n favor So. 3d Supreme finding Court that were n o t n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e t h e p r i o r b a d a c t s and c o n v i c t i o n were a d m i s s i b l e substantive evidence were w a r r a n t e d . So. 3d and t h e r e f o r e J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , as no l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s [Ms. 1041313, O c t . 6, 2006] ( A l a . 2006). The t r i a l c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h e j u r y ' s o r i g i n a l a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t as t h e v o t e was n i n e i n f a v o r o f d e a t h a n d t h r e e i n favor of l i f e without parole (C. 152, 1 5 4 ) . Alabama law r e q u i r e s that a j u r y ' s v e r d i c t of l i f e imprisonment without p a r o l e be b a s e d on a v o t e o f t h e m a j o r i t y , w h i l e a j u r y v e r d i c t o f d e a t h must be b a s e d on a t l e a s t 10 v o t e s . § 13A-54 6 ( f ) , A l a . Code 1975. 1 2 CR-99-1349 Because these two referenced issues, concerning the a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e p r i o r b a d a c t s and c o n v i c t i o n o f J o h n s o n , as w e l l as have now the necessity been d e c i d e d We also note be See limiting on a p p e a l , that e s t a b l i s h e d a t t r i a l was appeal. of a instructions therefor, t h e y w i l l n o t be full rendition re-visited. of the facts s e t f o r t h i n t h e o r i g i n a l d e c i s i o n on J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , So. 3d a t , and w i l l not repeated. I. Johnson argues t h a t the to trial c o u r t e r r e d by impeach Timothy R i c h a r d s allow her prior c o n v i c t i o n s , and with failing evidence f u r t h e r f a i l i n g to a l l o w her of to to his admit e v i d e n c e of these c o n v i c t i o n s d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase of her trial, and in violation Fourteenth Alabama of the Amendments t o t h e law. Johnson Fifth, United refers to Sixth, States two prior Eighth, Constitution and convictions for d i s t r i b u t i n g harmful m a t e r i a l to minors. Timothy Richards, Johnson's co-defendant i n the c a s e , t e s t i f i e d as t o J o h n s o n ' s and h i s r o l e s i n t h e and murder Richards, of McCullar. defense counsel During the questioned 3 him present shooting cross-examination as follows: of CR-99-1349 "Q. D i d y o u Hueytown? have any arrests i n the City of " A : Y e s , s i r , I do. "Q: A n d what was t h a t for? "A: D i s t r i b u t i n g t o d e l i n q u e n c y of a minor. "Q: D i s t r i b u t i n g t o t h e d e l i n q u e n c y o f a m i n o r ? A n d t e l l what t y p e o f d i s t r i b u t i n g t o t h e d e l i n q u e n c y o f a minor d i d you p a r t a k e i n ? "A: I d i d n ' t p a r t a k e i n anything, b u t I was f o u n d -- "Q: D i d a woman make y o u do s o m e t h i n g then? "A: No. "Q: What were charge? y o u -- what was the basis of "A: What do y o u mean? "Q: D i d t h a t -- why were y o u c h a r g e d w i t h "A: B e c a u s e o f my that? sister. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Y o u r H o n o r , c a n we a p p r o a c h the bench? "THE COURT: Uh-huh. "BENCH CONFERENCE: " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : We want t o i n t e r p o s e an o b j e c t i o n a t t h i s p o i n t . The d e f e n s e h a s n o t s u p p l i e d us w i t h any i n f o r m a t i o n l i k e t h i s . He's a s k e d a p u r e l y i l l e g a l q u e s t i o n and he knows i t ' s i l l e g a l t o a s k a n d we'd o b j e c t a n d we a s k f o r c u r a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s at t h i s p o i n t . 4 that CR-99-1349 "[Defense C o u n s e l ] : Judge, t h i s i s ,I b e l i e v e , g o i n g t o be a c r i m e o f m o r a l turpitude, this i s contributing to the d e l i n q u e n c y o f a minor. "THE COURT: I t seems t o me. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : A n d u n d e r t h e r u l e s , he knew t h a t a n d we want c u r a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s . "[Defense Counsel]: I t is a moral turpitude, therefore, i ti s n ' t necessary. C o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e delinquency o f a minor "[Another Prosecutor]: conviction? Was there "[Another Defense C o u n s e l ] : I don't a know. "THE COURT: C o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e d e l i n q u e n c y o f a m i n o r c a n be a s a s k i n g a k i d t o r u n a stop sign. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Judge, c o - c o u n s e l here s a i d t h e y d i d n ' t e v e n know i f t h e r e was a c o n v i c t i o n on i t a n d t h e y h a v e n ' t s u p p l i e d anything. He knew -we ask f o r i n s t r u c t i o n s , he was i n t e n t i o n a l l y d o i n g t h a t -¬ "THE COURT: T h a t ' s o k a y , i t ' s c l o s e t o 4:00 and e v e r y b o d y i s irritable. " [ D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : Judge i n my d e f e n s e , I j u s t f o u n d o u t a b o u t i t m y s e l f . She's j u s t r e v e a l e d i t t o me. "THE COURT: Okay. T h a t ' s f i n e . T h a t ' s "(END OF BENCH CONFERENCE) 5 fine. CR-99-1349 "THE COURT: L a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n o f t h e j u r y I'm i n s t r u c t i n g y o u t o d i s r e g a r d any statements or testimony o r answers w i t h regard t o a charge o f , I t h i n k they s a i d d i s t r i b u t i n g , but i t ' s contributing to the d e l i n q u e n c y o f a minor. That has n o t h i n g t o do w i t h a n y t h i n g o f t h i s c a s e , a l l r i g h t , so j u s t do away w i t h t h a t . " (R. 576-578.) Thereafter, t h e next day, t h e f o l l o w i n g t r a n s p i r e d : " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : J u d g e , we have f i l e d a n d gave them a c o p y o f a M o t i o n i n L i m i n e . "THE COURT: Uh-huh, What does i t s a y ? "[Another P r o s e c u t o r ] : B a s i c a l l y i t says anymore q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g b a d a c t s o f Timothy Richards p r i o r t o h i s meeting t h e defendant, i n f r o n t of the j u r y without b e i n g s c r e e n e d , we j u s t t h o u g h t t h e way they've asked those t h i n g s , the b a s i c a l l y u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d a l l e g a t i o n s they've asked him a b o u t -¬ "THE COURT: Oh -¬ " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : -- a n d i t ' s j u s t g o t t e n t o t h e p o i n t o f r e c k l e s s n e s s -¬ " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Not o n l y t h a t , b u t t h e y ' r e throwing o u t c h i l d m o l e s t a t i o n w i t h no b a s i s f o r a s k i n g t h e q u e s t i o n , t h e r e ' s no b a s i s o r f a c t f o r any o f t h a t , b e f o r e t h e y they at least do t h a t we'd a s k t h a t approach t h e bench. "THE COURT: Uh-huh. 6 CR-99-1349 " [ A n o t h e r P r o s e c u t o r ] : Do y o u want T i m now o r do y o u want t o d i s c u s s t h i s first? Richards, the witness. "THE COURT: anymore. They don't want t o do " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Do y o u want t o t e l l that them o r "THE COURT: I want t o be p u t on n o t i c e f o r any b a d a c t s t h a t y o u may be w a n t i n g t o b r i n g o u t w i t h r e g a r d t o any w i t n e s s , g i v e me some n o t i c e b e f o r e h a n d so I c a n r u l e on i t . Okay. B r i n g t h e j u r y i n . "[Another Honor. Prosecutor]: One minute. Your "[Another Defense Counsel]: We probably n e e d t o go a h e a d a n d t a k e i t up now. "THE COURT: What? What i s i t ? " [ D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : J u d g e , t h i s i s what we were just discussing, those are the o r i g i n a l s . Ed's g o t t o f i n d s o m e t h i n g , j u s t a moment. Y o u r Honor. " [ A n o t h e r D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : Do y o u want a few m i n u t e s t o l o o k a t t h a t ? We j u s t g o t t h a t copy F r i d a y a f t e r n o o n . "[Prosecutor]: we've s e e n -- Yes, i t ' s the f i r s t time " [ A n o t h e r D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : W e l l , we w o u l d h a v e g i v e n i t t o y o u e a r l i e r i f we h a d i t e a r l i e r . We l e f t h e r e a n d went s t r a i g h t t o the courthouse. 7 CR-99-1349 "[Defense C o u n s e l ] : There's a n a r r a t i v e i n t h e r e . Y o u r Honor, "THE COURT: A w h a t ? "[Defense Counsel]: A n a r r a t i v e -- a d e p o s i t i o n , I mean, t h e r e ' s two o f them, one y o u c a n r e a d a n d one y o u c a n ' t . "THE COURT: T h i s i s o n e ? "[Defense Counsel]: Yes, "THE COURT: Was he c h a r g e d on t h i s ? "[Defense "THE Counsel]: Yes, sir. with something sir. COURT: Was t h e r e a c o n v i c t i o n on t h i s ? "[Another Defense Counsel]: Yes, s i r , t h e r e ' s two c o n v i c t i o n s . These a r e -- t h e r e were o r i g i n a l l y s i x c a s e s , three were d i s m i s s e d a n d t h r e e were p l e d t o . "THE COURT: Uh-huh. "[Another Defense Counsel]: One was a v i o l a t i o n o f 13A-12 -¬ "THE COURT: D o n ' t g i v e me numbers, t e l l me what i t i s . "[Another Defense Counsel]: I t ' s d i s t r i b u t e material which i s harmful t o a minor, t o wit: -¬ "THE COURT: I s t h a t a f e l o n y ? "[Another Defense Counsel]: I t ' s n o t a f e l o n y , b u t i t ' s a crime o f moral t u r p i t u d e we w o u l d a r g u e . 8 CR-99-1349 "[Another Prosecutor]: But i t ' s not moral t u r p i t u d e -¬ "THE COURT: G i v e me a l i s t . "[Another Defense Counsel]: Sir? "THE COURT: T h e r e ' s a l i s t somewhere o f m o r a l t u r p i t u d e c r i m e s I assume y o u ' v e seen i t ? "[Another Defense Counsel]: I expect that's a court. d e t e r m i n a t i o n made b y t h e t r i a l There's "THE a -¬ COURT: O h , n o , we d o n ' t make these t h i n g s u p , -¬ "[Another Section Defense Counsel]: 12-21-162 g o v e r n s Judge, the that issue. "THE COURT: Uh-huh. What does i t s a y ? "[Another Defense C o u n s e l ] : I t says t h a t i n cross examining a witness with regard t o c r e d i b i l i t y , t h e w i t n e s s c a n be e x a m i n e d , t o u c h i n g on a c o n v i c t i o n f o r a crime i n v o l v i n g moral t u r p i t u d e . "THE COURT: Uh-huh. "[Another Defense c o u n s e l ] : And h i s answers may be -- may be c o n t r a d i c t e d b y o t h e r evidence i f they don't speak t r u t h f u l l y w i t h r e g a r d t o t h a t . We w o u l d a r g u e t h a t d i s t r i b u t i n g pornographic material t o a m i n o r -¬ "THE COURT: I s a f e l o n y . "[Another Defense f e l o n y -- Counsel]: 9 I t i s not a CR-99-1349 " [ D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : N o , s i r , b u t i t -- i t ' s definitely a crime involving moral t u r p i t u d e when y o u ' r e g i v i n g young g i r l s who seem l i k e t h e y ' r e n i n e o r t e n b y t h e way t h e y w r i t e -¬ "THE COURT: T h a t sounds g o o d , b u t t h a t a i n ' t how t h e l a w w o r k s . "[Another P r o s e c u t o r ] : Your Honor, I t h i n k it's been something that anyone might simply deny, talking about prior c o n v i c t i o n s a n d t h e s t a n d a r d now i s no l o n g e r m o r a l t u r p i t u d e , b u t goes t o t h e truthfulness or f a l s i t y of the statement, e i t h e r more t h a n a y e a r i m p r i s o n m e n t o r a n y c o n v i c t i o n , I t h i n k i t ' s on t h e t o p o f t h e next page, any c o n v i c t i o n concerning truthfulness. "THE COURT: Can y o u show me where case i s i n t h i s ? "[Another statute. Defense Counsel]: This y'alls i s the "THE COURT: O h , I know t h e r e ' s a s t a t u t e a g a i n s t i t . I'm l o o k i n g f o r why i t w o u l d be admissible. " [ A n o t h e r D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : I t w o u l d be " [ D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : Uh -- go a h e a d . "[Another Defense Counsel]: I t ' s a crime o f m o r a l t u r p i t u d e . Y o u r Honor. "THE COURT: Y o u ' r e j u s t u s i n g t h a t word. "[Another Defense Counsel]: Y e s , s i r . 10 CR-99-1349 "THE COURT: Y o u ' r e moral t u r p i t u d e . just using "[Another Defense Counsel]: t h e word Yes, s i r . "THE COURT: Does t h i s i n v o l v e impeachment? "[Another Defense Counsel]: That i n v o l v e s impeachment, Judge. I b e l i e v e t h e defendant i n t h a t -- o r t h e w i t n e s s i n t h a t c a s e h a d t e s t i f i e d u n t r u t h f u l l y with regard t o p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s -¬ "THE COURT: Y e a h . U n t r u t h f u l l y w i t h r e g a r d -- t h e u n t r u t h f u l p a r t i s t h e main p a r t . "[Another Defense Counsel]: "[Defense Counsel]: Well Y e s , s i r , he -¬ "[Another Defense Counsel]: particular -¬ instance. Well, i n this Your Honor, the w i t n e s s d e n i e d -¬ " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : No he d i d n ' t . " [ A n o t h e r D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : He d i d . We c a n g e t h e r t o r e a d t h a t b a c k , Y o u r Honor. "[Prosecutor]: didn't. We need "[Another Defense Counsel]: d i d n ' t do t h a t -- 11 to because he He s a i d t h a t he CR-99-1349 " R I C H A R D S : [ ] : T h a t was my s i s t e r ' s d o i n g , I d i d n ' t do t h a t , t h a t was d i s m i s s e d . 2 " [ A n o t h e r Defense C o u n s e l ] : And t h a t not t r u e . simply " [ A n o t h e r P r o s e c u t o r ] : F i r s t o f f I'm a s k i n g "THE COURT: Was i t d i s m i s s e d ? " [ D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : No, s i r , he p l e d g u i l t y t o t h e c r i m e -¬ "[Another P r o s e c u t o r ] : ask -- what g e t s you t o -¬ "(SPEAKING SIMULTANEOUSLY) "[Defense Counsel]: "[Another pleading -- on a l l t h r e e c h a r g e s Prosecutor]: He admitted to g u i l t y t o -¬ " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : To c o n t r i b u t i n g . "[Another Prosecutor]: "[Prosecutor]: guilty. He -- c o n t r i b u t i n g . admitted to pleading " [ A n o t h e r D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : He d i d n ' t a d m i t to pleading g u i l t y to d i s t r i b u t i o n . A l t h o u g h t h e t r a n s c r i p t r e f l e c t s t h a t t h i s s t a t e m e n t was made b y d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , i t a p p e a r s , f r o m t h e c o n t e n t that R i c h a r d s made t h i s s t a t e m e n t . T h e r e f o r e t h e r e a p p e a r s t o have been a t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r . 2 12 CR-99-1349 " [ A n o t h e r P r o s e c u t o r ] : W e l l you d i d n ' t a s k him t h a t -¬ " [ A n o t h e r D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : W e l l , we d i d "[Another Prosecutor]: about c h i l d m o l e s t a t i o n him a b o u t . " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Yeah, c h i l d molestation. -- y o u a s k e d h i m i s what y o u a s k e d you asked him about "THE COURT: Okay. L e t ' s g e t t h e j u r y i n h e r e . G e t them i n h e r e . I'm n o t g o i n g t o l e t -- t h a t i s n o t a c r i m e i n v o l v i n g m o r a l t u r p i t u d e as p e r any l i s t s t h a t I've g o t . " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : And going i n t o the w o u l d n ' t be anyway. "THE specifics COURT: Nuh-uh. " [ D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : J u d g e , t h e p o i n t i s he d i d deny i t a n d we f e e l t h a t i t does involve moral turpitude because he's d i s t r i b u t i n g -¬ "THE COURT: W e l l , y o u a s k e d c o n t r i b u t i n g t o the delinquency o f a minor. "[Defense Counsel]: "THE "THE sir. COURT: T h a t ' s n o t -¬ "[Another was Yes, Prosecutor]: Eve n the question -¬ COURT: Yeah, t h a t q u e s t i o n i s bad. A n d t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d t o d i s r e g a r d i t . 13 CR-99-1349 "[Another Defense C o u n s e l ] : With regard t o d e n y i n g what was -- what t h e c o n v i c t i o n itself "THE COURT: You f i n d me where t h i s i s -- I mean, J o h n Q. E v e r y d a y C i t i z e n s a y s , 'Of course, that involves morals and, of c o u r s e , that i s a bad t h i n g . ' That's not how t h e l a w w o r k s . W r i t i n g a b a d c h e c k u s e d t o be i n v o l v i n g m o r a l t u r p i t u d e . I t ' s n o t anymore, i t ' s n o t t o d a y . And t h a t ' s because t h e C o u r t ' s have c h a n g e d i t . "[Another Defense C o u n s e l ] : W e l l , t h e case t h a t I've brought t h e Court i s w i t h regard t o -¬ "THE COURT; He was l y i n g "[Another Defense prior convictions about? Counsel]: Lying about "THE COURT; I s t h a t what "[Another Defense C o u n s e l ] : And t h e w i t n e s s i n t h i s c a s e was c r o s s e x a m i n e d w i t h r e g a r d t o p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . He d e n i e d t h e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n a n d we have p r o o f o f t h a t p r i o r conviction. "THE COURT: T h a t c e r t a i n l y , absolutely s h o u l d be d e n i e d I mean, t h a t s h o u l d be a l l o w e d i f he d e n i e s p e r t i n e n t c o n v i c t i o n s . "[Another Defense Counsel]: I f the conviction i t s e l f i s relevant to the case. "THE COURT: Y e a h . "[Another Prosecutor]: I f the c o n v i c t i o n i n v o l v e d moral t u r p i t u d e . 14 CR-99-1349 "[Another Defense Counsel]: Well, that particular case i n v o l v e s t h e defendant opening the door. "THE COURT: R i g h t . " [ A n o t h e r D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : A n d we w o u l d a r g u e t h a t t h e w i t n e s s h a s o p e n e d -"THE COURT: N o . " [ A n o t h e r P r o s e c u t o r ] : No, you c a n ' t a s k t h e q u e s t i o n , 'Have you b e e n c o n v i c t e d ? ' and s a y t h a t ' s o p e n i n g t h e d o o r . "THE COURT: Nuh-uh, you c a n n o t you cannot ask a question that c a n ' t be a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e and then r e b u t i t by something e l s e . O v e r r u l e d . " (R. 582-91). Rule 609, A l a . R . E v i d . , a d d r e s s e s t h e impeachment o f w i t n e s s e s by e v i d e n c e o f c o n v i c t i o n s o f c r i m e s , as f o l l o w s : "a) G e n e r a l R u l e . F o r t h e p u r p o s e the c r e d i b i l i t y o f a w i t n e s s , of attacking " ( 1 ) ( A ) e v i d e n c e t h a t a w i t n e s s o t h e r t h a n an a c c u s e d h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i m e s h a l l be a d m i t t e d , s u b j e c t t o R u l e 4 0 3 , i f t h e c r i m e was p u n i s h a b l e b y d e a t h o r i m p r i s o n m e n t i n e x c e s s o f one y e a r u n d e r t h e l a w u n d e r w h i c h t h e w i t n e s s was c o n v i c t e d , and "(1)(B) evidence that an a c c u s e d h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f s u c h a c r i m e s h a l l be a d m i t t e d i f t h e court determines that the probative value of a d m i t t i n g t h i s evidence outweighs i t s p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t t o t h e a c c u s e d ; and 15 CR-99-1349 "(2) evidence that any witness has been convicted o f a c r i m e s h a l l be admitted i f i t i n v o l v e d d i s h o n e s t y or f a l s e statement, r e g a r d l e s s of the punishment." The § Advisory 12-21-162(b), impeachment by was Committee Notes t o t h i s Ala. Code evidence of s u p e r c e d e d by R u l e 609. 1975, which 3 year or that authorized turpitude These n o t e s f u r t h e r s t a t e d that the p r o p r i e t y of the p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s was one had crimes i n v o l v i n g moral an a l t e r n a t e t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g seriousness, section state e s t a b l i s h e d : one as t o s p e c i f y i n g the crime c a r r y a sentence of at l e a s t d e a t h ; and involved dishonesty the other requiring that or f a l s e statement. the crime As t o t h e l a t t e r , the Notes e x p l a i n : "Crimes involving 'dishonesty or false s t a t e m e n t , ' as i n d i c a t e d i n t h e r e p o r t o f t h e S e n a t e C o m m i t t e e on t h e J u d i c i a r y d u r i n g t h e p r o c e s s o f a d o p t i n g t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g F e d e r a l R u l e 609, i n c l u d e c r i m e s ' s u c h as p e r j u r y o r s u b o r n a t i o n o f p e r j u r y , f a l s e statement, c r i m i n a l f r a u d , embezzlement or f a l s e p r e t e n s e , o r any o t h e r o f f e n s e , i n t h e n a t u r e of crimen f a l s i the commission of which i n v o l v e s some element of untruthfulness, deceit, or f a l s i f i c a t i o n b e a r i n g on t h e a c c u s e d ' s p r o p e n s i t y t o S e c t i o n 12-21-162(b) s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d , " [ A ] w i t n e s s may be e x a m i n e d t o u c h i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r a c r i m e i n v o l v i n g m o r a l t u r p i t u d e , and h i s a n s w e r s may be c o n t r a d i c t e d by o t h e r evidence." 3 16 CR-99-1349 t e s t i f y t r u t h f u l l y . ' S e n a t e Comm. on J u d i c i a r y , F e d . R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e , S. Rep. No. 1277, 93d Cong., 2d S e s s . , 14 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . " I n Adams v. S t a t e , App. 2003), w r i t . grounds, argued 955 So. granted i n part, Ex p a r t e Adams, 955 that 2d 1037, So. 2d 1106 i m p r o p e r l y r e s t r i c t e d b e c a u s e he was his prior t h e d e l i n q u e n c y o f a m i n o r and (Ala. Crim. r e v e r s e d i n p a r t on h i s c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n of the witness concerning 1081-83 ( A l a . 2005), other Adams a State's witness was not a l l o w e d t o q u e s t i o n convictions f o r encouraging f o r indecent exposure. Adams a r g u e d t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 609, A l a . R . E v i d . , he s h o u l d have been prior a l l o w e d t o impeach the w i t n e s s w i t h evidence convictions. narrowed the Noting definition i m p e a c h a w i t n e s s , " 955 of So. of these that Rule 609 "significantly crimes that were admissible to 2d a t 1082, t h i s Court held: "Alabama has n e v e r h e l d t h a t t h e c r i m e s o f indecent exposure and contributing to the d e l i n q u e n c y of a minor are crimes t h a t f i t w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f R u l e 609, A l a . R . E v i d . I n d e e d , neither crime involves dishonesty or false s t a t e m e n t s and have no b e a r i n g on a p e r s o n ' s a b i l i t y t o t e s t i f y t r u t h f u l l y . Compare A l f a M u t u a l G e n e r a l I n s u r a n c e Company v. O g l e s b y , 711 So. 2d 938 ( A l a . this state have not 1997) ('[t]he c o u r t s of determined whether i n d e c e n t exposure i s a crime i n v o l v i n g m o r a l t u r p i t u d e ' ) , w i t h D u c k e t t v. S t a t e , 61 Md. App. 151, 157, 485 A. 2d 691, 694 (1985), a f f ' d , 306 Md. 503, 510 A. 2d 253 (1986) ('We h o l d , therefore, that, f o r purposes of impeachment, 17 CR-99-1349 i n d e c e n t e x p o s u r e i s n o t an i n f a m o u s c r i m e , a c r i m e of m o r a l t u r p i t u d e , a f e l o n y , n o r a c r i m e i n v o l v i n g d i s h o n e s t y or d e c e i t ' ) . " 955 So. 2d a t 1083. Because the crime of d i s t r i b u t i o n of harmful m a t e r i a l t o a minor 1975, i s a misdemeanor, see § 13A-12-200.5(1), A l a . Code and i s n o t an o f f e n s e w h i c h w o u l d b e a r on t h e w i t n e s s ' s propensity to t e s t i f y t r u t h f u l l y , i t i s not a d m i s s i b l e under R u l e 609 f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s . p r o p e r l y p r e v e n t e d Johnson convictions and because of t h i s Moreover, admission Johnson's for of her this constitute a e v i d e n c e was mitigating constitutional trial court evidence harmful statutory rights were n o t of c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . properly during t r i a l b e f o r e the j u r y . distributing court from i n t r o d u c i n g evidence of these restriction the Therefore the t r i a l the mitigating to 4 prevented penalty Richard's p r i o r material a violated of convictions minor circumstance phase the did and not this p r o p e r l y h e l d to not c o n s t i t u t e a n o n - s t a t u t o r y circumstance. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t d u r i n g t h e d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n o f R i c h a r d s , he a d m i t t e d t h a t s e v e r a l s t a t e m e n t s he made t o t h e p o l i c e c o n c e r n i n g h i s i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e p r e s e n t o f f e n s e were false. (R. 5 6 0 ) . Thus, e v i d e n c e o f h i s d i s h o n e s t y was presented b e f o r e the j u r y . 4 18 CR-99-1349 "The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a d d e c l a r e d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l murder must be allowed to present at the sentencing hearing a broad r a n g e o f p r o p o s e d m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e . The C o u r t held: "'[W]e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e E i g h t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments r e q u i r e that the sentencer, i n a l l but the r a r e s t k i n d of capital case, not be precluded from c o n s i d e r i n g , as a m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r , a n y aspect o f a defendant's character or record and any o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e o f f e n s e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t p r o f f e r s as a b a s i s f o r a sentence l e s s than d e a t h . ' " L o c k e t t v. O h i o , 438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . "By s t a t u t e , A l a b a m a l a w a l l o w s a b r o a d s p e c t r u m o f e v i d e n c e t o be o f f e r e d as m i t i g a t i o n : to the mitigating "'In addition circumstances specified in Section 13A-5-51, m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s shall include any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the d e f e n d a n t o f f e r s as a b a s i s f o r a s e n t e n c e of l i f e imprisonment w i t h o u t p a r o l e i n s t e a d o f d e a t h , and a n y o t h e r r e l e v a n t m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t o f f e r s as a b a s i s f o r a sentence of l i f e imprisonment without parole i n s t e a d of d e a t h . ' "§ 13A-5-52, A l a . Code 1975. "Our Supreme C o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y stated: "'To determine the appropriate s e n t e n c e , t h e s e n t e n c e r must engage i n a "broad i n q u i r y i n t o a l l r e l e v a n t m i t i g a t i n g 19 CR-99-1349 evidence to allow an individualized d e t e r m i n a t i o n . " B u c h a n a n v. A n g e l o n e , 522 U.S. 269, 276 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . A l a b a m a ' s s e n t e n c i n g scheme b r o a d l y allows the accused to p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n m i t i g a t i o n . J a c o b s v. S t a t e , 361 So. 2d 640, 652-53 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( g ) , A l a . Code 1975 ("The See d e f e n d a n t s h a l l be a l l o w e d t o o f f e r any m i t i g a t i n g circumstance defined i n Sections 13A-5-51 and 1 3 A - 5 - 5 2 . " ) . " [ E ] v i d e n c e a b o u t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s b a c k g r o u n d and c h a r a c t e r i s r e l e v a n t because of the b e l i e f , l o n g h e l d by t h i s s o c i e t y , t h a t d e f e n d a n t s who commit c r i m i n a l a c t s t h a t are a t t r i b u t a b l e t o a disadvantaged background, or t o emotional and m e n t a l p r o b l e m s , may be l e s s c u l p a b l e t h a n d e f e n d a n t s who have no s u c h e x c u s e . " C a l i f o r n i a v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538 (1987) (O'Connor, J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) . ' "Ex So. parte 2d a t Smith, . [Ms. 1010267, M a r c h 14, 2003] "Evidence proffered in m i t i g a t i o n by the defendant must be relevant, however, and the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of r e l e v a n c e i s a d e c i s i o n f o r the t r i a l c o u r t t o make i n t h e s o u n d e x e r c i s e o f i t s d i s c r e t i o n . K n o t t s v. S t a t e , 686 So. 2d 431, 444 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , a f f ' d , 686 So. 2d 486 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . We s t a t e d i n K n o t t s : "'The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the r e l e v a n c y of evidence lies within the sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . B o r d e n v. S t a t e , 522 So. 2d 333 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1988); C. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e , § 21.01(6) ( 4th ed.1991). Here, the t r i a l c o u r t was r e q u i r e d t o a d m i t a l l r e l e v a n t mitigating evidence of the appellant's c h a r a c t e r o r r e c o r d and any circumstances p e r t a i n i n g to the o f f e n s e s . " 20 CR-99-1349 Beckworth v. State, 946 So. 2d 490, 504-05 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2005). "Although mitigating a defendant's evidence is right quite to broad, present proposed evidence that is i r r e l e v a n t and u n r e l a t e d t o a d e f e n d a n t ' s c h a r a c t e r o r r e c o r d or See to the circumstances of the Beckworth Beckworth's Beckworth's State, 946 So. 2d i s properly at 507 excluded. (evidence that f a t h e r was c u r r e n t l y c h a r g e d w i t h s e x u a l l y a b u s i n g daughter irrelevant)." 2007] ___ v. crime was Woods v. So. 2d ___ , ___ properly State, e x c l u d e d because [Ms. CR-05-0448, A u g u s t ( A l a . C r i m . App. e r r o r , p l a i n o r o t h e r w i s e , as t o t h i s 2007) (finding claim"). " ' " W h i l e L o c k e t t [v. O h i o , 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed 2d 973 (1978)] and i t s p r o g e n y r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f all evidence s u b m i t t e d as mitigation, whether the evidence i s a c t u a l l y found t o be m i t i g a t i n g i s i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g a u t h o r i t y . " B a n k h e a d v. S t a t e , 585 So. 2d 97, 108 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) . ' Ex p a r t e S l a t o n , 680 So. 2d 909, 924 ( A l a . 1996). F i n a l l y , a l t h o u g h the t r i a l c o u r t must c o n s i d e r a l l m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i t has d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a particular mitigating circumstance is p r o v e n and t h e w e i g h t i t w i l l g i v e t h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e . See W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 710 So. 2d 1276 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , a f f ' d , 710 So. 2d 1350 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . " 21 i t was 31, "no CR-99-1349 S h a r p v. S t a t e , ___ , ___ [Ms. CR-05-2371, December 19, ( A l a . C r i m . App. Here, R i c h a r d ' s of the Ala. the trial that court Richard's do not So. 1975, as these 3d remand). constitute enumerated m i t i g a t i n g circumstances Code c i r c u m s t a n c e s and (on r e t u r n t o prior convictions statutorily 13A-5-51, 2008) 2008] all address one in § the conduct of the c a p i t a l defendant. Moreover, d i d not abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n prior convictions statutory mitigating d i d not determining constitute a non- circumstance. II. Johnson improperly argues that the trial court inaccurately i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y on t h e a g g r a v a t i n g and circumstance o f " h i n d e r i n g g o v e r n m e n t f u n c t i o n s , " § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 7 ) , A l a . Code 1975, so that existence. the j u r y was "virtually ( J o h n s o n ' s B r i e f on Johnson contends t h a t the trial to the the jury concerning ensured" Appeal at court's charged. p o r t i o n of the § 13A-5-40(14), aggravating 22 Code Specifically, circumstance of equated i t with c a p i t a l offense Ala. find i t s written instructions h i n d e r i n g government f u n c t i o n s i m p r o p e r l y aggravating 24). to the f o r w h i c h she was 1975. These written CR-99-1349 instructions were torn from Consideration of Aggravating Section 13A-5-40(14), the State's Motion for Circumstances. A l a . Code 1975, sets out the c a p i t a l o f f e n s e o f m u r d e r "when t h e v i c t i m i s s u b p o e n a e d , o r has b e e n s u b p o e n a e d , t o t e s t i f y , in o r the v i c t i m had t e s t i f i e d , any p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g , g r a n d trial or criminal trial or civil municipal, from, state, proceeding proceeding j u r y proceeding, o f whatever of or federal whatever court, when criminal nature, or nature, civil i n any t h e murder stems i s caused by, o r i s r e l a t e d t o t h e c a p a c i t y o r r o l e o f t h e v i c t i m as a w i t n e s s . " The record indicates that after the j u r y d e l i b e r a t i o n s on t h e s e n t e n c i n g p a r t o f t h e t r i a l , was s u b m i t t e d mitigating stated and a g g r a v a t i n g that quickly. t o the judge requesting a l i s t the t r i a l (R. 1314.) court circumstances, had read had begun a question o f examples o f because the j u r y the i n s t r u c t i o n s too The t r i a l j u d g e a g a i n o r a l l y them as t o t h e two a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s instructed t h a t t h e y were t o c o n s i d e r a n d s t a t e d , "The two t h a t y o u a r e t o a d d r e s s , and i n t h a t I'm g i v i n g them t o y o u does n o t mean t h a t t h e y e x i s t , y o u make t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f whether 23 they exist or not." (R. CR-99-1349 1314.) He motion, which The then previously written o f f the contained prosecutor tore the two p o r t i o n of aggravating mentioned that general instructions." c o u r t r e s p o n d e d , "No." the t r i a l "there's (R. (R. The 45(e), 1975, o f f e n s e w h i c h was found rules regarding The trial 1315.) prosecutor the noted court conducted t h a t under § underlying part of beyond a reasonable doubt i s considered at sentencing. trial felt c o u r t r e s p o n d e d t h a t he aware o f t h a t , and Counsel] pointed defense that arguments made prosecutor indicate a 13A-5- a capital to the stated that (R. that they 1320.) by jury (R. as 1320.) defense felt A "I t h a t the would e s t a b l i s h the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance government function. 24 (R. was [Defense review counsel to The c e r t a i n t h a t the j u r y counsel out." proven of and jury's the the verdict showed a f i n d i n g o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e same e v i d e n c e a the p r o v e n b y t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t as h a v i n g b e e n that aggravating circumstance with had court completed h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s to bench c o n f e r e n c e . Code State's counsel 1315.) j u r y but b e f o r e the j u r y r e t i r e d , the t r i a l Ala. a circumstances. s t a t e d to the judge t h a t defense m a t e r i a l s and After bottom which of i n t e r f e r e n c e 1309-10, 1313.) The CR-99-1349 prosecutor a l s o argued c o n c e r n i n g the importance of p r o t e c t i n g w i t n e s s e s to the j u s t i c e Johnson instruction the raised and of the existence of review this no (R. objections defense counsel j u r y t h a t by doubt system. 1312-13.) to the trial s t a t e d t h a t he had f i n d i n g Johnson g u i l t y beyond a capital the offense, aggravating issue for they would be circumstance. plain error court's informed reasonable finding Therefore pursuant to Rule the we 45A, Ala.R.App.P. "In a l l cases i n which the death p e n a l t y has been imposed, the C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s s h a l l n o t i c e any p l a i n e r r o r o r d e f e c t i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s under review, whether or not brought to the a t t e n t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e a c t i o n by r e a s o n t h e r e o f , w h e n e v e r s u c h e r r o r has o r p r o b a b l y has a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of the a p p e l l a n t . " R u l e 45A, has Ala.R.App.P. "adversely appellant."'" quoting " ' P l a i n e r r o r i s d e f i n e d as e r r o r t h a t affected the substantial Ex p a r t e Brown, 11 So. H a l l v. State, 820 So. 2d 3d 933, 113, 121 right 936 the (Ala. 2008), (Ala. Crim. 1999). "'The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i n r e v i e w i n g a c l a i m under the p l a i n - e r r o r d o c t r i n e i s stricter than the standard used in r e v i e w i n g an i s s u e t h a t was p r o p e r l y r a i s e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r on a p p e a l . As the 25 of App. CR-99-1349 United States Supreme Court s t a t e d i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the p l a i n - e r r o r d o c t r i n e a p p l i e s only i f the e r r o r i s " p a r t i c u l a r l y e g r e g i o u s " and i f i t "seriously affect[s] the fairness, i n t e g r i t y or p u b l i c r e p u t a t i o n of j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s . " See Ex p a r t e P r i c e , 725 So. 2d 1063 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 526 U.S. 1133, 119 S.Ct. 1809, 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ; B u r g e s s v. S t a t e , 723 So. 2d 742 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 723 So. 2d 770 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 526 U.S. 1052, 119 S.Ct. 1360, 143 L.Ed.2d 521 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ; J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 620 So. 2d 679, 701 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 620 So. 2d 709 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , on remand, 620 So. 2d 714 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 510 U.S. 905, 114 S.Ct. 285, 126 L.Ed.2d 235 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . ' " H a l l v. S t a t e , 820 App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , Although the f a i l u r e review, i t will p r e j u d i c e . See D i l l C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , So. 2d 113, 121-22 ( A l a . C r i m . 820 So. 2d 152 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . t o o b j e c t w i l l not p r e c l u d e our weigh against any claim of v. S t a t e , 600 So. 2d 343 ( A l a . aff'd, 600 So. 2d 372 ( A l a . 1992)." S a l e v. S t a t e , The 8 So. 3d 330, 345 State's Motion ( A l a . C r i m . App. for Consideration 2008). of Aggravating Circumstances sets out the p e r t i n e n t a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance as follows: "2. T h a t t h e murder b y t h e D e f e n d a n t was committed t o d i s r u p t or h i n d e r the l a w f u l e x e r c i s e of a n y g o v e r n m e n t a l f u n c t i o n o r t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f l a w s ; t o w i t : t h a t t h e murder stemmed f r o m , was 26 CR-99-1349 c a u s e d by, o r was as a w i t n e s s . " This sets out aggravating the r e l a t e d t o Randy M c C u l l a r ' s statutory circumstance language f o l l o w e d by the role establishing evidence which the the S t a t e a r g u e d w o u l d p r o v e i t s e x i s t e n c e , i n s i m i l a r f o r m t o an indictment. was The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i t was necessary facts aggravating aware o f t h e S t a t e ' s argument t h e i r duty to determine e x i s t e d to establish the and whether the existence of the circumstance. j u r y ' s v e r d i c t f i n d i n g t h a t Johnson murdered M c C u l l a r The where t h e m u r d e r stemmed f r o m h i s r o l e as a w i t n e s s did not a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e q u i r e a f i n d i n g of the e x i s t e n c e at s e n t e n c i n g of the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance to d i s r u p t or same e v i d e n c e aggravation hinder governmental may used be i n the d e p e n d i n g on t h e finding a witness that circumstances as the both committed However, the aggravating the underlying circumstance, case. W h i t e h e a d was murdering functions. to e s t a b l i s h offense I n W h i t e h e a d v. 1999), t h a t t h e m u r d e r was these S t a t e , 777 So. c o n v i c t e d of in a theft verdicts 2d two ( A l a . Crim. capital proceeding d i d not offenses against him. App. for In c o n s t i t u t e aggravating at sentencing, t h i s Court 27 781 stated: CR-99-1349 "The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e j u r y was p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d on t h e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s i t c o u l d c o n s i d e r and t h e p r o c e s s t o be u s e d i n w e i g h i n g t h e a g g r a v a t i n g and m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s f o u n d t o e x i s t i n t h e c a s e . The f a c t t h a t t h e murder v i c t i m was a w i t n e s s , b o t h a w i t n e s s who had t e s t i f i e d i n a c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g and a w i t n e s s who had b e e n subpoenaed t o t e s t i f y i n a c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g , i s n o t an a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e f o r the j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g the proper sentence u n d e r § 13A-5-49, A l a . Code 1975. The jury was i n s t r u c t e d a c c o r d i n g l y , and j u r o r s a r e p r e s u m e d t o f o l l o w the i n s t r u c t i o n s of the t r i a l c o u r t . See T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 666 So. 2d 36 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , a f f ' d , 666 So. 2d 73 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 516 U.S. 1120, 116 S.Ct. 928, 133 L.Ed.2d 856 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . We n o t e t h a t i n i t s s e n t e n c i n g order, the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t was f u l l y aware t h a t t h e m u r d e r o f a w i t n e s s was n o t an a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e p r o v i d e d f o r i n § 13A-5-49, and t h a t i t had c o n s i d e r e d o n l y t h e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s p r o v i d e d f o r by s t a t u t e i n reaching i t s sentencing determination." 777 So. 2d a t 819. Thus, a v e r d i c t o f g u i l t u n d e r § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 7 ) , A l a . Code 1975, does not automatically result aggravating circumstance, 13A-5-45(e). 5 See in the finding of an as i n t h e s i t u a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i n § McNabb v. State, 887 So. 2d 929, 994-95 Section 13A-5-45(e) s t a t e s t h a t " [ a ] t t h e sentence h e a r i n g t h e s t a t e s h a l l have t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g b e y o n d a reasonable doubt the existence of any aggravating however, any aggravating circumstances. Provided, circumstance which the v e r d i c t c o n v i c t i n g the defendant e s t a b l i s h e s was p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t a t t r i a l s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d as p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t f o r purposes of the sentence h e a r i n g . " 5 28 CR-99-1349 ( A l a . C r i m . App. police 2003) officer does ( f i n d i n g t h a t the not necessarily corresponds w i t h the a g g r a v a t i n g c a p i t a l murder of include circumstance conduct a that of d i s r u p t i n g or h i n d e r i n g t h e l a w f u l e x e r c i s e o f any g o v e r n m e n t a l f u n c t i o n o r the enforcement of the laws). Here, the evidence t h a t Johnson murdered M c C u l l a r he was going t o t e s t i f y i n the bigamy p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t both supported the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t and circumstance. S t a t e v. B e t h e l , 110 854 N.E. 2d See 150, 186 (Ohio 2006) proved the ( B e t h e l was to a witness prevent his circumstances the murder was properly and one f o u n d t o be to "escape detection, punishment for another So. 2d 906 277, 288 Ala. the See (the the killed aggravating apprehension, 2004) found portion that that Bethel offense...."). Baker, of 448, properly t o a n o t h e r o f f e n s e and t h a t he was testimony; her aggravating O h i o S t . 3d 416, g u i l t y of c a p i t a l murder w i t h the a g g r a v a t i n g v i c t i m was because committed trial, also Ex trial or parte court's r e l i a n c e on t h e h i n d e r i n g t h e l a w f u l e x e r c i s e o f g o v e r n m e n t a l function charge of aggravating assault circumstance I I I against 29 him based was on Baker's contradicted wife's by the CR-99-1349 trial to c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t B a k e r p l a n n e d t o k i l l h i s w i f e due jealousy). trial court The as j u r y was to correctly i t s duty and, orally c h a r g e d by although the the written i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n to the j u r y a l s o i n c l u d e d the evidence which the S t a t e sought the j u r y t o f i n d t o support the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance, Moreover, i t did Rule not 21.1, unduly coerce Ala.R.Crim.P., n o t be taken back a designates o r d i n a r y p r o c e d u r e s h a l l be t h a t w r i t t e n jury w i l l such finding. that i n s t r u c t i o n s to the for deliberations; however, r u l e r e c o g n i z e s t h a t i n a c o m p l e x c a s e , t h e j u r y may in u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e i s s u e s by h a v i n g a copy w i t h them. R u l e 21.2 of the charges written instructions however, written case that the charges such as a g a i n s t the defendant shall c o u r t may, go to the jury "[n]either room; p r o v i d e d , t o the j u r y i n a complex c a s e . " involves charges nor the 'given' in i t s discretion, the p r e s e n t , t h a t capital submit having mitigating difficulty understanding circumstances, the t r i a l 30 the the Thus, i n a murder where t h e j u r y c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d by t h e i r q u e s t i o n t h a t were the be a i d e d of the states i n pertinent part that a copy the aggravating and they and judge d i d not abuse h i s CR-99-1349 discretion i n d e c i d i n g to send the w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s back w i t h the j u r y . We find no plain e r r o r as to the i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e a g g r a v a t i n g trial circumstance court's written of h i n d e r i n g or d i s r u p t i n g governmental f u n c t i o n s . III. Johnson argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y t h e j u r y ' s i n i t i a l d e c i s i o n t o recommend a s e n t e n c e o f accept life refused to without returning an parole and effectively coerced a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t of death. She them into f u r t h e r argues t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have d e c l a r e d a m i s t r i a l i f i t d i d not accept The the jury's verdict. r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t the advisory verdict forms, one jury i n i t i a l l y stated that recommending a s e n t e n c e o f l i f e w i t h o u t a vote favor of of nine life i n favor without of parole the the the jury two was p a r o l e but i n d i c a t e d death penalty and returned other and three stated that in the j u r y was recommending a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h and i n d i c a t e d a v o t e of nine i n f a v o r of the l i f e without parole. the v e r d i c t and death penalty (R. 1324-25.) The and three trial i n favor court received s t a t e d , " W e n e e d t o r e d o i t , d o n ' t we?" 31 of (R. CR-99-1349 1322.) would The p r o s e c u t o r be a agreed. non-recommendation." The trial r e q u i s i t e votes the j u r y again The stated that "[a]s I understand i t , that court (1322.) instructed f o r each sentencing Defense jury the counsel to as the v e r d i c t (R. 1 3 2 2 - 3 3 ) , and deliberated. jury returned with a verdict form and, before r e c e i v i n g i t , the t r i a l c o u r t ensured t h a t the j u r y u n d e r s t o o d the v o t i n g requirements. a sentence penalty of and d e a t h by (R. 1323-24.) a vote 1 i n f a v o r of l i f e p o l l e d to v e r i f y the defense counsels the 11 without i n the and asked j u r y had their of parole. judge's the form that the The death jury chambers, j u r y had stated recommending a s e n t e n c e o f l i f e w i t h o u t their decision. i n favor argued t h a t because the judge j u r y recommended that originally they argued, the were p a r o l e , t h e y had made The prosecutors argued t h a t c l e a r l y b e e n c o n f u s e d by t h e v e r d i c t f o r m s , b u t had both They a r g u e d t h a t t h e j u r y had b e e n d e a d l o c k e d for a mistrial. vote was vote. During a conference held handed of The been trial consistent; court had therefore, properly numbers r e q u i r e d f o r e a c h s e n t e n c i n g 32 the that prosecutor i n s t r u c t e d them on verdict. the the Moreover, they CR-99-1349 noted that there was no indication that the jury had been deadlocked. "The d e c i s i o n o f t h e j u r y t o r e t u r n an advisory v e r d i c t recommending a s e n t e n c e o f l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t w i t h o u t p a r o l e must be b a s e d on a v o t e o f a m a j o r i t y o f t h e j u r o r s . The d e c i s i o n o f t h e j u r y t o recommend a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h must be b a s e d on a v o t e o f a t l e a s t 10 j u r o r s . The v e r d i c t o f t h e j u r y must be i n w r i t i n g and must s p e c i f y t h e v o t e . " § 13A-5-46(f), Ala. Thus, t h e not that verdict v. 1975. jury's advisory originally clear Code follow they v e r d i c t i n the p r e s e n t case d i d proper were s e n t e n c i n g mandates and confused when they used F. Supp. 971, 990-91 (E.D. See Mo. the instructed court the properly v. the instructions also Perkins App. 1999), a f f i r m e d , cert. State, (2002) 808 (where t h e and So.2d first the jury 953, indicated 33 verdict of form, sent the form). 1135-36 1041, 122 (where verdict (Ala. Crim. 2d 1143 (Ala. 808 So. judgment v a c a t e d on U.S. Johnston a sentence i n s t r u c t i o n s and Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , g r a n t e d and P e r k i n s v. A l a b a m a , 536 830 the j u r y t o r e - r e a d the j u r y back w i t h 2001), refused the 2000) j u r y r e t u r n e d an i m p r o p e r v e r d i c t f o r m a d v i s i n g death, was of both forms s e n t back t o r e f l e c t t h e i r v o t e . B o w e r s o x , 119 i t S.Ct. other 2653, 153 a v o t e of 11 See grounds, L.ED. 2d jurors in CR-99-1349 f a v o r o f d e a t h when p o l l e d r a t h e r t h a n 10 j u r o r s i n f a v o r o f d e a t h as r e f l e c t e d on t h e v e r d i c t f o r m , i t was c l e a r t h a t 1 o f t h e j u r o r s was a f f i r m i n g t h e j u r y ' s v o t e r a t h e r h i s o r h e r own and no e r r o r occurred). In H a r t v. S t a t e , 1992), a f f i r m e d , c e r t . denied, 124 Ex p a r t e e r r e d when i t s e n t three in (1993), 612 So. 2d 536 Hart argued t h a t i n favor of l i f e without parole. court. court 112 court the jury and 1 T h i s C o u r t f o u n d no e r r o r b y i n t h a t t h e v e r d i c t d i d n o t comport w i t h t h e and t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e Q u o t i n g K u e n z e l v. S t a t e , of coercion 1991), c e r t . denied, by t h e t r i a l 577 So. 2d 474, 524 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e (Ala. Thereafter, a v e r d i c t o f 11 i n f a v o r o f t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y trial statute the t r i a l i n f a v o r o f t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y and favor of l i f e without parole. the ( A l a . 1992), t h e j u r y back t o d e l i b e r a t e a f t e r i t had a v e r d i c t of nine returned Hart, ( A l a . C r i m . App. H a r t v. A l a b a m a , 508 U.S. 953, 113 S. C t . 2450, L. Ed. 2 d 770 returned 612 So. 2d 520, 532-33 Keunzel, 577 So. 2d 531 K u e n z e l v. A l a b a m a , 502 U.S. 886, S . C t . 242, 116 L . E d . 2d 197 ( 1 9 9 1 ) , t h i s Court stated: " ' [ I ] t does a p p e a r t h a t t h e f i r s t v e r d i c t o f t h e j u r y was n o t p r o p e r u n d e r § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 6 ( f ) , w h i c h provides: 34 CR-99-1349 "'"The d e c i s i o n o f t h e j u r y t o r e t u r n an a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t recommending a s e n t e n c e o f l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t w i t h o u t p a r o l e must be b a s e d on a v o t e o f a m a j o r i t y of the jurors. The d e c i s i o n of the jury to recommend a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h must be b a s e d on a v o t e o f a t l e a s t t e n j u r o r s . The v e r d i c t o f t h e j u r y must be i n w r i t i n g a n d must s p e c i f y t h e v o t e . " "'The j u r y ' s f i r s t v e r d i c t was n o t r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e instructions of the trial judge or to the requirements of law. " ' " N o t h i n g seems b e t t e r s e t t l e d t h a n t h a t i t i s the d u t y o f t h e c o u r t t o l o o k a f t e r t h e form and s u b s t a n c e o f t h e v e r d i c t o f t h e j u r y , so as t o p r e v e n t an u n i n t e l l i g i b l e o r i n s u f f i c i e n t v e r d i c t from p a s s i n g i n t o the records of the c o u r t . " M a r t i n v. S t a t e , 29 A l a . App. 395, 396, 196 So. 753, 753-54 ( 1 9 4 0 ) . A c c o r d , B e n t l e y v. S t a t e , 20 A l a . App. 635, 104 So. 679 (1925) . The i n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h e t r i a l judge sending the jury back for further d e l i b e r a t i o n s d i d not constitute a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t or d e p r i v e the defendant of the " l e n i e n c y o f the j u r y . " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. W a l k e r , 456 F. 2d 1037, 1039 ( 5 t h C i r . 1972) . Where t h e v e r d i c t o f t h e j u r y i s not responsive to the i n s t r u c t i o n s of the t r i a l judge and t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e l a w , t h e t r i a l judge has a d u t y t o r e j e c t t h a t i m p r o p e r v e r d i c t and require the jury t o resume i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s . D o u g h t y v. S t a t e , 228 A l a . 568, 570, 154 So. 778, 779-80 ( 1 9 3 4 ) . ' " 612 So. 2d a t 532-33. Here, t h e t r i a l jury's 1975, court also properly recognized that the v e r d i c t was n o t p r o p e r u n d e r § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 6 ( f ) , A l a . Code and s e n t sentence. the jury T h e r e was back t o r e c o n s i d e r no i n d i c a t i o n 35 i t s recommended of coercion by t h e trial CR-99-1349 c o u r t as t o what d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e j u r y s h o u l d make. the trial court advised the j u r y that In f a c t , i t "should n o t be i n f l u e n c e d i n any way b y what [ i t ] may i m a g i n e t o be t h e v i e w s o f t h e C o u r t on any s u c h s u b j e c t . " court (R. 1244-54.) f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t e d them t h a t ruling, remark o r o t h e r e x p r e s s i o n Court a t anytime d u r i n g the course "no s t a t e m e n t , i n d i c a t e any o p i n i o n punishment should be." or otherwise, o f what (R. 1244.) as t o t h i s trial question, t h a t h a s b e e n made b y t h e of t h i s t r i a l e i t h e r during the g u i l t phase o r d u r i n g t h e s e n t e n c i n g to The hearing i s intended t h e f a c t s a r e o r what t h e T h e r e was no e r r o r , p l a i n matter. IV. Johnson argues t h a t t h e t r i a l that the jury instructions penalty given phases deliberations. v e r d i c t and The jury have of certain t o them c o u r t e r r e d by members to at the close her t r i a l t o use as write requesting down the of the g u i l t and reference during She c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s l e a d t o an u n r e l i a b l e sentence. record concerning indicates that as t h e j u d g e i n s t r u c t e d the t h e purpose and use o f charges p r i o r 36 t o the CR-99-1349 jury's the retiring t o d e l i b e r a t e a t t h e g u i l t p h a s e , he stated following: "Now t h e l a w i s a v e r y s p e c i f i c t h i n g . And I w o u l d s u g g e s t t o a l l t h e j u r i e s t h a t they nominate a couple of f o l k s t o w r i t e down t h e l a w . A n d I w i l l r e a d i t s l o w l y enough f o r y o u t o g e t i t down e x a c t l y , s o t h a t y o u w i l l have t h e e x a c t l a w w i t h y o u And I t h i n k that's when you r e t i r e . important." (R. 1208.) No o b j e c t i o n instruction was r a i s e d b y J o h n s o n o r when t h e t r i a l pens a n d p a d s b e f o r e court supplied the jury t h e y were c h a r g e d as t o t h e phase. (R. 1233.) error. with sentencing R u l e 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . As Therefore, as t o t h i s s e t out i n Issue we r e v i e w t h i s i s s u e f o r p l a i n I I , supra., Rule 21.1, Ala.R.App.P. s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t t h a t " [ n ] e i t h e r a copy o f t h e charges against the defendant nor the 'given' s h a l l go t o t h e j u r y room; p r o v i d e d , written instructions however, t h a t t h e c o u r t may, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , s u b m i t t h e w r i t t e n c h a r g e s t o t h e j u r y in the or a complex c a s e . " Moreover, the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether j u r y w o u l d be a i d e d b y h a v i n g a copy o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s notes thereon i s a matter court's d i s c r e t i o n . 37 better suited to the trial CR-99-1349 "A t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n on w h e t h e r t o s u b m i t w r i t t e n c h a r g e s t o t h e j u r y i n a complex c a s e w i l l n o t be o v e r t u r n e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g o f an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . See W r i g h t v. S t a t e , 740 So. 2d 1147 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1999) ( s e n d i n g w r i t t e n c h a r g e s t o t h e j u r y d u r i n g d e l i b e r a t i o n s was n o t an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n ) . See a l s o Gaddy v. S t a t e , 698 So. 2d 1100, 1147 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) , a f f ' d , 698 So. 2d 1150 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 522 U.S. 1032, 118 S.Ct. 634, 139 L.Ed.2d 613 (1997) ( d e n y i n g a r e q u e s t t o s e n d written charges back w i t h the j u r y d u r i n g i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s d u r i n g the g u i l t phase i n a c a p i t a l m u r d e r t r i a l was n o t e r r o r ) . " A p i c e l l a v. S t a t e , 809 So. 2d 841, 862 ( A l a . C r i m . App. a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e A p i c e l l a , 809 So. 2d 865 d e n i e d , A p i c e l l a v. A l a b a m a , 534 U.S. L.Ed. 2d 706 2000), ( A l a . 2001), cert. 1086, 122 S.Ct. 824, 151 (2002). H e r e , where t h e c a s e i n v o l v e d c a p i t a l m u r d e r and a number of c o m p l e x i t i e s , t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l court a b u s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e j u r y t a k e n o t e s of his instructions. this suggestion Moreover, adversely t h e r e i s no affected indication Johnson's that substantial rights. V. Johnson misconduct a r g u e s t h a t numerous i n s t a n c e s o f denied her of a f a i r determination. 38 trial prosecutorial and a c c u r a t e s e n t e n c e CR-99-1349 A. Johnson irrelevant contends and that overly the State prejudicial convicted evidence her based on concerning her S p e c i f i c a l l y , she a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e o b s c u r e d promiscuity. t h e r e a l i s s u e s and i n f l a m e d t h e j u r y by "spar[ing] no detail i n p r e s e n t i n g t o t h e j u r y a p i c t u r e o f a p r o m i s c u o u s woman was i n s e v e r a l r o m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t once o v e r a p e r i o d o f years and b r i e f at who had c h i l d r e n by Johnson's bigamy t h i s C o u r t has was n e c e s s a r y element of in d i f f e r e n t men." (Johnson's 38.) However, as was who p r e v i o u s l y held, evidence relevant present as a c h a r g e d , murder when t h e v i c t i m had t e s t i f i e d as a witness and v i c t i m ' s r o l e as a w i t n e s s . 1349, M a r c h 11, 2005). motive. The 2005] See So. b i g a m y c h a r g e was So. 3d the at offense case Johnson c r i m i n a l proceeding capital the with which a the in of murder i s r e l a t e d to J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 3d , [Ms. the CR-99- (Ala. Crim. App. a l s o r e l e v a n t as i t e s t a b l i s h e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , her adulterous r e l a t i o n s h i p s were h e l d t o have b e e n p a r t o f an u n b r o k e n o f e v e n t s t h a t p r e c i p i t a t e d t h e m u r d e r , and 39 chain that evidence was CR-99-1349 r e l e v a n t t o s h e d l i g h t on t h e s e e v e n t s w h i c h c u l m i n a t e d i n t h e murder. So. 3d a t . F u r t h e r m o r e , as t h i s C o u r t h a s a l s o p r e v i o u s l y the relevance of this prejudicial impact. evidence was resolved, not outweighed Johnson v. S t a t e , by i t s So. 3d a t . The S t a t e d i d not use t h i s evidence t o confuse t h e j u r y , or " ' t o imply or "'to the inference bolster State, the a weak of facts case which against the defendant.'" 7 So. 3d 397, 430 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g Johnson's unduly do n o t e x i s t , ' " or Johnson's unfairly conviction Because prejudicial, the because f o r bigamy, Johnson's So. 3d a t evidence was the prosecutor's "Moreover, a d u l t e r o u s a f f a i r s was n o t prejudicial, conspiracy theory." Blackmon v. i t related motive, to and t h e . relevant conduct and not unduly i n presenting this e v i d e n c e was n o t i m p r o p e r . B. Johnson alleges that the State repeatedly and u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y s u b s t i t u t e d emotions f o r f a c t s t o the j u r y . She cites t o a comment made b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r d u r i n g h i s c l o s i n g argument t o t h e j u r y , e q u a t i n g J o h n s o n ' s 40 conduct with CR-99-1349 that of a Nazi commander; victim impact testimony by t h e v i c t i m ' s mother; and v a r i o u s q u e s t i o n s p o s e d by t h e p r o s e c u t o r e l u d i n g t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e v i c t i m was no l o n g e r p r e s e n t f o r the t r i a l As or f o r h i s family. to the prosecutor's comment argument t o t h e j u r y at the g u i l t object reference; to evaluated the Nazi pursuant to the plain during phase, thus his Johnson this error failed to must be issue rule. closing Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l jury prior t o c l o s i n g arguments t h a t the a t t o r n e y s ' do n o t c o n s t i t u t e e v i d e n c e . the court cautioned the judge i n s t r u c t e d comments F o l l o w i n g t h e c l o s i n g arguments, the jury that " i f they (sic) attorneys have s a i d a n y t h i n g , t h e y , o f c o u r s e , d e f i n i t e l y have about the statements and opening case, but are not evidence, understand that t h a t what t h e y arguments a r e n o t e v i d e n c e . " t h e j u r y was c h a r g e d In you Thomas v. their said 766 So. 2d 860, simple i n closing (R. 1214.) as t o t h e way t o e v a l u a t e s u c h State, feelings Thus, comments. ( A l a . Crim. App. 1 9 9 8 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , 10 So. 3d 1075 ( A l a . 2005), the prosecutor 41 commented t h a t t h e murder CR-99-1349 "'was more l i k e some k i n d o f N a z i war crime.'" This Court h e l d t h a t Thomas's c o u n s e l was n o t i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o object to this comment, and s t a t e d : "'"In a p r o p e r c a s e , t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y may c h a r a c t e r i z e the accused or h i s conduct i n language i t consists of invective or which, although opprobrious terms, accords w i t h the evidence of the c a s e . " ' J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 620 So. 2d 679, 703 (Ala.Cr.App.1992) (the p r o s e c u t o r ' s r e f e r e n c e t o the ' a n i m a l i s t i c n a t u r e o f t h e human m i n d ' a n d h i s comment t h a t t h e o f f e n s e was ' a b s o l u t e l y f i l t h y , h o r r e n d o u s l y d i r t y and d e s p i c a b l e ' were 'either proper statements of the evidence, proper i n f e r e n c e s f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e , o r c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t were p r o p e r l y drawn f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e , ' 620 So. 2d a t 702; a l s o t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s comment i n p e n a l t y p h a s e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was n o t a c i v i l i z e d human b e i n g was i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e two v i c t i m s h a d b e e n b r u t a l l y b e a t e n and t h e n t h e i r home s e t on f i r e ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d , 620 So. 2d 709 ( A l a . 1993) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 510 U.S. 905, 114 S.Ct. 285, 126 L.Ed.2d 235 (1993) ( q u o t i n g N i c k s v. S t a t e , 521 So. 2d 1018, 1023 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) , a f f ' d , 521 So.2d 1035 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S.Ct. 2916, 101 L.Ed.2d 948 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ) . See a l s o T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 666 So. 2d 36, 65 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1994) (characterizations of the crime as a 'massacre' and of the crime scene as a ' s l a u g h t e r h o u s e ' were p r o p e r i n f e r e n c e s f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e ) , a f f ' d , 666 So. 2d 73 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 516 U.S. 1120, 116 S.Ct. 928, 133 L.Ed.2d 856 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; M c M i l l i a n v. S t a t e , 594 So. 2d 1253, 1262 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1991) (comments c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e k i l l i n g as ' u n c i v i l i z e d ' and ' b e f i t t i n g a n i m a l s ' were r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s drawn f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e and l e g i t i m a t e comments on t h e e v i d e n c e ) ; H u r s t v. S t a t e , 356 So. 2d 1224, 1236 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1978) (prosecutor's closing remark t h a t '[t]his man s l a u g h t e r e d h i m ' d i d n o t o v e r s t e p t h e bounds o f 42 CR-99-1349 f a i r n e s s and i m p a r t i a l i t y ) . See a l s o Wright S t a t e , 279 A l a . 543, 550-51, 188 So. 2d 272, (1966) ( ' [ a ] r g u m e n t o f c o u n s e l s h o u l d n o t be r e s t r i c t e d as t o p r e v e n t r e f e r e n c e , by way i l l u s t r a t i o n , to h i s t o r i c a l f a c t s ' ) . " 766 So. In v. 279 so of 2d a t 954-55. the present prosecutor i n the presented, this case, evaluating this comment o f h i s argument and context comment d i d n o t rise to the the level by the evidence of plain error. Moreover, alludes the victim i s testimony l o s s of her son. by impact the evidence to v i c t i m ' s mother which Johnson concerning J o h n s o n does n o t s p e c i f y w h i c h s t a t e m e n t s the w i t n e s s d u r i n g her testimony to which she testimony issue for plain A was review on this ground; t h e r e f o r e , we became u p s e t she saw guilt review this error. of the witness's testimony reveals that no i m p r o p r i e t y and t h a t she made no s t a t e m e n t v i c t i m impact by i s referring. No o b j e c t i o n a p p e a r s i n t h e r e c o r d d u r i n g t h e w i t n e s s ' s phase the evidence d u r i n g the g u i l t phase. once when she there amounting t o Although responded t h a t the next time she that t h e v i c t i m f o l l o w i n g a phone c a l l on t h e n i g h t o f t h e o f f e n s e was i n h i s c a s k e t , t h i s was 43 not improper v i c t i m impact CR-99-1349 testimony. App. G r a y s o n v . S t a t e , 824 So. 2d 804, 812 ( A l a . C r i m . 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex P a r t e G r a y s o n , 824 So. 2d 844 ( A l a . 2001), c e r t . denied, Ct. G r a y s o n v. A l a b a m a , 537 U.S. 842, 123 S. 1 7 2 , 154 L. E d . 2d 66 (2002) victim's mother identifying (wherein testimony h e r and s t a t i n g t h a t p l a n n e d t o r e t u r n home was n o t v i c t i m i m p a c t t e s t i m o n y by t h e she had a n d was r e l e v a n t a s t o t h e t i m i n g o f t h e v i c t i m ' s d e a t h a s w e l l as t o explain the location reference his of the death). Here, t h e mother's t o t h e c o f f i n was made i n e x p l a i n i n g t h e t i m i n g o f death. "As t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d i n Ex p a r t e R i e b e r , 663 So.2d 999 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) : " ' I t i s p r e s u m e d t h a t j u r o r s do n o t l e a v e t h e i r common s e n s e a t t h e c o u r t h o u s e d o o r . I t w o u l d e l e v a t e f o r m o v e r s u b s t a n c e f o r us t o h o l d , b a s e d on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , t h a t [the a p p e l l a n t ] d i d n o t r e c e i v e a f a i r t r i a l s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e j u r o r s were t o l d what they probably had already suspected-that [ t h e v i c t i m ] was n o t a "human i s l a n d , " b u t a u n i q u e i n d i v i d u a l whose m u r d e r h a d i n e v i t a b l y h a d a p r o f o u n d i m p a c t on h e r c h i l d r e n , s p o u s e , p a r e n t s , friends, o r dependents (paraphrasing a portion of Justice Souter's opinion c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e j u d g m e n t i n Payne v . T e n n e s s e e , 501 U.S. 808, 838, 111 S . C t . 2597, 2 6 1 5 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ) . ' "663 So.2d a t 1006." 44 CR-99-1349 C a l h o u n v . S t a t e , 932 So. 2d 923, 969 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , cert. denied, C a l h o u n v. A l a b a m a , 2984, 165 L. E d . 2d 990 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . error 548 U.S. M o r e o v e r , t h e r e was no p l a i n t o J o h n s o n due t o t h e w i t n e s s State, 758 So. 2d 577, 596 926, 126 S. C t . c r y i n g . See F r a z i e r v . ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , and t h e cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . "In McNair v. State, 653 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), t h i s Court h e l d : So. 2d 320 "'"[A]s a general rule, a d e m o n s t r a t i o n by, o r t h e misconduct o f , a bystander or spectator during a c r i m i n a l t r i a l - i n c l u d i n g even a d i s t u r b a n c e having a tendency t o i n f l u e n c e or d i s t u r b the j u r y - i s n o t deemed t o be s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n f o r t h e g r a n t i n g o f a new t r i a l u n l e s s i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r i g h t s o f t h e a c c u s e d were p r e j u d i c e d t h e r e b y , and, g e n e r a l l y , i n t h e absence o f a showing t o t h e c o n t r a r y , i t w i l l be assumed t h a t t h e j u r y was n o t prejudiced; s i m i l a r l y , manifestations of g r i e f by s p e c t a t o r s r e l a t e d t o t h e v i c t i m o f a c r i m e , as a g e n e r a l m a t t e r , w i l l n o t a l o n e f u r n i s h g o o d g r o u n d f o r a new t r i a l , a showing b e i n g r e q u i r e d t h a t the case o f the accused was prejudiced by such conduct." " ' A n n o t . , 31 A . L . R . 4 t h 229, 234-35 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T h i s same general rule also applies to emotional m a n i f e s t a t i o n s made w h i l e t e s t i f y i n g . 31 A . L . R . 4 t h a t 235-36. See H a l l v . S t a t e , 500 So. 2d 1282, 1290-91 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) (rape v i c t i m c r i e d d u r i n g h e r t e s t i m o n y ) ; S m i t h v . S t a t e , 37 A l a . A p p . 116, 118, 64 So. 2d 620, 621, c e r t . d e n i e d , 258 A l a . 647, 64 So. 2d 622 (1953) ( a s s a u l t v i c t i m ' c r i e d a l o u d ' 45 CR-99-1349 d u r i n g t e s t i m o n y ) ; James v. S t a t e , 44 A l a . App. 593, 595, 217 So. 2d 545, 547 (1969) ( a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o r a p e v i c t i m c r i e d t w i c e d u r i n g t e s t i m o n y ) ; Lee v. S t a t e , 265 A l a . 623, 627, 93 So. 2d 757, 761 (1957) (wife of deceased murder v i c t i m 'sobbing' while t e s t i f y i n g ) ; D u f f v. S t a t e , 40 A l a . App. 80, 83, 111 So. 2d 621, 624 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 269 A l a . 696, So.2d 627 (1959) (mother o f d e c e a s e d murder 111 v i c t i m " c r y i n g out l o u d " d u r i n g p r o s e c u t o r ' s opening statement). This r u l e a p p l i e s i n c a p i t a l cases. See Henderson v. State, 583 So. 2d 276, 287 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f i r m e d , 583 So. 2d 305 (Ala. 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 503 U.S. 908, 112 S.Ct. 1268, (1992). 117 L.Ed.2d 496 "'The emotional manifestations present rise nowhere n e a r t h e l e v e l p r e s e n t e d i n C o l l u m v. S t a t e , 21 A l a . App. 220, 221, 107 So. 35, 35-36 (1926) (new t r i a l r e q u i r e d where i n a p r o s e c u t i o n f o r s e d u c t i o n , t h e p r o s e c u t r i x f a i n t e d i n t h e w i t n e s s c h a i r , and m o t h e r came t o h e r a i d w e e p i n g and c r y i n g , "Nobody knows how much we have s u f f e r e d o v e r t h i s t r o u b l e . L o r d have m e r c y on us.") and W h i t e v. S t a t e , 25 A l a . App. 323, 324, 146 So. 85 (1933) (new t r i a l r e q u i r e d where widow o f murder v i c t i m c o n t r a d i c t e d d e f e n s e counsel d u r i n g h i s c l o s i n g argument). " ' H e r e , as i n S m i t h , 37 A l a . App. a t 118, 64 So. 2d at 621: "The trial judge witnessed the i n c i d e n t [ s ] . To h i m must o f n e c e s s i t y be c o m m i t t e d a wide d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether or not the o c c u r r e n c e [ s ] a f f e c t e d the r i g h t s of the accused t o a f a i r , i m p a r t i a l t r i a l . " We f i n d no m e r i t t o t h e should a p p e l l a n t ' s argument t h a t the p r o s e c u t i o n h a v e b e e n r e q u i r e d t o c a l l w i t n e s s e s who were n o t members o f t h e v i c t i m ' s f a m i l y . ' " DeBruce v. State, 651 So. 2d 599, 608-08 1 9 9 3 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e D e B r u c e , 651 46 So. (Ala. Crim. 2d 624 App. ( A l a . 1994). CR-99-1349 There was no plain error t e s t i m o n y amounting t o improper Finally, as in the victim's v i c t i m impact to statements by witnesses testimony. that alluded t h e v i c t i m ' s i n a b i l i t y t o be p r e s e n t f o r t h e t r i a l d e a t h , t h e s e comments d i d n o t p r e j u d i c i a l l y trial. See Ex p a r t e W a l k e r , (wherein murder 972 although p o r t i o n s of victim's inappropriate, trial). daughter's they Thus, did the So. the testimony and not a friend prejudicially State did u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y s u b s t i t u t e emotions not due impact 2d 737, mother's 747 by to to h i s Johnson's ( A l a . 2007) the may capital have impact been Walker's repeatedly f o r f a c t s to the or jury. C. Johnson a l l e g e s t h a t the S t a t e i m p r o p e r l y argued not i n evidence; s p e c i f i c a l l y , the prosecutor's closing facts Johnson p o i n t s t o a p o r t i o n of argument during the guilt phase w h e r e i n he a d d r e s s e d R i c h a r d ' s t e s t i m o n y and t h e t e s t i m o n y by R i c h a r d ' s s i s t e r . She a r g u e s t h a t t h e s e w i t n e s s e s d i d n o t g i v e the testimony which the p r o s e c u t o r argued to the j u r y . She a r g u e s t h a t by m a n u f a c t u r i n g t e s t i m o n y , t h e S t a t e d e p r i v e d h e r of a fair trial. 47 CR-99-1349 Johnson cites the closing at the g u i l t when he prosecutor's phase, argument concerning during Richard's his testimony commented: "Do you remember and Tim R i c h a r d s t e l l s us a s t o r y f r o m O c t o b e r , m i d O c t o b e r t o l a t e November, one t h i n g a f t e r a n o t h e r s h e ' s b r i n g i n g up, t h e d e f e n d a n t i s b r i n g i n g up, s a y i n g , 'We've g o t t o g e t r i d o f What's t h e Randy, we've g o t t o g e t r i d o f Randy.' f i r s t one? 'Oh, t h e b i g a m y , I'm gonna go t o j a i l , who's gonna t a k e c a r e o f t h e k i d s ? You've g o t t o -¬ i f you l o v e me, y o u ' r e gonna t a k e c a r e o f t h i s f o r me.' The s e c o n d t h i n g i s t h e money. 'Oh, Randy came i n t o a l o t o f money, a c o u p l e h u n d r e d thousand d o l l a r s . I f s o m e t h i n g happens t o h i m , t h a t money goes t o Chad, t h e b o y we h a v e c u s t o d y o f a n d t h e n we get i t . ' " (R. 1173.) J o h n s o n a r g u e s t h a t , a l t h o u g h R i c h a r d s t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had talked settlement However, reasons bigamy about losing custody money, she h a d n e v e r Richards clearly of her addressed testified that child t h e bigamy one of f o r w a n t i n g M c C u l l a r k i l l e d was due t o t h e charges. In f a c t , the f o l l o w i n g and dialogue case. Johnson's impending occurred during the d i r e c t examination of R i c h a r d s : "Q: D i d t h e d e f e n d a n t , Shonda J o h n s o n , e v e r t e l l you why she w a n t e d Randy M c C u l l a r k i l l e d ? "A: One was b e c a u s e he was f i l i n g b i g a m y c h a r g e s on h e r . A n o t h e r one was b e c a u s e he was t r y i n g t o t a k e 48 the CR-99-1349 a c h i l d away f r o m h e r and t h e r e s e t t l e m e n t i n between t h i s . " (R. was a big 468-69.) Thus, t h e p r o s e c u t o r a c c u r a t e l y s u m m a r i z e d t h i s by money testimony Richards. As t o t h e t e s t i m o n y by R i c h a r d s ' s s i s t e r , the prosecutor argued: "Two d a y s , b e f o r e t h e k i l l i n g and I t h i n k i t ' s c r u c i a l l y important, c r u c i a l l y important i n t h i s case, Audrey Gray [Richard's sister] on T h a n k s g i v i n g . You saw h e r t a k e t h a t w i t n e s s s t a n d . She gave i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e , e a r l y b e f o r e a n y b o d y ' s c h a r g e d . She s a i d , 'My b r o t h e r d i d t h i s . My b r o t h e r ' s i n v o l v e d . ' She d i d n ' t have t o t e l l us t h a t . She i m p l i c a t e d h e r b r o t h e r i n t h e k i l l i n g o f Randy M c C u l l a r . " (R. 1204.) During Richard's t r i a l told his sister t e s t i m o n y he t h a t J o h n s o n had McCullar's death, h i s s i s t e r did i t , d i d n ' t you?" having said, you?'" (R. testimony at "'Y'all (R. had s t a t e d t h a t when been q u e s t i o n e d l o o k e d a t him 555.) He something 556.) Moreover, trial, she stated and further t o do during that concerning said, "'Y'all quoted her with this, Richard's two days he as didn't sister's prior to M c C u l l a r ' s d e a t h , J o h n s o n t o l d h e r t h a t she and R i c h a r d s were g o i n g "head h u n t i n g . " (R. 733.) 49 When R i c h a r d ' s s i s t e r asked CR-99-1349 what t h a t meant, J o h n s o n r e s p o n d e d t h a t t h e y h a d a gun i n t h e trunk of t h e i r car. (R. 733.) She t e s t i f i e d t h a t " I l o o k e d a t my b r o t h e r a n d t o l d h i m n o t t o do a n y t h i n g s t u p i d . " 735.) (R. She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was aware o f t h e t r o u b l e that Richards 734.) and Johnson were having with McCullar. She s t a t e d t h a t a f t e r t h e m u r d e r , h e r b r o t h e r her a note and attempted Johnson and h i m Johnson told asked (R. brought t o g e t h e r t o e s t a b l i s h an a l i b i f o r f o r the time o f t h e murder. h e r t h a t M c C u l l a r had been shot (R. 739.) a n d , when she what h a d h a p p e n e d t o t h e gun i n t h e b a c k o f t h e c a r , Johnson responded, care o f . ' " "'Don't w o r r y (R. 740-41.) about i t , i t ' s been taken Richard's s i s t e r also t e s t i f i e d that she e v e n t u a l l y s p o k e t o two p o l i c e o f f i c e r s a n d gave them t h i s same i n f o r m a t i o n . she (R. 743.) She t e s t i f i e d t h a t b y d o i n g s o knew t h a t h e r b r o t h e r a n d J o h n s o n were b e i n g i m p l i c a t e d and w o u l d be p r o s e c u t e d . Thus, sister (R. 743.) the prosecutor's had t e s t i f i e d was a argument reasonable as t o what inference evidence. "'"'During closing argument, the p r o s e c u t o r , as w e l l as d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , h a s a r i g h t t o p r e s e n t h i s i m p r e s s i o n s from t h e evidence, i f r e a s o n a b l e , a n d may a r g u e 50 Richard's from the CR-99-1349 e v e r y l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e . ' " Reeves v. S t a t e , 807 So. 2d 18, 45 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g R u t l e d g e v . S t a t e , 523 So. 2d 1087, 1100 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1987) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 523 So. 2d 1118 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . "'"'The test of a p r o s e c u t o r ' s l e g i t i m a t e argument is t h a t whatever i s based on f a c t s and e v i d e n c e i s w i t h i n t h e scope of proper comment and a r g u m e n t . K i r k l a n d v . S t a t e , 340 So. 2d 1139 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 340 So. 2d 1140 ( A l a . 1976 [1977] ) . S t a t e m e n t s on f a c t s admissible i n based e v i d e n c e a r e p r o p e r . H e n l e y v. v State, 361 So. 2d 1148 ( A l a C r i m . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 361 So. 2d 1152 (Ala.1978). A p r o s e c u t o r as w e l l a s d e f e n s e c o u n s e l has a r i g h t t o p r e s e n t his impressions from the evidence. He may argue every legitimate i n f e r e n c e from the evidence and may examine, collate, sift, and t r e a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n h i s own way. W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 377 So. 2d 634 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1 9 7 9 ) ; McQueen v . S t a t e , 355 So. 2d 407 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 8 ) . ' " " ' B a l l a r d v. S t a t e , 767 So. 2d 1123, 1135 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , w r i t q u a s h e d , 767 So. 2d 1142 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g Watson v . S t a t e , 398 So. 2d 320, 328 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 398 So. 2d 332 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 452 U.S. 941, 101 S . C t . 3085, 69 L.Ed.2d 955 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . ' 51 CR-99-1349 " J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 823 So. 2d 1, 47 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001). " M i n o r v. S t a t e , 914 So. 2d 372, 426 ( A l a . C r i m . App. c e r t . d e n i e d , M i n o r v. A l a b a m a , 548 U.S. 165 L.Ed.2d 987 921 (2006). ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2004), 925, 126 S.Ct. 2977, See H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 2 So. 3d 880, 2007). t h e " p r o s e c u t o r ' s comments were b a s e d on e v i d e n c e Here, t h a t h a d b e e n i n t r o d u c e d o r were a l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e could have been drawn from S t a t e , 767 So. 2d 1123, 1135 v. S t a t e , (Ala. [Ms. CR-97-1258, Crim. prosecutor's App. the evidence. See Ballard[ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ] . " J a n u a r y 16, 2009] 2007). that Thus, t h e r e was no v. Smith So. 3d error i n the comments. D. Johnson his opinions argues t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r i m p r o p e r l y expressed about the evidence r e f e r r i n g t o h e r as a " l i a r " the State's witnesses. in which the p r o s e c u t o r d i r e c t l y does witness. she cite any Johnson's guilt by and v o u c h i n g f o r t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of nor and However, J o h n s o n c i t e s no i n s t a n c e instance r e f e r r e d t o h e r as a of vouching for a liar, State's These o b j e c t i o n s were a l s o n o t r a i s e d a t t r i a l . 52 CR-99-1349 However, any c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f J o h n s o n as a l i a r by t h e p r o s e c u t o r would have b e e n s u p p o r t e d by the evidence i n the p r e s e n t c a s e b e c a u s e o f t h e v a r y i n g s t a t e m e n t s g i v e n by h e r t o the p o l i c e . She i n i t i a l l y s t a t e d t h a t she was i n Tuscaloosa, Alabama, a t the time of the murder, but e v e n t u a l l y that the first statement was untrue and c a s t the admitted blame on R i c h a r d s ; she e v e n t u a l l y a d m i t t e d h a v i n g b e en i n v o l v e d i n t h e murder. Similarly, C r i m . App. i n S m i t h v. State, 795 So. 2d 788 (Ala. 2000), Smith argued t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r i m p r o p e r l y r e f e r r e d t o h i m as a l i a r . This Court stated: " C l e a r l y , t h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the a p p e l l a n t i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d . S m i t h , i n h i s f i r s t s t a t e m e n t , t o t a l l y d e n i e d any i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e r o b b e r y - m u r d e r . I n t h e s e c o n d s t a t e m e n t he a d m i t t e d his participation i n the robber-murder. '[T]he prosecutor, i n the a p p r o p r i a t e case, may use o p p r o b r i o u s terms t o c h a r a c t e r i z e the accused or h i s conduct, p r o v i d e d t h a t the remarks are i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e . ' B a n k h e a d [ v. S t a t e , 585 So. 2d 97, 105 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 519 U.S. 795 So. 1079, 2d a t 117 S.Ct. 742, 132 L.Ed. (1997)]." 825. F u r t h e r , t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n prosecutor 2d 680 improperly vouched for i n the r e c o r d t h a t the credibility State's witnesses. an "'A d i s t i n c t i o n must be made b e t w e e n argument by t h e p r o s e c u t o r p e r s o n a l l y 53 of the the CR-99-1349 vouching f o r a witness, thereby b o l s t e r i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s , and an argument c o n c e r n i n g the c r e d i b i l i t y of a w i t n e s s b a s e d upon t h e t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l . " [ P ] r o s e c u t o r s must a v o i d m a k i n g p e r s o n a l g u a r a n t e e s as t o t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e s t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s . " Ex p a r t e P a r k e r , 610 So.2d 1181 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . See Ex p a r t e W a l d r o p , 459 So. 2d 959, 961 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , c e r t . denied, 471 U.S. 1030, 105 S.Ct. 2050, 85 L.Ed.2d 323 (1985). "'"'Attempts to b o l s t e r a witness by vouching for his c r e d i b i l i t y are normally improper and error.' ... The test for improper vouching i s whether the jury could reasonably believe that the prosecutor was indicating a personal b e l i e f i n credibility the witness' T h i s t e s t may be s a t i s f i e d i n two ways. F i r s t , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n may place the prestige of the g o v e r n m e n t b e h i n d t h e w i t n e s s , by making explicit personal assurances of the witness' veracity Secondly, a p r o s e c u t o r may i m p l i c i t l y vouch for the witness' veracity by i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n not supports presented to the j u r y the testimony." " ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. S i m s , 719 F.2d 375, ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 465 L.Ed.2d 1034, 104 S.Ct. 1304, 79 (1984).' "DeBruce v. S t a t e , 651 So. 2d 599, C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) , a f f ' d , 651 So.2d 624 54 377 U.S. 703 610-11 ( A l a . ( A l a . 1994)." CR-99-1349 Brown v . S t a t e , 11 So. 3d 866, 910-11 affirmed, denied, Ex p a r t e Brown, 11 So. 3d 933 Brown v . A l a b a m a , L.Ed.2d 582 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , U.S. ( A l a . 2008), cert. , 129 S . C t . 2864, 174 (2009). Here, there i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n the record p r o s e c u t o r i m p e r m i s s i b l y v o u c h e d f o r any w i t n e s s ' s as he n e v e r s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e r e was e v i d e n c e the j u r y t h a t would support t h e r e i s no e r r o r on t h i s credibility undisclosed to a witness's testimony e v e r make p e r s o n a l a s s u r a n c e s that the n o r d i d he of a witness's v e r a c i t y . Thus, ground. E. J o h n s o n a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e m i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e l a w as to the jury's governmental 49(7), responsibility functions aggravating A l a . Code improperly f o r assessing argued 1975. that Johnson the hindering circumstance argues t h e same e v i d e n c e that that o f § 13A-5the State supported a f i n d i n g o f g u i l t as t o t h e a g g r a v a t i n g e l e m e n t o f t h e c a p i t a l offense, finding concerning h i s role as a w i t n e s s , of the h i n d e r i n g governmental circumstance at sentencing. 55 also supported functions a aggravating CR-99-1349 T h i s m a t t e r h a s b e e n d i s c u s s e d , s u p r a , i n I s s u e I I . The same evidence governmental by k i l l i n g committed in that established that Johnson was h i n d e r i n g f u n c t i o n s by d i s a b l i n g a p r o s e c u t i o n f o r bigamy t h e c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t she t h e murder by k i l l i n g t h e bigamy case. Thus, a w i t n e s s who was t o t e s t i f y i n the present case, t h e same evidence d i d e s t a b l i s h both the u n d e r l y i n g a g g r a v a t i n g element of the c a p i t a l sentencing. o f f e n s e and t h e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e a t See S t a t e v. B e t h e l , supra. Cf. Centobie v. S t a t e , 861 So. 2d 1111 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001) ( e v i d e n c e p r o v e d that C e n t o b i e was p r e v e n t i n g a l a w f u l police officer so as to satisfy circumstance of avoiding a lawful arrest both arrest b y an on d u t y the aggravating and t h e u n d e r l y i n g a g g r a v a t i n g p o r t i o n o f t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e t h a t t h e m u r d e r was of an o n - d u t y police officer). McNabb v . S t a t e , 741 So. 2d 488 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e McNabb, 887 So. 2d 998 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , McNabb v. A l a b a m a , 543 U.S. 1005, 1256 S . C t . 606, 160 L . E d . 2d 466 (2004) ( e v i d e n c e p r o v e d that Centobie murdered w i t n e s s e d h i s commission on an d u t y of another police officer who had offense proved both the a g g r a v a t i n g element o f the c a p i t a l o f f e n s e , t h a t the o f f i c e r 56 CR-99-1349 was on d u t y , and t h e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s was committed t o h i n d e r f u n c t i o n s and t o the l a w f u l avoid lawful t h a t the crime e x e r c i s e of governmental arrest). F. Johnson contends that the prosecutor improperly lead w i t n e s s e s on d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n and t e s t i f i e d on t h e i r b e h a l f . She c i t e s t o 43 i n s t a n c e s o f a l l e g e d l e a d i n g by r e f e r e n c e t o page number, 21 i n s t a n c e s of a l l e g e d repeating of questions f o r emphasis by r e f e r e n c e instances of a l l e g e d l y failing r e f e r e n c e t o page number. improper t o page number, to l a y a proper and 17 p r e d i c a t e by She f u r t h e r c i t e s t o t h r e e a l l e g e d i n s t a n c e s o f b o l s t e r i n g t h e w i t n e s s , two where t h e p r o s e c u t o r a s k e d w h e t h e r one w i t n e s s a t t e n d e d served she i n Vietnam. alleges that c h u r c h and one w i t n e s s h a d She a l s o c i t e s the prosecutor t o two i n s t a n c e s attempted to witnesses c o n c e r n i n g t h e make o f an a u t o m o b i l e that were they during which defense mistaken. she witnesses undermine prejudicial their facts She alleges that on also includes testimony by questioning not i n evidence. 57 by Finally, lead two by s u g g e s t i n g two c o l l o q u i e s the prosecutor cross-examination wherein badgered two attempting to them on highly she c i t e s to a CR-99-1349 comment by officer the p r o s e c u t o r d u r i n g the where he commented t h a t testimony of a Johnson had " l e t one e l u d i n g t o a m i s t a k e by J o h n s o n w h i c h h a d drawn t h e attention. (R. 1065.) Thus, she argues the police slip," officer's prosecutor i m p r o p e r l y commented on t h e e v i d e n c e . "'In reviewing allegedly improper prosecutorial comments, conduct, and q u e s t i o n i n g of w i t n e s s e s , the t a s k of t h i s Court i s t o c o n s i d e r t h e i r impact i n the c o n t e x t o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r t r i a l , and n o t t o view the a l l e g e d l y improper acts i n the a b s t r a c t . W h i t l o w v. S t a t e , 509 So. 2d 252, 256 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ; W y s i n g e r v. S t a t e , 448 So. 2d 435, 438 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); C a r p e n t e r v. S t a t e , 404 So. 2d 89, 97 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 404 So. 2d 100 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . M o r e o v e r , t h i s C o u r t has a l s o h e l d t h a t statements of counsel i n a r g u m e n t t o t h e j u r y must be v i e w e d as d e l i v e r e d i n the heat of debate; such s t a t e m e n t s a r e u s u a l l y v a l u e d by t h e j u r y a t t h e i r t r u e w o r t h and a r e n o t e x p e c t e d t o become f a c t o r s i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e v e r d i c t . O r r v. S t a t e , 462 So. 2d 1013, 1016 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) ; S a n d e r s v. S t a t e , 426 So. 2d 497, 509 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ) . . . . " "Bankhead v. State, 585 So. 2d 97, 106 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) , a f f ' d . i n r e l e v a n t p a r t , remanded on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 585 So. 2d 112, 127 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , aff'd. on return t o remand, 625 So. 2d 1141 (Ala.Cr.App.1992)." H u t c h e r s o n v. S t a t e , 1997), affirmed, Ex 727 So. 2d 846, 854-55 parte Hutcherson, 58 727 ( A l a . Crim. So. 2d App. 861 ( a l a . CR-99-1349 1998), c e r t . denied, Hutcherson S . c t . 2371, instances of otherwise. As defense 144 to L.Ed. improper 2d 775 v. A l a b a m a , 527 U.S. (1999). leading 1024, 119 A review of the a l l e g e d reveals no error, plain or 6 her argument witnesses on that the prosecutor badgered the cross-examination, "'A p a r t y i s g i v e n w i d e l a t i t u d e on cross-examination to test a witness's p a r t i a l i t y , b i a s , i n t e n t , c r e d i b i l i t y , or p r e j u d i c e , or t o impeach, i l l u s t r a t e , or test the accuracy of the witness's t e s t i m o n y o r r e c o l l e c t i o n as w e l l as t h e e x t e n t o f h i s k n o w l e d g e . W e l l s v. S t a t e , 292 A l a . 256, 292 So.2d 471 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ; H o u s i n g A u t h o r i t y o f C i t y o f D e c a t u r v. Decatur L a n d Co., 258 A l a . 607, 64 So. 2d 594 ( 1 9 5 3 ) ; Hooper v. S t a t e , 585 So. 2d 142 c e r t . d e n i e d , 503 U.S. (Ala.Cr.App.1991), 920, 112 S.Ct. 1295, 117 L.Ed.2d 517 Gamble, [McElroy's Alabama (1992); C. Evidence, § 136.01 (4th ed.1991)]. The range of c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n r e s t s l a r g e l y i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h a t c o u r t ' s r u l i n g w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s i t c l e a r l y a p p e a r s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was p r e j u d i c e d by t h e r u l i n g . Hooper v. S t a t e . However, "where t h e w i t n e s s ' t e s t i m o n y i s important to the determination of the issues being t r i e d , there i s l i t t l e , i f any, d i s c r e t i o n i n the t r i a l court to disallow cross-examination." Wells v. S t a t e , 292 A l a . a t 258, 292 So. 2d a t 473.' T h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l o b j e c t e d t o some, but not a l l , of these c i t e d i n s t a n c e s . 6 59 CR-99-1349 "Williams v. S t a t e , 710 So. 2d 1276, 1327-28 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 710 So.2d 1350 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 524 U.S. 929, 118 S . C t . 2325, 141 L . E d . 2 d 699 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . " B a l l a r d v. S t a t e , 767 So. 2d 1123, 1140-41 1999). The prosecutor d i d not step p r o p r i e t y o r b a d g e r any d e f e n s e In Calhoun v. State, 932 outside witness So. 2d (Ala. Crim. t h e range i n the present 923 App. of case. ( A l a . Crim. App. 2005), a c a p i t a l case, Calhoun argued t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r l e a d witnesses on direct examination b o l s t e r t h e i r testimony. not object to most restated questions to He c i t e d t o 325 i n s t a n c e s i n w h i c h the p r o s e c u t o r l e a d w i t n e s s e s . did and of This Court noted t h a t Calhoun these instances and found no i n s t a n c e where i l l e g a l e v i d e n c e was a d m i t t e d o r any r e v e r s i b l e error resulting from these q u e s t i o n s . "Rule 611(c), Ala.R.Evid., leading questions, states: This Court s t a t e d : which addresses " ' L e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s s h o u l d n o t be u s e d on the d i r e c t examination of a w i t n e s s , except when j u s t i c e r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e y be a l l o w e d . Leading questions are permitted on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . When a p a r t y c a l l s a h o s t i l e w i t n e s s , an a d v e r s e p a r t y , o r a w i t n e s s i d e n t i f i e d w i t h an a d v e r s e p a r t y , i n t e r r o g a t i o n may be b y l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s . ' "Alabama h a s n e v e r e n f o r c e d an a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d ban on l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s by a p r o s e c u t o r d u r i n g d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n . ' E v e r y q u e s t i o n may be s a i d i n 60 CR-99-1349 some s e n s e t o be l e a d i n g . . . . ' D o n n e l l v . J o n e s , 13 A l a . 490, 507 ( 1 8 4 8 ) . As we s t a t e d i n W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 568 So. 2d 354, 356-57 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1990): "'"Any q u e s t i o n e x p r e s s l y o r i m p l i e d l y assuming a m a t e r i a l f a c t not t h e r e t o f o r e t e s t i f i e d t o , s o t h a t t h e answer may a f f i r m s u c h f a c t , i s l e a d i n g . S m i t h v. S.H. K r e s s & Co., 210 A l a . 436, 98 So. 378 [ (1923) ] . " Ray v . S t a t e , 32 A l a . App. 556, 559, 28 So. 2d 116, 118 ( 1 9 4 6 ) . " ' [ T ] h e t r i a l j u d g e has d i s c r e t i o n to allow some leading questions, e s p e c i a l l y since p r i o r testimony i s s i m p l y b e i n g r e p e a t e d . ' Brown M e c h a n i c a l C o n t r a c t o r s , I n c . v . C e n t e n n i a l I n s . Co., 431 So. 2d 932, 944 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . 'Whether to allow or d i s a l l o w a leading question i s w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court and e x c e p t f o r a f l a g r a n t v i o l a t i o n t h e r e w i l l n o t be r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . ' B r a d f o r d v . S t a n l e y , 355 So. 2d 328, 331 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . " Lynn v. S t a t e , 543 So. 2d 704, 707 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) , a f f i r m e d , 543 So. 2d 709 (Ala. 1988), c e r t . denied, [493] U.S. [945], 110 S . C t . 3 5 1 , 107 L.Ed.2d 338 338 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . Thus, l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s may be a l l o w e d on d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n , d e p e n d i n g on the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r case. C e r t a i n subjects are e s p e c i a l l y conducive t o a l e a d i n g form, " ' e l s e t h e c o u n s e l and w i t n e s s c a n n o t be made t o u n d e r s t a n d e a c h other,'" among them"'[p]roof of M c E l r o y.'_ p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y . ' " C. Gamble, McE! _ s Alabama Evidence § 121.05(2) (3d e d . 1977).' "See a l s o E v a n s v . S t a t e , 794 So. 2d 415 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , a n d James v . S t a t e , 788 So. 2d 185 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . We have r e f u s e d t o f i n d e r r o r when a c i r c u i t c o u r t h a s a l l o w e d l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s on p r e l i m i n a r y matters that are not disputed, see 61 CR-99-1349 Womble v . S t a t e , 44 A l a . App. 416, 211 So. 2d 881 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ; when a w i t n e s s i s h o s t i l e , s e e D e n n i s v . S t a t e , 584 So. 2d 548 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ; when a w i t n e s s i s i m m a t u r e , s e e M c C u r l e y v . S t a t e , 455 So. 2d 1014 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 4 ) ; when a w i t n e s s ' s memory h a s f a i l e d , s e e G a r t h v. S t a t e , 536 So. 2d 173 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) ; a n d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e p r e d i c a t e f o r a d m i s s i o n o f a c o n f e s s i o n , see Jones v. S t a t e , 292 A l a . 126, 290 So. 2d 165 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . " 932 So. 2d a t 963. Moreover, there i s no indication that the prosecutor f a i l e d t o l a y a proper predicate f o r the admission of evidence by leading State's witnesses. "As we s t a t e d i n George v . S t a t e , 717 So. 2d 827 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996): "'None o f t h e q u e s t i o n s l e d to the a d m i s s i o n o f i l l e g a l e v i d e n c e a n d none p r e j u d i c e d t h e a p p e l l a n t . The questions were m e r e l y a t t e m p t s t o s p e e d up t h e d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n . The t r i a l c o u r t i s v e s t e d w i t h wide d i s c r e t i o n i n t h i s area "because i t has b e e n s a i d t h a t t h e r e i s no f o r m o f q u e s t i o n w h i c h may n o t be l e a d i n g a n d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d l o o k beyond t h e form t o t h e s u b s t a n c e and e f f e c t o f t h e i n q u i r y in the p a r t i c u l a r circumstances of the case." C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama E v i d e n c e , § 121.05(3) ( 4 t h ed. 1991).' "George v . S t a t e , 717 So. 2d a t 838, r e v ' d g r o u n d s , 717 So. 2d 844 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . " Hodges v. S t a t e , 856 So. 2d 875, 922-23 on (Ala. other Crim. App. 2 0 0 1 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e Hodges, 856 So. 2d 936 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , 62 CR-99-1349 c e r t . d e n i e d , Hodges v. A l a b a m a , 540 U.S. 157 L.Ed. 2d 379 "'Whether (2003). to allow or disallow d i s c r e t i o n a r y w i t h the t r i a l violation will 986, 124 S . C t . 465, leading questions i s c o u r t and e x c e p t f o r a f l a g r a n t t h e r e be r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . ' R u f f i n v. S t a t e , 582 So. 2d 1159, 1162 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , q u o t i n g J o n e s v. State, also, 292 A l a . 126, 128, 290 C. Gamble, ed.1991)." App. Alabama E v i d e n c e Smith v. S t a t e , 2000), grounds, McElroy's affirmed So. 2d 165, 166 So. 3d i n part, Ex p a r t e S m i t h , , reversed So. 3d § (1974). See 121.05 ( 4 t h (Ala. Crim. i n part on other ( A l a . 2003) . As t o J o h n s o n ' s c a t e g o r i z i n g o f e r r o r a n d s u p p o r t i n g i t by mere r e f e r e n c e t o page numbers, i n J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , So. 2d 979 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2000), a capital case, Jackson a l l e g e d t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r used l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s t o testimony numbers from State's witnesses, without identifying the citing a specific e x p l a i n i n g how he was p r e j u d i c e d b y them. series "'We i n no way condone a p a r t y ' s r e l i a n c e on t h e mere c i t i n g o f page numbers f r o m t h e record, without a discussion of the pertinent facts from those pages and a p p l i c a t i o n of the p e r t i n e n t law t o those facts. We consider such reliance an 63 elicit o f page questions This Court 791 or stated: CR-99-1349 i n d i c a t i o n of a l a c k of merit c o n t e n t i o n the p a r t y a s s e r t s . ' " H a r d y v. S t a t e , So. 2d , [Ms. of CR-95-0589, M a r c h (Ala.Cr.App.1999). the 26, 1999] "Despite Jackson's meager a r g u m e n t , we have nevertheless reviewed the e n t i r e r e c o r d i n t h i s cause, including the page numbers cited by J a c k s o n - w h i c h r e v e a l no o b j e c t i o n by J a c k s o n t o any f i n d no e r r o r , of the p r o s e c u t o r ' s questions-and p l a i n or o t h e r w i s e , i n the S t a t e ' s q u e s t i o n i n g of i t s witnesses." 791 So. 2d a t Similarly, by Johnson 1015. in this reveals no case a r e v i e w error of the i n s t a n c e s adversely affecting cited Johnson's r i g h t s o r t h a t w o u l d r e q u i r e a r e v e r s a l i n t h e outcome o f t h i s case. Johnson argues t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r for Richards's credibility c l o s i n g argument a t the g u i l t when he i m p e r m i s s i b l y vouched commented during phase: " I d o n ' t want y ' a l l t o t h i n k we're v o u c h i n g f o r Tim Richards as a person. Tim Richards is a m u r d e r e r , he's a d e s p i c a b l e p e r s o n . B u t I t h i n k he t o l d you t h e t r u t h up t h e r e . I d o n ' t have t o t h i n k t h a t , I t h i n k t h e e v i d e n c e showed he d i d . E v e r y t h i n g he s a i d up t h e r e we a r e a b l e t o v e r i f y t h r o u g h a s e c o n d a r y s o u r c e . So l e t ' s go t h a t , t a k e a l o o k a t t h a t . What d i d he t e s t i f y t o ? " 64 his CR-99-1349 (R. 1172.) J o h n s o n d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h i s comment. review t h i s c l a i m f o r p l a i n e r r o r . This comment by inferences and S t a t e , 584 sort the and So. 2d 841, So. 2d 658, prosecutor collate the was evidence. So. 662-63 2d 862 to draw Henderson v. 1 9 8 8 ) , remanded ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . L o n g v. ( A l a . C r i m . App. we Ala.R.App.P. intended 856-57 ( A l a . C r i m . App. on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 585 446 See R u l e 45A, Thus, 1983). I t was i n a p p r o p r i a t e as t o u n d e r m i n e t h e f a i r n e s s o f J o h n s o n ' s State, not so trial. "The p r o s e c u t o r was a r g u i n g t h e e f f e c t o f t h e witness's testimony. Moreover, there is no i m p l i c a t i o n i n h i s comments t h a t he h a d r e a s o n s n o t known by t h e j u r y , i . e . , r e a s o n s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e a r i s i n g from the evidence before the j u r y , f o r k n o w i n g t h a t what t h e w i t n e s s s a i d was t r u e . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e p r o s e c u t o r gave n e i t h e r h i s p e r s o n a l a s s u r a n c e n o r g u a r a n t e e o f Dr. H a r d i n ' s v e r a c i t y . See D e B r u c e v. S t a t e , 651 So. 2d 599, 610-11 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) ( i n h o l d i n g t h a t i t was not i m p r o p e r v o u c h i n g f o r p r o s e c u t o r t o comment, ' I ' l l s u b m i t t o you, [ t h e s t a t e ' s m a i n w i t n e s s ] i s t e l l i n g you the truth,' the court observed that the c r e d i b i l i t y of a witness i s a l e g i t i m a t e s u b j e c t of d i s c u s s i o n , and t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s r e m a r k was g r o u n d e d on some t e s t i m o n y g i v e n by t h e w i t n e s s h i m s e l f ) , a f f ' d , 651 So. 2d 624 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . " Thomas v. S t a t e , 766 affirmed, App. So. Ex parte So. 2d 860, Thomas, 766 940 So. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 860, 881 (Ala. 1998), Crim. 1 9 9 8 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s by Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , 3d 1075 ( A l a . 2005). 65 10 CR-99-1349 Moreover, t h i s it i s improper Court f u r t h e r acknowledged t h a t f o r a p r o s e c u t o r to vouch f o r the of a w i t n e s s , c e r t a i n q u a l i f y i n g statements, as u s e d i n t h e p r e s e n t outside witness. the p r o h i b i t i o n c a s e , may although credibility s u c h as " I t h i n k " r e s u l t i n a comment against p e r s o n a l l y vouching falling for Thus, t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : "However, t h o s e comments t h a t c o n s t i t u t e p e r s o n a l vouching are not n e c e s s a r i l y e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from proper comments, as illustrated by the f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s i n Ex p a r t e R i e b e r , 663 So. 2d 995, 999, 1014 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 516 U.S. 116 S.Ct. 531, 133 L.Ed.2d 437 (1995): "'[W]e v i e w t h o s e comments t h a t t h e prosecutor prefaced with "I think," "I b e l i e v e , " " I f e e l , " " I am s a t i s f i e d , " and 'I have no doubt,' as expressing his reasonable i m p r e s s i o n s from the evidence. The p r o s e c u t o r was a l l o w e d t o a r g u e e v e r y l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e , and the trial court was afforded wide d i s c r e t i o n i n r e g u l a t i n g h i s comments. We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t e v e n i f t h e s e comments were t o be v i e w e d as e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n s and, t h u s , line" of p e r m i s s i b l e as " c r o s s i n g the argument, t h e y , nonetheless, would not c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . T h e r e i s no f i x e d s t a n d a r d f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether a p r o s e c u t o r ' s comments so p r e j u d i c e d t h e f a c t f i n d i n g p r o c e s s as t o r e q u i r e a new t r i a l . E a c h c a s e must be j u d g e d on i t s own m e r i t s . Hooks v. S t a t e , [534 So. 2d 371 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 488 U.S. 1050, (1989)]; 109 S.Ct. 883, 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 R a c i n e v. S t a t e , [290 A l a . 225, 275 So. 2d 66 the CR-99-1349 655 (1973)]. These remarks by the prosecutor were not as potentially p r e j u d i c i a l as t h o s e o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r s i n Ex p a r t e P a r k e r , s u p r a , w h e r e i n we h e l d that the prosecutors' remarks d i d not undermine t h e fundamental f a i r n e s s o f the t r i a l . We f u r t h e r n o t e t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r , r e f e r r i n g t o S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s Tommy E r s k i n e , s t a t e d : "He was e x t r e m e l y b e l i e v a b l e t o This isolated comment, although me." improperly expressing the prosecutor's personal opinion as to Erskine's c r e d i b i l i t y , l i k e w i s e d i d not c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . Ex p a r t e P a r k e r . ' "Compare r e m a r k s r e v i e w e d i n A r t h u r v. S t a t e , 575 So. 2d 1165, 1180-84 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), cert. d e n i e d , 575 So. 2d 1191 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; a n d K i n g v . S t a t e , 518 So. 2d 191 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) . " 766 So. 2d a t 939-40. This comment b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r was an a r g u m e n t t o t h e j u r y c o n c e r n i n g t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e S t a t e ' s case, McWhorter v. State, 781 So. 2d 257, 321 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e M c w h o r t e r , 781 So. 2d 330 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , c e r t . denied, M c W h o r t e r v . A l a b a m a , 532 U.S. 976, 121 S . C t . 1612, 149 L . E d . 2d 476 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , could be drawn and r e a s o n a b l e therefrom. i n f e r e n c e s and c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t As such, a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t Johnson's s u b s t a n t i a l 67 this comment rights. d i d not CR-99-1349 Johnson argues t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r by telling witnesses the the appealed to h y s t e r i a j u r y t h a t J o h n s o n must be executed to Johnson r e f e r s t o i n c o u r t s and t o p r o t e c t s o c i e t y . following argument made c l o s i n g argument a t the by the sentencing protect prosecutor phase of the during his trial: "The q u e s t i o n you have t o add o r have t o a s k i s t h a t , a r e we as a s o c i e t y w i l l i n g t o p u t up w i t h t h e a c t i v i t y t h i s d e f e n d a n t has b e e n f o u n d g u i l t y o f o r do we as a s o c i e t y n e e d t o p r o t e c t o u r s e l v e s a g a i n s t t h e s e t y p e o f p e o p l e ? I t h i n k t h a t we need t o p r o t e c t o u r s e l v e s a g a i n s t t h e s e t y p e o f p e o p l e . And I t h i n k t h a t i f we a r e n o t w i l l i n g t o e n f o r c e t h e l a w s t h a t we have i n p l a c e , t h e n we're i n a l o t o f trouble." (R. 1309.) and, J o h n s o n f a i l e d t o o b j e c t t o t h i s argument a t therefore, this plain error rule. Here, the i s s u e must be R u l e 45A, evaluated trial pursuant to Ala.R.App.P. prosecutor's comments "'properly argued n e c e s s i t y o f law e n f o r c e m e n t as a d e t e r r e n t t o c r i m e and protection (Ala. of society.'" C r i m . App. U.S. , 129 Kuenzel v. State, Sneed v. State, 2007), c e r t . denied, S.Ct. 1039, 577 So. the 173 L.Ed. 2d 474, 2d 1 So. Sneed v. 472 503-04 3d 104, the as a 141 Alabama, (2009), quoting (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e K u e n z e l , 577 So. 2d 531 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " ' I n Alabama, the rule i s that a d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y i n c l o s i n g argument may 68 CR-99-1349 make a g e n e r a l a p p e a l f o r l a w e n f o r c e m e n t . Embrey v. S t a t e , 283 A l a . 110, 118, 214 So.2d 567 (1968). " ' T h i s l i n e o f argument i s " w i t h i n the latitude allowed prosecutors in their e x h o r t a t i o n s to the j u r y to d i s c h a r g e t h e i r d u t i e s i n s u c h a manner a s , n o t o n l y t o p u n i s h crime, but p r o t e c t the p u b l i c from l i k e o f f e n s e s and as an e x a m p l e t o d e t e r from committing like offenses." others V a r n e r v. S t a t e , 418 So. 2d 961 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 2 ) ; Cook v. S t a t e , 369 So. 2d 1243 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 7 ) , a f f i r m e d i n p a r t , r e v e r s e d i n p a r t on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 369 So. 2d 1251 (Ala.1978).' "Ex p a r t e W a l d r o p , 459 So. 2d 959, 962 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 471 U.S. 1030, 105 S.Ct. 2050, 85 L.Ed.2d 323 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . See a l s o S o c k w e l l v. S t a t e , 675 a f f ' d , 675 So. 2d 38 So. 2d 4 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) , ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 519 U.S. 838, 117 S.Ct. 115, 136 L . E d . 2 d 67 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . " I n g r a m v. State, 779 So. 2d 1225, 1262-63 ( A l a . Crim. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e I n g r a m , 779 So. 2d 1283 cert. Denied, 1194, 149 Ingram v. Alabama, 531 U.S. ( A l a . 2000), 1193, S.Ct. due Johnson contends t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r i m p r o p e r l y t o l d the to t h i s jury 2d 109 comment by t h e t h a t , as (2001). no p l a i n 121 error L.Ed. T h e r e was App. prosecutor. r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of 69 the community, they had a CR-99-1349 d u t y under the law t o sentence her to death. She refers to t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s comments d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e . The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s the p r o s e c u t o r argued as follows: "Today, I'm g o i n g t o a s k you t o e n f o r c e t h e l a w . C a p i t a l m u r d e r means d e a t h p e n a l t y i s one o f two potential sentences. I'm going t o ask you to recommend t o t h e Judge who w i l l make t h e u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n w h i c h o f t h o s e two s e n t e n c e s t h a t you as representatives of the community think this p a r t i c u l a r c r i m e s h o u l d be s e n t e n c e d w i t h . " (R. 1249-50.) "I'm c o n f i d e n t t h a t i f you f o l l o w t h e l a w and i f you s p e a k f o r t h e community, what do we as a community f e e l t h e l a w s h o u l d be and how i t s h o u l d be executed, I feel c o n f i d e n t t h a t you will recommend t o t h e j u d g e t h a t we as a community recommend t h e a c t i o n s o f t h i s d e f e n d a n t w i l l n o t be t o l e r a t e d , n o t be a c c e p t e d , i t ' s n o t o n l y i n a f r o n t ( s i c ) t o t h e M c C u l l a r s b u t as a f r o n t ( s i c ) t o e v e r y c i t i z e n h e r e , we recommend t h a t she r e c e i v e t h e death p e n a l t y . " (R. 1255.) Johnson comments and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e y must be e v a l u a t e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e p l a i n error rule. failed R u l e 45A, to object these Ala.R.App.P. However, when t h e s e of to comments a r e v i e w e d t h e e n t i r e a r g u m e n t , t h e p r o s e c u t o r was a p p e a l f o r j u s t i c e and l a w e n f o r c e m e n t . consider the evidence of the 70 i n the context c l e a r l y making an He u r g e d t h e j u r y t o aggravating and mitigating CR-99-1349 c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d make t h e i r d e c i s i o n t h e r e o n . has The p r o s e c u t o r a r i g h t t o argue t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e S t a t e ' s In Freeman v. S t a t e , 776 So. 2d 160 evidence. ( A l a . Crim. App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e Freeman, 776 So. 2d 203 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , Freeman v. A l a b a m a , 531 U.S. 966, 121 S . C t . 400, 148 L.Ed.2d 308 (2000), argument, and t h i s C o u r t the prosecutor made a similar held: "Freeman c l a i m s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r i m p r o p e r l y s u g g e s t e d t o t h e j u r o r s t h a t t h e y s h o u l d a c t as ' t h e c o n s c i e n c e o f t h e community' a n d i m p o s e t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y ; t h a t they s h o u l d speak f o r t h e p e o p l e i n t h e community a n d do what was ' r i g h t a n d j u s t ' ; a n d t h a t t h e y c o u l d make a d i f f e r e n c e b y p u n i s h i n g Freeman f o r h i s c r i m e s b y recommending t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . (R. 1292-93; 1296-97; 1299-1300.) We have r e v i e w e d t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s comments i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e e n t i r e c l o s i n g argument a n d f i n d t h a t a l l o f t h e remarks, l i k e the s i m i l a r r e m a r k s made b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r a t t h e g u i l t p h a s e , were g e n e r a l a p p e a l s f o r law enforcement and j u s t i c e , and appeals t o t h e j u r y t o d i s c h a r g e i t s d u t i e s i n s u c h a manner as t o p u n i s h Freeman f o r t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f h i s c r i m e s a n d to d e t e r o t h e r s from committing s i m i l a r o f f e n s e s . See P r i c e , s u p r a ; K u e n z e l , s u p r a . T h r o u g h o u t h i s c l o s i n g argument, t h e p r o s e c u t o r urged t h e j u r y t o make i t s s e n t e n c e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n b a s e d on t h e l a w and t h e e v i d e n c e , n o t on p r e j u d i c e , s y m p a t h y , o r b i a s f o r o r a g a i n s t Freeman, S y l v i a G o r d o n , M a r y G o r d o n , o r D e b b i e G o r d o n H o s f o r d . (R. 1 2 9 2 , 1296, 1297, 1300, 1303.) The comments were c l e a r l y a c a l l f o r j u s t i c e , n o t sympathy." 776 So. 2d a t 187. 1000 ( A l a . Crim. See a l s o M c G r i f f v . S t a t e , 908 So. 2d 961, App. 2 0 0 0 ) , reversed 71 on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex CR-99-1349 parte McGriff, argument to 908 the So. jury 2d to 1024 "'Speak s p e a k j u s t i c e i n t h i s c a s e and through the (Ala. Defendant's loudly, run the guilty c a l l e d A s h f o r d ' " d i d not "more a k i n t o an (prosecutor's speak truthfully, sword of j u s t i c e r i g h t little committed c a p i t a l murder i n t h i s place 2004) heart because community i n a r u r a l a p p e a l f o r law arguments r i g h t s were n o t to the adversely small c o n s t i t u t e p l a i n e r r o r but was enforcement."). H e r e , t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s comments f e l l w i t h i n t h e permissible he jury. Johnson's a f f e c t e d by this range of substantial argument. J. Johnson argues prosecutorial " ' " B e c a u s e we by the 673 McGriff v. C a l h o u n v. We the misconduct cumulative denied f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e appellant, State, that So. we 2d State, State, find 825 908 932 no (Ala. So. So. her 961 2d 923, s p e c i f i c instances alleged App. (Ala. 974 error." 1995). Crim. 2 So. 3d 880, 928 72 See 2007). v. also 2000).' ( A l a . C r i m . App. ( A l a . C r i m . App. VI. Lane App. l i k e w i s e f i n d no c u m u l a t i v e e r r o r i n t h i s c a s e . " State, the trial. cumulative a of fair Crim. 2d of effect 2005). Harris v. CR-99-1349 Johnson argues t h a t the phase i n s t r u c t i o n s to the and trial jury that thereby v i o l a t e d her Alabama Johnson contends t h a t the j u r y as t o the accomplice testimony. exceptions g u i l t phase. error. to the She trial (R. 1222.) R u l e 45A, contrary United guilt to the law States and law. trial court necessity argues t h a t constitutes reversible error. no are gave s e v e r a l r i g h t s under the A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n s and to charge the court improperly failed for corroboration of the so failure t o do J o h n s o n a n n o u n c e d t h a t she court's Thus, we charge to the j u r y at had the review t h i s claim for p l a i n Ala.R.App.P. "A c o n v i c t i o n of felony c a n n o t be had on the t e s t i m o n y o f an a c c o m p l i c e u n l e s s c o r r o b o r a t e d by other evidence t e n d i n g to connect the defendant w i t h the commission of the offense, and such corroborative e v i d e n c e , i f i t m e r e l y shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances t h e r e o f , i s not s u f f i c i e n t . " § 12-21-222, A l a . Code "This s e c t i o n merely creates constitutional right." 204 So. 1975. 2d 488, 489 a s t a t u t o r y r u l e , and A l e x a n d e r v. (1967). See 73 State, 281 not a Ala.457, 458 a l s o W o o d b e r r y v. S t a t e , 497 CR-99-1349 So. 2d 587, 589 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . to g i v e s u c h an i n s t r u c t i o n Moreover, the f a i l u r e c a n be h a r m l e s s . "'"The c o u r t s h o u l d have i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y c o n c e r n i n g t h e need f o r c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e o f M c C a n t s ' s t e s t i m o n y . However, t h e f a i l u r e t o do so does n o t mean t h a t t h i s c a u s e must a u t o m a t i c a l l y be r e v e r s e d . A u t o m a t i c r e v e r s a l e x i s t s o n l y when t h e e r r o r ' n e c e s s a r i l y renders a t r i a l fundamentally u n f a i r . ' Rose v . C l a r k , 478 U.S. 570, [ 5 7 7 ] , 106 S.Ct. 3 1 0 1 , 3106, 92 L . E d . 2d 460 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . A l a b a m a has a p p l i e d t h e h a r m l e s s e r r o r a n a l y s i s i n a c a s e i n v o l v i n g the death p e n a l t y t o the f a i l u r e of the c o u r t t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e p r i n c i p l e o f a c c o m p l i c e c o r r o b o r a t i o n . G u r l e y v . S t a t e , 639 So. 2d 557 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) ; F r a z i e r v. S t a t e , 562 So. 2d 543, 558 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 562 So. 2d 560 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " ' " J a c k s o n v . S t a t e , 836 So. 2d 915, 946 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) (finding that corroborate because there the accomplice's was sufficient testimony, evidence the t r i a l to court's f a i l u r e t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e n e c e s s i t y o f c o r r o b o r a t i n g accomplice testimony " d i d not r i s e t o the l e v e l of p l a i n and was, at most, harmless error. See Rule Ala.R.App.P."). "'[T]he e r r o r o f f a i l i n g t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e n e e d f o r c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e i s h a r m l e s s when t h e t e s t i m o n y o f an accomplice has in fact been c o r r o b o r a t e d . F r a z i e r v . S t a t e , 562 So. 2d 543, 558 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , r e v e r s e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 562 So. 2d 560 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . A c c o r d 797 P. 2d 788, 790 P e o p l e v. B r u n n e r , 74 error 45, CR-99-1349 ( C o l o . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) ; S t a t e v. Brown [187 Conn. 6 0 2 ] , 447 A. 2d 734, 740 (Conn. 1 9 8 2 ) ; A l i v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 581 A. 2d 368, 377-78 (D.C.App. 1 9 9 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 502 U.S. 893, 112 S.Ct. 259 [116 L.Ed.2d 213] ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; S t r o n g v. S t a t e [261 Md. 3 7 1 ] , 275 A.2d 491, 495 (Md. 1 9 7 1 ) , v a c a t e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 408 U.S. 939 [92 S.Ct. 2872, 33 L.Ed.2d 760] ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; S t a t e v. E n g l a n d , 409 N.W. 2d 262, 265 (Minn. App. 1 9 8 7 ) . ' " Burton v. S t a t e , 651 So. 2d 641, 654 ( A l a . Crim. q u o t i n g , G u r l e y v. S t a t e , 639 So. 2d 557, 1993). See a l s o Ex p a r t e B a n k h e a d , 585 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f i r m e d on So. 2d 1141 accomplice's 2d 112, was So. 2d 1146 sufficient testimony, 119 App. (Ala. State, 625 1 9 9 2 ) , r e v e r s e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , ( A l a . C r i m . App. there So. 1993), ( A l a . Crim. r e t u r n t o remand, B a n k h e a d v. Ex p a r t e B a n k h e a d , 625 because 561 App. the ( A l a . 1993) evidence trial to court (holding that corroborate did not the commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n n o t i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y on c o r r o b o r a t i o n of accomplice 1174, 677 an 1200 So. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 1205 accomplice than testimony). ( A l a . 1996) and sufficient testified evidence H u t c h e r s o n v. State, 677 1 9 9 4 ) , r e v e r s e d on o t h e r So. grounds, ( h o l d i n g t h a t even i f w i t n e s s f o r the to State, corroborate "there his was was more testimony; t h e r e f o r e , no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r w o u l d have o c c u r r e d . B u r t o n S t a t e , 651 So. 2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App. 75 2d 1 9 9 3 ) ; G u r l e y v. S t a t e , v. 639 CR-99-1349 So. 2d 557 543 (Ala.Cr.App. (Ala.Cr.App.), (Ala. 1993); rev'd on F r a z i e r v. other S t a t e , 562 grounds, 562 So. So. 2d 2d 560 1989)"). H e r e , t h e r e was testimony. ample e v i d e n c e Corroborating 7 to corroborate evidence in the i n c l u d e d Johnson's statement to the p o l i c e , two she State's witnesses that wanted murder McCullar, b e f o r e and police her statements to present location Therefore, the t r i a l where t h e dead, Richard's sister court's f a i l u r e to both to take m u r d e r weapon was of the s o l i c i t e d him f o l l o w i n g t h e m u r d e r , and h e r a b i l i t y to the case the testimony McCullar t e s t i m o n y o f a S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s t h a t she had Richard's the dumped. to i n s t r u c t the j u r y as to the n e c e s s i t y of c o r r o b o r a t i n g accomplice testimony d i d not adversely affect State, 778 So. Johnson's s u b s t a n t i a l 2d 199, Ex p a r t e Hyde, 778 v. Alabama, 532 So. U.S. 221 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 237 907, rights. ( A l a . 2000), 121 S.Ct. (2001) ( h o l d i n g t h a t b e c a u s e t h e r e was 1233, See 1998), Hyde v. affirmed, c e r t . d e n i e d , Hyde 149 L.Ed. 2d 142 corroborating evidence, The i s s u e of the s u f f i c i e n c y of the c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e i s a l s o r a i s e d by J o h n s o n as I s s u e XXI and w i l l be d i s c u s s e d more t h o r o u g h l y i n f r a . 7 76 CR-99-1349 t h e r e was no p l a i n e r r o r due t o t h e t r i a l the j u r y r e g a r d i n g accomplice c o u r t ' s not c h a r g i n g testimony). B. Johnson argues t h a t the t r i a l instruct the jury that c o u r t e r r e d by i t could consider agreement i n e v a l u a t i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y . to t h i s omission at t r i a l failing Richard's to plea Johnson d i d not o b j e c t and r a i s e s i t f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l ; t h e r e f o r e , t h i s m a t t e r i s due t o be e v a l u a t e d p u r s u a n t to the p l a i n e r r o r standard. The trial Rule court instructed 45A, the jury w e i g h i n g and e v a l u a t i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y t e s t i m o n y o f w i t n e s s e s as Ala.R.App.P. as to i t ' s duty in t o be a c c o r d e d t o t h e follows: " I f you b e l i e v e t h a t any m a t e r i a l p a r t o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f any w i t n e s s i s w i l l f u l l y f a l s e , you may d i s r e g a r d a l l t h e t e s t i m o n y o f s u c h w i t n e s s . I f you b e l i e v e t h a t any w i t n e s s has p e r j u r e d t h e m s e l v e s , has t e s t i f i e d f a l s e l y t o an i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t i n t h e c a s e , you may d i s r e g a r d a l l t h e t e s t i m o n y g i v e n by that witness." (R. 1213-14.) T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n by t h e t r i a l the j u r y of i t s duty i n weighing where h i s o r h e r c r e d i b i l i t y was court adequately the testimony i s at issue. of apprised witnesses Moreover, the i n f o r m e d of R i c h a r d s ' s p l e a b a r g a i n agreement d u r i n g 77 jury the CR-99-1349 guilt phase o f t h e t r i a l , offense as w e l l as h i s i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e and h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h considerations i n determining Johnson which the weight to would accord be his testimony. I n Owens v. S t a t e , 291 A l a . 107, 278 So. 2d 693 (1973), Owens a r g u e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o g i v e h i s requested i n s t r u c t i o n that the fact that a witness enforcement given greater requiring and officer does n o t r e q u i r e credibility. that the s p e c i f i c because the t r i a l Because requested e r r o r on t h i s e s p e c i a l l y where court i n i t s oral their duty i s no authority c h a r g e must be given, The c o u r t stated, "We a r e a u t h o r i t y t h a t s u c h c h a r g e must be the record reveals that the trial charge i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y w i t h r e s p e c t t o to consider the i n t e r e s t or bias what w e i g h t t h e y w o u l d g i v e 291 there be c r e d i b i l i t y , t h e c o u r t f o u n d no ground. unable t o f i n d convincing given, h i s testimony c o u r t gave t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s as t o i t s duty i n e v a l u a t i n g witness reversible that i s a law the testimony in o f such determining witness." A l a . a t 1 1 1 , 278 So. 2d a t 695. Similarly, i n the present mandating t h a t the t r i a l court 78 case, there i s no a u t h o r i t y i n s t r u c t the jury that a plea CR-99-1349 bargain must be witness's plea jury testimony. bargain was through testimony State, at the instructed a witness's F e l d e r v. the credibility F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e j u r y was thoroughly evaluating Cf. weighed i n determining So. 2d aware o f phase; the and the in i n i t ' s determinations. 490 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1996) ( t r i a l c o u r t d i d not e r r i n f a i l i n g to g i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s the jury could evaluating consider his instructions on and had the jury that witness credibility where witness credibility been a p p r i s e d a i t ' s duty concerning credibility 697 guilt of had drug the problems trial witness in court's were more t h a n t h a t the that adequate had a drug addiction). The trial court's f a i l u r e to charge the j u r y to consider R i c h a r d s ' s p l e a b a r g a i n i n e v a l u a t i n g h i s c r e d i b i l i t y d i d not a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t Johnson's s u b s t a n t i a l rights. C. Johnson argues t h a t the t r i a l the j u r y t h a t i t had was c o n v e y e d by to consider more t h a n one court erred i n i n s t r u c t i n g evidence witness. object to t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n at t r i a l 79 as credible Johnson i f i t failed and t h e r e f o r e t h i s to matter CR-99-1349 must be e v a l u a t e d pursuant to the p l a i n e r r o r r u l e . Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. Taken in context, the portion i n s t r u c t i o n t o which Johnson o b j e c t s of the trial s t a t e d as court's follows: "Impeachment: I f any w i t n e s s has b e e n i m p e a c h e d o r t h e i r t e s t i m o n y has b e e n d i s c r e d i t e d , t h a t ' s what i m p e a c h means, t h e n t h e j u r y may d i s r e g a r d h i s o r her t e s t i m o n y u n l e s s t h a t t e s t i m o n y i s c o r r o b o r a t e d by o t h e r t e s t i m o n y n o t so i m p e a c h e d . I n o t h e r w o r d s , i f a p e r s o n has -- t e s t i m o n y has b e e n d i s c r e d i t e d , you may d i s r e g a r d i t , b u t you may n o t d i s r e g a r d i t i f someone e l s e t e s t i f i e s t o t h e same t h i n g . A l l r i g h t . Got t h a t . " 1213.) (R. This charge i s not improper. Ala. App. 498, 85 So. 875 (1920), I n L e a t h e r w o o d v. S t a t e , the court found t h a t 17 the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o g i v e t h e r e q u e s t e d c h a r g e t h a t if the "'his by jury determines e n t i r e t e s t i m o n y may the t e s t i m o n y not that a witness has be d i s r e g a r d e d , so i m p e a c h e d . " ' Id. been unless The impeached, corroborated court stated: "[The r e q u e s t e d c h a r g e ] s i m p l y a s s e r t s t h a t i f the j u r y b e l i e v e from the evidence t h a t the w i t n e s s named has b e e n s u c c e s s f u l l y i m p e a c h e d , and i f t h e y b e l i e v e f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e s a i d w i t n e s s i s shown t o be a man o f b a d c h a r a c t e r and u n w o r t h y o f b e l i e f , they are authorized to disregard his evidence a l t o g e t h e r ; t h e c h a r g e does n o t r e q u i r e them t o do s o , and h e n c e was n o t i n v a s i v e o f t h e p r o v i n c e of t h e j u r y . P r a t e r v. S t a t e , s u p r a . The c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s i s a matter f o r the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the 80 CR-99-1349 j u r y , g u i d e d by s u c h i n s t r u c t i o n s f r o m t h e c o u r t as t h e n a t u r e and c h a r a c t e r o f t h e e v i d e n c e and t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e may r e q u i r e . " Id. App. See a l s o B a y n e s v. S t a t e , 423 So. 2d 307, (holding 1982) covered the that the trial 311 court's s u b j e c t o f impeachment by ( A l a . Crim. charge stating, fairly in pertinent p a r t , " ' I f any w i t n e s s t e s t i f y i n g has b e e n i m p e a c h e d , t h e n t h e jury may d i s r e g a r d h i s or testimony be her corroborated testimony by other unless h i s or testimony not her so impeached.'"). The jury here was properly f o l l o w i n g the above-quoted charge, instructed immediately that: " I f you b e l i e v e t h a t any m a t e r i a l p a r t o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f any w i t n e s s i s w i l l f u l l y f a l s e , you may d i s r e g a r d a l l t h e t e s t i m o n y o f s u c h w i t n e s s . I f you b e l i e v e t h a t any w i t n e s s has p e r j u r e d t h e m s e l v e s , has t e s t i f i e d f a l s e l y t o an i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t i n t h e c a s e , you may d i s r e g a r d a l l t h e t e s t i m o n y g i v e n by that witness. "My j o b t h r o u g h o u t t h i s t r i a l i s t o see t h a t t h e t r i a l i s c a r r i e d on i n an o r d e r l y f a s h i o n t o make rulings and decide the law i n the case. The a t t o r n e y s ' , f o r b o t h t h e S t a t e and t h e d e f e n s e , j o b i s t o p r e s e n t t h e c a s e and y o u r j o b i s t o d e t e r m i n e the f a c t s i n the case." (R. 1213-14.) Thus, credibility the jury was o f w i t n e s s e s was clearly instructed a matter for i t sconsideration 81 that the CR-99-1349 and d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n l i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . well-settled state the law that, law, a p r o v i d e d the trial court instructions accurately has broad f o r m u l a t i n g i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s to the j u r y . 825 So. So. 2d 482, covered 2d 134 the correctly. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 486 ( A l a . 2001). subject matter The trial j u d g e was court's credibility and but been of witnesses who s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d and w e i g h e d . been impeached corroborating Evidence his source. (5th ed. instructions testimony See 1996), d i d not §§ bias i n f o r m i n g the j u r y t h a t i f a be testimony 893 instructions w i t n e s s has b e e n i m p e a c h e d , h i s t e s t i m o n y may the in S n y d e r v. S t a t e , trial of witness discretion B r o a d n a x v. S t a t e , 2000)." The "It is impeached Moreover, i f a w i t n e s s may C. have n o t disregarded be rehabilitated Gamble, McElroy's 149.01(14), adversely affect a Alabama 155.02(8). Johnson's by has These substantial rights. D. Johnson argues the t h a t the jury the necessary concerning trial b a s e d on c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . t h i s ground at t r i a l and, court f a i l e d standard for a instruct conviction Johnson d i d not o b j e c t t h e r e f o r e , t h i s matter 82 to i s due on t o be CR-99-1349 analyzed pursuant to the plain error rule. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. Johnson's conviction circumstantial concerning evidence. her was Her involvement, not final as based statement well as the solely on to the p o l i c e evidence from R i c h a r d s c o n c e r n i n g Johnson's r o l e i n the murder, c o n s t i t u t e d d i r e c t evidence of her involvement. See Y a n c e y v. S t a t e , CR-04-1171 M a r c h 3d App. 20, 2009] So. , [Ms. ( A l a . Crim. 2009) ( " D i r e c t e v i d e n c e has b e e n d e f i n e d as e v i d e n c e t h a t 'demonstrates the e x i s t e n c e or n o n - e x i s t e n c e of a p r e c i s e f a c t and issue without presumptions.' 2 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . As evidence also of need to draw inferences J . C o l q u i t t , A l a b a m a Law such, State, beings used apply testimony i s 892 So. 2d 988, 990 as the basis of ( A l a . Crim. as '"the at strong f a c t s c o n c e r n i n g an o f f e n s e . " ) . ( " d i r e c t e v i d e n c e has b e e n d e f i n e d human or o f E v i d e n c e § 1.0 c r e d i b l e eye-witness of the s t a t e d Young v. 2004) the See App. assertions inference to the p r o p o s i t i o n s a s s e r t e d by them. T h i s may be c a l l e d ' t e s t i m o n i a l evidence.'"' ( Q u o t i n g 1A Wigmore, E v i d e n c e § 25 ed.1983).) Moreover, i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t (Tillers rev. '[t]he testimony of the v i c t i m alone [ i s ] s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e 83 CR-99-1349 case of (Ala. C r i m . App. The So. robbery.' Watkins v. State, 565 held i n Ex 2d 1227, 1231 Carter, 88 9 1990)."). A l a b a m a Supreme c o u r t 2d 528 So. parte ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , t h a t an i n s t r u c t i o n on c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence i s not r e q u i r e d by case i s based w h o l l y on the trial such evidence, court, e v e n where stating: " I n Thomas v. S t a t e , 824 So. 2d 1 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , Thomas was c o n v i c t e d of the capital o f f e n s e o f murder c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g a r a p e and was s e n t e n c e d t o death. In c o n d u c t i n g a plain-error r e v i e w o f Thomas's t r i a l and s e n t e n c i n g , t h e C o u r t of C r i m i n a l Appeals h e l d t h a t a l t h o u g h a l l of the e v i d e n c e was l i k e l y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , i t was n o t p l a i n e r r o r f o r the t r i a l c o u r t n o t t o have g i v e n a c i r c u m s t a n t i a l - e v i d e n c e i n s t r u c t i o n ; Thomas had n o t a s k e d f o r s u c h an i n s t r u c t i o n and a f t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r a l c h a r g e t o t h e j u r y Thomas's a t t o r n e y a n n o u n c e d t h a t he was s a t i s f i e d with the jury i n s t r u c t i o n s . 824 So.2d a t 33-39. 2 in "...As t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s Thomas: recognized " ' " [ A l t h o u g h a] few c o u r t s have h e l d t h a t g e n e r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s , s u c h as t h o s e d e a l i n g w i t h the burden of p r o o f , are s u f f i c i e n t , a l a r g e r number o f jurisdictions have a d o p t e d t h e r u l e t h a t an i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e law of c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence is not and r e q u i r e d where t h e j u r y i s p r o p e r l y adequately charged concerning the reasonable doubt s t a n d a r d . " ' 84 the CR-99-1349 "Thomas, 824 So. 2d a t 36, c i t i n g C a r o l l J . M i l l e r , Annotation, Modern Status of Rule Regarding N e c e s s i t y o f I n s t r u c t i o n on C i r c u m s t a n t i a l E v i d e n c e i n C r i m i n a l T r i a l - S t a t e C a s e s , 36 A . L . R . 4 t h 1046, 1052 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . A l t h o u g h a t r i a l c o u r t may g i v e a circumstantial-evidence i n s t r u c t i o n i f i tfinds the i n s t r u c t i o n appropriate or h e l p f u l i n a p a r t i c u l a r case, a t r i a l court i s not r e q u i r e d t o give the j u r y s u c h an i n s t r u c t i o n m e r e l y b e c a u s e a l l o f t h e State's evidence in a criminal case is c i r c u m s t a n t i a l . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h i s r u l i n g i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Thomas v . S t a t e , 824 So. 2d 1 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , Davenport v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 570 So. 2d 1298 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m s , 468 So.2d 99 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , a n d Howard v. S t a t e , 108 A l a . 5 7 1 , 18 So. 813 ( 1 8 9 5 ) , those cases are o v e r r u l e d . "FN2. The S t a t e l i n k e d Thomas t o h i s v i c t i m w i t h DNA evidence; the Court of Criminal Appeals d i d not d e c i d e t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r DNA e v i d e n c e i s d i r e c t evidence or c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence." 889 So. 2d a t 531-33. Here, reasonable evidence the trial doubt court standard supporting instructed i n evaluating Johnson's conviction, the jury on the the evidence. The m o r e o v e r , was n o t e n t i r e l y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l . J o h n s o n ' s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s were n o t adversely affected the by t h e t r i a l j u r y as t o c i r c u m s t a n t i a l court's evidence. 85 failure to instruct CR-99-1349 Johnson argues that the trial court's definition of r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , i n v i o l a t i o n o f Cage v. Louisiana, (1990). trial, 498 U.S. 39, Because Johnson we review this 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed. 2d 339 r a i s e d no o b j e c t i o n on t h i s g r o u n d a t issue for plain error. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. In the present case, the t r i a l c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d the c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s t a n d a r d as follows: " R e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ; The t e r m r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t means a d o u b t w h i c h has a good r e a s o n f o r a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e . I t means a d o u b t growing out of the u n s a t i s f a c t o r y n a t u r e of the e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e . I t does n o t mean a d o u b t w h i c h a r i s e s f r o m a mere whim o r f r o m a g r o u n d l e s s s u r m i s e or g u e s s . W h i l e t h e l a w r e q u i r e s you t o be s a t i s f i e d of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , i t a t t h e same t i m e p r o h i b i t s you f r o m g o i n g o u t s i d e t h e e v i d e n c e t o s e a r c h f o r d o u b t s upon w h i c h t o a c q u i t the defendant. "In a r r i v i n g a t your v e r d i c t , i t i s your d u t y t o c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r the e n t i r e e v i d e n c e i n the case and i n d o i n g so you s h o u l d e n t e r t a i n o n l y t h o s e d o u b t s , as t h e y a r i s e f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e o r any p a r t of t h e e v i d e n c e , w h i c h a r e r e a s o n a b l e . U n l e s s t h e d o u b t i s a r e a s o n a b l e one, and does so a r i s e , i t w i l l n o t be s u f f i c i e n t i n l a w t o a u t h o r i z e a v e r d i c t of n o t g u i l t y . Upon c a r e f u l r e v i e w o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e you a s k y o u r i n n e r c o n s c i e n c e , " I s she g u i l t y , " and t h e a n s w e r comes b a c k , " I d o u b t i f she i s , " t h e n you must a c q u i t t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h e c a s e . If you answer your inner conscience, "Is she g u i l t y , " and t h e a n s w e r comes b a c k , " I have no 86 jury CR-99-1349 r e a s o n a b l e doubt convict. t h a t she i s g u i l t y , " t h e n you must " T h e r e i s no s u c h t h i n g as a b s o l u t e c e r t a i n t y i n human a f f a i r s , for justice i s , after a l l , an a p p r o x i m a t e s c i e n c e a n d i t ' s ends a r e n o t t o be d e f e a t e d by f a i l u r e o f mathematical p r o o f . " (R. 1212-13.) Johnson reasonable argues doubt by that because including the jury language was which charged on referred to " m a t h e m a t i c a l " p r o o f , a n d r e m i n d e d o f t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s when b e i n g c h a r g e d as t o r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t a t s e n t e n c i n g , h e r r i g h t s t o due p r o c e s s were v i o l a t e d . trial court twice equated She f u r t h e r c o m p l a i n s t h a t t h e reasonable doubt certainty." " ' " ' I n Cage v. L o u i s i a n a , [498 U.S. 39, 111 S . C t . 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990)] t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t f o u n d t h a t if the instruction equated "reasonable doubt" to "grave uncertainty," and "actual substantial doubt" and stated t h a t what was r e q u i r e d was " m o r a l certainty" a reasonable jury could i n t e r p r e t the i n s t r u c t i o n t o a l l o w a l e s s e r degree of p r o o f t o c o n v i c t than t h a t r e q u i r e d by t h e due p r o c e s s c l a u s e . I t was the use of a l l t h r e e phrases i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h each o t h e r t h a t t h e Supreme C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n Cage. G a s k i n s 87 with "moral CR-99-1349 v. M c K e l l a r , S.Ct. 2277, (1991).' 500 U.S. 961, 114 L.Ed.2d "'"Sockwell v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r . A p p . 19 9 3 ) . ' " 675 " P r i c e v. S t a t e , So. 111 728 2d 4, 23 725 a t 1021. "'"Use o f some b u t n o t a l l o f t h e terminology f o u n d o f f e n s i v e i n Cage does not automatically constitute reversible e r r o r . " T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 666 So. 2d 36, 56 (Ala.Cr.App.), o p i n i o n a f t e r remand, 666 So. 2d 71 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , a f f ' d , 666 So. 2d 73 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 516 U.S. 1120, 116 S.Ct. 928, 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . The i n s t r u c t i o n given i n this case does not equate "reasonable doubt" w i t h "moral c e r t a i n t y " "grave u n c e r t a i n t y " or " a c t u a l s u b s t a n t i a l doubt," which the U n i t e d States Supreme C o u r t f o u n d t o be i m p r o p e r i n Cage. Taken as a whole, the i n s t r u c t i o n was not i m p r o p e r ; i t was n o t c o n f u s i n g and i t d i d not l e s s e n the S t a t e ' s burden of p r o o f . T a y l o r , s u p r a . See a l s o , Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m s , 640 So. 2d 1015, 1023-24 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . ' "Hyde v. State, 778 So. 2d 199, 222 (Ala.Cr.App. State, 781 So. 2d 257, 303 ( A l a . Crim. McWhorter, 781 1998)." McWhorter v. 1999) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e So. 2d 2000) , c e r t . d e n i e d , M c W h o r t e r v. A l a b a m a , 532 U.S. S.Ct. 1612, 149 L.Ed.2d 476 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . 88 App. 330 ( A l a . 976, 121 CR-99-1349 However, the charge given by the trial judge in the p r e s e n t case d i d not i m p e r m i s s i b l y lower the S t a t e ' s burden of p r o o f , as i n Cage. r e a s o n a b l e doubt The use o f s u c h l a n g u a g e i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e s t a n d a r d as " ' i t ' s r a r e l y p o s s i b l e to prove a n y t h i n g t o an a b s o l u t e o r m a t h e m a t i c a l c e r t a i n t y , ' " has b e en held t o be p r o p e r and not v i o l a t i v e S t a t e , 781 So. 2d a t 302. the Moreover, o f Cage. McWhorter t h i s C o u r t has h e l d use o f t h e t e r m " m o r a l c e r t a i n t y " v. that i s also permissible i n d e f i n i n g the r e a s o n a b l e doubt s t a n d a r d . "While the t r i a l c o u r t used the terms 'actual s u b s t a n t i a l d o u b t ' and 'moral c e r t a i n t y ' i n i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s , i t d i d n o t a l s o use t h e t e r m 'grave u n c e r t a i n t y ' i n d e f i n i n g r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . I t was the use o f a l l t h r e e t e r m s t h a t t h e Supreme C o u r t f o u n d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n Cage. See G a s k i n s v. M c K e l l a r , 500 U.S. 961, 111 S.Ct. 2277, 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991); Coral v. State, 628 So. 2d 954 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), a f f ' d , 628 So. 2d 1004 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 511 U.S. 1012, 114 S.Ct. 1387, 128 L.Ed.2d 61 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t use of some, b u t n o t a l l , o f t h e t e r m s e x a m i n e d i n Cage does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . Haney v. S t a t e , 603 So. 2d 368 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), a f f ' d , 603 So. 2d 412 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 507 U.S. 925, 113 S.Ct. 1297, 122 L.Ed.2d 687 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . " Lawhorn v. S t a t e , 756 So. 2d 971, 985 ( A l a . C r i m . App. c e r t . d e n i e d , Lawhorn v. A l a b a m a , 531 U.S. 148 L.Ed.2d 53 (2000). 89 1999), 835, 121 S.Ct. 93, CR-99-1349 "'When reviewing charge court's challenged a must be are not trial taken to be as 2d 110, 113 520 So. 2d 235, So. 601 1130 2d at So. 1, 2d 65 237 and from portions taken of S e l f v. S t a t e , 620 P o r t e r v. see ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) . ' M a p l e s v. (Ala.Cr.App.1999)." M c W h o r t e r v. State, a l s o , Beard ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ; A l e x a n d e r v. 2d 1335 "'the out (quoting (Ala.Cr.App.1987)); the or together.'" (Ala.Cr.App.1992) So. instructions, a whole, isolated context, but r a t h e r c o n s i d e r e d S t a t e , 612 court's State, State, State, 758 781 v. So. So. 2d 302. H e r e , t h e j u r y was doubt standard State's and burden substantial or p r o p e r l y c h a r g e d as t o t h e this charge would not shifted rights were the not burden of adversely have reasonable lessened proof. the Johnson's affected by these guilt phase instructions. F. Johnson argues that the trial court's i n s t r u c t i o n s improperly i n d i c a t e d t h a t the a p p r o p r i a t e v e r d i c t was that until of appeal guilt. and Johnson therefore did this pursuant to the p l a i n e r r o r r u l e . 90 not object issue on must R u l e 45A, this be ground evaluated Ala.R.App.P. CR-99-1349 J o h n s o n ' s a r g u m e n t i s b a s e d on a s i n g l e w o r d by t h e c o u r t d u r i n g h i s c h a r g e , w h e r e i n he s t a t e d , "The p r e s u m e d t o be innocent until she argues t h a t the t r i a l (R. 1211.) a She of the word " u n t i l " rather than " u n l e s s " r e q u i r e d the j u r y to r e t u r n a v e r d i c t of guilt. "The c o u r t ' s use defendant i s i s proven g u i l t y beyond d o u b t by t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e . " reasonable trial i n c o r r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n c o u l d have b e e n a mere s l i p o f tongue on the part of the trial court or, perhaps, is the the r e s u l t o f an e r r o r made by t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r i n t r a n s c r i b i n g the c o u r t ' s o r a l charge." (Ala. Crim. court's App. 2007) misstatement Woods v. S t a t e , 13 So. (finding that no the means circumstance makes that does n o t i t more S t a t e , 881 So. likely 2d 460, the jury exist that 517 error prosecutor's d i s p r o v i n g a m i t i g a t i n g circumstance evidence plain 3d 1, 41 trial burden in by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e should unless in the i t does consider evidence exist) . ( A l a . C r i m . App. that as See a the whole Dorsey 2d 533 S t a t e , 999 in charging ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , o v e r r u l e d on So. 2d 992 the ( A l a . 2007) j u r y as to a 91 other ground, Heard (comment by t h e t r i a l finding of v. 2001), a f f i r m e d i n p a r t , r e v e r s e d i n p a r t on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e D o r s e y , So. n.1 guilt on 881 v. court a lesser CR-99-1349 included offense and d i d not was a clear inadvertent constitute plain error slip tongue of in light of the entire the charge). same i s s u e This has been p r e v i o u s l y p r e s e n t e d C o u r t and d e c i d e d a d v e r s e l y to Johnson's p o s i t i o n . v. 2d 488, S t a t e , 893 So. contended t h a t the t r i a l proof by using c h a r g e on 548 the word " u n t i l " the presumption of to this 893 charge, So. this In Snyder 2003), Snyder c o u r t l e s s e n e d the S t a t e ' s burden of use o f t h i s w o r d " ' i n f o r m e d expected.'" ( A l a . C r i m . App. to r a t h e r than innocence. He "unless" in its argued that the t h e j u r y t h a t a g u i l t y v e r d i c t was 2d a t 548. T h i s C o u r t f o u n d no e r r o r stating: "The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has u s e d t h e w o r d ' u n t i l ' to c h a r a c t e r i z e the S t a t e ' s burden of p r o o f . I n Ex p a r t e S c r o g g i n s , 727 So. 2d 131, 134 (Ala. 1 9 9 8 ) , t h e c o u r t s t a t e d , 'The b u r d e n o f p r o o f i n a l l c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s r e s t s upon t h e S t a t e , w i t h t h e presumption of innocence a t t e n d i n g the defendant u n t i l t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f has b e e n met.' A l s o , we a p p r o v e d a s i m i l a r i n s t r u c t i o n i n Thomas v. S t a t e , 824 So. 2d 1 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . "The trial court's jury instructions, when v i e w e d as a w h o l e , c o r r e c t l y i n f o r m e d t h e j u r y t h a t i f t h e S t a t e d i d n o t meet i t s b u r d e n , t h e j u r y had a d u t y t o a c q u i t t h e d e f e n d a n t . No r e a s o n a b l e j u r o r w o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s i m p l i e d t h a t t h e S t a t e w o u l d a l w a y s meet t h a t b u r d e n . T h e r e was no e r r o r , much l e s s p l a i n e r r o r , i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f i n n o c e n c e . " 92 due CR-99-1349 893 So. 2d a t 549. A review of the t r i a l t h i s statement informed r a t h e r than i n i s o l a t i o n , shows t h a t t h e j u r y was of the law concerning Johnson's Therefore, c o u r t ' s e n t i r e charge, a f f e c t e d by t h i s the presumption substantial rights properly of not were innocence. adversely charge. VII . Johnson argues t h a t the t r i a l the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance disrupt or hinder the court erroneously t h a t t h e m u r d e r was lawful e x e r c i s e of any allowed committed to governmental f u n c t i o n o r t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f l a w s t o be a p p l i e d t o h e r case because: the f a c t s d i d not e s t a b l i s h t h a t the purpose of the k i l l i n g was the t o h i n d e r law enforcement; the t r i a l c o u r t t r e a t e d aggravating aggravating would be circumstance o v e r l y broad context. of should not the as t h e capital offense same ; and this 8 i f i t i s allowed Specifically, circumstance involve element she be argues to that the officer. She this circumstance apply a p p l i e d here because the murder of a p o l i c e and in this aggravating i t did not f u r t h e r argues A l t h o u g h J o h n s o n l i s t s t h i s as an argument he does n o t a d d r e s s i t h e r e and t h i s i s s u e has b e e n p r e v i o u s l y d e c i d e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n . See I s s u e s I I and V ( E ) . 8 93 CR-99-1349 t h a t , i f a l l o w e d to apply to t h i s case, t h i s circumstance will be u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y vague and o v e r b r o a d b e c a u s e " [ i ] t w o u l d n o t be d i f f i c u l t t o f i n d an a n g l e t o a l m o s t e v e r y murder t h a t i n v o l v e d the hindrance of a governmental enforcement is of the laws." raising therefore (Johnson's t h e s e arguments f o r the t h e y a r e due error standard. t o be R u l e 45A, brief first case f u n c t i o n or the p. time 74.) on analyzed pursuant Johnson appeal to the and plain Ala.R.App.P. A. Johnson a l l e g e s t h a t t h i s a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s h o u l d not apply Alabama to this other case than because for the i t has murder of However, A l a b a m a c a s e s have a p p l i e d t h i s murders of i n d i v i d u a l s hindered or other than disrupted the a I n D a v i s v. (Ala. App. this police Moreover, C r i m . App. 2001), 906 So. 2d 277 i n Baker v. of the S t a t e , 804 aggravating S t a t e , 906 murder laws So. 2d So. was case a g a i n s t 2d 210 (Ala. Ex p a r t e Baker, on remand t o , B a k e r v. S t a t e , 94 or 1153 circumstance r e v e r s e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , ( A l a . 2004), in officer. where t h e a p p l i e d t o t h e murder o f an i n f o r m a n t i n a d r u g Davis. applied circumstance to the enforcement functions. 2000), been officers governmental Crim. not 906 CR-99-1349 So. 2d 292 this ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005), the t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e a p p l i e d t o t h e murder a misdemeano r c h a r g e of a s s a u l t I I I was pending a g a i n s t the a p p e l l a n t b a s e d on a w a r r a n t f i l e d by t h e v i c t i m . " at 276. "because 906 So. 2d The a s s a u l t c h a r g e h a d b e e n r e i n s t a t e d by t h e v i c t i m , B a k e r ' s w i f e , a f t e r h a v i n g b e e n d i s m i s s e d due to the v i c t i m ' s failure that to appear; the p h y s i c a l l y prevented her evidence from indicated appearing. Id. Baker had Although the 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 a s e on o t h e r g r o u n d s , i t i n applying this aggravating noted that trial c o u r t seemed t o c o n t r a d i c t i t s e l f t h a t t h e m u r d e r was committed circumstance, as i t e a r l i e r stated " ' s o l e l y ' " due t o j e a l o u s y . (1988). 134 (finding that aggravating circumstance that m u r d e r was 1998) committed 976 S.W. d u r i n g e s c a p e f r o m l a w f u l c u s t o d y was " ' u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y vague as a p p l i e d t o t h i s " ' i t was i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t law enforcement case'" 121, not because o f f i c e r s ' " where v i c t i m s were k i l l e d w h i l e d e f e n d a n t s were a t t e m p t i n g t o to 2d See 64 A.L.R. 4 t h 755 (Tenn. C f . S t a t e v. H a l l , the escape Mexico). In the p r e s e n t case, Johnson's p r i m a r y motive M c C u l l a r was in killing t o p r e v e n t him from t e s t i f y i n g i n the bigamy case 95 CR-99-1349 against her. M c C u l l a r was Thus, t h e m u r d e r was clearly t h e S t a t e ' s main w i t n e s s . committed to prevent t h i s p r o s e c u t i o n the enforcement of the and law. B. Johnson o v e r l y broad trial argues aggravating circumstance is and vague when a p p l i e d t o t h i s case because the court did "governmental that not this define functions" or for e v e r y m u r d e r and to apply to t h i s The jury "enforcement f u r t h e r argues t h a t t h i s circumstance to almost the of the terms laws." She c o u l d be a r g u e d t o a p p l y i s t h e r e f o r e o v e r l y broad i f held situation. r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , a f t e r the j u r y had r e t i r e d f o r d e l i b e r a t i o n s as t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , i t r e t u r n e d with a question concerning circumstances. them of (R. the 1314.) aggravating the mitigating The trial and court circumstances aggravating again that informed they could c o n s i d e r , i n c l u d i n g t h a t " t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was committed to disrupt governmental or hinder t h e u n l a w f u l e x e r c i s e o f any f u n c t i o n or enforcement of laws." then sent circumstances a written statement (R. 1315.) of the The two trial court aggravating t h a t t h e j u r y c o u l d c o n s i d e r b a c k w i t h them f o r 96 CR-99-1349 their continued deliberations. This statement of p e r t i n e n t a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance continued w i t h the "to-wit: the murder stemmed from, was caused r e l a t e d t o Randy M c C u l l a r ' s r o l e as a w i t n e s s . " clearly informed the j u r y of the evidence had be to found to support a finding of language by, or This in this this the was language case that aggravating circumstance. It was not "governmental necessary functions" for and 777 So. contended 2d 922 t h a t the "'"knowingly as 856, As this court of to the Court stated App. define laws" construed pursuant ( A l a . Crim. trial trial "enforcement t h e s e t e r m s were i n t e n d e d t o be o r d i n a r y meaning. the to as their i n W i l s o n v. S t a t e , 1999), c o u r t e r r e d by where failing to Wilson define c r e a t e s a g r e a t r i s k o f d e a t h t o many p e r s o n s " ' " i t applies to the aggravating circumstance in § 49(3): "'The p h r a s e a t i s s u e has n o t b e e n d e f i n e d by s t a t u t e o r by c a s e l a w . "When a term i s i n c l u d e d i n a s t a t u t e r e l e v a n t t o a c a s e , and t h a t t e r m i s n o t d e f i n e d by s t a t u t e , whether i t i s necessary f o r the t r i a l c o u r t t o d e f i n e the term f o r the j u r y h i n g e s on t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e . See Thornton v. State, 570 So. 2d 762 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) . " I v e r y v. S t a t e , 686 So. 2d 495 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996). This 97 13A-5- CR-99-1349 principle "has a d d e d m e a n i n g when t h e c h a l l e n g e d t e r m s can be u n d e r s t o o d by t h e average juror in their common usage." T h o r n t o n , 570 So. 2d a t 772. I n t h i s c a s e , the i n t e n d e d m e a n i n g o f t h e p h r a s e a t i s s u e is c l e a r on i t s f a c e . T h i s p h r a s e i s w r i t t e n i n p l a i n E n g l i s h and c o n t a i n s no t e r m s o f a r t o r l e g a l j a r g o n . We f a i l t o see any way i n w h i c h a l a b o r e d d e f i n i t i o n of t h i s p h r a s e w o u l d have c l a r i f i e d i t s m e a n i n g . Our c o n c l u s i o n i s b u t t r e s s e d by the f a c t t h a t , u n l i k e the a p p e l l a n t s i n I v e r y and T h o r n t o n , t h e a p p e l l a n t h e r e has failed to present any conceivable c o n f u s i o n , b a s e d on t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , t h a t may have r e s u l t e d f r o m t h e use o f t h i s phrase alone w i t h o u t d e f i n i t i o n . Moreover, the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u r y charge r e g a r d i n g t h i s a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance f o l l o w e d the pertinent pattern jury instruction in P r o p o s e d P a t t e r n J u r y I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r use i n t h e S e n t e n c e Phase o f C a p i t a l Cases T r i e d u n d e r A c t No. 81-178. T h a t p a t t e r n j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n p r o v i d e s no d e f i n i t i o n f o r the p h r a s e a t i s s u e . "'"[W]e do n o t t h i n k we s h o u l d h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e p l a i n l y e r r e d when he i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y p u r s u a n t t o a p a t t e r n j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n 'recommended' by t h i s C o u r t , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e a b s e n c e o f an objection or request from the d e f e n d a n t . " ' K u e n z e l [v. S t a t e ] , 577 So. 2d [ 4 7 4 ] , 520, [ ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f ' d , 577 So. 2d 531 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 502 U.S. 886, 112 S.Ct. 242, 116 L.Ed.2d 197 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ] , q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e H a r r e l l , 470 So. 2d 1309, 1315 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ] . ' W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 601 So. 2d 1062 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f ' d , 662 So. 2d 929 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 506 U.S. 957, 113 S.Ct. 417, 121 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) ( e m p h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l ) . We f i n d no p l a i n e r r o r h e r e . ' 98 CR-99-1349 " T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t e r m 'many' and t h e r e m a i n d e r o f § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 3 ) , A l a . C o d e 1975, 'define the c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e w i t h s u f f i c i e n t d e f i n i t e n e s s t h a t o r d i n a r y p e o p l e can u n d e r s t a n d what c o n d u c t i s p r o h i b i t e d and i n a manner t h a t does n o t e n c o u r a g e a r b i t r a r y and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y e n f o r c e m e n t . ' K o l e n d e r v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s vagueness argument i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . " 777 So. 2d at 922. See 1170, 105 P. 3d 487, court has no duty without 841 P.2d 118, 139 not have t o d e f i n e 536 to p a r o l e ' " and P e o p l e v. Young, 34 instruct the 1149, ( f i n d i n g t h a t the ( C a l . 2005) Cal. 4 th trial jury on the term "'life c i t i n g H a w t h o r n e , 4 C a l . 4 t h 43, 75-76, ( C a l . 1992) (finding that t r i a l "death" s u c h was as not court a legal did term of in the art)). The Sentence Proposed Pattern Jury I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r use Phase o f C a p i t a l Cases T r i e d under Act s e t s o u t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o be g i v e n by t h e t r i a l the aggravating designation supported or by Instructions, circumstances d e s c r i p t i o n of by those sufficient evidence. at The 83-85. trial stating that are Proposed court i n s t r u c t i o n s as t o t h e p e r t i n e n t a g g r a v a t i n g the No. 81-178 c o u r t as to statutory relevant Pattern followed circumstance. and Jury these "It i s t h e p r e f e r r e d p r a c t i c e t o use t h e p a t t e r n j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s 99 CR-99-1349 in a capital (Ala. case." Ex parte Hagood, 777 So. 2d 214, 219 1999). A s t a t u t e s h o u l d n o t be d e c l a r e d v o i d f o r v a g u e n e s s i f i t can be given enforceable. a reasonable to be H a w k i n s v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 248 A l a . 692, 695 29 So. 2d 281, 282 that reason the avoid main prosecution necessary See the so as Here, the S t a t e ' s evidence for this i n the to f u l f i l l circumstance. App. (1947). construction m u r d e r was bigamy clear case Johnson's p l a n provides the language of t h i s S m i t h v. S t a t e , So. showing 3d evidence aggravating ( A l a . Crim. 2007) ( j u r y c h a r g e on a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t c r e a t e d a g r e a t r i s k o f d e a t h t o many p e o p l e was vague where e v i d e n c e to showed t h a t t h r e e p e o p l e Smith not broad or were m u r d e r e d and s i x a d d i t i o n a l p e o p l e were p l a c e d i n g r e a t r i s k o f d e a t h ) . Therefore, t h e r e was no error, plain or the a p p l i c a t i o n of the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance otherwise, in f o r t h e murder h a v i n g been committed t o d i s r u p t or h i n d e r the l a w f u l e x e r c i s e o f any government f u n c t i o n or the enforcement of laws. VIII. Johnson argues t h a t s e v e r a l of the t r i a l court's penalty p h a s e i n s t r u c t i o n s were c o n t r a r y t o t h e l a w and v i o l a t e d 100 her CR-99-1349 constitutional claims rights. concerning the She failed instructions to raise to the t h e r e f o r e t h e y must be e v a l u a t e d p u r s u a n t rule. R u l e 45A, trial of these court, to the p l a i n and error Ala.R.App.P. Johnson a l l e g e s t h a t the t r i a l to any court improperly t h e j u r y t h a t i t c o u l d n o t c o n s i d e r any m i t i g a t i n g implied evidence u n t i l i t f o u n d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f two a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s beyond a reasonable doubt. court's to the instruction taken i n context, However, a r e v i e w jury which of the i s cited by trial Johnson, states: " I f you f i n d t h a t no a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e has b e e n p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t o e x i s t in this case, t h e n you must r e t u r n a verdict recommending t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p u n i s h m e n t be l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t w i t h o u t p a r o l e . I n t h a t e v e n t , you n e e d not concern yourself with the mitigating circumstances i n t h i s case. " I f you f i n d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e two aggravating circumstances on i n s t r u c t e d you does e x i s t i n t h i s must proceed to consider and mitigating circumstances." doubt t h a t the which I have c a s e , t h e n you determine the (R. 1239.) T h i s charge Propsed i s almost Pattern Jury identical to the charge Instructions 101 f o r use stated i n i n the The Sentence CR-99-1349 Phase o f C a p i t a l C a s e s T r i e d u n d e r A c t No. S n y d e r v. S t a t e , 893 So. 2d 488, c e r t . d e n i e d , In re Snyder, 893 553 error w i l l jury (2005) be [577 So. (Ala. 2d 474 125 S.Ct. adopted by this ( A l a . C r i m . App. 9 cert. 2512, 161 reversible court f o l l o w s the p a t t e r n Court. 1990), Kuenzel a f f ' d , 577 v. S t a t e , So. 2d 531 1991)]'"). The t r i a l the 1062, 87 . 2003), ( A l a . 2004), ( " ' t h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t no f o u n d when t h e t r i a l instructions ( A l a . C r i m . App. So. 2d 563 d e n i e d , S n y d e r v. A l a b a m a , 544 U.S. L.Ed.2d 1113 81-178 a t p. existence beyond a outweighs c o u r t a l s o i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y t h a t i f i t found of "at reasonable least doubt the m i t i g a t i n g and aggravating the aggravating circumstance" circumstance circumstance or c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s h o u l d be trial one f o r death. (R. 1247-48.) then The c o u r t f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i f the j u r y found t h a t the mitigating circumstance aggravating circumstance, or or circumstances i f the jury was outweighed not any convinced The p a t t e r n j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s s t a t e , " I f you f i n d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t (the) (one o r more o f t h e ) a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e ( s ) on w h i c h I i n s t r u c t e d you does e x i s t i n t h i s c a s e , t h e n you must p r o c e e d t o c o n s i d e r and d e t e r m i n e t h e mitigating circumstances." I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e r e were two a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s f o r t h e j u r y t o c o n s i d e r . 9 102 CR-99-1349 beyond a reasonable aggravating doubt of least one t h e n t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n must be circumstance, the for life imprisonment without p a r o l e . was clearly existence aggravating recommend instructed life aggravating its Thus, t h e j u r y duty in weighing and that without to (R. 1248.) at m i t i g a t i n g circumstances, and as of parole i f i t fails to the i t must find any circumstances. T h e r e was no e r r o r , p l a i n o r o t h e r w i s e , i n s t r u c t i o n s by the t r i a l concerning these court. B. Johnson contends t h a t the t r i a l denigrated the referring to Specifically, trial judge j u r y ' s sense of its she c o u r t and the responsibility sentencing verdict as prosecutor by repeatedly merely advisory. c i t e s t o a number o f i n s t a n c e s i n w h i c h referred to the jury's verdict as the a "recommendation" d u r i n g h i s p e n a l t y phase charge t o the j u r y . She a l s o c i t e s t o t h r e e comments by t h e p r o s e c u t o r p e n a l t y p h a s e a r g u m e n t s : "I'm the j u d g e who two sentences will that during his g o i n g t o a s k you t o recommend t o make t h e u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n w h i c h o f you think this particular as representatives of the those community c r i m e s h o u l d have b e e n s e n t e n c e d w i t h " 103 CR-99-1349 (R. 1 2 4 9 - 5 0 ) ; " i t w o u l d be y o u r d u t y t o recommend t o t h e C o u r t and t h e C o u r t , o f c o u r s e , can t a k e y o u r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o r n o t " (R. 1250); and " I am going t o ask you, t h i n k a b o u t i t , and r e t u r n a v e r d i c t o r a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , and t h a t ' s what i t i s a recommendation, of death i n t h i s case." (R. 1309.) "'"[W]e r e a f f i r m t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t , i n A l a b a m a , t h e ' j u d g e , and n o t t h e j u r y , is the final sentencing authority in c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s . ' Ex p a r t e Hays, 518 So. 2d 768, 774 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; B e c k v. S t a t e , 396 So. 2d [645] a t 659 [ ( A l a . 1980) ] ; J a c o b s v. S t a t e , 361 So. 2d 640, 644 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 439 U.S. 1122, 99 S.Ct. 1034, 59 L.Ed.2d 83 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . " Ex p a r t e G i l e s , 632 So. 2d 577, 583 ( A l a . 1993), c e r t . d e n i e d , [512] U.S. [ 1 2 1 3 ] , 114 S.Ct. 2694, 129 L.Ed.2d 825 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . "The j u r y ' s v e r d i c t whether t o sentence a defendant t o death or to l i f e without p a r o l e i s a d v i s o r y o n l y . " B u s h v. S t a t e , 431 So. 2d 555, 559 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ) , a f f ' d , 431 So. 2d 563 (Ala. 1 9 8 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 464 U.S. 865, 104 S.Ct. 200, 78 L.Ed.2d 175 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . See a l s o S o c k w e l l v. S t a t e , [675] So. 2d [4] (Ala.Cr.App. 1993). "We have p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t does n o t d i m i n i s h t h e j u r y ' s r o l e o r commit e r r o r when i t states during the j u r y charge i n the p e n a l t y phase of a death case t h a t the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t i s a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o r an ' a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t . ' W h i t e v. S t a t e , 587 So. 2d 1218 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f ' d , 587 So. 2d 1236 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 502 U.S. 1076, 112 S.Ct. 979, 117 L.Ed.2d 142 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . " B u r t o n v. S t a t e , 651 So. 2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993).' 104 CR-99-1349 "Taylor v. State, (Ala.Crim.App. 1994), 666 So. a f f ' d , 666 2d So. 36, 2d 73 50-51 (Ala. 1995)." S n y d e r v. S t a t e , 893 judge did not So. 2d a t 555-556 ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e denigrate r e p e a t e d l y i n s t r u c t i n g the was a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n ) . the jury's jury that trial responsibility i t s sentencing by verdict "It i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y impermissible to rest a d e a t h s e n t e n c e on a d e t e r m i n a t i o n by a s e n t e n c e r who has b e e n l e d t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r determining the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the accused's d e a t h r e s t s e l s e w h e r e . C a l d w e l l [ v. M i s s i s s i p p i , 4 7 2 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985)]. However, comments that accurately explain the r e s p e c t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e j u d g e and jury are permissible under Caldwell as long as the significance of the jury's recommendation is a d e q u a t e l y s t r e s s e d . H a r i c h v. W a i n w r i g h t , 813 F. 2d 1082, 1101 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ; M a r t i n v. S t a t e , 548 So. 2d 488 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f ' d , 548 So. 2d 496 ( A l a . 1989). In the i n s t a n t case, n e i t h e r the the p r o s e c u t o r nor the t r i a l c o u r t m i s r e p r e s e n t e d e f f e c t of the jury's sentencing recommendation. T h e i r r e m a r k s c l e a r l y d e f i n e d t h e j u r y ' s r o l e , were not misleading or confusing, and were correct statements of the law." S m i t h v. S t a t e , , [Ms. CR-97-1258, December 22, 2000] ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000), reversed i n part g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e S m i t h , [ M s . 1010267, M a r c h 14, 3d ( A l a . 2003) . 105 2003] So. on 3d other So. CR-99-1349 Here, t h e t r i a l court appropriately instructed the jury as t o i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n s e n t e n c i n g J o h n s o n , b y s t a t i n g : "While i t ' s your duty t o f o l l o w t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s which the Court has g i v e n y o u , no statement, q u e s t i o n , r u l i n g , remark o r o t h e r e x p r e s s i o n t h a t has b e e n made b y t h e C o u r t a t a n y t i m e d u r i n g t h e course o f t h i s t r i a l e i t h e r d u r i n g t h e g u i l t phase or d u r i n g the sentencing h e a r i n g i s intended t o i n d i c a t e any o p i n i o n o f what t h e f a c t s a r e o r what the punishment s h o u l d be. I t ' s your r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to determine the facts and recommend the punishment." (R. 1244.) The t r i a l court further instructed the jury: "The f a c t t h a t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r t e n o r more o f y o u c a n a g r e e t o recommend a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h o r s e v e n o r more o f y o u c a n a g r e e t o recommend a sentence o f l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t w i t h o u t p a r o l e can be r e a c h e d b y s i n g l e b a l l o t s h o u l d n o t i n f l u e n c e you t o a c t h a s t i l y o r w i t h o u t due r e g a r d t o t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s . You s h o u l d h e a r a n d c o n s i d e r the views o f your f e l l o w j u r o r s . B e f o r e you v o t e , you s h o u l d c a r e f u l l y w e i g h , s i f t a n d c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l l o f i t r e a l i z i n g t h a t a human l i f e i s at s t a k e a n d you s h o u l d b r i n g t o b e a r y o u r b e s t j u d g m e n t on t h e s o l e i s s u e w h i c h i s b e f o r e y o u . T h a t i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d be s e n t e n c e d to l i f e imprisonment w i t h o u t p a r o l e o r d e a t h . " (R. 1247.) Thus, b e c a u s e t h e j u r y was p r o p e r l y a p p r i s e d o f i t s r o l e in s e n t e n c i n g J o h n s o n a n d t h e comments b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r a n d trial court d i d not improperly 106 diminish i t s role as t o CR-99-1349 sentencing, there i s no error, plain or otherwise, on this c o u r t p e r m i t t e d the jury ground. Johnson a l l e g e s t h a t the t r i a l to consider violation nonstatutory o f h e r E i g h t h Amendment r i g h t s Ex p a r t e S t e w a r t , excerpt aggravating from the 659 So. 2d 122 following and ( A l a . 1993). instruction d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase of the circumstances, by in the d e c i s i o n i n She the c i t e s t o an trial judge trial: "The l i s t o f a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s p r o v i d e d by l a w , t h e r e a r e two c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h you may c o n s i d e r i n t h i s case i f you're c o n v i n c e d beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s e x i s t . The f a c t t h a t I i n s t r u c t you on s u c h a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r d e f i n e them f o r you, does n o t mean t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r any other aggravating circumstance have b e e n p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t i n t h i s c a s e . W h e t h e r any a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e w h i c h I i n s t r u c t you on o r d e f i n e f o r you have b e en p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t b a s e d upon t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s m a t t e r i s f o r you, t h e j u r y a l o n e , t o d e t e r m i n e . "The a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h you may c o n s i d e r i n t h i s c a s e i f you f i n d f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e y may -- t h a t t h e y may have b e e n p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t a r e as f o l l o w s ; Number one, t h a t t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was committed f o r p e c u n i a r y g a i n and number two, t h a t t h e capital o f f e n s e was committed to d i s r u p t or h i n d e r the l a w f u l e x e r c i s e o f any g o v e r n m e n t a l f u n c t i o n o r t h e enforcement of the laws." 107 CR-99-1349 (R. 1236-37.) Specifically, "or jury any other that J o h n s o n a l l e g e s t h a t by circumstance," the i t could consider viewed in court aggravating t h a n t h o s e t h a t were p u t b e f o r e However, trial using phrase, implied to circumstances them f o r t h e i r i t s entirety, the this the other consideration. charge properly i n s t r u c t s t h e j u r y members t h a t i t i s t h e i r d u t y t o d e t e r m i n e whether the applicable aggravating proven beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. charged that "[t]he aggravating consider i n t h i s c a s e i f you ... have b e e n p r o v e n may follows: " (R. a This sole 1237.) S e w a r t , 659 So. pointed numerous comments by reasonable the 2d the doubt may they are c a s e i n Ex trial court circumstances f o r the j u r y ' s State, 717 So. 2d 849, c e r t . d e n i e d , G e o r g e v. A l a b a m a , 525 L.Ed. clearly comment w o u l d n o t j u r y as was 855-56 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e G e o r g e , 717 142 also as have parte 2d a t 125-26, where t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t other aggravating G e o r g e v. by t h e j u r y was been c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h you beyond confusion Cf. The have f i n d from the evidence t h a t l e a d t o any out circumstances 462 (1998) So. U.S. (holding 108 consideration. (Ala. Crim. 2d 858 1024, that referencing ( A l a . 1998), 119 by App. S.Ct. 556, itself the CR-99-1349 i n s t r u c t i o n d i d n o t p o s e any p o t e n t i a l confusion as was Stewart). the c a s e i n Ex p a r t e jury c o u r t alone would not H e r e , t h e p h r a s e by t h e t r i a l to the have l e a d t o an i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t c o u l d have c a u s e d c o n f u s i o n by the jury the such as would i n s t r u c t i o n was 907 So. the trial a 2d been 487-88 court's to Moreover, Knight 2004) v. the circumstance case was that plain State, (finding that i n s t r u c t i o n to jury that i t could J o h n s o n ' s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s were n o t this See ( A l a . C r i m . App. aggravating applied error. not d i r e c t l y erroneous. 470, particular result in plain consider should error). not have Therefore, adversely affected by charge. IX. Johnson argues that the trial c e r t a i n v i c t i m impact evidence, at trial that victim, which making this were served in to argument, i n c l u d i n g an e m o t i o n a l testimony designed to by allowing engender sympathy the against refers jury to certain for her. These i n s t a n c e s seen her have p r e v i o u s l y b e e n 109 the In examples, o u t b u r s t by t h e v i c t i m ' s m o t h e r and t h a t t h e l a s t t i m e t h a t she had a casket. erred as w e l l as c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s inflame she court son he her was addressed CR-99-1349 in t h i s o p i n i o n and d e c i d e d a d v e r s e l y t o Johnson. See I s s u e V. ( B ) . A. Johnson a l l e g e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y his expressed sympathy f o r t h e v i c t i m ' s mother and t h e r e b y v i t i a t e d h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y a n d i n v i t e d t h e j u r y t o make i t s d e c i s i o n on emotions rather than the evidence. Johnson based failed to o b j e c t t o t h i s comment b y t h e t r i a l j u d g e ; t h e r e f o r e t h e p l a i n error standard of review must be applied. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. During the voir dire examination, the following transpired: "THE COURT: .... A r e any o f y o u r e l a t e d t o now, l e t ' s s e e , who's g o i n g t o be w i t h -- t h e family? "[PROSECUTOR]: M r s . B e t t y M c C u l l a r , t h e v i c t i m ' s mother. "THE COURT: Okay. T h i s i s M r s . B e t t y M c C u l l a r . I'm s o r r y M r s . M c C u l l a r . "Are any o f y o u r e l a t e d b y b l o o d o r b y m a r r i a g e t o M r s . B e t t y M c C u l l a r who i s t h e m o t h e r o f t h e deceased?" (R. 66.) 110 CR-99-1349 It was i s u n c l e a r from t h i s passage whether apologizing f o r not seeing the victim's the t r i a l mother court or not r e c o g n i z i n g h e r o r n o t k n o w i n g h e r o r , as J o h n s o n a l l e g e s , f o r her grief. statement However, by there the t r i a l i s no court that indication he was from this advocating or a l l o w i n g t h e j u r y t o make i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n b a s e d on e m o t i o n . Even i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t had been a p o l o g i z i n g t o t h e v i c t i m ' s m o t h e r f o r h e r l o s s , t h e r e i s no i m p l i c a t i o n o f an a c c u s a l o f Johnson s u c h as w o u l d r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f p l a i n e r r o r . i s t h e r e any i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e s o r t o f b i a s t h a t w o u l d recusal. " A l l judges a r e presumed u n b i a s e d . Ex p a r t e G r a y s o n , 1995)." So. 3d Johnson , v. S t a t e , t o be Nor require impartial and 665 So. 2d 986 ( A l a . C r i m . App. [CR-05-1805, S e p t . 28, 2007] ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . B. J o h n s o n a r g u e s t h a t i m p r o p e r v i c t i m i m p a c t t e s t i m o n y was allowed friend during the g u i l t of the v i c t i m phase and through prosecutor during h i s closing As argues through the testimony of a an a r g u m e n t made by t h e argument. t o the t e s t i m o n y from the victim's as b e i n g o v e r l y p r e j u d i c i a l 111 friend, Johnson h i s testimony concerning CR-99-1349 what he a n d t h e v i c t i m h a d done t o g e t h e r m u r d e r , how t h e v i c t i m had spent on t h e d a y o f t h e h i s s e t t l e m e n t money on a c h u r c h d o n a t i o n a n d g i f t f o r h i s n i e c e , a n d how he was a b l e t o recognize the v i c t i m ' s voice during their last telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n j u s t p r i o r t o t h e o f f e n s e and t h e f u n e r a l . However, a l l o f t h i s t e s t i m o n y was r e l e v a n t . friend's testimony narrowed down concerning the time the l a s t Hodges v. S t a t e , , concerning time of the events death, prior as McCullar's t o h i s death did his testimony t h a t he s p o k e t o t h e v i c t i m . [Ms. CR-04-1226, M a r c h 23, 2007] See So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007) ( h o l d i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e t e s t i m o n y offered by the victim's sister was not offered as v i c t i m - i m p a c t e v i d e n c e , b u t was o f f e r e d t o show t h e v i c t i m ' s activities on t h e d a y o f t h e m u r d e r a n d when she was l a s t i n c o n t a c t w i t h t h e f a m i l y , a n d i t went t o w a r d e s t a b l i s h i n g when the crime was The t e s t i m o n y committed. concerning The t e s t i m o n y was r e l e v a n t " ) . t h e v i c t i m ' s use o f h i s s e t t l e m e n t money showed t h a t he h a d a s o l i d b a s i s o f k n o w l e d g e c o n c e r n i n g the settlement and c o r r o b o r a t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t M c C u l l a r had r e c e i v e d t h e money. "'It is well v i c t i m - i m p a c t statements 112 settled that "are admissible CR-99-1349 d u r i n g t h e g u i l t phase o f a c r i m i n a l t r i a l only i f the statements are relevant t o a material issue of the guilt phase. T e s t i m o n y t h a t h a s no p r o b a t i v e v a l u e on any m a t e r i a l q u e s t i o n o f f a c t o r i n q u i r y i s i n a d m i s s i b l e . " Ex p a r t e Crymes, 630 So. 2d 125, 126 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , c i t i n g C h a r l e s W. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e , § 21.01 (4th ed.1991). However, "when, after c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e c o r d as a w h o l e , t h e reviewing court i s convinced that the jury's verdict was based on the o v e r w h e l m i n g e v i d e n c e o f g u i l t a n d was n o t b a s e d on any p r e j u d i c e t h a t m i g h t have b e e n engendered by t h e improper victim-impact testimony, the admission of such testimony i s h a r m l e s s e r r o r . " Crymes, 630 So. 2d a t 126. ' " J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , App. 2 0 0 0 ) . " G i s s e n d a n n e r v. S t a t e , 2006), c e r t . denied, 127 791 So. 2d 979, 1011 ( A l a . C r i m . 949 So. 2d 956, 965 G i s s e n d a n n e r v . A l a b a m a , 549 U.S. 1222, S . C t . 1283, 167 L . E d . 2d 103 M o r e o v e r , any r e f e r e n c e unduly p r e j u d i c i a l . had this been g i v e n witness ( A l a . C r i m . App. (2007). t o t h e f u n e r a l was s l i g h t a n d n o t The j u r y was c l e a r l y aware t h a t McCullar a f u n e r a l . Her a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y o v e r l y emphasized the v i c t i m ' s character by i s not s u b s t a n t i a t e d by t h e r e c o r d . Johnson's during argument concerning the prosecutor's h i s c l o s i n g argument a t t h e g u i l t 113 phase comment i s likewise CR-99-1349 without merit. J o h n s o n r e f e r s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g a r g u m e n t s made by t h e p r o s e c u t o r : "[PROSECUTOR]: . . . I want t o show you a p r e t t y p i c t u r e . I want t o show you a p r e t t y p i c t u r e o f a young man t h a t h a d gone t o c o l l e g e t h a t was f o u r h o u r s away f r o m b e i n g a p i l o t . And I want t o show you -¬ "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: O b j e c t t o h i m t e s t i f y i n g t o evidence that i s not i n evidence. "[PROSECUTOR]: I want t o show you an u g l y p i c t u r e . I want t o show you an u g l y p i c t u r e o f what i t s l i k e t o h u n t someone down, s t a r t i n g i n 1996, she s t a r t s g o i n g o u t , she s t a r t s g o i n g o u t h e r e t r y i n g t o f i n d somebody t o k i l l t h i s b o y . " (R. 1197.) Johnson argument also referring points to to Johnson the prosecutor's and Richards subsequent going "'head h u n t i n g ' " and t h a t t h e y " g o t them a h e a d j u s t l i k e she w a n t e d . " (R. 1204-05.) As t o t h e s e l a t t e r comments b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r concerning t h e " h e a d h u n t i n g , " t h i s was c l e a r l y a p r o p e r comment on t h e evidence. Richards's sister testified at trial J o h n s o n a n d R i c h a r d s were s t a n d i n g t o l e a v e f r o m that as Thanksgiving d i n n e r , J o h n s o n s t a t e d t h a t " ' t h e y were g o i n g h e a d h u n t i n g . " ' (R. 733.) She further testified 114 t h a t when she questioned CR-99-1349 Johnson concerning t h i s remark, h a d a gun i n t h e b a c k o f t h e i r Johnson car. responded (R. 733.) "'"'"During closing a r g u m e n t , t h e p r o s e c u t o r , as w e l l as d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , h a s a r i g h t to p r e s e n t h i s i m p r e s s i o n s from the e v i d e n c e , i f r e a s o n a b l e , and may argue every legitimate i n f e r e n c e . " ' R e e v e s v. S t a t e , 807 So. 2d 18, 45 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000), q u o t i n g R u t l e d g e v. S t a t e , 523 So. 2d 1087, 1100 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1987) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 523 So. 2d 1118 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . "'"'"The test of a p r o s e c u t o r ' s l e g i t i m a t e argument is t h a t whatever i s based on f a c t s and e v i d e n c e i s w i t h i n t h e scope of proper comment and a r g u m e n t . K i r k l a n d v . S t a t e , 340 So. 2d 1139 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 340 So. 2d 1140 ( A l a . 1976 [1977] ) . S t a t e m e n t s based on f a c t s admissible i n e v i d e n c e a r e p r o p e r . Henley v. State, 361 So. 2d 1148 ( A l a . Crim. App.), c e r t . d e n i e d , 361 So. 2d 1152 ( A l a . 1978). A p r o s e c u t o r as w e l l as d e f e n s e c o u n s e l has a r i g h t t o p r e s e n t his impressions from the evidence. He may argue every legitimate i n f e r e n c e from t h e evidence and may examine, collate, sift, and t r e a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n h i s own way. W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 377 So. 2d 634 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1 9 7 9 ) ; McQueen v . 115 that they CR-99-1349 S t a t e , 355 So. 2d 407 App. 1 9 7 8 ) . " ' ( A l a . Crim. " ' " B a l l a r d v. S t a t e , 767 So.2d 1123, 1135 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , w r i t q u a s h e d , 767 So. 2d 1142 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g Watson v. S t a t e , 398 So. 2d 320, 328 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 398 So. 2d 332 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 452 U.S. 941, 101 S.Ct. 3085, 69 L.Ed.2d 955 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . " " ' J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , App. 2 0 0 1 ) . ' " Harris v. S t a t e , 2 So. cert. denied, 1039, 173 L.Ed. H a r r i s v. 2d 472 823 3d So. 880, 2d 1, 921 47 (Ala. Crim. Alabama, U.S. Thus, t h e (2009). (Ala. Crim. App. 2007), , 129 S.Ct. prosecutor p r e s e n t c a s e c o u l d p r o p e r l y comment on t h e e v i d e n c e in the presented and draw i n f e r e n c e s t h e r e f r o m . The p r o s e c u t o r ' s f i r s t q u o t e d a r g u m e n t w h i c h r a i s e d facts not i n evidence c o n c e r n i n g M c C u l l a r ' s i n t e n t i o n of becoming a pilot, deprive d i d not W i l s o n v. S t a t e , 874 (holding that comments were So. despite based on Johnson 2d 1155, of her 1163 due process ( A l a . C r i m . App. Wilson's claim facts i n evidence, not rights. that 2003) prosecutor's he was not d e p r i v e d o f h i s due p r o c e s s r i g h t s b e c a u s e " ' [ a ] p r o s e c u t o r ' s s t a t e m e n t must be v i e w e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a l l o f t h e p r e s e n t e d and i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e c o m p l e t e 116 evidence c l o s i n g arguments CR-99-1349 to the Crim. jury.' App. Moreover, trial. App. So. R o b e r t s v. 1997), this S t a t e , 735 aff'd, comment 735 did not See M c G r i f f v. S t a t e , 908 2000), r e v e r s e d 2d 1024 (2004) So. So. 2d 2d 1244, 1270 deprive So. (Ala. Johnson 2d 961, 1253 1001 of (Ala. 1999)"). a fair (Ala. Crim. on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e M c G r i f f , ( h o l d i n g t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r ' s c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t b a s e d on f a c t s not 908 comments i n i n e v i d e n c e "were e i t h e r i n a d v e r t e n t s l i p s of the tongue t h a t d i d not c o n t r i b u t e t o the v e r d i c t o r were l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e s t h a t c o u l d be drawn f r o m the evidence. I n no so i n f e c t t h e t r i a l i n s t a n c e d i d any w i t h u n f a i r n e s s t h a t M c G r i f f was f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l . 106 S.Ct. p r o s e c u t o r i a l argument 2464, 91 L.Ed. denied D a r d e n v. W a i n w r i g h t , 477 U.S. 2d 144 (1986)"). "'"The prosecutor's statements are not evidence. H e n r y v. S t a t e , 468 So. 2d 896, 1984), cert. 899 (Ala.Cr.App. denied, 468 So. 2d 902 (Ala. 1985). F u r t h e r , p r o s e c u t o r s are t o be a l l o w e d a w i d e l a t i t u d e i n t h e i r e x h o r t a t i o n s to the j u r y . V a r n e r v. S t a t e , 418 So. 2d 961 1982). 'Statements (Ala.Cr.App. o f c o u n s e l i n a r g u m e n t must be v i e w e d as i n t h e h e a t o f d e b a t e and must be v a l u e d a t t h e i r t r u e w o r t h r a t h e r t h a n as f a c t o r s i n the f o r m a t i o n of the verdict.' 117 a 168, CR-99-1349 O r r v. S t a t e , 462 So. 2d 1984)." 1016 ( A l a . C r . A p p . " ' A r m s t r o n g v. S t a t e , 516 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986).'" J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 791 c e r t . denied, So. Ex p a r t e cert. denied, 1387, 149 Johnson Jackson, L.Ed.2d 311 Here, 2d 979, Jackson v. So. 1030 1013, 2d 806, 809 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 791 So. 2d 1043 Alabama, 532 U.S. 2000), ( A l a . 2000), 934, 121 S.Ct. (2001). was not prejudiced e v i d e n c e d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of her by victim impact trial. C. Johnson argues t h a t v i c t i m j u r y a g a i n s t her impact evidence inflamed a t t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e as w e l l . She the r e f e r s to t h e v i c t i m ' s m o t h e r b e c o m i n g u p s e t and c r y i n g i n f r o n t of jury. already Although this argument has been a d v e r s e l y t o J o h n s o n i n t h i s o p i n i o n , see I s s u e V.B., notes that McCullar's m o t h e r was room t h r o u g h o u t t h e t r i a l There is no error and due allowed thereby to a trial v i c t i m ' s f a m i l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o be p r e s e n t d u r i n g the decided she to s i t i n the inflame also court the j u r y . court allowing i n the a courtroom trial. "Alabama l a w c r e a t e s a r i g h t f o r a r e l a t i v e o f a c a p i t a l - m u r d e r v i c t i m to s i t at the State's t a b l e 118 the CR-99-1349 e v e n t h o u g h t h a t r e l a t i v e w o u l d be a w i t n e s s f o r t h e S t a t e . See §§ 1 5 - 1 4 - 5 6 ( a ) ('Whenever a v i c t i m i s u n a b l e t o a t t e n d s u c h t r i a l ... by r e a s o n o f d e a t h ... t h e v i c t i m ' s f a m i l y may s e l e c t a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e who s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o e x e r c i s e any r i g h t g r a n t e d t o the v i c t i m , p u r s u a n t to the p r o v i s i o n s of [The Alabama Crime V i c t i m s ' C o u r t A t t e n d a n c e A c t ] . ' ) ; 15-14-53 ('The v i c t i m o f a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o be p r e s e n t i n any c o u r t e x e r c i s i n g any j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r s u c h o f f e n s e and t h e r e i n t o be seated at the counsel table of [the] prosecutor ' ) ; 15-14-55 ('A v i c t i m o f a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s h a l l be exempt f r o m t h e o p e r a t i o n o f r u l e of court, r e g u l a t i o n , or s t a t u t e or other law r e q u i r i n g the s e p a r a t i o n or e x c l u s i o n of w i t n e s s e s from court in criminal trials or hearings.'); 1 5 - 1 4 - 5 1 ( b ) ('[T]he L e g i s l a t u r e h e r e b y f i n d s and determines t h a t i t i s e s s e n t i a l to the f a i r and i m p a r t i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e t h a t a v i c t i m of a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e n o t be e x c l u d e d f r o m any ... t r i a l ... m e r e l y b e c a u s e t h e v i c t i m has b e e n ... s u b p o e n a e d t o t e s t i f y a t ... t r i a l . ' ) . See a l s o R u l e 615, A l a . R. E v i d . , w h i c h s t a t e s : "'At the r e q u e s t of a p a r t y the c o u r t may o r d e r w i t n e s s e s e x c l u d e d so t h a t t h e y cannot hear the testimony of other w i t n e s s e s and i t may make t h e o r d e r o f i t s own m o t i o n . T h i s r u l e does n o t authorize e x c l u s i o n o f ... a v i c t i m o f a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e or the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a v i c t i m who i s u n a b l e t o a t t e n d ' 803 "See, e.g., W h i t e h e a d v. S t a t e , 777 So. 2d 781, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) ( r e j e c t i n g the argument t h a t 'the p r e s e n c e o f [ t h e v i c t i m ' s ] f a m i l y members "gave them a s p e c i a l r o l e i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and g r a c e d them w i t h t h e s t a t e ' s i m p r i m a t u r " and, therefore, ... p r e v e n t e d t h e j u r y f r o m " c r i t i c a l l y e x a m i n [ i n g ] the weight of t h e i r testimony"') (footnote o m i t t e d ) , p. 56, a f f ' d , 777 So. 2d 854 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; B u r g e s s v. 1998) (the S t a t e , 827 So. 2d 134 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 119 CR-99-1349 capital-murder victim's husband was properly exempted from 'the r u l e ' and a l l o w e d t o s i t a t c o u n s e l t a b l e ) , a f f ' d , 827 So. 2d 193 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 648 So. 2d 629, 634 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994) ('the d e c e a s e d ' s granddaughter was properly allowed t o remain a t counsel table, a l t h o u g h s h e was a l s o a w i t n e s s , b e c a u s e s h e was r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e f a m i l y and t h e v i c t i m ' ) . " McGowan 2003), S.Ct. v. S t a t e , 990 So. 2d 931, 969-70 c e r t . denied, McGowan v. A l a b a m a , 136, 172 L . E d . 2d 104 ( 2 0 0 8 ) . relief on t h i s ( A l a . C r i m . App. U.S. , 129 J o h n s o n i s e n t i t l e d t o no claim. D. Johnson contends t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r improperly t h e v i c t i m ' s f a m i l y as c l i e n t s o f t h e S t a t e . raise this applies. ground below and t h e r e f o r e error rule R u l e 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . she r e p r e s e n t e d erroneous. a prosecutor o r spoke comments t h a t he f o r the victim's family i s not "We have h e l d t h a t i t i s n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r t o s u g g e s t t h a t he i s s p e a k i n g victim's family. on b e h a l f of the See S l a t o n v . S t a t e , 680 So. 2d 879, 906-07 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995), a f f ' d , denied, Johnson d i d n o t the p l a i n T h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t a p r o s e c u t o r ' s or portrayed 680 So. 2d 909 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , c e r t . 519 U.S. 1079, 117 S . C t . 742, 136 L.Ed.2d 680 120 (1997)." CR-99-1349 Burgess v. State, e n t i t l e d t o no 723 relief So. 2d on t h i s at 754. Thus, Johnson is failing to claim. E. Johnson argues t h a t the grant trial c o u r t e r r e d by a m i s t r i a l when t h e v i c t i m ' s m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d , personal The knowledge, t h a t Johnson had Okay. Do "A: T h i s they got you examination recognize i s her wedding married. of M c C u l l a r ' s No, I didn't album t h a t really realize until a f t e r t h e y k i l l e d Randy and this she mother: kept after keeping that, that, she kept i t she had p u t a l l o f -¬ "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: O b j e c t i o n , "THE as t o COURT: S u s t a i n e d . Ms. M c C u l l a r , answer the questions you, don't v o l u n t e e r "THE (R. trial what t h a t i s ? "Q: Were you p e r s o n a l l y aware o f h e r t h a t w e d d i n g album? "A: son. r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t the f o l l o w i n g t r a n s p i r e d at d u r i n g the p r o s e c u t o r ' s "Q: k i l l e d her without as they put -¬ please them to anything, WITNESS: Okay." 313-14.) Because the objection, there trial is c o u r t s u s t a i n e d the defense no on adverse 121 ruling this counsel's matter. CR-99-1349 Furthermore, ground. 45A, Johnson d i d not request Thus, we r e v i e w t h i s issue a mistrial on for plain error. this Rule Ala.R.App.P. "'A m i s t r i a l i s a d r a s t i c remedy t o be u s e d s p a r i n g l y a n d only to to prevent manifest i n j u s t i c e , grant i t rests within t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l T a l l e y v. S t a t e , court.' 687 So. 2d 1 2 6 1 , 1275 citing 1996), 1994)." Inmin v. State, B a l l a r d v. S t a t e , App. 1999), (Ala. 2000) trial and t h e d e c i s i o n whether court 654 So. 2d 86 (Ala.Cr.App. (Ala.Cr.App. 767 So. 2d 1123, 1138 ( A l a . C r i m . c e r t . q u a s h e d , Ex p a r t e B a l l a r d , 767 So. 2d 1142 ( h o l d i n g t h a t a m i s t r i a l was n o t w a r r a n t e d where immediately sustained Ballard's objection to comment b y t h e w i t n e s s c o n c e r n i n g p r i v i l e g e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s ) . See Register 1993) v. S t a t e , (holding that 640 So. 2d 3, 10-11 ( A l a . C r i m . App. a witness's volunteered statement that R e g i s t e r h a d b e g g e d h e r t o have s e x w i t h h i m a n d a n o t h e r woman did not immediate So. require a curative action). 2d 135, 137-38 parte "[t]he mistrial McArthur, where the trial See a l s o M c A r t h u r ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , 601 So. 2d 218 witness's nonresponsive 122 took v. S t a t e , 591 c e r t . d e n i e d , Ex ( A l a . 1992) comment court (holding that i n d i c a t i n g that the CR-99-1349 appellant had prejudicial kidnapping in the 1985), L.Ed.2d 300 1130, 1135 Ex with child appellant's of h i s w i f e discretion.' (Ala. charged for a mistrial request of been t h a t the trial See (Ala.Cr.App. 479 for court's did not adversely rise to and d e n i a l of 2d 922, U.S. so 107 S.Ct. the abuse 1110, 1114 328, 93 So. 2d non-responsive and State, 560 1989)"). the comment and answer the q u e s t i o n . not rape So. a l s o R o b i n s o n v. Moreover, objection to t h i s the 473 H e r e , t h e s t a t e m e n t by t h e w i t n e s s was inadvertent. was ' c l e a r showing of Jefferson, c e r t . denied, (1986). trial constitutes a parte abuse trial court sustained i n s t r u c t e d the witness the to only T h i s remark d i d not w a r r a n t a m i s t r i a l , the level of plain error, and did not a f f e c t Johnson's s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s . X. Johnson argues contains several that errors: the that s e n t e n c e on t h e u n c o r r o b o r a t e d trial court failed to trial court's trial the testimony consider based of R i c h a r d s ; find that her the several mitigating into a c c o u n t a s u p p l e m e n t t o J o h n s o n ' s p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t ; and that that the 123 court court order took circumstances; trial and sentencing improperly CR-99-1349 the trial court improperly death from the p a r o l e considered a recommendation f o r officer. A. Johnson contends t h a t the t r i a l court's order t h a t he b a s e d h e r s e n t e n c e on t h e u n c o r r o b o r a t e d Richards, her accomplice. trial court's indicates testimony of S p e c i f i c a l l y , she c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t reflect Richard's testimony alone. Pursuant court is required summarizing it." to § 13A-5-47(d), to the crime "enter A l a . Code written 1975, t h e findings and t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s T h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t as t o t h e number o f w i t n e s s e s ' the evidence presented of the f a c t s . M o r e o v e r , as d i s c u s s e d opinion, Richard's testimony infra. i n I s s u e XXI o f was p r o p e r l y corroborated. court's f i n d i n g s of See K u e n z e l v. S t a t e , 577 So. 2d 474, 519 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e K u e n z e l , 1991), cert. denied, (Ala. Crim. 577 So. 2d 531 ( A l a . K u e n z e l v. A l a b a m a , 124 court's authenticated rendition H e r e , t h e r e was no e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l fact. A review of at t r i a l reveals that the t r i a l findings accurately r e f l e c t the best App. facts participation in t e s t i m o n i e s t h a t must be i n c l u d e d o r r e l i e d upon. this of trial 502 U.S. 886, 112 CR-99-1349 S.Ct. 242, 116 L.Ed. 2d 197 were " a c c u r a t e and light entire of fairly (judge's f i n d i n g s of s u p p o r t e d by trial proceedings the fact evidence" in despite Kuenzel's a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e y were b a s e d on t h e u n c o r r o b o r a t e d testimony o f an the ... (1991) accomplice). B. Johnson a l l e g e s t h a t the trial court f a i l e d to f i n d consider c e r t a i n m i t i g a t i n g circumstances; specifically, Richards that received remorseful, a lesser t h a t J o h n s o n i s a C h r i s t i a n , and a l o v i n g f a m i l y member and The judge trial found circumstance criminal court's the that c h i l d r e n , " "was The trial while the 13A-5-51(1), the "was statutory Ala. Code the a that was stated: 125 As to to found her "ha[d] been a Jail." aggravating prior court mother and the mitigating 1975. trial good Walker County then weighed the and was t h a t Johnson no s i g n i f i c a n t h i s t o r y o f Johnson at Johnson reflects a good c i t i z e n g r o w i n g up," court circumstances, of order m i t i g a t i n g circumstances, considered good p r i s o n e r sentencing t h a t J o h n s o n had § that friend. existence history. nonstatutory and sentence, and and (C. 187.) mitigating CR-99-1349 "After considering a l l matters that were p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s Court, the t e s t i m o n y heard at the t r i a l , and t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , into b o t h i n m i t i g a t i o n and a g g r a v a t i o n , t a k i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l o t h e r m a t t e r s t h a t were p r o f f e r e d b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , as h e r e i n a b o v e s t a t e d i n t h i s O r d e r , and d i s r e g a r d i n g p l e a s o r r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e C o u r t t o c o n s i d e r t h e s e n t e n c e on t h e b a s i s o f p a s s i o n o r p r e j u d i c e , t h e C o u r t does now f i n d , and i s convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, t h a t the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances outweigh the m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s and i s s u f f i c i e n t t o u p h o l d t h e j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h a t t h e p u n i s h m e n t s h o u l d be d e a t h . " (C. 186-87.) Johnson consider did and not find raise these the trial specific court's nonstatutory failure to mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e r e f o r e t h i s m a t t e r s i s due t o be 45A, analyzed pursuant error rule. Rule Ala.R.App.P. In Ex parte Lewis, So. A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t q u o t e d (Ala. to the p l a i n Crim. considering mitigating App. 2000), whether 3d C l a r k v. ( A l a . 2009), State, concerning a t r i a l proffered circumstance, evidence 896 So. 584 court's duty in constitutes a stating: "'The s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r shows t h a t t h e trial court considered a l l of the m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d by C l a r k . The t r i a l c o u r t d i d not l i m i t or r e s t r i c t C l a r k i n any way as t o t h e e v i d e n c e he p r e s e n t e d or the arguments he made regarding 126 2d the CR-99-1349 m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. In i t s sentencing the t r i a l court addressed each order, s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g circumstance l i s t e d i n § 13A-5-51, Ala.Code 1975, and i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t none o f t h o s e circumstances existed under the evidence presented. A l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t l i s t and make f i n d i n g s as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o r nonexistence of each nonstatutory m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e o f f e r e d by C l a r k , as n o t e d a b o v e , s u c h a l i s t i n g i s n o t r e q u i r e d , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s n o t making such f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e s o n l y t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h e o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e n o t t o be m i t i g a t i n g , not that the t r i a l court d i d not c o n s i d e r t h i s evidence. C l e a r l y , t h e t r i a l court considered Clark's p r o f f e r e d evidence of m i t i g a t i o n but concluded that the evidence d i d not r i s e t o the l e v e l o f a mitigating circumstance. The trial court's findings i n this regard are supported by t h e r e c o r d . "'Because i t i s c l e a r from a r e v i e w o f the e n t i r e r e c o r d t h a t t h e t r i a l court understood i t s duty t o consider a l l the m i t i g a t i n g evidence presented by C l a r k , that the t r i a l court d i d i n fact consider all such evidence, and t h a t t h e t r i a l court's f i n d i n g s are supported by t h e evidence, we f i n d no e r r o r , p l a i n o r otherwise, i n the t r i a l court's findings r e g a r d i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y and n o n s t a t u t o r y mitigating circumstances.' "896 So. So.2d a t 652-53 3d a t (emphasis added)." . Here, i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e t r i a l the evidence offered court considered a n d made p r o p e r 127 findings a l lof as t o what CR-99-1349 evidence constituted nonstatutory "'[T]he trial court is not mitigating required to circumstances. specify in i t s s e n t e n c i n g order each i t e m of proposed n o n s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g evidence offered mitigating.' Crim. App. 1996), a f f ' d , denied, the Brown, not to ( A l a . 1997), (2009). court "We is ( A l a . Crim. 11 So. 3d 933 Brown v. A l a b a m a , trial found 929, 118 S.Ct. 2325, 141 L.Ed.2d 699 Ex p a r t e 2d 582 and 710 So. 2d 1350 v. S t a t e , 11 So. 3d 866, 932 affirmed, L.Ed. i t considered be W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 710 So. 2d 1276, 1347 ( A l a . d e n i e d , 524 U.S. Brown that U.S. cert. (1998)." App. 2007), ( A l a . 2008), cert. , 129 S . C t . 2864, 174 have o f t e n s t a t e d t h a t ' " [ a ] l t h o u g h required to consider a l l mitigating circumstances, the d e c i s i o n of whether a p a r t i c u l a r m i t i g a t i n g circumstance with (Ala. i s proven the sentencer."' Crim. App. 1997), and t h e w e i g h t B o y d v. aff'd, State, 715 t o be g i v e n 715 So. So. 2d 852 q u o t i n g W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 710 So. 2d 1276, 1347 App. 1 9 9 6 ) , a f f ' d , 710 So. 2d 1350 524 U.S. v. i t rests 2d 825, 840 ( A l a . 1998), ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a . 1997), c e r t . denied, 929, 118 S.Ct. 2325, 141 L.Ed.2d 699 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . " Hodges State, 856 So. 2d 875, 932 ( A l a . Crim. a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e Hodges, 856 So. 2d 936 128 App. ( A l a . 2003), 2001), cert. CR-99-1349 d e n i e d , Hodges v. A l a b a m a , 540 L.Ed. to 2d 379 find (2003) as a So. mitigating 2d 842 986, 124 ( f i n d i n g t h a t "a t r i a l r e c e i v e d a l e s s e r sentence 820 U.S. circumstance than death. ( A l a . C r i m . App. S.Ct. 465, 157 c o u r t i s not bound that a codefendant See J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 2000), aff'd, 820 So. 2d 883 (Ala.2001)") . We find court's no failure error, to plain find or these otherwise, in nonstatutory the trial mitigating circumstances. C. Johnson contends t h a t the trial court erred i n taking i n t o account a supplement t o Johnson's presentence r e p o r t t h a t was submitted office. the at the request of the district attorney's T h i s argument seems t o a s s e r t as e r r o r t h e f a c t t h a t district attorney's office requested the supplement and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i t c o n t a i n s i s b a s e d on hearsay statements. f o r the first time Because on appeal, p l a i n e r r o r r u l e . Rule this argument i s b e i n g i t must be 45A, evaluated pursuant Ala.R.App.P. 129 raised to the CR-99-1349 Section 1 3 A - 5 - 4 7 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, court to order as requires the a p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t and trial states follows: "(b) B e f o r e m a k i n g t h e s e n t e n c e d e t e r m i n a t i o n , the trial court shall order and receive a written p r e - s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t . The r e p o r t s h a l l c o n t a i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s c r i b e d by l a w o r c o u r t r u l e f o r f e l o n y c a s e s g e n e r a l l y and any a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n s p e c i f i e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . No p a r t o f t h e r e p o r t s h a l l be k e p t c o n f i d e n t i a l , and the p a r t i e s s h a l l have t h e r i g h t t o r e s p o n d t o i t and t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o u r t a b o u t any p a r t o f t h e r e p o r t w h i c h i s t h e s u b j e c t o f f a c t u a l d i s p u t e . The r e p o r t and any e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h i t s h a l l be made p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d i n t h e c a s e . " See M c N a i r v. State, 653 So. 2d 343, 346-47 1 9 9 3 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e M c N a i r , 653 cert. denied, 1121, 130 General's McNair L.Ed. v. 2d request 1084 that w i t h the presentence Alabama, the So. 514 (1995) record (Ala. Crim. 2d 353 U.S. on ( A l a . 1994), 1159, (granting a p p e a l be and J o h n s o n had report and present The presented other the evidence right Attorney supplemented any any disputed t h e r e f o r e p r o p e r and p a r t of the original part dispute. of Johnson r e p o r t or supplement e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t any 130 attorney's to respond to the concerning s u p p l e m e n t was c o u l d have d i s p u t e d S.Ct. report). office report. 115 the Thus, p u r s u a n t t o t h i s r u l e , b o t h t h e d i s t r i c t the App. and CR-99-1349 Moreover, there is no error presentence i n v e s t i g a t i v e report. So. 2d 935, 947 ( A l a . C r i m . App. in supplementing See G u t h r i e v. S t a t e , 1996) (wherein this a 689 court remanded t h e c a s e f o r t h e r e p o r t t o be s u p p l e m e n t e d due t o t h e perfunctory nature Section court to 13A-5-47(d), consider evidence presented trial of the r e p o r t ) . in the presentence exist whether and accorded. The report statements or reports educational and how social other and t h e i r weights. a presentence a report, along with weight contain a such and trial the they mitigating should be information as defendant's backgrounds; history; court i n determining much concerning history; any requires aggravating should pertinent medical and 1975, d u r i n g t h e g u i l t and p e n a l t y phases o f t h e determining circumstances A l a . Code family, psychological and r e p u t a t i o n i n t h e community; work information aggravating that might and m i t i g a t i n g aid a trial circumstances Hearsay evidence i s p r o p e r l y i n c l u d e d i n report. "'Section 13A-5-45(d) addresses the e v i d e n c e t o be u s e d a t t h e sentencing hearing: "'"Any e v i d e n c e w h i c h has p r o b a t i v e v a l u e and i s r e l e v a n t 131 CR-99-1349 t o s e n t e n c e s h a l l be r e c e i v e d a t the sentence h e a r i n g r e g a r d l e s s o f i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y under the exclusionary rules of evidence, provided that the defendant i s afforded a fair opportunity to rebut any h e a r s a y statements. This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the United States or the S t a t e of Alabama." "'The a p p e l l a n t ' s argument t h a t t h e trial court improperly considered the presentence r e p o r t i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . The s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r shows t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d e p e n d e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d and w e i g h e d t h e evidence concerning the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; t h e o r d e r does n o t i n d i c a t e that the trial court considered any improper evidence in reaching its decision I n a d d i t i o n , the a p p e l l a n t ' s argument t h a t t h e r e p o r t c o n t a i n e d i m p r o p e r h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e i s a l s o w i t h o u t m e r i t . The " r e p o r t i t s e l f i s an o u t - o f - c o u r t s t a t e m e n t and i s e n t i r e l y h e a r s a y . H o w e v e r , i t i s admissible under § 13A-5-47, Code of Alabama, b e i n g specifically called for c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " Thompson v. S t a t e , 503 So. 2d 871, 880 (Ala.Cr.App. 1 9 8 6 ) , a f f ' d , 503 So. 2d 887 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 484 U.S. 872, 108 S.Ct. 204, 98 L.Ed.2d 155 ( 1 9 8 7 ) . F i n a l l y , we presume that the t r i a l court disregarded any improper evidence in sentencing the a p p e l l a n t . S o c k w e l l , s u p r a ; L i g h t b o u r n e [v. 1987)], Dugger, 829 F. 2d 1012 (C.A.11 s u p r a , W h i s e n h a n t [ v . S t a t e , 555 So. 2d 219 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988)], supra.' 132 CR-99-1349 "Hyde v. S t a t e , 778 So. 2d 199 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1998) ( F o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . See a l s o S t e w a r t v. S t a t e , 730 So. 2d 1203, 1221-22 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) , a f f ' d , 730 So. 2d 1246 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . " M c W h o r t e r v. State, 781 So. 2d 257, 326-27 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). J o h n s o n ' s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s were n o t a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t o r t h e s u p p l e m e n t t o t h i s report. D. Johnson argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y a recommendation of death from the parole considered officer. contends t h a t because the p a r o l e o f f i c e r wrote i n h i s t h a t he court recommended t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , s t a t e d t h a t i t had presented his to the opinion. However, c o u r t , the t r i a l (C. because the " a l lmatters" c o u r t must have trial pleas or court also references stated that o p e n - e n d e d l a n g u a g e by he trial that were considered t o the that Court to t h e s e n t e n c e on t h e b a s i s o f p a s s i o n o r p r e j u d i c e . " The report 187.) the "disregard[ed] considered and She improperly the trial considered c o u r t d i d not the parole he had consider (C. 187.) indicate officer's recommendation. M o r e o v e r , i t i s n o t uncommon f o r t h e of the p r o b a t i o n officer report t o i n c l u d e h i s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n as 133 to CR-99-1349 sentencing. (Ala. See H a r r i s v. C r i m . App. Jenkins, 972 mitigating penalty State, 2 0 0 4 ) , o v e r r u l e d on So. 2d 159 was the trial and I n Lee Lee argued improperly his v. 898 that included the mental s t a t e at the sentence." plain that 898 So. error sentencing So. the recommendation no imprisonment without State, on orders opinion error parole o f f i c e r was judge d u r i n g the report 2001), report parole offenses, "the because Therefore, i n c l u s i o n of this a t most h a r m l e s s , officer about as w e l l as maximum a review recommendation stating: his possible of was the court t h i s Court held "'The defendant contends t h a t the t r i a l j u d g e s h o u l d n o t have c o n s i d e r e d t h e presentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t because i t officer's contains the parole recommendation of punishment. 134 of recommended H a r r i s be r e v e a l e d no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l any only This Court held that there ground, r e l i e d on t h i s o p i n i o n . the patre investigative receive 2d a t 860. g r o u n d s , Ex ( A l a . C r i m . App. the time of the Lee this 790 of 1129-30 parole."). presentence had in 2d 1079, presentence P r o b a t i o n O f f i c e r E d w a r d G. Fawbush, who sentenced to l i f e 2d (noting that "[t]he to the testimony So. other ( A l a . 2005) evidence presented phase 947 by that the CR-99-1349 Nowhere i n t h e r e c o r d does t h e r e a p p e a r any o b j e c t i o n t o t h i s o r any o t h e r p o r t i o n o f t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t . However, t h i s c o u r t has n e i t h e r f o u n d n o r b e e n c i t e d t o any a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p a r o l e o f f i c e r ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . A l t h o u g h we do n o t a p p r o v e o r condone s u c h a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , we f i n d that even i f such recommendation c o n s t i t u t e s e r r o r , we w o u l d f i n d t h a t e r r o r h a r m l e s s i n t h i s c a s e . R u l e 45, A.R.A.P. " [ T ] h e mere p r e s e n c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e p r e - s e n t e n c e r e p o r t which s h o u l d not be c o n s i d e r e d f o r the purpose of enhancing punishment i s not, per se, p r e j u d i c i a l . " J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 521 So. 2d 1006, 1013 (Ala.Cr.App. 1 9 8 6 ) , a f f i r m e d , 521 So. 2d 1018 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 488 U.S. 876, 109 S.Ct. 193, 102 L.Ed.2d 162 (1988).'" 898 So. 2d a t 860, 527 ( A l a . C r i m . App. Here, there considered there this i s no K u e n z e l v. quoting S t a t e , 577 2d 474, 1990). is no indication that recommendation i n s e n t e n c i n g error, So. plain or o t h e r w i s e , the trial court Johnson. Thus, on t h i s ground. XI. Johnson argues t h a t the t r i a l submission the j u r y , of the p e c u n i a r y because the t r i a l the sentencing the existence reasonable c o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g the gain aggravating to c o u r t , d u r i n g the second phase of hearing, found t h a t the of aggravating this circumstance doubt. 135 S t a t e had circumstance not proven beyond a CR-99-1349 Johnson 1987) cites Williams v. State, So. 2d 744 i n s u p p o r t of her argument. In W i l l i a m s , the t r i a l instructed consider the as jury an at the penalty aggravating offense. sentencing probation However, hearing at the i t was that time phase circumstance under sentence of imprisonment at the the 556 later Williams that he that that they established committed not court could Williams t i m e t h a t he was (Ala. on the was committed during the parole or offense. The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h i s i m p r o p r i e t y r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h be trial court d i d not s e t a s i d e , d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t consider that factor as an the aggravating circumstance. This case i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from W i l l i a m s . In Stephens v. State, 982 so. 2d 1110 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005), t h i s stated: "'Our supreme c o u r t h e l d , i n Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m s , 556 So. 2d 744 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t , upon i t s f i n d i n g t h a t an a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e on w h i c h t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d was i n v a l i d , cannot cure such error by disregarding that c i r c u m s t a n c e and f i n d i n g , upon r e w e i g h i n g , that the remaining aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating evidence. I n W i l l i a m s , t h e j u r y had b e e n improperly instructed that i t could c o n s i d e r the f a c t t h a t the c a p i t a l o f f e n s e 136 court CR-99-1349 was c o m m i t t e d by a p e r s o n u n d e r s e n t e n c e o f i m p r i s o n m e n t , § 13A-5-4 9 ( 1 ) ; h o w e v e r , i t was subsequently established that the a p p e l l a n t was n o t on p r o b a t i o n o r p a r o l e a t the time the c r i m e was committed. In h o l d i n g t h a t the sentence of death c o u l d n o t be a f f i r m e d , o u r supreme c o u r t r e a s o n e d as f o l l o w s : "'"The Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned t h a t , because t h e t r i a l c o u r t , as t h e u l t i m a t e sentencing authority, did not consider i l l e g a l evidence ('the i n c o r r e c t aggravating circumstance') i n the sentencing h e a r i n g , the t r i a l c o u r t ' s e r r o r in permitting the jury to such evidence in consider a r r i v i n g at i t s recommendation of t h e d e a t h s e n t e n c e was h a r m l e s s . The b a s i c f l a w i n t h i s r a t i o n a l e i s t h a t i t t o t a l l y d i s c o u n t s the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the j u r y ' s r o l e i n the sentencing process. "'"The legislatively mandated r o l e of the jury in r e t u r n i n g an advisory verdict, b a s e d upon i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f aggravating and mitigating circumstances, can not be a b r o g a t e d by t h e t r i a l court's e r r o r l e s s e x e r c i s e of i t s e q u a l l y m a n d a t e d r o l e as the ultimate s e n t e n c i n g a u t h o r i t y . Each p a r t of the sentencing process is e q u a l l y m a n d a t e d by t h e s t a t u t e (§§ 13A-5-46, - 4 7 ( e ) ) ; and the errorless a p p l i c a t i o n by the c o u r t o f i t s p a r t does n o t c u r e t h e e r r o n e o u s a p p l i c a t i o n by t h e 137 CR-99-1349 j u r y of i t s p a r t . For a case c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o u r h o l d i n g , see J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 502 So. 2d 877 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987). To hold otherwise i s to hold that the s e n t e n c i n g r o l e o f t h e j u r y , as r e q u i r e d by s t a t u t e , c o u n t s f o r n o t h i n g so l o n g as t h e court's e x e r c i s e of i t s r o l e i s w i t h o u t error. "'"We emphasize that our holding that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in i t s a p p l i c a t i o n of the harmless e r r o r r u l e i s b a s e d upon i n d e p e n d e n t state law grounds and upon statutory construction. We reverse as t o t h e j u d g m e n t o f s e n t e n c e and remand t o t h e C o u r t of Criminal Appeals with i n s t r u c t i o n s t o remand t h i s c a u s e for a new sentencing hearing before a j u r y and before the c o u r t as r e q u i r e d by l a w . " " I d . a t 745 (emphasis i n original). "'In c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s r a t i o n a l e , we presume t h a t t h i s c o u r t , i n r e v i e w i n g the p r o p r i e t y of a death sentence a f t e r a j u r y r e c o m m e n d a t i o n b a s e d , i n p a r t , on an i n v a l i d aggravating circumstance, cannot r e s o r t t o t h e f i r s t a n a l y s i s r e c o g n i z e d by by the the Maynard Court: a reweighing, a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , of the v a l i d aggravating and t h e m i t i g a t i n g circumstances.'" 982 So. 2d a t 1141-42. 138 CR-99-1349 Here, this circumstances Court and need not mitigating reweigh the circumstances aggravating due to c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f an i n v a l i d a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e , held erroneous circumstance, court, was support a i n Williams. although considered not i n v a l i d . finding circumstance. of In t h i s case, jury as was the aggravating and r e j e c t e d by t h e t r i a l In fact, there the existence of was this evidence to aggravating R i c h a r d s t e s t i f i e d about t h e judgment r e c e i v e d by M c C u l l a r , a n d J o h n s o n ' s k n o w l e d g e o f , a n d i n t e r e s t i n , t h e s e t t l e m e n t money. that "when Randy would him." come into R i c h a r d s t e s t i f i e d t h a t Johnson had s t a t e d [ M c C u l l a r ] was d e a d t h a t Chad t h e money (R. 502-03.) 1 0 o r she w o u l d , being [ t h e i r son] married to M c C u l l a r ' s a t t o r n e y who r e p r e s e n t e d h i m i n t h e s e t t l e m e n t c a s e t e s t i f i e d t h a t M c C u l l a r w a n t e d t o know if he c o u l d g e t t h e money t o h i s s o n w i t h o u t access to i t . McCullar (R. 851-52.) The w i t n e s s Johnson testified that s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t know what w o u l d happen i f J o h n s o n f o u n d o u t a b o u t t h e money. was giving testimony concerning other reasons A c c o r d i n g t o t h e bigamy charge, McCullar. 1 0 139 (R. 853.) that Although Johnson there stated she was s t i l l m a r r i e d t o CR-99-1349 that was she one wanted M c C u l l a r of her There agree such a the requirement aggravating finding is need not the t r i a l a g r e e on t h a t the and not by in trial aggravating heinous, that this and jury circumstances, statute. whether the court's reasonable that a t r o c i o u s , and on the s t a n d a r d was consideration the cruel they met. ( A l a . 2004) ( t h e r e was additional circumstance and Although c o u r t s h o u l d so i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y , determining recommendation based court must be p r o v e n b e y o n d a C f . Ex p a r t e M a r t i n , 931 So. 2d 759, error trial mitigating mandated aggravating circumstances d o u b t , and evidence motives. i s no on d e a d , t h e r e was murder when was of no the especially i t overrode of finding the aggravating another jury's circumstance). M o r e o v e r , t h e r e i s no indication j u r y found the e x i s t e n c e of there i s no circumstance requirement or i n the r e c o r d t h a t the t h i s aggravating circumstance and that circumstances they they s t a t e which find t h e y f i n d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a t l e a s t one defendant to death. to e x i s t ; to sentence § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 6 ( e ) , A l a . Code 140 aggravating 1975. only a that capital CR-99-1349 Here, trial there court was no allowing error, the plain jury to or otherwise, determine in whether the the a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e o f m u r d e r f o r p e c u n i a r y g a i n had b e e n p r o v e d t o e x i s t b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , where t h e S t a t e presented evidence had to prove i t s e x i s t e n c e . XII. Johnson grand jury contends hearing that were records from improperly the admitted because the s t a t e f a i l e d to l a y a proper Winston into County evidence foundation for t h e i r admission. A Deputy D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y t e s t i f i e d w i t h M c C u l l a r c o n c e r n i n g the bigamy charges h a v i n g been i n i t i a t e d . that a legal for the bigamy. and offense, (R. 428.) t h a t he had p r i o r to the (R. 431-32.) approved a warrant charging Johnson her T h e r e a f t e r , i n q u e s t i o n i n g the following transpired: "Q: T h a t G r a n d J u r y b o o k d o e s n ' t r e a l l y go i n t o f a c t s o f t h e c a s e , does i t ? with witness c o n c e r n i n g t h e c a s e b e i n g p l a c e d on t h e G r a n d J u r y d o c k e t , the "A: No, s i r . Our G r a n d J u r y book t h e o n l y t h i n g i t r e a l l y shows i s t h e c a s e number, t h e p e r s o n t h a t ' s 141 case B a s e d on h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n f a c t u a l basis e x i s t e d to prosecute he spoken the CR-99-1349 c h a r g e d , what t h e y a r e c h a r g e d p e r s o n was i n d i c t e d o r n o t . w i t h and whether t h e "Q: Okay. A l l r i g h t . L e t me show y o u what I ' v e m a r k e d as S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 14. Do y o u r e c o g n i z e t h a t document? "A: Y e s , s i r , I do. "Q: Okay. A n d what i s t h a t document? "A: Okay, These a r e c o p i e s o f r e c o r d s t h a t we keep i n t h e D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e i n Winston County showing t h e cases t h a t a r e docketed f o r a p a r t i c u l a r term o f t h e Grand J u r y . T h i s p a r t i c u l a r e x h i b i t has r e c o r d s f r o m t h e A p r i l , 1997 t e r m o f t h e G r a n d J u r y and t h e J u n e , 1997 t e r m o f t h e G r a n d J u r y . I t a l s o has p a r t o f a w i t n e s s l i s t f o r t h e A p r i l , 1997 t e r m of t h e Grand J u r y . "Q: A n d y o u s a i d t h e s e t h e DA'S O f f i c e ? "A: documents a r e m a i n t a i n e d by Yes, s i r . "Q: A r e t h e y m a i n t a i n e d as a n o r m a l a n d u s u a l p a r t of the operations o f the D i s t r i c t Attorney's O f f i c e ? "A: Yes, s i r . "Q: A n d a r e y o u f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e s e "A: operations? Yes, s i r . "Q: A n d a r e t h e s e r e c o r d s t h a t we s e e h e r e a r e t h e y made a t o r a r o u n d t h e t i m e t h a t t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s i n d i c a t e d on t h e f a c e o f t h e r e c o r d s ? "A: The document i t s e l f i s c r e a t e d p r i o r t o t h e G r a n d J u r y a c t u a l l y m e e t i n g . T h e r e a r e some m a r k i n g s on h e r e a n d t h o s e m a r k i n g s a r e made c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s 142 CR-99-1349 w i t h t h e o r a t t h e same place. time as t h e e v e n t s take "Q: Okay. A n d you s a i d t h a t was f o r t h e A p r i l 1997 Grand Jury? "A: A p r i l a n d J u n e , 1997. "Q: A l l r i g h t . When was t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s brought b e f o r e t h e Grand Jury? bigamy "A: I t was f i r s t p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g t h e A p r i l t h e G r a n d J u r y o f A p r i l , 1997 t e r m . case term, "Q: Okay, A n d were t h e r e any w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d ? "A: Y e s , s i r . D u r i n g t h a t s e s s i o n o f t h e G r a n d J u r y , Randy M c C u l l a r was c a l l e d t o t e s t i f y b e f o r e t h a t G r a n d J u r y a n d t h e r e may have b e e n o t h e r w i t n e s s e s , b u t on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r e c o r d b e c a u s e o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e G r a n d J u r y t h o s e o t h e r w i t n e s s e s have b e e n r e d a c t e d o r removed f r o m t h i s p a r t i c u l a r document. "Q: And t h i s i s E x h i b i t 14 y o u ' r e s a y i n g s h o w i n g where t h e name o f Randy M c C u l l a r w i t n e s s l i s t , b u t t h e o r i g i n a l w o u l d have witnesses here b u t because i t ' s a s e c r e t t h a t ' s been w h i t e d out? -- y o u ' r e i s on t h e had o t h e r proceeding "A: Yes, s i r . In doing that, creating this p a r t i c u l a r p a p e r h e r e , t a k i n g t h e o t h e r names o f f , I recall there was another name under Randy M c C u l l a r ' s t h a t was -- t h a t h a s b e e n l o c k e d o u t . "Q: I s n ' t t h e r e a s t a r b y Randy M c C u l l a r ' s "A: Y e s , name? sir. "Q: Does t h a t have any s i g n i f i c a n c e ? "A: Y e s , s i r , t h e p e r s o n whose responsibility i n our o f f i c e a t t h a t i t was to keep 143 time up CR-99-1349 with-witnesses testified, as they arrived and as they what she w o u l d do i s when a w i t n e s s was t o t e s t i f y b e f o r e t h e G r a n d J u r y a r r i v e d "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: O b j e c t i o n , Y o u r Honor, that -¬ hearsay. "THE COURT: O v e r r u l e d . "A: When t h e y w o u l d a r r i v e , she w o u l d t a k e a -- she w o u l d p u t a s t a r n e x t t o t h e i r name so t h a t she w o u l d know t h a t t h a t p e r s o n was p r e s e n t . A n d t h a t way as we were p r e s e n t i n g c a s e s , once we g o t t h r o u g h w i t h a w i t n e s s t e s t i f y i n g t h e n we c o u l d come o u t a n d she w o u l d l e t us know who was t h e r e a n d a v a i l a b l e t o testify. "Q: Was t h a t t h e c u s t o m a r y t h a t time? and normal p r a c t i c e at "A: Y e s , s i r . I mean, t h a t ' s -"Q: A n d y o u ' d w i t n e s s t h i s a n d t h a t ' s t h e way i t was done? "A: Yeah. T h a t ' s t h e way we a l w a y s do i t . Now w h e t h e r -- we have somebody d i f f e r e n t now, t h e y may n o t u s e a s t a r , t h e y may u s e some o t h e r , a c h e c k mark o r -"Q: B u t t h e r e ' s some mark b y t h e name? They w i l l make some "A: T h a t ' s t h e p r o c e d u r e . n o t a t i o n t o show t h e p e r s o n i s t h e r e a n d t h e n t h e y w i l l make some o t h e r n o t a t i o n t o show w h e t h e r t h e person a c t u a l l y t e s t i f i e d or not. "Q: I s t h e r e any n o t a t i o n on t h i s t h a t Randy M c C u l l a r a c t u a l l y t e s t i f i e d b e f o r e the A p r i l term of t h e 1997 G r a n d J u r y ? 144 CR-99-1349 "A: Yes, s i r . H i s name has b e e n m a r k e d t h r o u g h , c r o s s e d o u t , l i n e d o u t , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he's b e e n m a r k e d o f f , t h a t he has a l r e a d y t e s t i f i e d . "Q: That was the normal customary matter i n d i c a t i n g t h a t somebody had t e s t i f i e d used A p r i l , 1997? "A: Yes, s i r . "Q: B a s e d on "A: of in Right. your f i r s t h a n d knowledge? "Q: Do you have any -- you s a i d t h i s u n u s u a l c a s e f o r you, i s t h a t t r u e ? i s a somewhat "A: W e l l , i t was u n u s u a l i n t h a t i t was a b i g a m y c a s e o f w h i c h was t h e f i r s t one t h a t I had e v e r b e e n i n v o l v e d i n and I was t o l d i t was t h e f i r s t one t h a t t h e DA's O f f i c e had e v e r p r o s e c u t e d . "Q: Do you remember f r o m f i r s t h a n d k n o w l e d g e w h e t h e r Randy Mc -- I'm s o r r y . Randy M c C u l l a r personally a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h a t G r a n d J u r y and t e s t i f i e d ? "A: Yes, s i r , I r e c a l l him testifying. "Q: Were you "A: Yes, s i r . "Q: Okay. W e l l , "A: In the "Q: You were p r e s e n t i n g t h a t c a s e t o t h e G r a n d there? i n what c a p a c i t y were you j o b I'm i n now i n t h e DA's there? Office. Jury? "A: I c a n ' t remember who -- I was i n there, I b e l i e v e , t h a t Mr. T i d w e l l , t h e DA was a l s o p r e s e n t i n t h e G r a n d J u r y room d u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y and 145 CR-99-1349 s p e c i f i c a l l y w h i c h one a s k i n g t h e q u e s t i o n s , I d o n ' t recall. "Q: B u t y o u were "A: Y e s , present? sir. "Q: A n d y o u r e c a l l h i m -¬ "A: Y e s , s i r , I remember h i m t e s t i f y i n g . "Q: A j u r o r b e f o r e t h e G r a n d J u r y a r e t h e y j u s t l i k e a j u r o r h e r e where t h e y ' r e p l a c e d u n d e r o a t h a n d sworn t o t e l l t h e t r u t h ? "A: Do you mean a w i t n e s s ? "Q: I'm s o r r y . Y e s , a w i t n e s s . "A: Y e s , s i r . As e a c h w i t n e s s i s b r o u g h t i n t o t h e G r a n d J u r y room t h e y a r e p u t u n d e r o a t h a n d t h e y swear o r a f f i r m t o t e l l t h e t r u t h . "Q: A n d y o u s a i d t h i s t e s t i m o n y t o o k p l a c e i n t h e A p r i l o f 1997. Was t h e r e a d e t e r m i n a t i o n made b y t h e G r a n d J u r y on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e a t t h a t t i m e ? "A: No, s i r . The c a s e i n A p r i l was c o n t i n u e d a n d t h e f i r s t page o f t h i s e x h i b i t 14 on Case Number 72, t h a t Randy M c C u l l a r t e s t i f i e d i n , t h e c a s e i n v o l v i n g Shonda N i c o l e M c I n t y r e , t h e G r a n d J u r y c o n t i n u e d t h a t case. "Q: Okay. I s t h a t uncommon? "A: F o r a c a s e t o be continued? "Q: R i g h t . "A: No, s i r . "Q: Okay. A n d i t ' s c o n t i n u e d t o when i n t h i s 146 case? CR-99-1349 "A: N o r m a l l y i t ' s c o n t i n u e d t i l l t h e n e x t s e s s i o n o f t h e G r a n d J u r y a n d t h a t ' s what was done i n t h i s case. "Q: Okay. I s t h a t t h e same G r a n d J u r y o r a d i f f e r e n t Grand Jury? "A: I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e i t was t h e same G r a n d J u r y i n t h a t i t was t h e same e i g h t e e n members o f t h e G r a n d J u r y r e c o n v e n e d i n J u n e , t h e same ones t h a t were t h e r e i n A p r i l . "Q: A n d t h a t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y in April. "A: R i g h t . "Q: A n d was t h e r e a determination made i n June o f 1997? "A: Y e s , sir. "Q: A n d what was t h a t ? "A: I n June o f '97 t h e G r a n d J u r y i n d i c t e d N i c o l e M c I n t y r e on a c h a r g e o f b i g a m y . Shonda "Q: Okay. "[PROSECUTOR]: I go a h e a d a n d move Number 14 i n t o e v i d e n c e , Exhibit t h a t ' s t h e Grand J u r y -¬ "THE COURT: Any o b j e c t i o n ? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: J u d g e , we'd object b e c a u s e he was n o t c u s t o d i a n o f t h e r e c o r d and the chain of custody was not determined. "THE COURT: A r e t h e s e 147 certified copies? CR-99-1349 "[PROSECUTOR]: not, but particular I t h i n k we the b u s i n e s s "THE That that's i t through got records. -- I a s k e d them COURT: Where i s y o u r c o v e r under -¬ -¬ "[PROSECUTOR]: T h e y ' r e c o m p u t e r . Of the G r a n d J u r y , t h a t ' s what t h e y came u n d e r . "THE COURT: Remind me i n l a t e r u n t i l we g e t -- move t o p u t t h i s t h a t c l e a r e d up. "[PROSECUTOR]: Yes, s i r . "THE COURT: And that's "[PROSECUTOR]: Yes, 14? s i r , 14. "Q: Once a G r a n d J u r y r e t u r n s an case, they c a l l t h a t true b i l l i n g , indictment i n don't they? a "A: Yes, s i r . And on t h e e x h i b i t t h e r e a r e some i n i t i a l s t h a t has TB on t h e r e , w h i c h s t a n d s f o r t r u e b i l l , w h i c h means an i n d i c t m e n t was returned. "Q: (R. Okay. And 442-49.) evidence. (R. you This said exhibit t h a t happened i n t h i s was subsequently case." admitted 1087.) Johnson argues t h a t because the deputy d i s t r i c t had no p e r s o n a l their meaning or not q u a l i f i e d or competent t o t e s t i f y present d o c u m e n t s , she a r g u e s , p r o v i d e d witness's attorney knowledge of the meaning of the n o t a t i o n s t h e c u s t o d i a n , he was to into testimony. 148 the document. Thus, by as these improper reenforcement of the CR-99-1349 According to Rule 901(a), Ala.R.Evid., of a u t h e n t i c a t i o n o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as to admissibility is support a finding that proponent claims." rule satisfied i s through One the the by matter The a condition evidence this jury. As precedent sufficient i n question testimony of t r i a l court i s what i t s the with knowledge t o be." Rule 901(b)(1), must f i n d i s s t a t e d i n the A d v i s o r y that the evidence i s t o a l l o w i t t o go to Committee's Notes to rule: proper "The question of authenticity or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s , i n the f i r s t i n s t a n c e , f o r the t r i a l j u d g e as a p r e l i m i n a r y m a t t e r . See A l a . R. E v i d . 1 0 4 ( a ) . The r e q u i r e d f o u n d a t i o n a l s h o w i n g must c o n s i s t of evidence ' s u f f i c i e n t to support a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m a t t e r i n q u e s t i o n i s what i t s p r o p o n e n t claims.' The evidence of authentication or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , as u n d e r p r i o r A l a b a m a p r a c t i c e , does n o t have t o be c o n c l u s i v e o r o v e r w h e l m i n g ; r a t h e r , i t must be s t r o n g enough f o r t h e q u e s t i o n t o go t o t h e j u r y . Any w e a k n e s s e s i n t h e foundational s h o w i n g , i n s u f f i c i e n t t o c a l l f o r e x c l u s i o n , go t o the weight t h a t the t r i e r of f a c t i s to g i v e the e v i d e n c e . See T i d w e l l v. S t a t e , 496 So. 2d 109 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986). Even i f the offering party s a t i s f i e s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h i s r u l e and the evidence i s a d m i t t e d , the u l t i m a t e question of a u t h e n t i c i t y o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e m a i n s an i s s u e f o r the j u r y . " 149 to a witness s u f f i c i e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d and a u t h e n t i c a t e d the "requirement o f t h e methods o f c o n f o r m i n g w i t h " t h a t a m a t t e r i s what i t i s c l a i m e d Ala.R.Evid. the CR-99-1349 H e r e , t h e w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was w i t h these Grand J u r y p r o c e e d i n g s been present and and testified. directly involved knew t h a t M c C u l l a r Thus, the c u m u l a t i v e t o h i s t e s t i m o n y t h a t M c C u l l a r was bigamy case. See, e.g., (Ala. C r i m . App. 1981) as business evidence in evidence that underweight the when need not determined records children taken be was were to the in documents were erroneously good home). were they cumulative other and not See also 221-22 ( A l a . 2002) (even admitted of the of health under r e c o r d s e x c e p t i o n , and e v e n i f t h e y s t r e n g t h e n e d case, 474 because cumulative foster F e a t h e r s t o n v. S t a t e , 849 So. 2d 217, if a witness i n the (holding t h a t the records a d m i s s i b i l i t y hospital the were G u l l a t t v. S t a t e , 409 So. 2d 466, record a documents had other the the properly business State's admitted evidence). Moreover, the w i t n e ss t e s t i f i e d that these kept i n the normal b u s i n e s s of p r e s e n t i n g cases Jury. See James v. App. 1998) ("The that business 'probability S t a t e , 723 So. 2d 776, 779 r e c o r d s were to the Grand ( A l a . Crim. underlying r a t i o n a l e behind t h i s exception i s records of have the 'earmark o f t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s , ' because 150 reliability' they reflect or the CR-99-1349 day-to-day operations o f t h e e n t e r p r i s e a n d a r e r e l i e d upon i n the conduct o f b u s i n e s s . S.Ct. P a l m e r v . Hoffman, 477, 87 L . E d . 645 ( 1 9 4 3 ) . " ) ; 318 U.S. 109, 63 a n d B o y d v. S t a t e , 2d 70, 71 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001) ( p a r o l e o f f i c e r delinquency reports business). See a l s o D o w d e l l v. S t a t e , C r i m . App. 2000) transactions printed was were kept 808 s o . testified i n the ordinary that course 790 So. 2d 359 ( A l a . ( r e c o r d t h a t showed t h e v i c t i m ' s d e b i t admissible although the computer-generated record a s s i s t a n t who t e s t i f i e d h a d p e r s o n a l of the supervisor d i d not t e s t i f y k n o w l e d ge card who where of the victim's t r a n s a c t i o n h i s t o r y a n d knew o f d o c u m e n t s ' u s e a n d m a i n t e n a n c e i n t h e normal course of business). " I n a d d i t i o n t o a u t h e n t i c a t i n g a document b y certification, a business record may be a u t h e n t i c a t e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g : " ' " T e s t i m o n y b y any w i t n e s s , frequently the custodian of the record, t h a t t h e document now e x h i b i t e d t o him i s a r e c o r d o f t h e b u s i n e s s ; t h a t he knows t h e method (i.e., the standard operating procedure) used i n the b u s i n e s s o f making r e c o r d s o f t h e k i n d now e x h i b i t e d t o h i m ; a n d t h a t i t was t h e r e g u l a r p r a c t i c e o f t h e b u s i n e s s t o make r e c o r d s o f s u c h k i n d a n d t o make them a t the time o f t h e event r e c o r d e d o r within such specified period 151 CR-99-1349 t h e r e a f t e r as c o u l d be f o u n d b y the trier of fact to be reasonable, is a sufficient authentication of the record to require i t s admittance in evidence." "'[C. Gamble,] McElroy's [Alabama E v i d e n c e , ] § 254.01(3) [(3d ed. 1 9 7 7 ) ] . "'"The [ b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s ] r u l e does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e p e r s o n who made t h e entry be the witness who lays the foundation f o r the introduction of the record i n t o evidence Any w i t n e s s who knows t h e method u s e d i n t h e b u s i n e s s o f making r e c o r d s o f t h e k i n d i n q u e s t i o n and knows t h a t i t was t h e r e g u l a r p r a c t i c e o f t h e b u s i n e s s t o make s u c h r e c o r d s a t t h e time of the event i n q u e s t i o n or w i t h i n a s p e c i f i e d reasonable time t h e r e a f t e r i s competent to l a y the foundation by t e s t i f y i n g t h a t t h e e x h i b i t i s such a record." " ' I k n e r v. M i l l e r , (Ala. 1985). 477 So. 2d 387, 390 "Parker v. State, 587 So. 2d 1072, 1091-92 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f ' d . 610 So. 2d 1181 ( A l a . 1992) (citations omitted). "Once a b u s i n e s s r e c o r d h a s b e e n a u t h e n t i c a t e d , it cannot be a d m i t t e d i n t o evidence under the business records exception t o the hearsay r u l e u n t i l a p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n has been l a i d . "'"[A] p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e d b u s i n e s s r e c o r d i s a d m i s s i b l e i n e v i d e n c e when a f o u n d a t i o n , as o u t l i n e d i n t h e Code, i s l a i d by t h e proponent o f t h e evidence. S e c t i o n 12-21-43 r e q u i r e s t h a t i t be shown 152 CR-99-1349 (1) t h a t t h e r e c o r d o r w r i t i n g was made as a memorandum or record o f an a c t , t r a n s a c t i o n , o c c u r r e n c e , o r e v e n t ; (2) t h a t t h e r e c o r d was made i n t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s ; a n d (3) t h a t i t was t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s t o make s u c h a memorandum o r r e c o r d a t t h e t i m e o f s u c h act, t r a n s a c t i o n , occurrence, or event, or w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e t h e r e a f t e r . See a l s o C. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e , § 2 5 4 . 0 1 ( 3 ) (3d e d . 1 9 7 7 ) . " ' " M c D o n a l d v . S t a t e , 586 So. 2d 259, 262 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e F r i t h , 526 So. 2d 880 ( A l a . 1987))." Mester v . S t a t e , 755 So. 2d 66, 72-73 n.3 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999). In the present identified case, t h e deputy district attorney and a u t h e n t i c a t e d t h e documents and t e s t i f i e d t h e s e r e c o r d s were r e g u l a r l y made f o r t h e p r o c e e d i n g s thereby fact marking them t o r e c o r d t h e w i t n e s s e s ' of t e s t i f y i n g . that t o use presence and Thus, t h e y were a d m i s s i b l e as b u s i n e s s records. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t m a r k i n g n e x t t o t h e w i t n e s s ' s name was t h e s y s t e m r o u t i n e l y u s e d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e w i t n e s s h a d arrived to testify, a n d h i s o r h e r name w o u l d be m a r k e d o f f a f t e r he o r s h e h a d t e s t i f i e d . a d m i s s i b l e t o show t h a t on t h i s 153 Therefore, this e x h i b i t was o c c a s i o n M c C u l l a r ' s name h a d CR-99-1349 been s t a r r e d and district crossed attorney's R u l e 406, out office, Ala.R.Evid. pursuant as to the custom of t e s t i f i e d t o by the not and relevant regardless to of the presence that prove witness. ("Evidence of the h a b i t of a p e r s o n t h e r o u t i n e p r a c t i c e o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n , w h e t h e r or the of the conduct corroborated eyewitnesses, of or the person or organization a p a r t i c u l a r occasion was with the h a b i t or r o u t i n e p r a c t i c e . " ) . c l a i m t h a t the w i t n e s s may Any i n conformity is n o t have a c t u a l l y made t h e marks on t h e documents w o u l d a f f e c t the weight Arthur rather v. S t a t e , (although was 711 the So. admissibility 2d 1031, 1047 t h e s h i f t s u p e r v i s o r may time A r t h u r ordinary than used the sign in course of b u s i n e s s , p r e s e n t went t o t h e the e v i d e n c e ) . the weight rather Therefore, this evidence. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1996) n o t have b e e n p r e s e n t e a c h sheet, and of t h e r e was they were question kept in the of whether he than a d m i s s i b i l i t y of no e r r o r i n t h e admission of t h e s e documents. XIII. Johnson alleges f a i l i n g to provide that the State reversibly erred J o h n s o n w i t h impeachment i n f o r m a t i o n 154 by about CR-99-1349 Richards, i n violation of the discovery order and Brady v. M a r y l a n d , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S . C t . 1194, 10 L . E d . 2d 215 Johnson r e f e r s t o R i c h a r d s ' s two p r i o r convictions, previously which we have misdemeanor (1963). offenses addressed in this opinion, holding that the t r i a l court properly prevented t h e i r use as impeachment e v i d e n c e o r as e v i d e n c e d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y phase. See I s s u e I . I n Ex p a r t e argued that Belisle, the State 11 So. 3d 323 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , reversibly erred d i s c l o s e impeachment e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g specifically a proffer pursuant when determined that to a plea i n determining r e q u i r e d under such a c l a i m , three and favorable material." the Court regardless t o a defendant 11 So.3d a t 329 found t h a t and Supreme decided (1) s u p p r e s s e s (3) t h a t omitted). that reversal i s i n q u i r i e s must be (footnote (2) evidence i s In B e l i s l e , t h e e v i d e n c e was s u p p r e s s e d a n d t h a t , of i t s i n a d m i s s i b i l i t y , was f a v o r a b l e agreement whether to witness, The A l a b a m a " r e v e r s a l i s r e q u i r e d when t h e S t a t e evidence i t failed i t s "'star'" became v o i d when she w i t h d r e w h e r p l e a . Court Belisle to Belisle. as impeachment 11 So. 3d a t 330. evidence, However, t h e C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was n o t m a t e r i a l a n d s t a t e d : 155 CR-99-1349 "'The e v i d e n c e i s m a t e r i a l o n l y i f t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , had t h e e v i d e n c e b e e n disclosed to the defense, the result of the p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d have b e e n d i f f e r e n t . A " r e a s o n a b l e probability" is a probability sufficient to u n d e r m i n e c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e outcome.' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. B a g l e y , 473 U.S. a t 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375. The same r u l e a p p l i e s when t h e S t a t e d i s c l o s e s B r a d y m a t e r i a l i n an u n t i m e l y manner. See C o r a l v. S t a t e , 628 So. Crim. App. 1992) ('Tardy 2d 954, 979 (Ala. disclosure of Brady m a t e r i a l i s g e n e r a l l y not r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r u n l e s s t h e d e f e n d a n t can show t h a t he was d e n i e d a f a i r t r i a l . ' ( c i t i n g United States 1397 (9th C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) ; United v. G o r d o n , 844 F.2d S t a t e s v. S h e l t o n , 588 F.2d 1242 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) ; Ex p a r t e R a i n e s , 429 So.2d 1111 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) ; and M c C l a i n v. S t a t e , 473 So.2d 612 (Ala.Crim.App.1985)))." 11 So. 3d a t 330-31 (footnote omitted). I n r e j e c t i n g B e l i s l e ' s a r g u m e n t , w h i c h i s a l s o r a i s e d by Johnson i n the p r e s e n t enabled him case, t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d have to b e t t e r prepare f o r t r i a l , the Court s t a t e d : argument that the "'Appellant's information would have enabled more effective preparation for trial was r e j e c t e d i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. A g u r s , s u p r a , 427 U.S. [97,] a t 112 n. 20, 96 S.Ct. at 2401 n. 20 [ (1976) ] , on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t an a r g u m e n t c o u l d a l w a y s be made t h a t knowledge of the p r o s e c u t o r ' s case, b o t h i n c r i m i n a t i n g and e x c u l p a t o r y , w o u l d h e l p defense counsel i n p r e p a r a t i o n of the case for the defense. Therefore, the proper focus i s upon t h e materiality in the nondisclosure or d e l a y e d d i s c l o s u r e of e x c u l p a t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g the d e n i a l v e l non o f d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s o f due p r o c e s s and f a i r t r i a l ' 156 CR-99-1349 "Ex p a r t e R a i n e s , 429 So. 2d 1111, 1113-14 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . Thus, B e l i s l e i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a new trial s i m p l y b e c a u s e h a v i n g t h e p r o f f e r w o u l d have e n a b l e d him t o more e f f e c t i v e l y p r e p a r e f o r t r i a l . " 11 So. 3d a t 331-32 The was witness had able the other to the cast e v i d e n c e was doubt on e v i d e n c e t h a t he t h e r e was the p o l i c e concerning also means t o state's handling Here, too, able through an i n c e n t i v e t o l i e , was s u s p i c i o n on and omitted). C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was Belisle was (footnote testified e s t a b l i s h that c r e d i b l e and of the to the cast case. a l s o not m a t e r i a l . his had not n o t m a t e r i a l as credibility as Johnson a witness p r e v i o u s l y l i e d to h i s sister h i s involvement i n the o f f e n s e . concerning a plea agreement w i t h the as He State, w h e r e b y t h e y w o u l d recommend t h a t he n o t be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h but rather admitted life to without shooting parole. and (R. killing the 470-71.) Moreover, victim. There is he no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t i f t h i s e v i d e n c e had b e e n d i s c l o s e d e a r l i e r t o Johnson, the r e s u l t of the trial w o u l d have b e e n different. XIV. Johnson argues that an investigator with C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s D e p a r t m e n t was as an expert to evidence improperly about which 157 he the Walker allowed to testify had expertise. no CR-99-1349 Specifically, allowed to Johnson give alleges testimony a l t h o u g h t h e r e was the concerning investigator "'bullet was evidence'" no s h o w i n g t h a t he h a d any s u c h e x p e r t i s e . B r i e f a t 107.) (Johnson's that She a l s o argues i n a footnote that t h i s i n v e s t i g a t o r was a l s o a l l o w e d t o t e s t i f y c o n c e r n i n g bone fragments showing of e x p e r t i s e . w i t h o u t any As t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s t e s t i m o n y w h i c h J o h n s o n c i t e s c o n s t i t u t i n g expert testimony, w i t n e s s was gathered being questioned at the evidence. Richards .270, that The crime about the the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the r e g a r d i n g the evidence scene, investigator specifically testified the t h a t he consistent. was witness to the and evidence guns prosecutor the witness h a v i n g been i n shot testified The most his life, 158 by action a t K-Mart, that they were questioned the gun and that shells he saw no r e q u i r i n g an e x p e r t t o i n v e s t i g a t o r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had of he used. not the type of evidence give testimony. around The verified basic difference of a shotgun T h i s was o f f e n s e ; he 788-89.) shells, rifle as told k i n d o f weapon, a R e m i n g t o n b o l t i n the (R. that ballistics and t h e k i n d o f b u l l e t s t h a t he had p u r c h a s e d were u s e d as and had worked in been law CR-99-1349 enforcement f o r 15 y e a r s , having spent Walker County S h e r i f f ' s Department. So. 2d 1026, 1031 ( A l a . Crim. App. 7 of those with the See S m i t h v. S t a t e , 1985) (although a r g u e d t h a t p o l i c e o f f i c e r was n o t an e x p e r t ballistics, there was no prejudice due to 466 Smith i n the f i e l d of the witness's t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g a mark on t h e r e f r i g e r a t o r w h i c h a p p e a r e d t o be where t h e b u l l e t h a d s t r u c k w h i c h he f o l l o w e d t o a n o t h e r hole and a t t a c h e d a string a l s o T h i g p e n v. S t a t e , 675 (1972) opinion as (although to the f r o m one p o i n t to another). See 49 A l a . App. 233, 243, 270 So. 2d 666, only an e x p e r t direction a i s allowed bullet to give traveled an prior to e n t e r i n g a b o d y , t h e r e was no e r r o r where t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e d that the p o l i c e officer "was possessed t h a t o f t h e o r d i n a r y man i n t h i s the o f knowledge beyond f i e l d " where he h a d b e e n on f o r c e f o r 12 y e a r s a n d h a d e x a m i n e d more t h a n 150 g u n s h o t wounds). Here, t h e coroner t e s t i f i e d about t h e s t i p p l i n g from t h e s h o t t o t h e v i c t i m ' s head and e x t e n s i v e l y about t h e f a c t o r s i n t h e wound u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e wound r e s u l t e d f r o m a rifle, the s h o t g u n o r h a n d gun. wound t o t h e v i c t i m was (R. 932-33.) consistent 159 He c o n c l u d e d with a shot that from a CR-99-1349 rifle. (R. 933.) rifle, including M o r e o v e r , t h e r e was o t h e r e v i d e n c e o f t h e Richards's statement c o n c e r n i n g t h e murder weapon, J o h n s o n ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t she was p r e s e n t when R i c h a r d s the r i f l e purchased w i t n e s s who Long v. stated State, shells, and the testimony of another t h a t he saw R i c h a r d s w i t h a r i f l e . 668 So. 2d 56, ( A l a . Crim. App. See 1995) ( t e s t i m o n y was c u m u l a t i v e o f o t h e r t e s t i m o n y ) . As t o t h e bone f r a g m e n t that the gathered found investigator a t the crime next evidence testified metal. was scene, to the v i c t i m ' s was presented to testimony, the record i n d i c a t e s asked about including head. him t h e bone f r a g m e n t s fragments trial, that was t h a t were the for identification t h a t two o f t h e f r a g m e n t s (R. 781-83.) At evidence fragment and he were bone a n d two were The w i t n e s s was subsequently asked i f m i g h t c o r r e s p o n d w i t h any i n j u r i e s t h a t he saw on t h e v i c t i m a n d i f t h e y were f o u n d on t h e v e h i c l e o r t h e ground. He r e s p o n d e d t h a t t h e y were f o u n d on t h e g r o u n d and a n s w e r e d a f f i r m a t i v e l y as t o w h e t h e r t h e y m i g h t c o r r e s p o n d t o any of the victim's injuries. Clearly, this was not i n t r o d u c e d as e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g bone f r a g m e n t s , b u t 160 CR-99-1349 rather as t o why the evidence was gathered a n d t h a t i t was b e l i e v e d t o be e v i d e n c e germane t o t h i s o f f e n s e . There was no error due to this testimony by the abused its investigator. XV. Johnson alleges d i s c r e t i o n by r e f u s i n g that the trial court to grant her a continuance m i t i g a t i o n and s o c i a l background expert, interview to hire a witnesses and r e v i e w n e w l y p r e s e n t e d d i s c o v e r y e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e S t a t e . "'"'A motion for a continuance i s addressed t o the d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e c o u r t and t h e c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on i t w i l l n o t be disturbed unless there i s an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . F l e t c h e r v. S t a t e , 291 A l a . 67, 277 So.2d 882 (1973) . If the following p r i n c i p l e s are s a t i s f i e d , a t r i a l court should grant a motion f o r c o n t i n u a n c e on t h e g r o u n d t h a t a witness or evidence i s absent: (1) t h e e x p e c t e d e v i d e n c e must be m a t e r i a l a n d c o m p e t e n t ; (2) t h e r e must be a p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w i l l be f o r t h c o m i n g i f t h e c a s e i s c o n t i n u e d ; a n d (3) the moving party must have e x e r c i s e d due d i l i g e n c e t o s e c u r e t h e e v i d e n c e . K n o w l e s v. B l u e , 209 A l a . 27, 32, 95 So. 481, 485-86 ( 1 9 2 3 ) . ' " 161 CR-99-1349 " ' F o r t e n b e r r y v . S t a t e , 545 So. 2d 129, 138 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e C l a r k , 728 So. 2d 1126, 1134 ( A l a . 1998) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e S a r a n t h u s , 501 So. 2d 1256, 1257 (Ala. 1 9 8 6 ) ) . See a l s o S c o t t v . S t a t e , 937 So. 2d 1065, 1076 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . " ' " T h e r e a r e no m e c h a n i c a l t e s t s f o r d e c i d i n g when a d e n i a l o f a c o n t i n u a n c e i s so a r b i t r a r y as t o v i o l a t e due p r o c e s s . The a n s w e r must be f o u n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s present i n every case, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the reasons p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l judge a t t h e t i m e t h e r e q u e s t i s d e n i e d . " Ungar v . S a r a f i t e , 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S . C t . 8 4 1 , 850, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 ( 1 9 6 4 ) . ' G l a s s v . S t a t e , 557 So. 2d 845, 848 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1990). "'"The reversal of a conviction because o f t h e r e f u s a l o f the t r i a l judge t o g r a n t a c o n t i n u a n c e r e q u i r e s 'a p o s i t i v e demonstration of abuse of judicial d i s c r e t i o n . ' C l a y t o n v. S t a t e , 45 A l a . A p p . 127, 129, 226 So. 2d 671, 672 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . " B e a u r e g a r d v. S t a t e , 372 So. 2d 37, 43 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 372 So. 2d 44 (Ala.1979).' "McGlown v. S t a t e , 598 So. 2d 1027, 1029 ( A l a . C r i m . App. i1n n 2 ) . 99 7 \ "'"[N]ormally, a reviewing court determines the correctness of a trial c o u r t ' s r u l i n g 'as o f t h e t i m e when i t was made a n d a c c o r d i n g t o what t h e r e c o r d shows was b e f o r e t h e l o w e r c o u r t a t t h a t t i m e . ' " H e n r y v . S t a t e , 468 So. 2d 896, 899 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 468 So. 2d 902 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . ' 162 CR-99-1349 " D o z i e r v. S t a t e , 630 App. 19 9 3 ) . " Eatmon v. S t a t e , 992 So. ( w h e r e i n Eatmon a r g u e d motion See Crim. Smith's time also App. motion to review pursuant 68 140 ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a . Crim. App. 2007) s h o u l d have b e e n g r a n t e d h i s 1996) counsel was argued Richards indicated the the (finding no So. error alleging 2d 189, i n the t h a t he i n f o r m a t i o n f u r n i s h e d him case, h e l d on t h a t he would S t a t e "a had a t t o r n e y and a h e a r i n g on September had be 204-05 denial had by not the of had state 29, Johnson's motion 1999 and the l e a r n e d i n the middle testifying for received a large couple (R. 28.) t h a t more t i m e was The S t a t e , 698 f o r continuance t h a t he September." a second v. to h i s discovery motion). continuance from 137, 64, t h a t he Smith In the p r e s e n t that 2d 2d f o r continuance to get the e v a l u a t i o n of a m i t i g a t i o n expert). (Ala. So. o f weeks ... the for defense of State August and he amount o f d i s c o v e r y prior t o the 13th of He a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t J o h n s o n h a d g o t t e n a private investigator, necessary to prepare p r o s e c u t o r responded as b u t he an a d e q u a t e argued defense. follows: "[PROSECUTOR]: ... We s t r e n u o u s l y o b j e c t t o any k i n d o f c o n t i n u a n c e . We're r e a d y t o go, we've b e e n r e a d y t o go f o r t h e p a s t s e v e r a l months. A l l t h e way 163 CR-99-1349 b a c k and my d o c u m e n ts i n d i c a t e a l l t h e way b a c k t o 1998 we have b e e n g i v i n g d i s c o v e r y m a t e r i a l s t o [DEFENSE COUNSEL]. I've had numerous l e t t e r s t h a t I can show H i s Honor and p u t i n t o e v i d e n c e where we've w r i t t e n l e t t e r s r e q u e s t i n g him t o come o v e r and g e t c o p i e s o f t a p e s , numerous t a p e s and he's f a i l e d o r r e f u s e d t o do s o . "THE COURT: Okay. "[PROSECUTOR]: The i t e m s t h a t he m e n t i o n s r i g h t h e r e b e i n g g i v e n s i n c e S e p t e m b e r 1 3 t h , I've got d o c u m e n t e d memos one r i g h t a f t e r a n o t h e r where we have l i t e r a l l y b e g g e d b o t h [DEFENSE COUNSELS] t o come p i c k t h e s e t h i n g s up. They have n o t . I j u s t think that at this point that this severely p r e j u d i c e s t h e S t a t e . And t h e n we've s e n t s u b p o e n a s o u t I d o n ' t know how many t i m e s a t t h i s p o i n t b e i n g r e a d y t o t r y t h i s c a s e . We're r e a d y t o go and t h e y ' v e had p l e n t y o f t i m e . T h i s c a s e has been i n d i c t e d s i n c e J a n u a r y o f 1999 c a p i t a l l y and i t ' s b e e n i n d i c t e d s i n c e t h e f i r s t p a r t o f '98 i n some form of murder. "THE COURT: continuance." (R. a counsel Non-attorney r e s p o n d e d t h a t he it's deny the motion for a 29-30.) Defense for I then asked about h i s Motion Mitigating Service would provide $1500 and a w o r t h w h i l e p r o j e c t , w e ' l l pay Defense Counsel w o u l d n e e d 60 then they're informed the trial days, to which the out of the loop the court (R. Provide trial court " i f i t looks f o r more." trial then." 164 and to that court 32.) (R. the stated, like 31.) service "Well, CR-99-1349 B a s e d on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s the reasons not abuse h i s d i s c r e t i o n trial including counsel, the t r i a l court d i d g i v e n by t h e defense continuance. the of the present case, i n denying Moreover, although court acted erroneous. fora J o h n s o n seems t o i m p l y improperly t r i a l t o keep t h e p r o c e d u r e s Johnson's motion by making comments that during moving e x p e d i t i o u s l y , t h i s i s not See Hampton v. S t a t e , 621 So. 2d 376, 378 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1993) ( n o t i n g t h a t " t h e t r i a l j u d g e h a s t h e d u t y t o move t h e t e s t i m o n y e x p e d i t i o u s l y a l o n g . S h e l t o n v . S t a t e , 384 So. 384 So. 2d 871 2d 869 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , 1980)."). cert. denied, Thus, we f i n d no e r r o r , regard to t h i s plain or otherwise, (Ala. with claim. XVI. Johnson testimony, to argues that the t r i a l and c o n c l u s o r y statements be a d m i t t e d court allowed by a p o l i c e hearsay investigator at t r i a l . A. Johnson a l l e g e s t h a t t h e t r i a l court improperly h e a r s a y t e s t i m o n y b y R i c h a r d s as t o s t a t e m e n t s allowed that h i s sister made t o h i m ; s p e c i f i c a l l y he t e s t i f i e d t h a t she l o o k e d a t h i m and s t a t e d , " ' Y ' a l l d i d i t , d i d n ' t y o u ? ' " 165 (R. 555.) She a l s o CR-99-1349 cites as improperly investigator admitted concerning hearsay Richards's testimony statements from made an t o law enforcement. Richards' testimony concerning h i s s i s t e r ' s s t a t e m e n t was g i v e n d u r i n g R i c h a r d s ' s t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g what he h a d done t o e s t a b l i s h an a l i b i . The p r o s e c u t o r h a d a s k e d , "Did y ' a l l do a n y t h i n g t o c o v e r t h e gap? You knew t h e p o l i c e w o u l d a s k , I mean, s o o n e r then or later, described locating d i d n ' t you?" his sister Richards a t work a n d t e l l i n g h e r t h a t he h a d t r i e d t o l e a v e h e r a n o t e and (R. 554.) t h a t M c C u l l a r was d e a d t h a t J o h n s o n h a d b e en q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t i t . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t she r e s p o n d e d by s t a t i n g , " ' Y ' a l l d i d i t , d i d n ' t you?'" (R. 555.) Johnson He t e s t i f i e d were t h a t he t h e n told h e r t h a t he a n d not involved, but that they needed b e c a u s e t h e y h a d b e en home a l o n e . The note statements Deardorff and t e s t i m o n y i n establishing v. S t a t e , alibi (R. 556.) by R i c h a r d s admissible. See 6 So. 3d 1205, 1218 ( A l a . Crim. App. a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e 2008), cert. denied, an a l i b i o f h i s a c t i o n s and were 2004), S.Ct. an Deardorff, 6 So. 3d 1235 D e a r d o r f f v. A l a b a m a , 1 9 8 7 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1091 (2009) 166 (wherein U.S. note (Ala. , 129 from c o - CR-99-1349 c o n s p i r a t o r w r i t t e n p r i o r t o o f f e n s e t o e s t a b l i s h an a l i b i was admissible Moreover, question offense as part of Richards's indicates because that the r e s gestae testimony of concerning the offense). his sister's she a s k e d h i m i f t h e y c o m m i t t e d t h e t h e y were s e e k i n g an a l i b i . This question does n o t go t o t h e t r u t h o f t h e m a t t e r a s s e r t e d as n o t h i n g i s asserted. R i c h a r d s ' s answer t o t h e q u e s t i o n i n d i c a t e d that t h e y d i d n o t commit t h e o f f e n s e . Rule 801(c), Ala.R.Evid., s t a t e s : " ' H e a r s a y ' i s a s t a t e m e n t , o t h e r t h a n one made b y the declarant while t e s t i f y i n g at the t r i a l or hearing, o f f e r e d i n evidence t o prove the t r u t h of the m a t t e r a s s e r t e d . " Richards's question was sister therefore d i d n o t make not hearsay. Gamble's, M c E l r o y ' s Alabama E v i d e n c e a statement As and h e r e x p l a i n e d i n C. (5th ed. 1996): " O n l y s t a t e m e n t s f a l l w i t h i n t h e b a n on h e a r s a y . Such s t a t e m e n t s may be e i t h e r (1) o r a l o r w r i t t e n a s s e r t i o n s o r (20 n o n v e r b a l c o n d u c t i n t e n d e d as an assertion. Oral or written declarations f a l l within the hearsay d e f i n i t i o n only i f they constitute assertions Indeed, t h e d r a f t e r s o f t h e Alabama Rules of Evidence recognize that ' [ i ] t i s the a s s e r t i v e nature of the statement that g i v e s r i s e t o the hearsay concern posed by a d m i s s i o n of a s t a t e m e n t b y an o u t - o f - c o u r t d e c l a r a n t . Suppose, f o r e x a m p l e , t h a t an a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r r e t u r n s a c a l l l e f t on t h e d e f e n d a n t d r u g d e a l e r ' s p a g e r a n d t h e p e r s o n c o n t a c t e d a s k s : " D i d you g e t t h e s t u f f ? ' A t 167 CR-99-1349 l e a s t one c o u r t has c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h i s i s n o t d e f i n i t i o n a l l y hearsay because the q u e s t i o n d i d not and was n o t i n t e n d e d t o a s s e r t a n y t h i n g . " (Footnotes o m i t t e d ) . Thus, R i c h a r d s ' s t e s t i m o n y as t o t h e q u e s t i o n a s k e d his sister i n response inadmissable fails she an alibi was not hearsay. Furthermore, Richards's to h i s e l i c i t i n g by the statements investigator's was testimony concerning not inadmissable hearsay. Johnson t o s p e c i f y as t o w h i c h p a r t o f t h e w i t n e s s ' s t e s t i m o n y i s referring. testimony reveals statements were investigator's However, a review of the investigator's t h a t most o f h i s r e f e r e n c e s t o R i c h a r d s ' s only made to explain the reasons f o r the actions. "As we s t a t e d i n W i l s o n v. S t a t e , 571 So. 2d 1237, 1240-41 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 571 So. 2d 1251 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) : "'"[M]any statements have been a d m i t t e d as e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e h e a r s a y r u l e upon t h e r a t i o n a l e t h a t s u c h statements were a d m i t t e d f o r some p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n t o p r o v e t h e t r u t h o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s . " [C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 2 4 2 . 0 1 ( 1 ) (3d e d . 1 9 7 7 ) ] . See a l s o C l o n t z v. State, 531 So. 2d 60, 61 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) (wherein a probation o f f i c e r was a l l o w e d t o t e s t i f y t h a t he f i r s t became aware t h e d e f e n d a n t was n o t a t h i s address through a t e l e p h o n e c a l l from 168 CR-99-1349 the appellant's mother, because "the t e s t i m o n y was n o t i n t r o d u c e d as p r o o f o f t h e m a t t e r a s s e r t e d , b u t r a t h e r as the motive behind the probation officer's beginning his i n v e s t i g a t i o n " ) ; Molina v. S t a t e , 533 So. 2d 701, 714 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), c e r t . denied, 489 U.S. 1086, 109 S.Ct. 1547, 103 L.Ed.2d 851 (1989) ( w h e r e i n a p o l i c e o f f i c e r was a l l o w e d t o t e s t i f y t o information concerning a v e h i c l e suspected t o be i n v o l v e d i n d r u g a c t i v i t y , r e c e i v e d t h r o u g h a r a d i o d i s p a t c h , b e c a u s e i t was not o f f e r e d to prove the t r u t h of the contents of the d i s p a t c h , but "to e x p l a i n t h e r e a s o n he p u r s u e d and subsequently s t o p p e d t h e d e f e n d a n t " ) ; P e t i t e v. S t a t e , 520 So. 2d 207, 211 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1987) (a radio broadcast, s t a t i n g that a burglary was i n p r o g r e s s , was n o t h e a r s a y as i t was not i n t r o d u c e d to prove the t r u t h of the matter asserted, "but rather for the p u r p o s e o f e x p l a i n i n g why O f f i c e r S t a f f o r d went t o t h e p r o p e r t y " ) ; Thomas v. S t a t e , 520 So. 2d 223, 226 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987) ( w h e r e i n an o f f i c e r was a l l o w e d t o i d e n t i f y p e o p l e he s p o k e w i t h and p l a c e s he went before f i n d i n g the defendant, because " [ t ] h e f a c t of the conversations ... was o f f e r e d to e x p l a i n the o f f i c e r ' s a c t i o n s and p r e s e n c e a t t h e s c e n e - n o t f o r t h e t r u t h of the matter a s s e r t e d " ) . ' "More recently in Deardorff v. CR-01-0794, June 25, 2004] So.2d C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) , we s t a t e d : State, , "'A r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t A g e n t Montgomery's t e s t i m o n y and K a r e n and G r e g ' s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t T u r n e r ' s w i l l , and p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e addendum t o t h e w i l l , was g i v e n i n c o n t e x t o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e c a s e and t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e a c t i o n s 169 [Ms. (Ala. CR-99-1349 t h e p o l i c e t o o k . I t was b y d e f i n i t i o n n o t h e a r s a y a n d i t was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d i n t o evidence. We have considered cases p r e s e n t i n g s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d have f o u n d no e r r o r i n t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e t e s t i m o n y . F o r e x a m p l e , i n S m i t h v. S t a t e , 795 So. 2d 788 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , a police o f f i c e r t e s t i f i e d that, during a s e a r c h o f t h e house b e l o n g i n g t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t h e r , she t o l d h i m t h a t t h e defendant h a d p u t some c l o t h e s i n t h e washing machine; Smith argued t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y was p r e j u d i c i a l h e a r s a y . We h e l d : "'"[T]his statement was e l i c i t e d t o e s t a b l i s h the reasons f o r t h e o f f i c e r ' s a c t i o n and t h e reasons the o f f i c e r s searched c e r t a i n areas of the t r a i l e r . I t was n o t o f f e r e d f o r t h e t r u t h o f t h e m a t t e r a s s e r t e d a n d was n o t hearsay. 'The fact of the c o n v e r s a t i o n s i n t h i s c a s e was offered to explain the o f f i c e r ' s actions and presence at the scene-not f o r the t r u t h of the matter asserted. A c c o r d i n g l y , i t was n o t h e a r s a y . C l a r k v . C i t y o f Montgomery, 497 So. 2d 1140, 1142 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986).' Thomas v . State, 520 So. 2d 223 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1987) ." "'795 So. 2d a t 814. " ' I n D.R.H. v. S t a t e , 615 So. 2d 1327 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) , t h e a p p e l l a n t a r g u e d t h a t h e a r s a y h a d e r r o n e o u s l y b e e n a d m i t t e d when t h e o f f i c e r s were p e r m i t t e d t o t e s t i f y a b o u t what t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a n t h a d t o l d them. We d i s a g r e e d , f o u n d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was n o t h e a r s a y , a n d s t a t e d , " [ T h e officers'] t e s t i m o n y was r e c e i v e d t o show t h e 170 CR-99-1349 r e a s o n s f o r t h e o f f i c e r s ' a c t i o n s a n d how t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o c u s e d on a s u s p e c t . Sawyer v . S t a t e , 598 So. 2d 1035 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) . " 615 So. 2d a t 1330. I n a c c o r d , M i l l e r v. S t a t e , 687 So. 2d 1 2 8 1 , 1285 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . ' "The c h a l l e n g e d t e s t i m o n y was b y d e f i n i t i o n n o t h e a r s a y a n d was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . " Robitaille 2005), S.Ct. v. S t a t e , 971 So. 2d 43, 58-59 ( A l a . C r i m . App. c e r t . d e n i e d , R o b i t a i l l e v. Alabama, 490, 169 L . E d . 2d 339 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . State, 932 So. 2d 923, 958 mother's statement, killed U.S. See ( A l a . Crim. "'Cody, I done h e a r d , 128 Calhoun App. 2005) they a man,'" was n o t i n a d m i s s a b l e h e a r s a y said v. (Cody's y o u done as i t was n o t o f f e r e d t o p r o v e t h e t r u t h o f t h e m a t t e r a s s e r t e d b u t t o show Calhoun's response). M o r e o v e r , R i c h a r d s s t a t e m e n t s were a d m i t t e d i n t o at the close of Richards's testimony(R. t e s t i f i e d on d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n , evidence 639), a f t e r cross-examination, he h a d redirect e x a m i n a t i o n and r e c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o n t e n t s o f h i s statements and h i s involvement i n t h e o f f e n s e . Thus, any m e n t i o n t h a t t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s u b s e q u e n t l y made c o n c e r n i n g a n y contents of Richards's statements and h a r m l e s s e r r o r . may be w o u l d have b e e n R u l e 45, A l a . R . A p p . P . i n a d m i s s i b l e may be r e n d e r e d 171 cumulative "'[T]estimony that harmless by p r i o r or CR-99-1349 subsequent l a w f u l testimony the same f a c t s 538, Ex t o t h e same e f f e c t o r f r o m w h i c h c a n be i n f e r r e d . ' W h i t e v. S t a t e , 650 So. 2 d 541 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 4 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r parte Rivers, P e r k i n s v. S t a t e , , 669 So. 2d 239 ( A l a . Crim. grounds, App. 1995)." [Ms. CR-06-1828, F e b . 27, 2009] So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . We n o t e t h a t J o h n s o n a l s o c i t e s t o 21 p a g e s i n t h e r e c o r d for other occasions of inadmissable hearsay; p a g e s do n o t c o n t a i n i n a d m i s s a b l e h e a r s a y . the officers, statements and several of The t e s t i m o n y b y the witnesses referred R o b i t a i l l e v. S t a t e , c i t i n g o f o t h e r p a g e s does n o t r e v e a l t h e t e s t i m o n y which Johnson complains, this these to which prompted o r e x p l a i n e d t h e i r a c t i o n s and t h e t e s t i m o n y was n o t i n a d m i s s a b l e . The however, a n d t h e r e f o r e , we f i n d supra. about no e r r o r on ground. B. J o h n s o n a r g u e s t h a t an i n v e s t i g a t o r was i m p r o p e r l y and gave t e s t i m o n y about t h e evidence. concerning h i s judgments and c o n c l u s i o n s She s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n t e n d s t h a t he s h o u l d n o t have t e s t i f i e d a b o u t h i s t h o u g h t not asked he b e l i e v e d J o h n s o n . processes The p a r t i c u l a r 172 and whether o r i n s t a n c e s t h a t she CR-99-1349 cites to in making this argument a l l concern i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s t e s t i m o n y as t o w h e t h e r he f o u n d statements c r e d i b l e and c o n s i s t e n t . the individuals' I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t b o t h R i c h a r d s and J o h n s o n gave a number o f v a r y i n g s t a t e m e n t s to the a u t h o r i t i e s . The testimony given by the investigator was made i n response t o q u e s t i o n s concerning the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s d e c i s i o n s concerning h i s course of i n v e s t i g a t i o n . [Ms. CR-06-2246, App. 2008) June 27, 2008] (wherein officer See M i l l s v. S t a t e , So. 3d ( A l a . Crim. b e l i e v e d t h a t he had a better r a p p o r t w i t h M i l l s ' s w i f e so he h a d M i l l s p i c k e d up and g a i n e d consent t o s e a r c h from M i l l s ' s w i f e ) . testify to h i s e v a l u a t i o n of investigation, including An o f f i c e r c l e a r l y individuals furtive gestures involved or in [Ms. CR-07-0566, App. expertise. an suspicious circumstances or other matters of p e r c e i v e d c r e d i b i l i t y on t h e o f f i c e r ' s may based See g e n e r a l l y W.D.H. v. S t a t e , O c t . 31, 2008] So. 3d ( A l a . Crim. 2008). "In Sawyer v. State, 598 So. 2d 1035 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1992) c e r t . d e n i e d , 506 U.S. 943, 113 S.Ct. 386, 121 L.Ed.2d 295 (1992), t h i s court stated: 173 CR-99-1349 "'"A s t a t e m e n t may be a d m i s s i b l e where i t i s not o f f e r e d to prove the t r u t h of w h a t e v e r f a c t s m i g h t be s t a t e d , 'but r a t h e r to e s t a b l i s h the reason f o r a c t i o n or c o n d u c t by t h e w i t n e s s . ' " Edwards v. S t a t e , 502 So. 2d 846, 849 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986) ( q u o t i n g T u c k e r v. S t a t e , 474 So. 2d 131, 132 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), r e v ' d on o t h e r grounds, 474 So. 2d 134 (1985)). The o f f i c e r s r e l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d from o t h e r s o u r c e s t o e x p l a i n why t h e y p r o c e e d e d as t h e y d i d . T h i s was n o t h e a r s a y . See, e.g., B r a n n o n , 549 So. 2d a t 539; M c C r a y v. S t a t e , 548 So. 2d 573, 576 (Ala.Cr.App. 1 9 8 8 ) . See, a l s o , M o l i n a v. S t a t e , 533 So. 2d 701, 714 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), cert. d e n i e d , 489 U.S. 1086, 109 S.Ct. 1547, 103 L.Ed.2d 851 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ; T i l l i s v. S t a t e , 469 So. 2d 1367, 1370 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) . ' So.2d a t 1038." "598 M i l l e r v. S t a t e , 687 So. 2d 1281, Here, his ( A l a . C r i m . App. no e r r o r i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s t h e r e was concerning 1285 reasons for determining the 1996). testimony path of this investigation. XVII. Johnson a l l e g e s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t committed e r r o r by failing based on their filed a pretrial potential juror t o remove two bias who prospective jurors reversible for i n f a v o r of the death p e n a l t y . motion would for the disqualification automatically 174 vote cause Johnson of f o r the any death CR-99-1349 penalty. The t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n a n d s t a t e d t h a t he w o u l d f o l l o w t h e h o l d i n g i n W i t h e r s p o o n v. I l l i n o i s , 510, 88 S . C t . 1770, 20 L.Ed. 2d 776 appropriate. (R.25-26.) 391 U.S. ( 1 9 6 8 ) , when i t became Johnson d i d not o b j e c t t o e i t h e r of t h e s e two p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s on t h i s g r o u n d d u r i n g v o i r d i r e o r to the t r i a l evaluated court. pursuant Therefore, to the plain this error issue i s due rule. t o be Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. The f o l l o w i n g t r a n s p i r e d d u r i n g t h e v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n of the f i r s t complained-of potential juror by the defense counsel: "Q: [POTENTIAL JUROR], y o u ' v e i n d i c a t e d on t h e questionnaire i n regard to the death penalty that you w o u l d -- t h a t i f someone t o o k a n o t h e r p e r s o n ' s l i f e y o u ' d v o t e f o r t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . Does t h a t mean i n a l l c i r c u m s t a n c e s ? "A: No. N o t i n a l l -- l i k e I b e l i e v e l i k e i f i t ' s s e l f d e f e n s e o r l i k e i f someone was h a r m i n g somebody i n my f a m i l y a n d I d i d i t and I k i l l e d a p e r s o n b e c a u s e t h e y were g o i n g t o t a k e someone i n my f a m i l y ' s l i f e I b e l i e v e t h a t , d o n ' t b e l i e v e -- I b e l i e v e I was d o i n g i t t o p r o t e c t them. B u t now j u s t -- j u s t k i l l i n g somebody j u s t t o be k i l l i n g them o r you d o n ' t a g r e e w i t h s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h a t , I do believe i n i t . "Q: W e l l , l e t me a s k you t h i s way: I f you were on t h e j u r y a n d you f o u n d t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y and you h a d a c h o i c e w h e t h e r t o g i v e t h a t p e r s o n a l i f e 175 CR-99-1349 s e n t e n c e i n p r i s o n , no p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r o l e death penalty or the -¬ "[PROSECUTOR]: We object. Judge, he has misstated i t . "THE COURT: He h a s n ' t f i n i s h e d -¬ "[PROSECUTOR]: I t ' s a recommendation from t h e jury. "THE COURT: He's n o t t h r o u g h s t a t i n g , so -"Q: A r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . W o u l d y o u i n e v e r y i n s t a n c e t h a t y o u c a n c o n c e i v e recommend t o t h e Judge t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y ? "A: I f i t was i n t e n t i o n a l l y done, y e s . "Q: So, i n e v e r y f a c t s i t u a t i o n you c o u l d t h i n k o f where a p e r s o n was f o u n d g u i l t y y o u w o u l d a l w a y s recommend t o t h e Judge t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y ? "A: I d o n ' t b e l i e v e i n j u s t t a k i n g someone's l i f e j u s t -- I mean, I b e l i e v e i n p u n i s h i n g a p e r s o n t h e way y o u p u n i s h them, i s what I -- I mean, j u s t l i k e i f y o u t a k e somebody e l s e ' s l i f e , I b e l i e v e y o u r l i f e s h o u l d be t a k e n . I mean, t h a t ' s j u s t me and my o p i n i o n . "Q: Y e s , ma'am. Okay. Thank y o u . "BY [PROSECUTOR]: "Q: [POTENTIAL JUROR], y o u u n d e r s t a n d t h a t when you become a j u r o r t h a t y o u have an o a t h t o f o l l o w the law. "A: Uh-huh. "Q: A n d t h e Judge t e l l s y o u what t h e l a w i s . A n d b a s e d on t h a t o a t h y o u have t o f o l l o w i t . I f t h e 176 CR-99-1349 Judge t o l d y o u t h a t t h e r e a r e a l o t o f t h i n g s t h a t you c a n c o n s i d e r , t h a t y o u c o u l d c o n s i d e r a l l s o r t s of f a c t o r s i n making your d e c i s i o n and t h a t you c o u l d w e i g h them o u t a n d make a d e c i s i o n , c o u l d you f o l l o w t h e l a w as he p u t s i t t o y o u i n m a k i n g t h a t decision? "A: Y e s , s i r . "Q: A n d i f t h e l a w a n d t h e f a c t s a f t e r y o u w e i g h them s u g g e s t e d t o y o u i f somebody h a d m u r d e r e d somebody t h a t t h e y s h o u l d maybe s p e n d l i f e i n p r i s o n w i t h o u t p a r o l e , c o u l d you f o l l o w t h e l a w and g i v e them t h a t k i n d o f s e n t e n c e where t h e y c o u l d n ' t g e t o u t ? I f t h a t ' s what t h e l a w s a i d a n d what t h e f a c t s warranted? I s t h a t a yes? "A: Y e s . "Q: Okay. So y o u w o u l d w e i g h t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i s t h a t what y o u ' r e s a y i n g a n d w e i g h t h e l a w as t h e Judge p u t i t t o you? "A: The way t h e Judge p u t i t , yes. "Q: Okay, Thank y o u . "BY [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: "Q: I f y o u f o u n d a p e r s o n g u i l t y a n d y o u ' r e s i t t i n g on t h e j u r y a n d i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g p h a s e o f t h i s c a s e , i f you b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p e r s o n had k i l l e d them i n t e n t i o n a l l y , w o u l d y o u a l w a y s recommend t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y o r can you c o n c e i v e o f a c i r c u m s t a n c e where y o u w o u l d n ' t ? "THE COURT: I f y o u have t h e o p t i o n "Q: I f you have t h e o p t i o n . 177 -- CR-99-1349 "THE COURT: -- o f l i f e w i t h o u t p a r o l e o r t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , t h o s e w o u l d be y o u r two o p t i o n s a t that p o i n t i n time. "A: I t w o u l d be u n d e r -- I ' d have t o t h i n k a b o u t a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d why i t h a p p e n e d a n d how i t was done a n d w e i g h i t t h a t way. "Q: Okay, Thank y o u , ma'am. "THE (R. COURT: Okay. Thank y o u . " 248-51.) This decide potential juror clearly indicated that t h e s e n t e n c i n g b a s e d on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s according the evidence instructions the appropriate from t h e t r i a l weight she w o u l d o f t h e case, under t h e court. "'A t r i a l judge i s i n a d e c i d e d l y b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t h a n an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o assess the c r e d i b i l i t y of the j u r o r s during v o i r d i r e q u e s t i o n i n g . See F o r d v . S t a t e , 628 So. 2 d 1068 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . F o r t h a t r e a s o n , we g i v e g r e a t d e f e r e n c e t o a trial j u d g e ' s r u l i n g on c h a l l e n g e s f o r c a u s e . B a k e r v. S t a t e , 906 So. 2 d 210 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 20 0 1 ) . ' "Turner v. S t a t e , App. 2 0 0 2 ) . 924 So. 2 d 737, 754 ( A l a . C r i m . "'The "original constitutional y a r d s t i c k " on t h i s i s s u e was d e s c r i b e d i n W i t h e r s p o o n v. I l l i n o i s , 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L . E d . 2 d 776 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . U n d e r Witherspoon, before a juror could be removed f o r c a u s e b a s e d on t h e j u r o r ' s v i e w s on t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , t h e j u r o r h a d 178 CR-99-1349 t o make i t u n m i s t a k a b l y c l e a r t h a t he o r she w o u l d a u t o m a t i c a l l y v o t e a g a i n s t t h e death p e n a l t y and t h a t h i s o r h e r f e e l i n g s on t h a t i s s u e w o u l d t h e r e f o r e p r e v e n t t h e j u r o r f r o m m a k i n g an i m p a r t i a l d e c i s i o n on g u i l t . However, t h i s i s no l o n g e r t h e t e s t . I n W a i n w r i g h t v . W i t t , 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e proper standard f o r determining whether a v e n i r e m e m b e r s h o u l d be e x c l u d e d f o r c a u s e because of o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e death p e n a l t y i s whether t h e veniremember's views would "'prevent or s u b s t a n t i a l l y impair the p e r f o r m a n c e o f h i s d u t i e s as a j u r o r i n accordance w i t h h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s and h i s o a t h . ' " ' [ Q u o t i n g Adams v . T e x a s , 448 U.S. 38, 45 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . ] The Supreme C o u r t h a s e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d t h a t j u r o r b i a s does n o t have t o be p r o v e n with "unmistakable c l a r i t y . " D a r d e n v. W a i n w r i g h t , 477 U.S. 168, 106 S . C t . 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986).' " P r e s s l e y v . S t a t e , 770 So. 2d 115, 127 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 770 So. 2d 143 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . See a l s o U t t e c h t v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1, 9, 127 S . C t . 2218, 2224, 167 L.Ed.2d 1014 (2007) ('[A] j u r o r who i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y impaired i n h i s or her a b i l i t y t o impose the death penalty under the state-law f r a m e w o r k c a n be e x c u s e d f o r c a u s e ; b u t i f t h e j u r o r i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p a i r e d , removal f o r cause i s impermissible.')." S a u n d e r s v. S t a t e , 10 So. 3d 53, 75-76 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , cert. denied, Saunders v. Alabama, 2433, 174 L. E d . 2d 229 (2009). 179 U.S. , 129 S. C t . CR-99-1349 There i s no indication from the responses p o t e n t i a l j u r o r t h a t she w o u l d be i m p a i r e d of i n performing d u t i e s as a j u r o r b e c a u s e o f h e r b e l i e f s c o n c e r n i n g penalty. her the death She i n d i c a t e d t h a t she w o u l d w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e and f o l l o w the t r i a l The this other indicated that court's instructions. potential juror he would cited by automatically p e n a l t y was n o t q u e s t i o n e d Johnson vote as having f o r the death at t r i a l as h a v i n g b e e n one o f t h e p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s who h a d so s t a t e d . T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n the record regard. the that Although this p o t e n t i a l j u r o r h a d any b i a s i n this J o h n s o n s t a t e s i n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l potential juror indicated i n his pretrial t h a t he w o u l d a u t o m a t i c a l l y v o t e that questionnaire f o r the death penalty, these q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a r e n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d a n d t h e r e f o r e we a r e u n a b l e t o e v a l u a t e a n y s t a t e m e n t s by t h i s p o t e n t i a l j u r o r t h a t may have b e e n c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n . See Thomas v. S t a t e , 4 9 Ala. (1973) ("The r e c o r d i s s i l e n t as t o t h e c o u r t ' s q u a l i f y i n g q u e s t i o n s t o t h e j u r o r and her App. 537, 539 274 So. 2d 93, 95 a n s w e r s t h e r e t o . We consider statements a r e bound by t h e r e c o r d i n brief MacMahon v. C i t y o f M o b i l e , not supported and cannot by t h e r e c o r d . 253 A l a . 436, 44 So. 2d 5 7 0 . " ) . 180 CR-99-1349 The trial potential court d i d not e r r i n f a i l i n g jurors due to their feelings t o remove about these the death penalty. XVIII. Johnson argues failing to courtroom that the t r i a l enforce the rule excluding witnesses the to the v i c t i m ' s m o t h e r and t h e c h i e f i n v e s t i g a t o r who r e m a i n e d i n the Rule She s p e c i f i c a l l y from refers courtroom during her t r i a l . c o u r t r e v e r s i b l y e r r e d by d u r i n g the course of the t r i a l . 9.3, A l a . R . C r i m . P . , states: " ( a ) W i t n e s s e s . P r i o r t o o r d u r i n g any p r o c e e d i n g , t h e c o u r t , on i t s own m o t i o n o r a t t h e r e q u e s t o f any p a r t y , may e x c l u d e w i t n e s s e s f r o m t h e c o u r t r o o m and d i r e c t them n o t t o communicate w i t h e a c h o t h e r , o r w i t h anyone o t h e r t h a n t h e a t t o r n e y s i n t h e c a s e , c o n c e r n i n g any t e s t i m o n y u n t i l a l l w i t n e s s e s have been r e l e a s e d by t h e c o u r t . " The C o m m i t t e e comments t o t h i s rule establish that "The power t o e x c l u d e and s e p a r a t e w i t n e s s e s i s e n t i r e l y a m a t t e r of d i s c r e t i o n w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t . 339, 16 So. 2d 877 So. 2d 175 (1957), Teague v. S t a t e , 245 A l a . ( 1 9 4 4 ) ; Beddow v. S t a t e , 39 A l a . A p p . 29, 96 ( 1 9 5 6 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 266 A l a . 694, 96 So. 2d 178 cert. denied, 355 U.S. 181 390, 78 S.Ct. 412, 2 L.Ed.2d CR-99-1349 414 (1958). By i n v o k i n g t h e r u l e , t h e c o u r t i s n o t c o m p e l l e d to exclude a l l witnesses Further, b u t may be s e l e c t i v e as a p p r o p r i a t e . " R u l e 615, A l a . R . E v i d . , states: "At t h e r e q u e s t o f a p a r t y t h e c o u r t may o r d e r so t h a t t h e y c a n n o t h e a r t h e witnesses excluded t e s t i m o n y o f o t h e r w i t n e s s e s a n d i t may make t h e order o f i t s own m o t i o n . This r u l e does n o t a u t h o r i z e e x c l u s i o n o f (1) a p a r t y who i s a n a t u r a l p e r s o n , (2) an o f f i c e r o r e m p l o y e e o f a p a r t y w h i c h is not a natural person designated as i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e b y i t s a t t o r n e y , (3) a p e r s o n whose p r e s e n c e i s shown b y a p a r t y t o be e s s e n t i a l t o t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e p a r t y ' s c a u s e , o r (4) a v i c t i m of a c r i m i n a l offense or the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a victim who i s unable to attend, when the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e h a s been s e l e c t e d b y t h e v i c t i m , t h e v i c t i m ' s guardian, or the v i c t i m ' s family." The Comments to this rule explain that two of the c a t e g o r i e s w h i c h do n o t a u t h o r i z e e x c l u s i o n a r e "a p a r t y that i s n o t a n a t u r a l p e r s o n i s e n t i t l e d t o have a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e present. party T h i s p e r s o n i s t o be an o f f i c e r o r e m p l o y e e o f t h e and Allowing i s t o be such designated a witness police officer, who i s allowed the the o f f i c e r that Portomene v. U n i t e d attorney. i s consistent with An e x a m p l e o f t h i s w o u l d be when h a s been investigation, fact the party's t o be p r e s e n t h i s t o r i c Alabama p r a c t i c e . a by i n charge of the state's t o remain i n t h e courtroom States, will be a w i t n e s s . 221 F. 2d 582 182 despite See, e.g., (5th C i r . 1955)." CR-99-1349 Also, "as p r o v i d e d under a p r e e x i s t i n g s t a t u t e , i n a c r i m i n a l case, the v i c t i m of the crime rule of witness exclusion. i s exempted guardian, representative, the rule. permitting the See or the victim's If then the v i c t i m , the family can select a and t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w o u l d be e x e m p t e d f r o m A l a . Code a victim's victim; general See A l a . Code 1975 § 15-14-55. the v i c t i m i s unable t o a t t e n d the t r i a l , victim's from the 1975, § representative disability; to attend hardship; mental, or emotional c o n d i t i o n ; Moreover, pursuant 15-14-56 for are: death of incapacity; age; o r o t h e r t o The A l a b a m a (grounds physical, inability)." Crime V i c t i m s ' Court A t t e n d a n c e A c t , § 15-14-50, A l a . Code 1975, " t h e v i c t i m o f a c r i m i n a l offense a right alongside t o be or r e p r e s e n t a t i v e present i n the courtroom and the prosecutor during the t r i a l of the i n d i v i d u a l charged w i t h that offense, c a p i t a l and n o n c a p i t a l (Ala. o f t h e v i c t i m ' s f a m i l y has C r i m . App. t o be seated and t h i s a c t i s a p p l i c a b l e t o b o t h cases. C o r a l v. S t a t e , 1992), a f f i r m e d d e n i e d 114 S.Ct. 1387, 511 U.S. 628 So. 2d 954 628 So. 2d 1004, certiorari 1012, 128 L.Ed.2d 6 1 . " Under t h e above c i t e d a u t h o r i t y , t h e v i c t i m ' s m o t h e r and the chief investigator i n this c a s e were p r o p e r l y 183 allowed to CR-99-1349 remain i n the 1111, 1130 trial court courtroom. in remain i n the allowing and the the i n v e s t i g a t o r was going So. refused trial p a r t of the trial, 2d 1179, 1181 So. 2d 2d 1377 i t an trial.' ( A l a . C r i m . App. a 2d the the family case the fact stating that to that " [ i ] n Ex ( A l a . 1991), the Alabama abuse o f will d i s c r e t i o n on p o l i c e c h i e f , or a l s o J a c k s o n v. 1 9 8 6 ) ; J o h n s o n v. 1 9 8 5 ) ; C h e s s o n v. 1983), and the l a t e r t e s t i f y to remain i n See ( A l a . C r i m . App. ( A l a . C r i m . App. So. e r r o r by as despite court to allow a s h e r i f f , courtroom during 861 'Alabama a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have t i m e to hold the 177 wife, investigator in to t e s t i f y s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d p e r s o n who 858 State, ( f i n d i n g no victim's chief Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t again 2001) courtroom during p a r t e L a w h o r n , 581 and C e n t o b i e v. ( A l a . C r i m . App. representative, the See State, State, State, 479 435 authorities cited So. in 502 So. 2d those cases."). XIX. Johnson a l l e g e s t h a t the t r i a l photographs, testimony h e r and a video regarding tape, the and court improperly allowed highly inflammatory crime scene which u n d u l y i n f l a m e d the j u r y . Specifically, 184 admitted prejudiced Johnson argues t h a t CR-99-1349 the State crime improperly sought t o admit s c e n e a n d she o b j e c t e d p r e j u d i c i a l and c u m u l a t i v e . court d i d exclude 40 p h o t o g r a p h s of the on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e y were She a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t t h e t r i a l some o f t h e p h o t o g r a p h s as c u m u l a t i v e , b u t c o n t e n d s t h a t o t h e r s were i m p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d , as w e l l as t h e crime scene compounded video. by She the argues testimony i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s testimony of this two t h a t he g a t h e r e d as t o b l o o d s p a t t e r a t t h e s c e n e , testimony wherein that prejudice witnesses: was the bone f r a g m e n t s a n d and t h e m e d i c a l examiner's he drew d i a g r a m s o f t h e v i c t i m ' s wounds i n front of the jury. In Brooks v. State, 973 So. 2d 380 2007), Brooks argued t h a t a videotape ( A l a . Crim. of the crime p h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e v i c t i m ' s body a t t h e c r i m e App. scene and scene, as w e l l as d e p i c t i o n s o f t h e c r i m e s c e n e were e r r o n e o u s l y a l l o w e d i n t o e v i d e n c e as t h e y were i r r e l e v a n t a n d h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l . court r e j e c t e d Brooks's argument, stating: " ' G e n e r a l l y , p h o t o g r a p h s a r e a d m i s s i b l e iir t o n ence tend evidence i n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n " i f they tend t o p r o v e o r d i s p r o v e some d i s p u t e d o r m a t e r i a l i s s u e , t o i l l u s t r a t e o r e l u c i d a t e some o t h e r r e l e v a n t f a c t o r e v i d e n c e , o r t o c o r r o b o r a t e o r d i s p r o v e some o t h e r e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d o r t o be o f f e r e d , a n d t h e i r a d m i s s i o n i s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e . " ' B a n k h e a d v . S t a t e , 585 So. 2d 97, 109 185 This CR-99-1349 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , remanded on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 585 So. 2d 112 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f ' d on r e t u r n t o remand, 625 So. 2d 1141 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992), r e v ' d , 625 So. 2d 1146 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , q u o t i n g Magwood v. S t a t e , 494 So. 2d 124, 141 (Ala. Crim. App. aff'd, 494 So. 2d 154 (Ala. 1986). 1985), ' P h o t o g r a p h i c e x h i b i t s are a d m i s s i b l e even though t h e y may be c u m u l a t i v e , d e m o n s t r a t i v e o f u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s , o r g r u e s o m e . ' W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 506 So. 2d 368, 371 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . In a d d i t i o n , 'photographic evidence, i f r e l e v a n t , i s a d m i s s i b l e e v e n i f i t has a t e n d e n c y t o i n f l a m e t h e m i n d s o f t h e j u r o r s . ' Ex p a r t e S i e b e r t , 555 So. 2d 780, 784 ( A l a . 1989). ' T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t autopsy photographs, although gruesome, are admissible to show t h e extent of a victim's i n j u r i e s . ' F e r g u s o n v. S t a t e , 814 So. 2d 925, 944 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , a f f ' d , 814 So. 2d 970 ( A l a . depicting the 2001). '"[A]utopsy photographs c h a r a c t e r and l o c a t i o n o f wounds on a v i c t i m ' s body are admissible even i f they are gruesome, c u m u l a t i v e , o r r e l a t e t o an u n d i s p u t e d m a t t e r . " ' J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 791 So. 2d 979, 1016 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g P e r k i n s v. S t a t e , 808 So. 2d 1041, 1108 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 808 So. 2d 1143 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , j u d g m e n t v a c a t e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 2653, 153 L.Ed.2d 830 536 U.S. 953, 122 S.Ct. ( 2 0 0 2 ) , on remand t o , 851 So. 2d 453 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . 'The same r u l e applies f o r v i d e o t a p e s as for p h o t o g r a p h s : "The f a c t t h a t a p h o t o g r a p h i s gruesome and g h a s t l y i s no r e a s o n f o r e x c l u d i n g i t , i f r e l e v a n t , e v e n i f t h e p h o t o g r a p h may t e n d t o i n f l a m e t h e j u r y . " ' S i e b e r t v. S t a t e , 562 So. 2d 586, 599 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , a f f ' d , 562 So. 2d 600 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , q u o t i n g W a l k e r v. S t a t e , 416 So. 2d 1083, 1090 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 2 ) . See a l s o Ward v. S t a t e , 814 So. 2d 899 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . G e n e r a l l y , '[a] p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e d v i d e o t a p e r e c o r d i n g o f the scene of the crime constitutes competent e v i d e n c e ' and ' i s a d m i s s i b l e o v e r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s objections that the tape was inflammatory, p r e j u d i c i a l , and c u m u l a t i v e . ' K u e n z e l v. S t a t e , 577 186 CR-99-1349 So. 2d 474, 512-13 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f ' d , 577 So. 2d 531 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . ' P r o v i d e d t h a t a p r o p e r foundation i s l a i d , the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of videotape evidence i n a c r i m i n a l t r i a l i s a matter w i t h i n the s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e . ' Donahoo v. S t a t e , 505 So. 2d 1067, 1071 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1986)." 973 So. 2d a t Here, and the constituted appearance and 393. crime scene v i d e o was competent evidence. Despite the gruesome o f t h e c r i m e s c e n e and t h e v i c t i m ' s body, t h e v i d e o photographs of the body admitted w i t h i n the t r i a l The properly authenticated testimony of and crime scene were p r o p e r l y court's discretion. the investigator p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e c r i m e s c e n e was concerning a l s o p r o p e r and n e c e s s a r y t o i d e n t i f y and a u t h e n t i c a t e t h e e v i d e n c e g a t h e r e d a t t h e Moreover, the medical examiner's testimony concerning the use victim's admitted. W a l t e r s v. 606 ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e r e was (1930) State, his of diagrams wounds was 23 A l a . 434, no during his also properly 437, error scene. 126 So. 604, i n admission of d i a g r a m o f a human h e a d i n d i c a t i n g t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e wounds on t h e h e a d o f t h e v i c t i m where t h e d i a g r a m was two d o c t o r s who illustrative their h a d e x a m i n e d t h e body and was testimony). See S n e e d v. 187 State, 1 So. made by 3d 104, the of 131-32 CR-99-1349 (Ala. Crim. U.S. App. 2007), , 129 S.Ct. allowing medical cert. 1039, denied, 173 L.Ed. examiner to Sneed v. A l a b a m a , 2d 472 (2009) (no e r r o r i n illustrate his testimony c o n c e r n i n g t h e n a t u r e o f t h e v i c t i m ' s wounds by u s i n g s l i d e s , Stating that "' [ i ] t has "[p]hotographs which l o n g been the show e x t e r n a l law i n Alabama wounds i n t h e body o f v i c t i m , e v e n t h o u g h t h e y a r e c u m u l a t i v e and b a s e d deceased undisputed matters, are a d m i s s i b l e . The fact t h a t they gruesome i s n o t g r o u n d s t o e x c l u d e them so l o n g as t h e y l i g h t on t h e i s s u e s b e i n g t r i e d . " 91, 92 that (Ala.Cr.App. There admission was of investigator no the a on are shed B u r t o n v. S t a t e , 521 So. 2d 1987).'"). error in the photographs, concerning the present video crime t e s t i m o n y of the m e d i c a l examiner tape, scene, case as testimony or to the of the diagram and a b o u t t h e v i c t i m ' s wounds. XX. Johnson argues that the State failed to present s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support her c o n v i c t i o n f o r the offense argues pursuant to § 13A-5-40(a)(14), 1975. She t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e m u r d e r was due 188 A l a . Code capital CR-99-1349 to McCullar's role as a w i t n e s s i n t h e bigamy t r i a l her. "'"'In determining the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n , a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t must a c c e p t as t r u e a l l e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d by t h e S t a t e , a c c o r d the State a l l legitimate inferences t h e r e f r o m , and c o n s i d e r a l l e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . ' " B a l l e n g e r v. S t a t e , 720 So. 2d 1033, 1034 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , q u o t i n g F a i r c l o t h v. S t a t e , 471 So. 2d 485, 488 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 4 ) , a f f ' d , 471 So. 2d 493 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . "'The t e s t u s e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e sufficiency of evidence to sustain a c o n v i c t i o n i s whether, viewing the evidence in the l i g h t most favorable to the prosecution, a r a t i o n a l f i n d e r of f a c t c o u l d have f o u n d t h e d e f e n d a n t guilty b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . ' " Nunn v. S t a t e , 697 So. 2d 497, 498 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g O'Neal v. S t a t e , 602 So. 2d 462, 464 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . "'When t h e r e i s l e g a l evidence from which the j u r y c o u l d , fair inference, find the defendant by g u i l t y , the t r i a l court should submit [the case] t o t h e j u r y , and, i n such a case, this court w i l l not d i s t u r b the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n . ' " F a r r i o r v. S t a t e , 728 So. 2d 691, 696 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , q u o t i n g Ward v. S t a t e , 557 So. 2d 848, 850 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . "The r o l e o f a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s i s n o t t o s a y what t h e f a c t s a r e . Our r o l e ... i s t o j u d g e w h e t h e r the evidence i s l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w s u b m i s s i o n o f an i s s u e f o r d e c i s i o n [by] t h e j u r y . " Ex p a r t e B a n k s t o n , 358 So. 2d 1040, 1042 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . ' " 189 against CR-99-1349 L e w i s v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-03-0480, Nov. (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), q u o t i n g , G a v i n v. S t a t e , 891 opinion So. 1073 1123, on 2d 907, 2 0 0 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 891 So. 2d 998 G a v i n v. A l a b a m a , 543 U.S. 2, 1007] So. 3d return 974 to S.Ct. remand, ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a . 2004), c e r t . 125 , 1054, 160 App. denied, L.Ed. 2d (2005). In the M c C u l l a r was present case, there was ample evidence that m u r d e r e d b e c a u s e o f h i s r o l e as a w i t n e s s i n t h e bigamy case a g a i n s t Johnson. i n t o evidence, document c o n c e r n i n g the bigamy charges a g a i n s t Johnson from Walker County D i s t r i c t and Circuit as w e l l as M a r r i a g e r e c o r d s were i n t r o d u c e d Courts. An certified arrest warrant charging Johnson with b i g a m y was a l s o i n t r o d u c e d w h i c h had b e e n e x e c u t e d on November 12, and 1996, arrest s h o w i n g t h a t J o h n s o n was warrant a l s o named w h i c h t h e r e were two: testified witnesses M c C u l l a r and maintained the marriage case the placed i n j a i l . i n the the probate The action, j u d g e who of had r e c o r d s . The p r o s e c u t o r f o r t h e b i g a m y t h a t the only "fact witness" w i t n e s s " w o u l d have b e e n M c C u l l a r . (R. 437.) or the "primary T h e r e was also t e s t i m o n y t h a t M c C u l l a r had t e s t i f i e d b e f o r e t h e g r a n d j u r y i n the bigamy case against Johnson. 190 The prosecutor for the CR-99-1349 bigamy case t e s t i f i e d for the trial, a plea w h e r e b y she was on p r o b a t i o n a testimony 351.) worked something wanting McCullar (R. "was done away w i t h or also t e s t i f i e d as from i n between testified to to She to prison. (R. 500.) (R. was Moreover, afraid (SR 259-273.) somebody t o (R. reasons for trying was a 468-69.) "on money also bigamy charges in prison. that big Richards She was own statement to a v o i d the s i t u a t i o n and to the the bigamy argument So. she afraid Randy w o u l d g e t a d d r e s s e d by t h i s c o u r t i n W h i t e h e a d v. S t a t e , 777 191 him." do b e c a u s e he was Johnson's A similar about filing there that a day bigamy b e c a u s e he was p o l i c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t h e r m o t i v a t i o n was charge. placed the Johnson's was and t h a t J o h n s o n t o l d him y e a r and kid." her this." c o u l d g e t up t o one go wanting k i l l e d t h a t " [ o ] n e was away after s o m e t h i n g done w i t h to settlement Johnson constantly talking A n o t h e r one child that -- b i g a m y c h a r g e s on h e r . a with 454.) McCullar, Johnson Randy M c C u l l a r Richards take out unavailable f r o m R o n n i e Webb, w i t h whom J o h n s o n after c h a r g e s were b r o u g h t , away w i t h was was s e n t e n c e d t o t h r e e y e a r s s u s p e n d e d , and relationship wanting bargain f o r three years. T h e r e was had t h a t because M c C u l l a r 2d was 781, CR-99-1349 (Ala. 2d C r i m . App. 854 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e W h i t e h e a d , 777 ( A l a . 2000). I n t h a t c a s e , W h i t e h e a d was for t h e f t o f Hudson F o o d s , I n c . , where he and the him, v i c t i m , who testified W h i t e h e a d as at a to t h i s not revoked, the the theft against had investigated parole these revocation investigation. Whitehead. and was tried been employed, charges against hearing against Although his parole v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d before charges had being So. subpoenaed was a g r a n d j u r y as to testify Moreover, Whitehead a p p a r e n t l y at to trial hoped to f i l e a l a r g e l a w s u i t a g a i n s t Hudson F o o d s , I n c . w h i c h w o u l d be s t i f l e d by t h e v i c t i m ' s t e s t i m o n y . murdered. and In a d d r e s s i n g conflicting The v i c t i m was Whitehead's cl a im s evidence to support s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t he knew t h e v i c t i m was thereafter of insufficient his conviction, a witness, t h i s Court wrote: "Numerous w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t W h i t e h e a d s t a t e d t h o u g h t t h a t he c o u l d win the lawsuit t h a t he a g a i n s t Hudson Foods i f W h i t t e n [the v i c t i m ] was 'out o f t h e way.' F u r t h e r , and q u i t e a p a r t f r o m t h e l a w s u i t , W h i t e h e a d had a n o t h e r m o t i v e f o r k i l l i n g Whitten -to prevent Whitten from testifying a g a i n s t h i m a t h i s t r i a l on t h e t h e f t c h a r g e s . I f W h i t e h e a d was c o n v i c t e d o f f i r s t - d e g r e e t h e f t , he w o u l d be s e n t e n c e d as a h a b i t u a l f e l o n y o f f e n d e r t o l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t . W h i t e h e a d ' s t e s t i m o n y a t Hyde's t r i a l showed t h a t W h i t e h e a d was aware o f t h e p r i s o n s e n t e n c e he w o u l d be f a c i n g i f c o n v i c t e d o f t h e f t . 192 CR-99-1349 S e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t W h i t e h e a d s a i d he would 'kill everybody' b e f o r e he went b a c k t o prison. In f a c t , Whitehead a d m i t t e d d u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y a t Hyde's t r i a l t h a t he w o u l d ' s h o o t up t h e c o u r t r o o m ' and k i l l 'anybody t h a t had my l i f e , t r i e d t o s t o p me.' (R. 1 6 0 1 . ) " 777 So. 2d a t 841. Whitehead knew o f conclusively such 594 This Court concluded that " [ t ] h e f a c t t h a t by Whitten's the evidence i s t r u e i n the present So. warrant 2d s t a t u s as at t r i a l , " against case. See ( A l a . Crim. 219, a witness App. 1991) McGee, victim 777 the purpose of § 13A-5-40(a)(14), So. was 2d at a l s o McGee v. was A l a . Code (by a shown State, swearing witness 843; out for a the 1975). M o r e o v e r , J o h n s o n a r g u e s t h a t t h e s u g g e s t i o n by t h e S t a t e that she was motivated by a desire to avoid a bigamy c o n v i c t i o n was n e g a t e d by e v i d e n c e t h a t a f t e r M c C u l l a r ' s d e a t h she pleaded guilty t o bigamy. However, the fact that she e v e n t u a l l y e n t e r e d i n t o a p l e a agreement w i t h the S t a t e a f t e r the murder of M c C u l l a r i s i r r e l e v a n t . t h i s Court S i m i l a r l y i n Whitehead, wrote: "Whitehead f u r t h e r argues t h a t h i s c o n f e s s i o n t o t h e Hudson Foods t h e f t , w h i c h he a l l e g e d l y made a t his p a r o l e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g concerning the t h e f t i n v e s t i g a t i o n , represented a c o n f l i c t i n evidence c o n c e r n i n g h i s k n o w l e d g e o f W h i t t e n ' s s t a t u s as a w i t n e s s b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h e f a c t t h a t he c o n f e s s e d demonstrates t h a t the ' p r o b a b i l i t y of a s u c c e s s f u l 193 CR-99-1349 c i v i l s u i t a g a i n s t Hudson Foods was approximately n i l and Mr. W h i t e h e a d ' s m o t i v e t o k i l l Andy W h i t t e n v a n i s h e d . ' ( W h i t e h e a d ' s b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t , p. 11.) A g a i n , w h e t h e r t h e r e w o u l d have e v e r been a l a w s u i t a g a i n s t Hudson F o o d s , o r w h e t h e r i f t h e r e was one, i t w o u l d have been u n s u c c e s s f u l , i s i r r e l e v a n t . E v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t i t was u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e r e w o u l d e v e r be a s u c c e s s f u l c i v i l l a w s u i t , we do n o t consider t h i s t o be e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t W h i t e h e a d was unaware o f W h i t t e n ' s s t a t u s as a w i t n e s s . As we s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , numerous w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t W h i t e h e a d t o l d them t h a t i f W h i t t e n was 'out o f t h e way,' he c o u l d w i n a m u l t i m i l l i o n - d o l l a r lawsuit a g a i n s t Hudson F o o d s . A l s o , as we p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , t h e l a w s u i t was not the o n l y e v i d e n c e of motive a d v a n c e d by t h e S t a t e . O t h e r e v i d e n c e o f a m o t i v e t o k i l l Whitten e x i s t e d w i t h r e s p e c t to the p o s s i b l e life s e n t e n c e W h i t e h e a d was f a c i n g i f he was c o n v i c t e d of t h e f t . " 777 So. 2d a t Here, that 841-42. the McCullar State was presented killed sufficient because he was bigamy case a g a i n s t Johnson. evidence to Johnson's c o n v i c t i o n support evidence a witness Moreover, there p u r s u a n t t o § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 1 4 ) , A l a . Code to was prove in the sufficient for capital murder 1975. XXI. Johnson argues t h a t her on R i c h a r d s ' s that this Richards is is c o n v i c t i o n was improperly u n c o r r o b o r a t e d a c c o m p l i c e t e s t i m o n y . She particularly the admitted egregious triggerman 194 in and this case received based submits because a plea CR-99-1349 b a r g a i n o f a recommended s e n t e n c e o f l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t without parole i n return f o r h i s testimony. However t h e r e was ample e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o c o r r o b o r a t e Richards's testimony. In Johnson's statement to the p o l i c e made on M a r c h 19, 1998, she a c k n o w l e d g e d h e r i n v o l v e m e n t i n the o f f e n s e . of Although Richards's McCullar dead, intent the she o f t e n i n d i c a t e d t h a t she was aware to kill following McCullar excerpts but d i d not come from want that statement: " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] : W e l l a l i t t l e w h i l e ago, you t o l d me t h a t you t h o u g h t you went a l o n g w i t h h i m on t h a t b e c a u s e i t w o u l d h e l p y o u ' r e ( s i c ) p r o b l e m on t h e b i g a m y c h a r g e . Okay? D i d you n o t t e l l me t h a t ? "[Johnson]: (SR. Yes 259.) " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] : Okay. I want t o know, n e v e r d i v o r c e d f r o m Randy M c C u l l a r ? "[Johnson]: were No. "[Investigator]: "[Johnson]: you You knew you w a s n ' t . No. "[Investigator]: You knew t h a t you m a r r i e d Tim R i c h a r d s a n d c o m m i t t e d b i g a m y when y o u m a r r i e d h i m , is that correct? "[Johnson]: Yes. 195 CR-99-1349 "[Investigator]: During this month o f November d i s c u s s i o n s s t a r t e d h a p p e n i n g a b o u t d o i n g away w i t h Randy? "[Johnson]: Yes. " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] : You was an a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h o s e d i s c u s s i o n s . You u n d e r s t o o d what he meant by g e t t i n g r i d o f him, by k i l l i n g him, am I c o r r e c t ? "[Johnson]: Yeah. " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] : You t h o u g h t t o y o u r s e l f , a l s o and t o l d Randy, I mean and t o l d uh Tim a l s o t h a t w i t h Randy o u t o f t h e way you w o u l d n ' t be g o i n g t o j a i l , i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? That t h a t would stop the case i n , i n Winston County, i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? "[Johnson]: Yeah. " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] : You knew t h a t Randy was g o i n g , I mean t h a t Tim was g o i n g t o k i l l Randy on t h a t n i g h t , on t h a t S a t u r d a y n i g h t , i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? "[Johnson]: Yeah. " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] : You knew t h a t he had b o u g h t b u l l e t s and s i g h t e d t h e gun t o commit t h i s m u r d e r , i s t h a t correct? "[Johnson]: Yes. "[Investigator]: You did murder, i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? "[Johnson]: nothing to stop Yes. " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] : You came i n t o t h i s o f f i c e and, t o l d a l i e t o p r o t e c t y o u r s e l f and, and uh Richards i s that correct? "[Johnson]: this Yeah. 196 and Tim CR-99-1349 " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] : You know t h a t y o u ' r e n o t m a r r i e d t o Tim R i c h a r d s , i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? "[Johnson]: legally Yeah. " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] : You know t h a t you s e t an a l i b i and you went down t h e r e , you a l o n g w i t h Tim, went t o a f t e r the death, T u s c a l o o s a on t h e Monday, a f t e r t h e h o m i c i d e o f Randy M c C u l l a r and a s k e d h e r , i n f a c t , t o l i e f o r your whereabouts t o the p o l i c e , i f , i t was q u e s t i o n e d . "[Johnson]: (SR. Yes." 267-68.) " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] : And who had as much m o t i v e i n t h e d e a t h o f Randy M c C u l l a r ? Who w o u l d had ( s i c ) t h e most t o g a i n ? F i r s t o f a l l ; Tim w o u l d n o t be g o i n g t o j a i l o v e r a n y t h i n g t h a t h a p p e n e d b e t w e e n you and Randy, am I r i g h t ? "[Johnson]: Right. " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] : b u t you had a c h a n c e o f b e i n g c o n v i c t e d o f b i g a m y and g o i n g t o j a i l , am I c o r r e c t ? "[Johnson]: Yeah. " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] : D i d you know t h a t and f i g u r e i n y o u r m i n d , and d i d you have c o n v e r s a t i o n a f t e r ; s a y a f t e r Tim may have b r o u g h t up t h i s m u r d e r p l o t , t h a t w o u l d s t o p you f r o m g o i n g t o j a i l , p o s s i b l y ? "[Johnson]: Yeah. "[Investigator]: car? "[Johnson}: Okay. You Yeah. 197 knew t h e gun was i n the CR-99-1349 " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r ] : You knew t h e gun was gonna be u s e d t o k i l l y o u r h u s b a n d , Randy M c C u l l a r ? "[Johnson]: Yeah. "[Investigator]: that night? "[Johnson]: Yeah. "[Investigator]: "[Johnson]: A n d you c o v e r e d i t up? Yeah. "[Investigator]: "[Johnson]: You knew t h a t i t was gonna be done A r e you t e l l i n g me t h e t r u t h ? Yeah." (SR. 269.) Thus, Johnson's own t e s t i m o n y , as h e r s t a t e m e n t statement corroborated Richards's also v e r i f i e d Richard's testimony t h a t t h e y s e a r c h e d M c C u l l a r o u t on t h e n i g h t o f t h e o f f e n s e , f o l l o w e d h i m a n d she gave d e t a i l s o f t h e s h o o t i n g . " A l t h o u g h t h e c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e n e e d n o t be s t r o n g o r s u f f i c i e n t i n and o f i t s e l f t o s u p p o r t a c o n v i c t i o n , i t must e s t a b l i s h some f a c t t e n d i n g t o p r o v e t h e g u i l t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t . Ex p a r t e B e l l , 475 So. 2d a t 613; A n d r e w s , s u p r a . I n d e t e r m i n i n g a defendant's c u l p a b i l i t y , " ' [ t ] h e e n t i r e c o n d u c t o f t h e a c c u s e d may be s u r v e y e d f o r c o r r o b o r a t i v e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and i f f r o m them h i s c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e offense may be fairly inferred the requirement of the s t a t u t e i s s a t i s f i e d . 198 CR-99-1349 "'And statements made by the defendant, in connection with other t e s t i m o n y , may a f f o r d c o r r o b o r a t o r y p r o o f sufficient to sustain a conviction.' (Emphasis added.) ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) "Moore v. S t a t e , 30 A l a . A p p . 304, 306, 5 So. 2d 644, 645 ( 1 9 4 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 242 A l a . 189, 5 So. 2d 646 (1942). P r o o f of a defendant's motive, a l o n e , i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o c o r r o b o r a t e an a c c o m p l i c e ' s t e s t i m o n y and t o c o n n e c t t h e d e f e n d a n t t o t h e c r i m e . S o r r e l l v. S t a t e , 249 A l a . 292, 31 So. 2d 82 (1947). However, p r o o f o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i v e c o u p l e d w i t h o t h e r f a c t s c o n n e c t i n g the defendant t o the crime may be s u f f i c i e n t t o c o r r o b o r a t e an accomplice's t e s t i m o n y . Thompson v. S t a t e , 374 So. 2d 388 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ; S l a y t o n v. S t a t e , 27 A l a . A p p . 422, 173 So. 632, r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 234 A l a . 1, 173 So. 642 weakness of the corroborating (1936). '[T]he e v i d e n c e , i n and o f i t s e l f , does n o t p r e c l u d e a f i n d i n g t h a t such evidence tends t o connect the d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e o f f e n s e . Where such a finding is made, the weakness and i n c o n c l u s i v e n e s s , v e l non, of the c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e j u r y . ' Thompson, 374 So. 2d a t 390-91 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . " Ex p a r t e B u l l o c k , 770 So. 2d 1062, 1067 ( A l a . 2000). Moreover, i n a d d i t i o n to Johnson's statement, other evidence connect had told killed. to corroborate Johnson t o the o f f e n s e . a number Ronnie of Webb t a l k i n g about wanting also Richards's testified that men that testified him she killed. engaged 199 T h e r e was she that (R. 351.) in testimony evidence wanted she there and to that she McCullar was was to be "constantly" David conversations Prescott with him CR-99-1349 t e l l i n g h i m t h a t she w o u l d l i k e t o have M c C u l l a r k i l l e d . 383.) (R. R i c h a r d s ' s s i s t e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t Johnson t o l d h e r t h a t she a n d R i c h a r d s were g o i n g . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t J o h n s o n t o l d h e r t h a t M c C u l l a r h a d been s h o t , t h a t i t o c c u r r e d i n t h e church p a r k i n g l o t , a n d t h a t t h e gun h a d been of.'" with (R. 741.) Richards purchased T h e r e was a l s o e v i d e n c e when the r i f l e they shells sought an "'taken t h a t Johnson alibi, when on t h e d a y b e f o r e t h e m u r d e r , a n d was a l s o s e e n by two w i t n e s s e s w i t h R i c h a r d s j u s t p r i o r Furthermore, was Richards when R i c h a r d s went t o Hay V a l l e y t o " s i g h t i n " t h e gun. offense. care She t o the an i n v e s t i g a t o r t e s t i f i e d t h a t J o h n s o n l e a d law enforcement t o t h e L i t t l e t o n B r i d g e and Baker Creek B r i d g e , where t h e gun c a s e was s u b s e q u e n t l y found. " I n J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 820 So. 2d 842 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , t h i s C o u r t d i s c u s s e d t h e l e v e l o f p r o o f sufficient for corroboration: "'When t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e a c c o m p l i c e i s s u b t r a c t e d , t h e r e m a i n i n g t e s t i m o n y does n o t h a v e t o be s u f f i c i e n t b y i t s e l f t o c o n v i c t t h e a c c u s e d . As we s t a t e d i n I n g r a m v. State, 779 So. 2d 1225, 1259 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1999) : felony conviction "'"A c a n n o t be h a d on t h e t e s t i m o n y o f an accomplice unless that testimony i s corroborated by other evidence t e n d i n g t o connect 200 CR-99-1349 the defendant w i t h the commission o f t h e o f f e n s e . K u e n z e l v. S t a t e , [577 So. 2d 474 (Ala.Cr.App. 12-21-222. The 1990) ]; § c o r r o b o r a t i o n e v i d e n c e need not be s t r o n g , nor sufficient of i t s e l f to support a c o n v i c t i o n , the reasoning being that i t l e g i t i m a t e l y tend to connect the accused w i t h the o f f e n s e ; i t need not directly confirm any particular f a c t n o r go t o e v e r y material fact stated by the accomplice. Kuenzel v. State; Andrews v. S t a t e , 370 So. 2d 320 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1979)."' "820 So. 2d a t 869. See a l s o Z i e g l e r v. S t a t e , -roT -A o n So. 2d 127, - r / i o (-ATl ,a . C r i m . App. 2 0 n o ) . " 143 / A 03 886 n State, L e w i s v. , [Ms. [Ms. CR-03-0480, A p r i l ( A l a . Crim. 1070647, May In the App. 29, present case, 2006] affirmed, 2006), 2009] 28, Ex So. they 2d was sufficient c o r r o b o r a t e R i c h a r d s ' s t e s t i m o n y and So. parte 2d Lewis, ( A l a . 2009). connect evidence Johnson t o to the offense. XXII. Johnson argues that the exculpatory evidence, i n v i o l a t i o n U.S. she 83, 83 S.Ct. filed 1194, a pretrial State motion 201 to provide o f B r a d y v. M a r y l a n d , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 Brady failed ( 1 9 6 3 ) . She a r g u e s which was g r a n t e d by 373 that the CR-99-1349 trial c o u r t , and a l s o f i l e d a p r e t r i a l parte Monk, 557 So. 2d 832, 836 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , w h i c h was a l s o g r a n t e d The record number indicates that of p r e t r i a l discussed. there's by t h e t r i a l motions, exculpatory witness's, like that Tim R i c h a r d s ' , The trial based that they had turned "down t o j u s t s m a l l n o t e s " they have a n d I c a n ' t The trial any showing t h a t turned In had n o t been w i f e , who i n d i c a t e d t h a t spoke w i t h responded, they f r o m t h e p o l i c e a n d "any r e c o r d came t o t h e DA's o f f i c e , assertion as t o a was evidence" the discovery she court was h e l d issue g i v e n ; he a l l u d e d t o " n o t e s " of t h e i r court. a hearing and f o r discovery, a l l e g e d t h a t "[w]e j u s t f e e l Defense c o u n s e l some m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o Ex on over t h e DA." (R. 39.) the State's everything earlier t o Johnson (R. 3 5 ) , t h a t " I have g i v e n y o u a l l g e n e r a t e a n y more f o r y o u . " (R. 40.) c o u r t f u r t h e r commented t h a t i f J o h n s o n c o u l d make over, there a mistrial the present was some e v i d e n c e w o u l d be d e c l a r e d . case, undisclosed exculpatory there was no t h a t h a d n o t been (R. 40.) showing that evidence e x i s t e d . " ' B r a d y [ v . M a r y l a n d , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S . C t . 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , ] p r e s u p p o s e s t h e a c t u a l e x i s t e n c e o f e v i d e n c e f a v o r a b l e t o t h e a c c u s e d and m a t e r i a l e i t h e r t o g u i l t o r punishment. B a i l e y v. 202 any CR-99-1349 S t a t e , 421 So. 2d 1364, 1369 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1982). T h e r e must be some s h o w i n g t h a t s u c h e x c u l p a t o r y and influential evidence actually exists before a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n o f t h e B r a d y r u l e may be f o u n d . B a i l e y , 421 So.2d a t 1368-69.' Timmons v . S t a t e , 487 So. 2d 975, 982 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) . 'To e s t a b l i s h a Brady v i o l a t i o n , [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] must demonstrate (1) t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n suppressed evidence; (2) t h a t t h a t e v i d e n c e was f a v o r a b l e t o him o r e x c u l p a t o r y ; a n d (3) t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was m a t e r i a l . ' Ex p a r t e Kennedy, 472 So. 2d 1106, 1110 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , Kennedy v. A l a b a m a , 474 U.S. 975, 106 S . C t . 340, 88 L.Ed.2d 325 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . " Morgan v. S t a t e , 518 So. 2d 186, 190 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . Johnson Therefore, prove Richards's concerning d i d not wife the speaking notes to or the document DA exist. she f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e S t a t e s u p p r e s s e d the p o s s i b l e evidence, material. that t h a t i t was e x c u l p a t o r y o r t h a t i t was T h e r e i s no e r r o r here. XXIII. Johnson a l l e g e s t h a t t h e t r i a l a p o t e n t i a l j u r o r based death court improperly on t h e j u r o r ' s c o n c e r n s excluded about t h e penalty. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r was a s k e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t w h e t h e r , i f he was s e l e c t e d t o s e r v e as a j u r o r , he w o u l d a u t o m a t i c a l l y e l i m i n a t e t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y as an option i n sentencing. He r e s p o n d e d , 203 "Yes, s i r , I don't CR-99-1349 believe in i t . " (R. 164.) He a l s o r e s p o n d e d t h a t he c o u l d n o t impose t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y u n d e r a n y s e t o f f a c t s . counsel t h e n a s k e d i f he m i g h t be a b l e t o recommend t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y i f t h e f a c t s were e x c e e d i n g l y and Defense he r e s p o n d e d that a t r o c i o u s and t e r r i b l e , he d i d n o t know. Defense counsel c o n t i n u e d f o l l o w i n g up on q u e s t i o n i n g t h e p o t e n t i a l j u r o r , who a p p a r e n t l y was c o n f u s e d , the u n t i l t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t e r r u p t e d and following transpired: "THE mouth. COURT: Don't l e t them p u t words "A: No, s i r , I d o n ' t anybody t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . know i f I i n your could give "THE COURT: You a r e f r e e t o s a y what you want t o s a y a n d we a p p r e c i a t e a n y c o n v i c t i o n s t h a t y o u h a v e . The q u e s t i o n i s : C o u l d y o u i m p o s e t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y r e g a r d l e s s o f what t h e f a c t s may show? "PROSPECTIVE JUROR...: impose t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . No, sir, I couldn't "THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, s i r . A p p r e c i a t e i t . I'm g o i n g t o e x c u s e y o u r i g h t now " (R. 166.) In Alabama, a j u r o r i n a c a p i t a l murder t r i a l to consider both life imprisonment without i s required parole death penalty i n a r r i v i n g a t t h e i r advisory v e r d i c t . 46(d) a n d ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975. and t h e § 13A-5- I f a j u r o r i s u n a b l e t o do s o , 204 CR-99-1349 it f o l l o w s t h a t he o r she c a n n o t p e r f o r m t h e d u t i e s to necessary s e r v e as a j u r o r on s u c h a c a s e . "'A t r i a l judge i s i n a d e c i d e d l y b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t h a n an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o assess the c r e d i b i l i t y of the jurors during v o i r d i r e q u e s t i o n i n g . See F o r d v . S t a t e , 628 So. 2d 1068 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . F o r t h a t r e a s o n , we g i v e g r e a t d e f e r e n c e t o a trial j u d g e ' s r u l i n g on c h a l l e n g e s f o r c a u s e . B a k e r v . S t a t e , 906 So. 2d 210 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 20 0 1 ) . ' "Turner v. S t a t e , App. 2 0 0 2 ) . 924 So. 2 d 737, 754 ( A l a . Crim. "'The "original constitutional y a r d s t i c k " on t h i s i s s u e was d e s c r i b e d i n W i t h e r s p o o n v. I l l i n o i s , 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L . E d . 2 d 776 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . Under Witherspoon, before a juror c o u l d be removed f o r c a u s e b a s e d on t h e j u r o r ' s v i e w s on t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , t h e j u r o r h a d t o make i t u n m i s t a k a b l y c l e a r t h a t he o r she w o u l d a u t o m a t i c a l l y v o t e a g a i n s t t h e death p e n a l t y and t h a t h i s o r h e r f e e l i n g s on t h a t i s s u e w o u l d t h e r e f o r e p r e v e n t t h e j u r o r f r o m m a k i n g an i m p a r t i a l d e c i s i o n on g u i l t . However, t h i s i s no l o n g e r t h e t e s t . I n W a i n w r i g h t v . W i t t , 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e proper s t a n d a r d f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether a v e n i r e m e m b e r s h o u l d be e x c l u d e d f o r c a u s e because of o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e death p e n a l t y i s whether t h e veniremember's views would "'prevent or s u b s t a n t i a l l y impair the p e r f o r m a n c e o f h i s d u t i e s as a j u r o r i n accordance w i t h h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s and h i s o a t h . ' " [ Q u o t i n g Adams v . T e x a s , 448 U.S. 38, 45 (1980).] The Supreme C o u r t h a s 205 CR-99-1349 expressly have to clarity." 168, 106 (1986).' s t a t e d t h a t j u r o r b i a s does n o t be proven with "unmistakable D a r d e n v. W a i n w r i g h t , 477 U.S. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 S.Ct. " P r e s s l e y v. S t a t e , 770 So. 2d 115, 127 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 770 So. 2d 143 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . See a l s o U t t e c h t v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1, 9, 127 S.Ct. 2218, 2224, 167 L . E d . 2 d 1014 (2007) ('[A] j u r o r who i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y impaired i n h i s or her a b i l i t y t o impose the death penalty under the state-law f r a m e w o r k can be e x c u s e d f o r c a u s e ; b u t i f t h e j u r o r i s not s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p a i r e d , removal f o r cause i s impermissible.')." S a u n d e r s v. S t a t e , 10 So. 3d 53, 75-76 ( A l a . C r i m . App. cert. denied, Saunders 2433, 174 L.Ed.2d 229 v. A l a b a m a , U.S. 2007), , 129 S.Ct. (2009). H e r e , t h e p o t e n t i a l j u r o r made c l e a r h i s f e e l i n g s t h a t he could not consider recommending a sentence therefore could not perform the d u t i e s The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r by e x c u s i n g f r o m s e r v i c e on t h i s of required death and of a j u r o r . this prospective jury case. XXIV. Johnson peremptory argues strikes s e r v i n g on h e r j u r y . that to the remove State impermissibly African-American Specifically, Johnson S t a t e s t r u c k t h r e e of the s i x veniremembers, 206 used i t s jurors from alleges that as o p p o s e d t o the a CR-99-1349 quarter of concerning the white veniremembers. She makes no argument the s p e c i f i c s of these s t r i k e s , o n l y t h a t the trial c o u r t s h o u l d have r e q u i r e d t h e S t a t e t o come f o r w a r d w i t h neutral reasons for e x c l u s i o n o f e v e n one Fourteenth these strikes. that the j u r o r on t h e b a s i s o f r a c e v i o l a t e s the Amendment o f t h e U n i t e d She argues race States C o n s t i t u t i o n . "A t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a B a t s o n o b j e c t i o n i s e n t i t l e d to great deference; t h i s Court w i l l not trial court's r u l i n g unless i t is reverse the c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . See Ex p a r t e B r a n c h , 526 So. 2d 609, 625 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ; C o o p e r v. S t a t e , 611 So. 2d 460, 463 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . "'A defendant making a Batson challenge bears the burden of p r o v i n g a prima facie case of purposeful or intentional d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and, in the absence of such p r o o f , the p r o s e c u t i o n i s not r e q u i r e d to s t a t e i t s reasons f o r i t s p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s . Ex p a r t e B r a n c h , 526 So. 2d 609 ( A l a . 1987) . O n l y when t h e defendant establishes facts and circumstances t h a t r a i s e an i n f e r e n c e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n must t h e S t a t e g i v e i t s reasons f o r i t s peremptory s t r i k e s . Stokes v. S t a t e , 648 So. 2d 1179, 1180 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 19 9 4 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e P r e s s l e y , 770 So. 2d 143, 145 (Ala.), c e r t . denied, 531 U.S. 931, 121 S.Ct. 313, 148 L.Ed.2d 251 (2000) . I n P r e s s l e y , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t f u r t h e r n o t e d t h a t t h e mere f a c t t h a t t h e S t a t e used a h i g h percentage of i t s peremptory c h a l l e n g e s t o remove f o u r o f s i x A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s f r o m t h e v e n i r e and u s e d some o f i t s p e r e m p t o r y strikes t o remove f e m a l e s f r o m t h e v e n i r e was 207 CR-99-1349 i n s u f f i c i e n t , by i t s e l f , t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e showing of r a c i a l or gender d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n the S t a t e ' s u s e o f i t s p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s , so as t o r e q u i r e the State to o f f e r explanations f o r the s t r i k e s . 770 So. 2d a t 146-47; s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e T r a w i c k , 698 So. 2d 162, 167-68 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d 522 U.S. 1000, 118 S . C t . 568, 139 L . E d . 2 d 408 (1997) . I n Ex p a r t e B r a n c h , 526 So. 2d 609, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t d i s c u s s e d o t h e r f a c t o r s t o be used i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a prima f a c i e case of r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . Those f a c t o r s a r e as f o l l o w s : (1) evidence that the j u r o r s i n question shared only the characteristic of race and were i n a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s as h e t e r o g e n o u s as t h e community as a whole; (2) a pattern of strikes against A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n j u r o r s on t h e p a r t i c u l a r v e n i r e ; (3) t h e p a s t c o n d u c t o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r i n u s i n g peremptory challenges to strike a l l A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s f r o m t h e j u r y v e n i r e ; (4) t h e t y p e and manner o f t h e S t a t e ' s q u e s t i o n s a n d s t a t e m e n t s during voir dire; (5) t h e t y p e a n d manner o f questions directed to the challenged juror, including a lack of questions; (6) d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t o f members o f t h e j u r y v e n i r e who h a d t h e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o r who a n s w e r e d a q u e s t i o n i n t h e same manner o r i n a s i m i l a r manner; a n d (7) separate examination o f members o f t h e v e n i r e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the Court noted t h a t c i r c u m s t a n t i a l o f i n t e n t c o u l d be p r o v e n by d i s p a r a t e evidence i m p a c t where a l l o r most o f t h e c h a l l e n g e s were u s e d t o s t r i k e A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s f r o m t h e j u r y o r where the S t a t e used peremptory c h a l l e n g e s t o d i s m i s s a l l o r most A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n j u r o r s . 526 So. 2d a t 622-23." Bryant v. State, 951 So. 2d 732, 2003), Bryant v. A l a b a m a , 549 U.S. L.Ed. (2007). 2d 569 208 740-41 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1324, 127 S . C t . 1909, 167 CR-99-1349 Here, racial Johnson f a i l e d to e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e case of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n due peremptory challenges. 533 ( A l a . C r i m . App. had struck a m i n o r i t y was 2d 162, high to the Armstrong of the v. S t a t e , percentage of ( A l a . 1997), strikes I n Ex p a r t e Alabama the prosecutor's 710 ("'even a s h o w i n g 1997) n o t enough a l o n e . 168 use So. that used 2d [a] 531, party against T r a w i c k , 698 Supreme Court So. held, " W i t h o u t more, we do n o t f i n d t h a t t h e number o f s t r i k e s prosecutor a this u s e d t o remove women f r o m t h e v e n i r e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e case of gender d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . " ' " ) . T h e r e was no s h o w i n g by J o h n s o n t h a t any o f t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h indicate racial discrimination in this "[S]tatistics and opinion case of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . (Ala. (Ala. C r i m . App. Crim. a l o n e do See 2001)." App. not prove Johnson B a n k s v. 2005). context v. present. a prima State State, Johnson were 823 919 facie So. So. referenced 2d 2d only 1 1223 to p e r c e n t a g e s and t h i s C o u r t has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t numbers or percentages alone w i l l discrimination did not in this establish a not s u b s t a n t i a t e context. prima 209 Therefore, facie case a case of racial because Johnson of purposeful CR-99-1349 discrimination, with the State was not required to come forward r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons f o r i t s s t r i k e s . XXV. Johnson argues t h a t the t r i a l jury to separate this error was f o r the evening. compounded b e c a u s e f a i l e d t o admonish the However, a r e v i e w was c o u r t e r r e d by a l l o w i n g j u r y not on f u r t h e r argues several to discuss he case. jury a d m o n i s h e d numerous t i m e s as t o t h e i r d u t y t o r e f r a i n from accounts of the record the occasions that i n d i c a t e s t h a t the d i s c u s s i n g t h e c a s e and of the She the t o a v o i d news a r t i c l e s and television case. " C o n t r a r y t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n , a mere 'chance' of c o n t a m i n a t i o n from o u t s i d e i n f o r m a t i o n i s s i m p l y n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t r e v e r s a l . As we h a v e s t a t e d t i m e and a g a i n , we w i l l n o t b a s e e r r o r on s p e c u l a t i o n and c o n j e c t u r e . See M c N a i r v. S t a t e , s u p r a . The t r i a l c o u r t gave a d e t a i l e d i n s t r u c t i o n i n w h i c h t h e j u r o r s were r e p e a t e d l y t o l d n o t t o r e a d o r t o w a t c h m e d i a a c c o u n t s o f t h e c a s e and n o t t o a t t e m p t any i n d e p e n d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The trial c o u r t was n o t o b l i g e d t o g i v e s u c h an i n s t r u c t i o n e v e r y time the j u r y took a break d u r i n g the t r i a l . I t i s c l e a r f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e members o f t h e j u r y were more t h a n aware t h a t t h e y were n o t t o have any o u t s i d e e x p o s u r e c o n c e r n i n g t h e c a s e . I n G r i f f i n v. S t a t e , 790 So. 2d 267 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999), r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 790 So. 2d 351 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , the a p p e l l a n t argued t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t should have c h a r g e d t h e j u r y each time i t separated; however, t h i s C o u r t r e j e c t e d t h a t argument, s t a t i n g : 210 CR-99-1349 "'Although the b e t t e r p r a c t i c e would be f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a d m o n i s h t h e j u r y at each break or r e c e s s , t h e r e i s n o t h i n g in Rule 19.3(b), Ala.R.Crim.P., that requires i t t o do so Jurors are presumed t o f o l l o w t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 666 So. 2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd, 666 So. 2d 73 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 516 U.S. 1120, 116 S . C t . 928, 133 L.Ed.2d 856 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . ' "Id. a t 334. " A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t any o f t h e j u r o r s t o l d t h e t r i a l c o u r t o f h a v i n g been e x p o s e d t o any e x t r a n e o u s i n f l u e n c e s , t h e r e b y o b v i a t i n g t h e need f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n from t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See M i n o r v. S t a t e , 780 So. 2d 707, 758 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 780 So. 2d 796 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . The p r e s e n t case indicates that the t r i a l court acted w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n by a l l o w i n g t h e j u r y t o s e p a r a t e after a d e q u a t e l y i n s t r u c t i n g t h e members. I d . " Centobie v. S t a t e , 861 So. 2d a t 1135. H e r e , t h e r e i s a l s o no i n d i c a t i o n n o r does J o h n s o n a l l e g e any reason that would require the need for additional i n s t r u c t i o n to the j u r y . Furthermore, allowing the there jury to was no e r r o r b y t h e t r i a l separate f o r the court i n night. acknowledges t h a t the d e c i s i o n t o a l l o w the j u r y t o is a matter f o r the t r i a l court's discretion. separate Pursuant to R u l e 19.3(a) ( 1 ) , A l a . R . C r i m . P . , " [ i ] n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n 211 Johnson o f any CR-99-1349 felony the case, the trial jury hearing the t r i a l . facie the court, case t o s e p a r a t e that the reason of the s e p a r a t i o n . " A l a . Code 1975, the t r i a l In the present court trial abused separate. accused case, his there discretion 2003), c e r t . not denied, 161 permit i s no B r o a d n a x v. S t a t e , 825 2512, not prejudiced to § the j u r y d u r i n g the pendency of the App. is of by 12¬ " [ i ] n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f any f e l o n y c a s e 2 0 0 0 ) ; S n y d e r v. S t a t e , 893 S.Ct. was Furthermore, according 1 1 App. 125 permit d u r i n g the pendency c o u r t i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n may case t o separate the may Such a s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e j u r y s h a l l c r e a t e a p r i m a presumption 16-9, in i t s discretion, L.Ed. e n t i t l e d t o any So. So. 2d 1113 relief 2d 134, 2d 488, S n y d e r v. trial." indication in allowing on t h i s that the 155 512 the jury to (Ala. Crim. (Ala. Crim. A l a b a m a , 544 (2005). hearing U.S. 1062, Johnson Therefore, claim. XXVI. Johnson argues t h a t the t r i a l ensure t h a t the proceedings that she filed a were f u l l y t r a n s c r i b e d . pretrial motion requesting failing She that R u l e 19.3 was amended e f f e c t i v e December 1, 1997, J o h n s o n ' s t r i a l i n O c t o b e r , 1999. 1 1 to c o u r t e r r e d by 212 to notes a l l prior CR-99-1349 proceedings court. three be She t r a n s c r i b e d , w h i c h was alleges that the conferences o f f the taking any notes. court record, without Johnson d i d not t r i a l and t h e r e f o r e we R u l e 45A, trial granted review by erred the the by court raise this trial holding reporter objection this issue for plain error. conferences involving the to which striking of Johnson the refers jury, one wherein one are: the p h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e c r i m e s c e n e and body were a p p a r e n t l y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and a d m i s s i o n , referred to as a charge a l l e g e s i n v o l v e d the recommended j u r y At the m a t t e r was time and one council trial court's or to t h i s marked t h a t the t r i a l conference and d e c i s i o n s as t o Johnson Johnson's of Johnson's trial and conviction, 1999, adoption o f R u l e 19.4, J o h n s o n was 213 to Ala.R.Crim.P. statute: c o n v i c t e d on O c t o b e r 21, this prior "The o f f i c i a l court reporter s h a l l attend i n p e r s o n , e x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e herein provided, the s e s s i o n s o f c o u r t h e l d i n t h e c i r c u i t f o r w h i c h he i s a p p o i n t e d , and i n e v e r y c a s e , where d i r e c t e d by t h e j u d g e o r r e q u e s t e d by a p a r t y t h e r e t o , he s h a l l 1 2 court charges. c o n t r o l l e d by § 12-17-275, A l a . Code 1975, t h e December 21, According See Ala.R.App.P. The for at 1999. 1 2 CR-99-1349 take f u l l s t e n o g r a p h i c notes of the o r a l testimony and p r o c e e d i n g s , e x c e p t a r g u m e n t o f c o u n s e l , and note the order i n which a l l documentary evidence i s i n t r o d u c e d , a l l o b j e c t i o n s of c o u n s e l , the r u l i n g s of the court thereon and exceptions taken or reserved thereto." "[A] c o u r t r e p o r t e r has n e v e r b e e n r e q u i r e d t o t r a n s c r i b e bench conferences or t o r e c o r d the s t r i k i n g of the j u r y u n l e s s requested (Ala. 1004 t o do 1993), so. Ex parte a f f ' d , 513 U.S. Harris, 504, ( 1 9 9 5 ) ; Ex p a r t e L a n d , 678 B o y d v. S t a t e , 746 So. 2d See R o b e r t s v. S t a t e , 735 (holding that, unlike So. 364, So. 115 632 S.Ct. 2d 224, 382 1031, 245 dire State, 827 affirmed, (finding Ex So. parte no error 2d 134, 191-92 Burgess, in trial 827 543, 130 ( A l a . 1996)." App. examination, 1999). court's 2d the See a l s o ( A l a . Crim. So. 1997) actual Burgess App. 193 denial 545 L.Ed.2d ( A l a . C r i m . App. s t r i k i n g o f t h e j u r y n e e d n o t be r e c o r d e d ) . v. 2d (Ala. Crim. 2d 1244, the v o i r So. 1998), (Ala. of 2000) motion for r e c o n s t r u c t i o n where s i d e b a r s d e a l i n g w i t h s t r i k i n g o f j u r o r s and incidental where d e f e n s e transcribed occurrences were n o t c o u n s e l makes a m o t i o n and the e r r o r n o t t o do so. motion transcribed). that a l l proceedings i s granted, Ex p a r t e H a r r i s , 1993). 214 However, i t has 632 So. been h e l d 2d 543, be as (Ala. CR-99-1349 Here, Johnson transcribed transcribe R u l e 45, which the made a m o t i o n was granted; conferences cited f o r the however, by proceedings the Johnson failure was Ala.R.App.P. " [ I ] n Ex p a r t e H a r r i s , 632 So. 2d 543, 545-46 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , a f f ' d , 513 U.S. 504, 115 S.Ct. 1031, 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995), a t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t a d d r e s s e d s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n as f o l l o w s : "'In this case, the items or s t a t e m e n t s o m i t t e d f r o m t h e r e c o r d were n o t t r a n s c r i b e d because they o c c u r r e d out of t h e h e a r i n g o f t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r . However, H a r r i s ' s t r i a l c o u n s e l h a d moved t h e t r i a l court to "order the o f f i c i a l c o u r t r e p o r t e r t o r e c o r d and t r a n s c r i b e a l l p r o c e e d i n g s i n all phases [of the case], including p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g s , l e g a l arguments, v o i r d i r e and s e l e c t i o n o f t h e j u r y , i n - c h a m b e r s c o n f e r e n c e s , any d i s c u s s i o n s r e g a r d i n g j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s , and a l l m a t t e r s d u r i n g t h e t r i a l and i n s u p p o r t t h e r e o f ..."; and t h e court had granted the motion. After g r a n t i n g the motion, the c o u r t had the d u t y t o see t h a t t h e e n t i r e p r o c e e d i n g s were t r a n s c r i b e d ; we must c o n c l u d e t h a t the f a i l u r e t o r e c o r d and t r a n s c r i b e a p o r t i o n of t h e v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e j u r y and certain portions of the bench conferences, i n l i g h t of the f a c t t h a t H a r r i s was r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l by c o u n s e l other than the attorney at trial, c o n s t i t u t e d e r r o r . See Ex p a r t e G o d b o l t , 546 So. 2d 991 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . Thus, t h e question becomes whether that error constituted reversible error. 215 to be to harmless. CR-99-1349 "'"'When, [as in this case], a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t i s r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l l by c o u n s e l o t h e r t h a n t h e a t t o r n e y a t t r i a l , the absence of a s u b s t a n t i a l and s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of the r e c o r d , even a b s e n t any s h o w i n g o f s p e c i f i c p r e j u d i c e o r e r r o r , i s s u f f i c i e n t t o mandate r e v e r s a l . The wisdom o f t h i s r u l e i s a p p a r e n t . When a d e f e n d a n t i s r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l by t h e same a t t o r n e y who d e f e n d e d h i m a t t r i a l , t h e c o u r t may p r o p e r l y r e q u i r e c o u n s e l t o articulate t h e p r e j u d i c e t h a t may have r e s u l t e d from the f a i l u r e t o r e c o r d a portion of the proceedings. Indeed, counsel's o b l i g a t i o n to the c o u r t alone w o u l d seem t o compel h i m t o i n i t i a t e s u c h disclosure. The attorney, having been p r e s e n t a t t r i a l , s h o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o be aware o f any e r r o r s o r i m p r o p r i e t i e s w h i c h may have o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e proceedings not r e c o r d e d . ' " ' " Wynn v. (in S t a t e , 804 a Rule was 32, So. 2d 1122, Ala.R.Crim.P. represented on 1144 ( A l a . Crim. appeal). appeal by the We note same App. that 2000) Johnson attorneys who r e p r e s e n t e d her a t t r i a l ; t h e r e f o r e , because Johnson's counsel a r e p r e s u m e d t o know what h a p p e n e d a t t h e s e conferences, error transcribe i n the conferences court should reporter's failure not have probably to injuriously Johnson's s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s . 996-97 ( A l a . 1987) 546 So. 2d 991, C i r c u i t Court of Appeals these affected R u l e 45, A l a . R . A p p . P . parte Godbolt, any ("The See Ex Fifth r e c o g n i z e d i n these cases t h a t there 216 CR-99-1349 are times when reversible error should be p r e s u m e d when a c o u r t r e p o r t e r f a i l s t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e C o u r t R e p o r t e r A c t , 28 U.S.C.A. § 753(b), proceedings. per by o m i t t i n g However, t h a t trial court recordation that time. appellant.'" App. court portion of the trial has n o t chosen t o adopt a s e r u l e r e q u i r i n g r e v e r s a l f o r any a n d a l l o m i s s i o n s . " ) . Moreover, "'[d]efense the some 2007), that counsel c o u l d have e a s i l y i t had granted h i s motion for full o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and remedied t h e o m i s s i o n s a t Therefore, this Brown v . S t a t e , affirmed, error was 2864, 174 L . E d . 2d 582 the present invited by the 11 So. 3d 866, 893 ( A l a . C r i m . Ex p a r t e Brown, 2 0 0 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , Brown v. A l a b a m a , In reminded 11 s o . 3d 933 ( A l a . U.S. , 129 S . C t . (2009). case, the s t r i k i n g o f t h e j u r y and t h e m a r k i n g o f t h e p h o t o g r a p h s were m i n i s t e r i a l and a r e v i e w o f the p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e c o r d around t h e charge conference r e v e a l no i n d i c a t i o n that transcribed. A prejudice review of resulted the issues because raised i t was n o t by Johnson concerning the t r i a l c o u r t ' s charge t o the j u r y i n d i c a t e s t h a t she was f u l l y aware o f any a r g u m e n t s p e r t a i n i n g t h e r e t o . McGowan v. S t a t e , 990 So. 2d 931, 995-96 217 See ( A l a . C r i m . App. CR-99-1349 2003) (error record three change of was venue, transcribed, omitted a Batson and a n o t h e r court's surrounding i n court bench conferences, information, trial harmless order that to review of the portions the omitted p a r t s ; t h i s review parts were to numerical was u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d , a l l proceedings b a s e d on r e v i e w failure i n c l u d i n g one on m o t i o n f o r motion that reporter's not s u b s t a n t i a l despite were to be of the record i n d i c a t e d that the and significant, McGowan's s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s were n o t a d v e r s e l y and affected). XXVII. Johnson argues that Alabama's method c o n s t i t u t e s c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment. has previously position 323 decided t a k e n by Johnson. ( A l a . 2008) 1975, similar which See Ex p a r t e (holding requires claims death that of execution However, t h i s C o u r t adversely Belisle, to the 11 So. 2d 15-18-82, A l a . Code legal by § injection unless the c o n v i c t c h o o s e s e x e c u t i o n b y e l e c t r o c u t i o n does n o t c o n s t i t u t e c r u e l and u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t ) . 2d 931 Alabama, (Ala. Crim. U.S. App. See McGowan v. S t a t e , 990 So. 2003), cert. denied, McGowan v. , 129 S . C t . 136, 172 L . E d . 2d 104 (2008) ( h o l d i n g t h a t McGowan's c l a i m t h a t e l e c t r o c u t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s 218 CR-99-1349 cruel and unusual punishment i s moot, because concerning method o f e x e c u t i o n h a s been amended). presented no arguments r e s o l u t i o n of s i m i l a r not contemplated statute Johnson has i n our previous c l a i m s , a n d we f i n d no b a s i s t o o v e r r u l e precedent. XXVIII. Johnson argues t h a t t h e t r i a l suppress one specifically of her statements her s i x t h court erred i n f a i l i n g t o made statement. 1 3 t o law She enforcement, argues that the a d m i s s i o n o f t h i s s t a t e m e n t was p a r t i c u l a r l y d a m a g i n g b e c a u s e t h i s s t a t e m e n t i n c l u d e d h e r f i r s t a s s e r t i o n t h a t she was w i t h Richards on t h e n i g h t of the offense. She f u r t h e r t h a t she h a d been i n t e r r o g a t e d f o r h o u r s p r i o r alleges to g i v i n g the s t a t e m e n t ; a n d t h a t t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n o r i n t e r r o g a t i o n was n o t recorded b e c a u s e t h i s was " c l e a r l y a p r o c e s s o f b r e a k i n g Ms. J o h n s o n a n d r e w o r k i n g recorded h e r s t a t e m e n t s o t h a t when she was s h e t o l d t h e o f f i c e r s what t h e y w a n t e d t o h e a r . " Johnson's b r i e f a t 138.) down She p o i n t s out that she may c r i e d d u r i n g t h i s i n t e r r o g a t i o n , b a s e d on t h e t e s t i m o n y (R. have o f one A l t h o u g h J o h n s o n c i t e s t h e c o m p l a i n e d - o f s t a t e m e n t as h e r s i x t h , t h e t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s s t a t e m e n t was h e r -P A 4^4-1-, fifth. 1 3 219 CR-99-1349 o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s t h a t he remembered J o h n s o n c r y i n g d u r i n g one o f h e r i n t e r r o g a t i o n s . "The f u n d a m e n t a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f c o n f e s s i o n s a r e t h a t t h e c o u r t must c o n c l u d e , i n order to f i n d a defendant's confession voluntary, t h a t he made an i n d e p e n d e n t and i n f o r m e d c h o i c e o f h i s own f r e e w i l l , t h a t he p o s s e s s e d t h e c a p a c i t y t o do s o , and t h a t h i s w i l l was n o t o v e r b o r n e by p r e s s u r e s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s s w i r l i n g around him. J u r e k v. E s t e l l e , 623 F.2d 929 ( 5 t h C i r . 1980) (en b a n c ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 450 U.S. 1001, 101 S.Ct. 1709, 68 L.Ed.2d 203 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ; L e w i s v. S t a t e . The t e s t i s whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement officials have overborne the w i l l of the accused. Haynes v. W a s h i n g t o n , 373 U.S. 503, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ; Townsend v. S a i n , 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ; Culombe v. C o n n e c t i c u t , 367 U.S. 568, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . The f a c t u a l i n q u i r y c e n t e r s on t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e law enforcement o f f i c i a l s i n c r e a t i n g p r e s s u r e and the suspect's c a p a c i t y t o r e s i s t t h a t p r e s s u r e . M i n c e y v. A r i z o n a , 437 U.S. 385, 98 S . C t . 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ; M a r t i n v. W a i n w r i g h t , 770 F.2d Jurek v. E s t e l l e . The 918 (11th C i r . 1985); d e f e n d a n t ' s p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as w e l l as h i s p r i o r experience w i t h the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system a r e f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g h i s susceptibility to police pressures. Fikes v. A l a b a m a , 352 U.S. 191, 77 S.Ct. 281, 1 L.Ed.2d 246 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ; S t e i n v. New Y o r k , 346 U.S. 156, 73 S.Ct. 1077, 97 L.Ed. 1522 ( 1 9 5 3 ) ; H a l e y v. O h i o , 332 U.S. 596, 68 S.Ct. 302, 92 L . E d . 224 ( 1 9 4 8 ) ; M a r t i n v. Wainwright. "The q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r a c o n f e s s i o n was v o l u n t a r y i s i n i t i a l l y t o be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Ex p a r t e S i n g l e t o n , 465 So. 2d 443 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . T h e r e a f t e r , t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s as a f f e c t i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y and w e i g h t t o be g i v e n any s t a t e m e n t 220 CR-99-1349 t h a t an a c c u s e d h a s made i s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r t h e j u r y . I d . The f i n d i n g o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s i t a p p e a r s t o be c o n t r a r y to t h e g r e a t weight o f t h e evidence o r i s m a n i f e s t l y w r o n g . L e w i s v. S t a t e ; Magwood v. S t a t e ; M a r s c h k e v . S t a t e , 450 So. 2d 177 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) . E v e n where there i s credible testimony t o the contrary, i fthe evidence i s fairly capable of supporting the inference that the rules of freedom and v o l u n t a r i n e s s were o b s e r v e d , t h e r u l i n g o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e n e e d o n l y be s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e and n o t t o a m o r a l c e r t a i n t y . Chambers v. S t a t e , 455 So.2d 1008 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) . The t r i a l c o u r t n e e d o n l y be c o n v i n c e d f r o m a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of the evidence to find a c o n f e s s i o n t o have been v o l u n t a r i l y made. Ex p a r t e M c C a r y , 528 So. 2d 1133 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ; Ex p a r t e S i n g l e t o n ; L e w i s v. S t a t e . " Jackson v. S t a t e , 562 So. 2d 1373, 1380-81 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1990). The totality of i n t e r r o g a t i o n o f Johnson that Johnson indicates Johnson's that circumstances that surrounding and g i v i n g o f h e r statement her statement voluntarily. the indicate The r e c o r d a s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g was h e l d p u r s u a n t t o motion t o suppress h e r statements. determined evaluated made the each under Miranda of Johnson's The t r i a l statements court would be v . A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S . C t . 1602, 16 L . E d . 2d 694 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , a n d t h e i n t e r r o g a t i n g gave testimony concerning the statements. 221 circumstances officers of these CR-99-1349 Johnson's officers first stated investigation. statement that she was was not not recorded the f o l l o w i n g week, a n o t h e r s t a t e m e n t was at the that Sheriff's she was office. This taken from statement was that but t h a t she knew t h a t she h a d she w a n t e d t o h e l p . making the statement v o l u n t a r i l y . acknowledged the r i g h t She The stated t h a t o t h e r p e o p l e were s t i l l J o h n s o n , w h i c h was t a p e d . t o Johnson prior statement offense. but to t h i s of threats that an she being He further interviewed. taken from M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s were a d m i n i s t e r e d statement. Johnson what o c c u r r e d around Again, the o f f i c e r s inducements, to officer testified A p p r o x i m a t e l y a month l a t e r , a n o t h e r s t a t e m e n t was a Johnson taped, t h a t t h e r e was no i n d u c e m e n t o r c o e r c i o n i n v o l v e d . out any n o t i n c u s t o d y and one o f t h e o f f i c e r ' s t e s t i f i e d stated attorney, of focus the T h i s s t a t e m e n t was t a k e n a t h e r m o t h e r ' s h o u s e . The J o h n s o n was and o r any agreed to w r i t e the t e s t i f i e d that form of coercion time of the t h e r e were no involved. At t h i s s t a g e , t h e o f f i c e r s s t a t e d t h a t t h e y became s u s p i c i o u s o f her due to inconsistencies m i n u t e s t o an h o u r , J o h n s o n i n her left. 222 statements. After 30 CR-99-1349 Three months later, Johnson. At this suspects. J o h n s o n was another time, she statement and was Richards taken were the a d v i s e d of her Miranda r i g h t s , from main but the o f f i c e r s d i d n o t s p e a k t o h e r due t o a c o n f l i c t i n s c h e d u l i n g . The n e x t day, a l l e g e s was again Johnson advised of her she now The o f f i c e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t she involuntary. gave t h e s t a t e m e n t was Miranda rights and which signed the a c k n o w l e d g i n g h e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e s e r i g h t s and to waive them. officers. She The stated officers that she testified wanted that decision to t a l k they form made to her the no promises, nor d i d they t h r e a t e n , c o e r c e o r t r i c k h e r i n any way officer to g a i n her timing of the statement. interview, An which began t e s t i f i e d that at 9:40 and was the not t a p e d , i n v o l v e d a l u n c h b r e a k and J o h n s o n was p r o v i d e d w i t h a lunch. There were also Following the lunch break, rights. Because i t had appropriate Johnson become a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t e s t i m o n y o f one was bathroom breaks. repeated her apparent to the Miranda officers, o f them, t h a t J o h n s o n knew some o f t h e f a c t s o f M c C u l l a r ' s d e a t h , a t a p e r e c o r d i n g d e v i c e was that used f o r the ensuing q u e s t i o n i n g . Johnson acknowledged that 223 An officer testified she w a n t e d t o be h e l p f u l and CR-99-1349 talk t o the police. He a g a i n established that there was no use o f i n a p p r o p r i a t e t a c t i c s t h a t w o u l d c a l l i n t o q u e s t i o n t h e voluntariness of her statement. Following t h e statement, Johnson took c e r t a i n from t h e S h e r i f f ' s the o f f i c e t o t h e b r i d g e where she a l l e g e d t h a t gun a n d gun c a s e h a d been t o s s e d . A n o t h e r s t a t e m e n t was t a k e n t h a t same n i g h t f r o m J o h n s o n a t 8:52. of her Miranda personnel rights again prior She was i n f o r m e d to this statement, and o f f i c e r testimony again e s t a b l i s h e d that the conditions of the s t a t e m e n t i n no way a f f e c t e d i t s v o l u n t a r i n e s s . not a r r e s t e d f o l l o w i n g t h i s statement. She was s t i l l A f i n a l s t a t e m e n t was t a k e n a p p r o x i m a t e l y a week l a t e r a t t h e S h e r i f f ' s was recorded. She stated that she w a n t e d statement and s i g n e d h e r Miranda form a f t e r those officers rights. impropriety The concerning o f f i c e which testified inducements, t o make t h e being that advised of there promises, was threats no or coercion. T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n or tactics by t h e o f f i c e r s A l t h o u g h Johnson a l l e g e s questioning, i n the record of improper behavior i n taking that Johnson's statement. she may have c r i e d during the t h a t w o u l d n o t make h e r s t a t e m e n t 224 involuntary. CR-99-1349 See Kormondy (although v. State, Kormondy 983 was So. 2d crying, 418, his 430 ( F l a . 2007) statement was not i n v o l u n t a r y or i n a d m i s s i b l e ) . Moreover, portion Johnson's c l a i m t h a t the f a c t t h a t the of the i n t e r v i e w into question i n question i t s voluntariness, circumstances i n t h i s case. was initial not recorded i s not s u b s t a n t i a t e d calls by the "'"The s t a t e i s n o t r e q u i r e d to p r o v e a l l t h a t t h e a c c u s e d s a i d when he c o n f e s s e d b e c a u s e t h e accused himself statement." has the r i g h t McElroy, So. 3d 104, 126 Alabama, (2009), q u o t i n g , the remainder § 200.17 a t 446.'" ( A l a . C r i m . App. U.S. C r i m . App. to prove , 129 B a r r o w v. S n e e d v. 1 S.Ct. State, 1039, 494 173 So. L.Ed. 2d 834, 2d 840 472 (Ala. 1986). Furthermore, the f a i l u r e t o r e c o r d a p o r t i o n to be admissibility. (Ala. State, 2 0 0 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , Sneed v. o f an i n t e r v i e w i s a m a t t e r t o be c o n s i d e r e d weight of h i s Crim. App. accorded 2001) (part of rather 861 So. statement was 1997) the than its 2d 1111, 1120 not i n s e r t e d i n t h e wrong d i r e c t i o n ; admissible). ( A l a . C r i m . App. statement See C e n t o b i e v. S t a t e , b e c a u s e t h e t a p e was t h e t a p e was the as a f f e c t i n g recorded however S m i t h v. S t a t e , 756 So. 2d 892, (where t h e o f f i c e r 225 f a i l e d to record 931 a CR-99-1349 portion of Miranda r i g h t s would not but the would be determining officer's i n t e r r o g a t i o n when he taken into weight the testimony In this and given render the t h e r e was and credibility the Johnson's no Smith statement consideration regarding case, advised appellant's statements error in their his inadmissible, by to of the jury in assign to the confession). were voluntarily admission. XXIX. Johnson argues t h a t the trial c o u r t e r r e d by to the j u r y t h a t p o r t i o n s o f a t a p e o f one to p o l i c e had the trial court's been r e d a c t e d . statement to the She announcing of her statements a l l e g e s as jury that error "I determined the they [ t h e r e d a c t e d p o r t i o n s ] w e r e n ' t p r o p e r t o be b e f o r e t h e j u r y . " J o h n s o n f a i l e d t o o b j e c t t o t h i s s t a t e m e n t by t h e t r i a l at trial and therefore this issue pursuant to the p l a i n e r r o r r u l e . The to trial not to her due R u l e 45A, to be analyzed Ala.R.App.P. record i n d i c a t e s that defense counsel requested that portions because of r e f e r e n c e s may is now of t o p r i o r bad c l a i m t h a t the request should Johnson's not statements acts. be Therefore, t a p e s t h a t were r e d a c t e d have been r e d a c t e d . 226 court Cf. prior redacted Johnson pursuant Ex parte CR-99-1349 Deardorff, 6 So. 2d F r a n k l i n v. S t a t e , 1235, 1241-42 644 So. 2d 35, 38 ( A l a . 2008), quoting, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994) ("'"Under t h e d o c t r i n e o f i n v i t e d e r r o r , a d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t by his own v o l u n t a r y c o n d u c t i n v i t e e r r o r a n d t h e n s e e k t o p r o f i t thereby." P h i l l i p s v. S t a t e , 527 So. 2d 154, 156 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . A l t h o u g h e v i d e n c e t h a t he h a d been c o n v i c t e d o f a p r i o r would not ordinarily have been admissible at trial, a p p e l l a n t c a n n o t c l a i m t h a t i t was e r r o r t o r e c e i v e concerning the testimony trial.'"). M o r e o v e r , t h e r e was no e r r o r , p l a i n o r o t h e r w i s e , court's informing the s t a t e m e n t had been r e d a c t e d . 413 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 537 U.S. Court the h i s a r r e s t f o r a p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n when he i n j e c t e d issue i n t o the trial crime 2002), jury that portions In Smith v. S t a t e , c e r t . denied, a similar situation of the 838 So. 2d S m i t h v. A l a b a m a , 1090, 123 S . C t . 695, 154 L . E d . 2d 635 addressed i n the where (2002), portions this of a t r a n s c r i p t h a d been r e d a c t e d t o remove r e f e r e n c e t o c o l l a t e r a l bad acts. referenced Smith argued the r e d a c t i o n that because of the t o the j u r y , the judge drew t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o i t . This Court trial improperly stated: " I n T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 808 So. 2d 1148 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d a r g u e d t h a t t h e t r i a l 227 court CR-99-1349 c o u r t had i m p r o p e r l y a l l o w e d t h e j u r y t o h e a r a p o r t i o n of h i s audiotaped statement t h a t r e f e r r e d to u n c h a r g e d m i s c o n d u c t and t h a t had been r e d a c t e d a t t h e d e f e n s e ' s r e q u e s t , b e c a u s e he a r g u e d t h a t t h e gap, as w e l l as t h e t r i a l court's i n s t r u c t i o n s concerning the gap, prompted the j u r y t o draw adverse i n f e r e n c e s . Using the p l a i n - e r r o r standard, t h i s Court determined t h a t , i n l i g h t of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s statement to the j u r y t h a t the skipped p o r t i o n s were i r r e l e v a n t and s h o u l d be d i s r e g a r d e d , " ' t h e r e i s no l i k e l i h o o d t h a t , g i v e n t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e j u r y c o u l d have r e a c h e d an a d v e r s e c o n c l u s i o n o r g u e s s e d what t h e m i s s i n g p o r t i o n c o n t a i n e d b a s e d on t h e gap i n t h e t a p e . " B e c a u s e t h e trial c o u r t ' s s t a t e m e n t s , when v i e w e d u n d e r t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , were n o t s u c h as t o i n f l u e n c e the r e s u l t of the case, they d i d not c o n s t i t u t e p l a i n e r r o r . " ' " T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 808 So. 2d a t 1181 , quoting M a p l e s v. S t a t e , 758 So. 2d 1 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999). " S i m i l a r l y , i n the present case, the omitted p o r t i o n s w o u l d n o t have s u g g e s t e d t o t h e j u r y t h e p r i o r b a d a c t s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t , b a s e d on a r e v i e w of the e n t i r e c o n v e r s a t i o n . Moreover, the trial c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s to the j u r y p r o p e r l y informed them t h a t t h e o m i t t e d p o r t i o n s were n o t p e r t i n e n t and d e a l t w i t h m a t t e r s u n r e l a t e d t o t h e present no p l a i n - e r r o r p u r s u a n t t o t h i s c a s e . T h e r e was ground." 838 So. 2d a t 443. Here, the t r i a l c o u r t ' s statement to the j u r y t h e r e d a c t i o n o f J o h n s o n ' s s t a t e m e n t was not adversely a f f e c t her n o t e r r o n e o u s and d i d substantial rights. 228 concerning CR-99-1349 XXX. Johnson limiting alleges court that the Alabama appointed attorneys' unconstitutional. a s i m i l a r c l a i m as statute, fees as amended, i s indefensible However, t h i s C o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y resolved follows: "The a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e A l a b a m a s t a t u t e , § 1 5 - 1 2 - 2 1 ( d ) , A l a . C o d e 1975, w h i c h l i m i t s t o $1,000 the fees of court-appointed attorneys for o u t - o f - c o u r t work i n e a c h p h a s e o f a c a p i t a l c a s e , v i o l a t e s s t a t e and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the appellant argues that the statute is u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , b e c a u s e , he s a y s , by limiting c o m p e n s a t i o n t o $1,000 f o r o u t - o f - c o u r t work, b a s e d on a $20 h o u r l y r a t e , t h e s t a t u t e a s s u r e s t h a t an a p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y i n a c a p i t a l case r e c e i v e s no c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r any t i m e e x p e n d e d b e y o n d 50 h o u r s for out-of-court work. T h e r e f o r e , t h e appellant argues, the statute violates the separation-of-powers doctrine, constitutes a taking without just compensation, deprives indigent d e f e n d a n t s of the e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel, and v i o l a t e s the Equal Protection Clause. The a p p e l l a n t r a i s e d t h i s i s s u e f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l , so i t must be a n a l y z e d p u r s u a n t t o the p l a i n - e r r o r r u l e . R u l e 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . T h i s C o u r t has, however, r e j e c t e d s i m i l a r c l a i m s evaluated p u r s u a n t t o t h e p l a i n - e r r o r r u l e , and a d h e r e s t o i t s d e c i s i o n s on t h i s m a t t e r . See M c W h o r t e r v. S t a t e , 1 9 9 9 ) ; B o y d v. 781 So. 2d 257 ( A l a . C r i m . App. S t a t e , 715 So. 2d 825 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . T h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n McWhorter: " ' I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e r e c e n t l y passed the "Investment i n J u s t i c e A c t o f 1999," and, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t A c t amended § 15-12-21. U n d e r t h e new A c t , t h e r a t e o f c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r 229 and CR-99-1349 attorneys representing indigent criminal d e f e n d a n t s i s i n c r e a s e d t o $50 p e r h o u r f o r in-court time and $30 per hour for limit on out-of-court time, with no c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r an a t t o r n e y i n a c a s e involving a capital offense. Moreover, e f f e c t i v e O c t o b e r 1, 2000, t h e h o u r l y r a t e i n c r e a s e s t o $40 p e r h o u r f o r o u t - o f - c o u r t t i m e and $60 p e r h o u r f o r i n - c o u r t t i m e . As amended § 1 5 - 1 2 - 2 1 ( d ) r e a d s , i n p e r t i n e n t part: "'"(d) Counsel a p p o i n t e d i n cases described in subsections (a), (b), and (c), including cases t r i e d de novo i n c i r c u i t c o u r t on from a juvenile appeal p r o c e e d i n g , s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e f o r t h e i r s e r v i c e s a fee to be a p p r o v e d by the trial court. The amount o f t h e fee s h a l l be b a s e d on t h e number o f h o u r s s p e n t by t h e a t t o r n e y i n w o r k i n g on t h e c a s e and s h a l l be computed a t t h e r a t e o f fifty dollars ($50) p e r h o u r f o r t i m e expended i n court and thirty dollars ($30) p e r h o u r f o r t i m e r e a s o n a b l y expended out of c o u r t in preparation of the case. Effective O c t o b e r 1, 2000, t h e amount o f t h e f e e s h a l l be b a s e d on t h e number o f h o u r s s p e n t by t h e a t t o r n e y i n w o r k i n g on the c a s e and s h a l l be computed a t t h e r a t e o f s i x t y ($60) p e r h o u r f o r t i m e e x p e n d e d i n c o u r t and forty ($40) per hour for time r e a s o n a b l y expended out of c o u r t i n p r e p a r a t i o n of the case. The total fees paid to any one from a t t o r n e y i n any one c a s e , 230 CR-99-1349 the time o f appointment t h r o u g h the t r i a l o f t h e case, i n c l u d i n g m o t i o n s f o r new t r i a l , s h a l l n o t exceed the f o l l o w i n g : " ' " ( 1 ) I n c a s e s where t h e original charge is a capital o f f e n s e or a charge which c a r r i e s a possible sentence of life w i t h o u t p a r o l e , t h e r e s h a l l be no l i m i t on t h e t o t a l f e e . " ' "781 So.2d a t 306-07." Centobie v. 2001). State, The attorneys' entitled 861 So. Alabama fees 2d 1111, statute i s not 1143 ( A l a . Crim. limiting court unconstitutional, t o no r e l i e f on t h i s and App. appointed Johnson is claim. XXXI. Johnson adequate argues measures publicity that to control should court prejudice failed which c o n c e r n i n g t h e t r i a l and o f f e n s e . contends t h a t the t r i a l venue the t r i a l f o r the t r i a l . have veniremembers conducted to provide resulted from Specifically, she c o u r t s h o u l d have o r d e r e d a change o f She a l s o the individually argues voir and veniremembers. 231 that dire apart the t r i a l examination from the court of the other CR-99-1349 Johnson argues t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have ordered a change o f venue f o r h e r t r i a l a n d b a s e s h e r a r g u m e n t o n l y on her conclusion amount o f p r e s s a t 142.) that the v o i r dire "revealed coverage i n Walker County." a significant (Johnson's b r i e f J o h n s o n , h o w e v e r , n e v e r made a m o t i o n f o r change o f v e n u e ; t h e r e f o r e , we r e v i e w this issue for plain error. See R u l e 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . In the examination present t h e case indication a review of the voir dire o f t h e p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s r e v e a l s t h a t no member o f the v e n i r e expressed or case, a n y i n d i c a t i o n o f b i a s as t o t h e p a r t i e s due t o p r e t r i a l that pretrial publicity. publicity might Thus, have there i s no a f f e c t e d any member o f t h e v e n i r e ' s a b i l i t y t o s e r v e as a j u r o r a n d d e c i d e the c a s e b a s e d s o l e l y on t h e e v i d e n c e presented. "As t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n T a y l o r v . S t a t e , 808 So. 2d 1148, 1203-04 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000) : "'Taylor next argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t sua sponte moving t h e t r i a l t o a n o t h e r venue b e c a u s e o f a l l e g e d e x t e n s i v e p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y . Taylor never moved f o r a change o f venue b e f o r e t h e trial court, n o r d i d he p r e s e n t any evidence before the t r i a l court concerning pretrial publicity. The o n l y evidence b e f o r e us now c o n c e r n i n g p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y is t h e answers t o v o i r d i r e questions t h e j u r o r s ' knowledge o f t h e concerning 232 CR-99-1349 c a s e as a r e s u l t o f m e d i a c o v e r a g e . We w i l l review t h i s issue f o r p l a i n error only. R u l e 45A, A l a . R . A p p . P . "'Media publicity can prejudice p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s and t h e r e b y r e s u l t i n a denial of a defendant's right t o an i m p a r t i a l j u r y . C h a n d l e r v. F l o r i d a , 449 U.S. 560, 101 S . C t . 802, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . I n o r d e r t o g e t a change o f venue b a s e d on p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y , t h e d e f e n d a n t must p r o v e that there existed actual p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t as a r e s u l t o f t h e p u b l i c i t y o r t h a t t h e community was saturated with prejudicial publicity. S h e p p a r d v. M a x w e l l , 384 U.S. 333, 86 S . C t . 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . Newspaper a r t i c l e s or widespread p u b l i c i t y , without more , i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o g r a n t a m o t i o n f o r a change o f v e n u e . A n d e r s o n v . S t a t e , So. 2d 1296, 1298 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 7 8 ) . 362 of the v o i r dire "'Our review examination concerning p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y i n d i c a t e s t h a t , w h i l e many v e n i r e members had h e a r d something about t h e case from t h e m e d i a , t h e r e were no g r o u n d s t o w a r r a n t a change o f v e n u e . See, S t e w a r t v. S t a t e , 730 So. 2d 1203, 1241 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) . No p l a i n error occurred i n the t r i a l court's f a i l u r e t o s u a s p o n t e o r d e r a change o f venue.'" Belisle v. S t a t e , 11 So. 2d 256, 277-78 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2 0 0 7 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a t e B e l i s l e , 11 s o . 2d 323 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , cert. denied, Belisle v. A l a b a m a , 2865, 174 L.Ed.2d 582 (2009) U.S. , 129 S . C t . ( h o l d i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e r e c o r d shows t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d not e r r i n not sua sponte 233 ordering CR-99-1349 t h a t B e l i s l e ' s t r i a l be moved t o a n o t h e r v e n u e . grounds t o warrant In t h i s case, following case about Each o f these (R. fifteen potential question: or heard anything a change o f venue i n t h i s "Does a n y b o d y case."). responded t o the know a n y t h i n g about this a n y t h i n g o r r e a d a n y t h i n g i n t h e p r e s s o r know the general potential 153, 189-242.) questioning jurors T h e r e were no jurors of the case?" was q u e s t i o n e d (R. 151.) individually. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s as t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l of these k n o w l e d g e was v e r y facts potential limited jurors that and innocuous. their pretrial Their testimony c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r k n o w l e d g e i n c l u d e d : someone c a l l e d t h e j u r o r t h a t i t m i g h t be t h i s c a s e (R. 2 3 9 ) ; r e a d an a r t i c l e t h a t t h e t r i a l was u p c o m i n g (R. 2 3 4 - 3 5 ) ; s e v e n r e s p o n s e s article lot o f a newspaper s t a t i n g t h a t t h e murder happened a t a c h u r c h parking (R. 232, 228-29, 211-12, 207-08, 209-10, 192-93, 1 8 9 - 9 0 ) ; husband on a m u r d e r t r i a l (R. 2 2 1 - 2 2 ) ; g e t s t h e n e w s p a p e r b u t r e c a l l e d no f a c t s o f t h i s case (R.217); a tire indicated t h a t she may serve r e c a l l e d o n l y t h a t t h e v i c t i m was s h o t w h i l e changing (R. 1 9 5 ) ; o f f e n s e o c c u r r e d c l o s e t o p o t e n t i a l work p l a c e a n d c o - w o r k e r b r o u g h t i n a news a r t i c l e juror's (R. 2 1 9 ) ; r e c a l l e d an a r t i c l e a b o u t o f f e n s e a n d two a r t i c l e s a b o u t 234 trial CR-99-1349 upcoming, but parking that o n l y memorable s p e c i f i c was l o t (R. 2 1 4 - 1 5 ) ; and, he "heard about of a truck information's i t pretty stating, good" of " I d o n ' t see (R. 197), t h a t t h e v i c t i m was i n a churchyard, lack church although p o t e n t i a l juror stated s p e c i f i c f a c t he r e c a l l e d was trunk l o c a t i o n of affect on and he his ability the only found i n the responded to as what t h a t w o u l d a f f e c t . " a (R. this juror, 198.) In the p r e s e n t case, i t i s c l e a r t h a t Johnson s u f f e r e d prejudice due r e q u i r e d the to any trial pretrial court publicity which would t o change t h e v e n u e o f t h i s no have trial. B. Johnson been alleges questioned record indicates that the individually that when potential jurors and the separately. trial court should However, discussed have the the upcoming v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n of the v e n i r e w i t h the p a r t i e s , the following transpired: "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, s i r . I was c u r i o u s , do you i n t e n d f o r us t o q u e s t i o n t h e e n t i r e v e n i r e t o m o r r o w as w e l l as t o d a y b a s e d on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e o r w i l l we go i n d i v i d u a l l y ? "THE COURT: I t h i n k w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e we d o n ' t have t o go i n d i v i d u a l l y . I t h i n k y o u ' l l have y o u r a n s w e r s , a l l t h e a n s w e r s t h a t c o u l d be a s k e d a r e r i g h t t h e r e b e f o r e you. And t h e n i f t h e r e a r e individual questions that come up from the 235 CR-99-1349 questionnaire panel. you can ask those questions "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Thank you, to the Judge. "THE COURT: We go t h r o u g h 37 o r 47 j u r o r s individually that's a little -and have a t a k e two d a y s and I'm not questionnaire i t w i l l ready to get i n t o t h a t . "[DEFENSE c u r i o u s . Thank (R. COUNSEL]: you." Yes, sir, I was just 61-62.) Thus, b e c a u s e i t i s c l e a r t h a t J o h n s o n d i d n o t o b j e c t this See ground at t r i a l , R u l e 45A, There we review this issue for plain on error. Ala.R.App.P. decision to q u e s t i o n t h e v e n i r e t o g e t h e r as t o c e r t a i n s u b j e c t m a t t e r s and separately was to appropriate. jurors had pertinent State, Ala. [Ms. no error follow up T h i s was already opinions, in on trail some of court's their responses where e s p e c i a l l y t r u e where t h e s e p o t e n t i a l filled out a questionnaire and knowledge CR-04-2220, Aug. C r i m . App. the backgrounds. 29, 2008] So. concerning Hooks 3d , 2008). " ' I n Ex p a r t e L a n d , 678 So. 2d 224 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e method o f v o i r d i r e examination i s w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t and a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o a l l o w t h e use o f [a] j u r o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s n o t an abuse o f 236 v. CR-99-1349 t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . ' Hodges v. S t a t e , 856 So. 2d 875, 2 0 0 1 ) , a f f ' d , 856 So. 2d 936 913 ( A l a . C r i m . App. (Ala. 2 0 0 3 ) . A l s o , ' t h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a d e f e n d a n t be a l l o w e d t o q u e s t i o n e a c h p r o s p e c t i v e juror i n d i v i d u a l l y during v o i r d i r e examination. T h i s r u l e a p p l i e s t o c a p i t a l c a s e s , and t h e g r a n t i n g of a request for individual voir dire is d i s c r e t i o n a r y w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' C o r a l v. S t a t e , 628 So. 2d 954, 968 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , a f f ' d , 628 So. 2d 1004 (Ala. 1993)." Sneed v. State, 1 So. 3d 104, 135 c e r t . d e n i e d , Sneed v. A l a b a m a , 173 L.Ed. 2d 472 T h e r e was organization (Ala. Crim. U.S. App. , 129 2007), S.Ct. 1039, (2009). no error i n the trial court's of the v o i r d i r e of the conducting and venire. XXXII. P u r s u a n t t o § 13A-5-35, A l a . Code 1975, are required t o a d d r e s s t h e p r o p r i e t y o f J o h n s o n ' s c o n v i c t i o n and sentence of death. J o h n s o n was i n d i c t e d f o r and convicted m u r d e r b e c a u s e she k i l l e d Randy M c C u l l a r before in the the bigamy case a g a i n s t Code was when he had of capital testified subpoenaed to t e s t i f y a t Johnson. See trail § 13A-5-40(14), A l a . 1975. The was g r a n d j u r y and we record imposed as does n o t the reflect result of 237 that the the sentence of influence of death passion, CR-99-1349 prejudice, or any other 5 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code The State trial proved circumstance to d i s r u p t or arbitrary As c o u r t found beyond a reasonable the existence (C. 1 8 3 ) : hinder to t h i s c a s e t h a t he had § 13A-5- of "only doubt t h a t one" the lawful exercise had any committed government § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 7 ) , A l a . Code circumstance, testified instituted of the aggravating t h a t t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was aggravating found t h a t McCullar trial See 1975. f u n c t i o n or the enforcement of laws. 1975. factor. before the trial court a Grand J u r y in a a g a i n s t Johnson f o r bigamy. The c o u r t s t a t e d as t o t h i s a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance: the "In the t e s t i m o n y of Timothy R i c h a r d s , c o - d e f e n d a n t i n t h e c a s e , and t h e " h u s b a n d " o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e u n r e f u t e d e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t f e a r e d t h a t Randy M c C u l l a r w o u l d a t t e m p t t o g a i n c u s t o d y o f Chad, t h e c h i l d o f t h e d e c e a s e d . Randy M c C u l l a r , and t h e d e f e n d a n t , Shonda J o h n s o n ; and, t h a t he w o u l d do so by b r i n g i n g a b i g a m y c a s e a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t . Randy M c C u l l a r f i l e d a b i g a m y c h a r g e a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t , and a p p e a r e d b e f o r e the April 1997 Grand J u r y i n Winston County, A l a b a m a ; and t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n d i c t e d by t h e June 1997 Term o f t h e G r a n d J u r y i n t h e 2 5 t h J u d i c i a l Circuit. "From t h a t p o i n t on, t h e d e f e n d a n t , Shonda Johnson, started talking about g e t t i n g r i d of M c C u l l a r . T h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e b u t t h a t t h i s was t h e f a c t o r t h a t s t a r t e d t h e t a l k by t h e d e f e n d a n t , Shonda J o h n s o n , a b o u t k i l l i n g the d e c e a s e d . The d e f e n d a n t , Shonda J o h n s o n , t a l k e d 238 CR-99-1349 e v e r y day a b o u t t h e f a c t t h a t Randy M c C u l l a r had t o be o u t o f t h e p i c t u r e and t h a t he had t o be k i l l e d and t h a t t h e c o - d e f e n d a n t , R i c h a r d s , s h o u l d do i t (and w h i c h he d i d ) t o p r o v e t h a t he l o v e d h e r . " I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e o n l y c o n n e c t i o n t h a t R i c h a r d s had was Shonda J o h n s o n ; and that R i c h a r d s d i d n o t know t h e d e c e a s e d b e f o r e he s h o t him. "Therefore, the Court i s convinced beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t the a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s e t o u t i n T i t l e 13A-5-49(7) o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a t o - w i t : t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was c o m m i t t e d t o d i s r u p t o r h i n d e r t h e l a w f u l e x e r c i s e o f any g o v e r n m e n t a l f u n c t i o n or the enforcement of laws." (C. 183-84.) The circumstance Alabama." The as (C. set out court found in Title court found circumstance: With circumstances, good m o t h e r ; and the regard the trial the that existence Johnson The to the of aggravating the Code of of had one no statutory significant § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 1 ( 1 ) , A l a . Code nonstatutory c o u r t found (2) t h a t J o h n s o n was (3) t h a t J o h n s o n was jail. other 13A-5-49 h i s t o r y of p r i o r c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y . 1975. "no 184.) trial mitigating trial mitigating (1) t h a t J o h n s o n was a good c i t i z e n g r o w i n g a up; a good p r i s o n e r a t the Walker County s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r shows t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t w e i g h e d aggravating and t h a t the a g g r a v a t i n g mitigating circumstances circumstances 239 and determined outweighed the mitigating CR-99-1349 circumstances. Johnson The to death. The agree w i t h the t r i a l We have mitigating Johnson's 1975. trial of doing correctly sentenced and we court's findings. independently sentence then record supports t h i s decision, circumstances After court weighed to determine death. s o , we the § find aggravating the propriety 13A-5-53(b)(3), that the and death of A l a . Code sentence is appropriate. As r e q u i r e d by § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975, we determine whether Johnson's s e n t e n c e was disproportionate e x c e s s i v e when compared t o t h e s e n t e n c e s cases. this Similar State. C r i m . App. (Ala. 907, find Whitehead v. State, 777 So. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e W h i t e h e a d , 2000), 121 imposed S.Ct. that cert. denied, Whitehead 1233, 149 L.Ed. the sentence was 2d 142 neither throughout 2d 781 (Ala. 777 So. 2d v. A l a b a m a , (2001). or in similar c a s e s have been p u n i s h e d by d e a t h See must 532 854 U.S. T h e r e f o r e , we disproportionate nor excessive. F i n a l l y , we have s e a r c h e d t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d f o r any that might rights, have adversely and have f o u n d none. affected R u l e 45A, 240 Johnson's error substantial Ala.R.App.P. CR-99-1349 A c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m Johnson's c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e of d e a t h . AFFIRMED. W i s e , P . J . , a n d W e l c h , Windom, a n d K e l l u m , J J . , c o n c u r i n the result. 241

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.