Jodey Wayne Waldrop v. State of Alabama
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 03/05/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-07-0148 Jodey Wayne W a l d r o p v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WISE, P r e s i d i n g The from Franklin Circuit (CC-06-321) Judge. appellant, Jodey Wayne c a p i t a l murder f o r t h e k i l l i n g Waldrop. less than Court W a l d r o p , was c o n v i c t e d o f h i s i n f a n t son, Jodey Chance T h e m u r d e r w a s made c a p i t a l fourteen years of of b e c a u s e t h e v i c t i m was age, a violation of § CR-07-0148 13A-5-40(a)(15), by a vote of sentenced A l a . Code 1975. 11-1, to the death. recommendation and After jury The a sentencing hearing, recommended trial sentenced court him that Waldrop f o l l o w e d the to death. be jury's This appeal followed. Because been See imposed, Rule case at have Ala. trial involving claim is a we 45A, objection 472 this the case i n which reviewed R. App. will not death P. bar 2d 1106 Although our review raise. ( A l a . 1985). death penalty record for plain penalty, i t w i l l o f p r e j u d i c e W a l d r o p may So. the the Rule See 45A, the of lack an weigh Ex has error. of issue in a against parte Ala. R. an any Kennedy, App. P., provides: "In a l l cases i n w h i c h t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y has been imposed, the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals shall 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 u n d e r r e v i e w ... w h e n e v e r s u c h e r r o r h a s 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 o f the appellant." " [ T h i s ] p l a i n - e r r o r exception to the rule in i s t o be which 'used sparingly, a m i s c a r r i a g e of U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Y o u n g , 470 84 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985) contemporaneous-objection solely justice U.S. would 1, 1 5 , (quoting United 2 i n those circumstances otherwise 105 result.'" S. C t . 1 0 3 8 , S t a t e s v. Frady, 1046, 456 CR-07-0148 U.S. 816 1 5 2 , 1 6 3 n . 1 4 , 102 S. C t . 1 5 8 4 , 1 5 9 2 n . 1 4 , 71 L. E d . 2 d n.14 The by (1982)). f o l l o w i n g summary o f t h e r e l e v a n t the t r i a l f a c t s , as p r e p a r e d c o u r t , may b e h e l p f u l t o a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h i s case: " E v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t was a t home o n S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 . The D e f e n d a n t a n d h i s w i f e p l a n n e d t o go t o t h e N o r t h A l a b a m a S t a t e F a i r that night. The Defendant's wife, Starlette [ T i f f a n y ] Waldrop, arranged for babysitters for t h e i r c h i l d r e n , i n c l u d i n g t h e v i c t i m , Jodey Chance W a l d r o p , who was a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e and a h a l f weeks o l d a t t h e t i m e . Witnesses t e s t i f i e d that they saw t h e v i c t i m , J o d e y C h a n c e W a l d r o p , t h e a f t e r n o o n o f S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 . The c h i l d a p p e a r e d t o be normal and i n good h e a l t h a t t h a t time. "Starlette Waldrop left t h e house w i t h h e r grandmother t o make a phone call and g e t h e r g r a n d m o t h e r ' s c a r s o t h e y c o u l d go t o t h e f a i r . The D e f e n d a n t was l e f t a l o n e w i t h t h e v i c t i m a n d a n o t h e r small c h i l d of the Defendant's. S t a r l e t t e Waldrop arrived back at her residence. The D e f e n d a n t m o t i o n e d f o r h e r t o come i n t h e h o u s e . He t o l d h e r t h a t J o d e y C h a n c e W a l d r o p was n o t b r e a t h i n g . She p i c k e d h i m up a n d r u s h e d h i m t o R e d B a y H o s p i t a l . The c h i l d was l i f e l e s s a n d b l u e . The e m e r g e n c y room staff worked with the child. The child was transported t o C h i l d r e n ' s H o s p i t a l i n Birmingham, Alabama by h e l i c o p t e r . "The c h i l d was t r e a t e d a t C h i l d r e n ' s H o s p i t a l b y Dr. [ J e f f r e y ] A l t e n . Dr. A l t e n t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t t h e c h i l d was p l a c e d on l i f e s u p p o r t . Dr. A l t e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t d i a g n o s t i c t e s t i n g was d o n e , a n d i t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was b r a i n d e a d . 3 CR-07-0148 The c h i l d was t a k e n o f f l i f e s u p p o r t days l a t e r , and t h e c h i l d d i e d . a couple of "Dr. Alten t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e type o f head trauma t h a t t h e v i c t i m s u f f e r e d c o u l d o n l y be t h e r e s u l t o f c h i l d abuse o r an a u t o m o b i l e accident. The D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s was n o t i f i e d a n d an i n v e s t i g a t i o n b e g a n . "Dr. Alten t e s t i f i e d that the child died of being s e v e r e l y shaken and p o t e n t i a l l y being placed b a c k down o n some t y p e o f s u r f a c e . Dr. Alten t e s t i f i e d t h a t dropping a c h i l d would n o t cause t h i s type of i n j u r y . Dr. A l t e n t e s t i f i e d that only a severe shaking c o u l d cause t h i s type of i n j u r y . "An a u t o p s y was p e r f o r m e d o n t h e v i c t i m a f t e r his death. D r . E m i l y Ward p e r f o r m e d t h e a u t o p s y . D r . W a r d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s d e a t h was c a u s e d by blunt force trauma t o t h e head. D r . Ward t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e v i c t i m c o u l d have been shaken f o r several minutes. "The t e s t i m o n y o f D r . A l t e n a n d D r . W a r d r e f u t e d testimony and statements of t h e Defendant." the (C.R. 5-6.) In Waldrop victim addition to the testimony testified that and another children. of her four testified had questioned children that, actually his h o s p i t a l w i t h the v i c t i m , Waldrop s a i d something about jumping The e v i d e n c e showed t h a t o t h e r S t a r l e t t e ' s two o l d e s t c h i l d r e n . 4 they the at the 1 while were whether were 1 She a l s o Waldrop s e t f o r t h above, S t a r l e t t e men w e r e the fathers of CR-07-0148 out o f a f o u r t h - f l o o r window and k i l l i n g further life testified support, that Waldrop wanted even though t h e doctors was b r a i n d e a d . Finally, died, Waldrop tried t o p e r f o r m CPR, could t o keep Starlette t h e v i c t i m on had determined that she t e s t i f i e d he that, after the v i c t i m f o r the victim. Peggy care Williams t h e v i c t i m had been and t h a t Logan, unit at Children's Starlette She said that himself. and Waldrop he t r i e d a social choking, that he t o do e v e r y t h i n g he worker Hospital, testified i n the intensive that about what had happened summarized Waldrop's she spoke t o to the victim. r e s p o n s e as f o l l o w s : "He s a i d t h a t h e w a s i r o n i n g h i s c l o t h e s i n o n e r o o m a n d t h e o l d e s t c h i l d was i n t h e room w i t h h i m a n d t h e y o u n g c h i l d was i n a c a r r i a g e i n a n o t h e r room, i n t h e l i v i n g room. A n d when he w a l k e d i n t h e room, he n o t i c e d t h e c h i l d h a d b l u e l i p s a n d m i l k c o m i n g f r o m t h e m o u t h a n d t h a t ' s when he s c r e a m e d o u t , a n d the mother had j u s t d r i v e n up." (R. 1136.) Agent Charles Investigation Treslar testified of that he Starlette at Children's Hospital testified that, time, at that the interviewed on S e p t e m b e r Waldrop "After Tiffany left the 9/22/05, Tiffany was going 5 Alabama stated house on to drop Bureau Waldrop 23, 2005. as f o l l o w s : Thursday, o f f the of and He CR-07-0148 grandmother, Beverly Priest a n d Roy Wasson a n d [K.J.] T i f f a n y w a s g o n e 20 m i n u t e s . I plugged i n t h e i r o n a n d c l e a n e d i t o f f . I g o t my s h o r t s o u t o f the dryer. I l a y e d my s h o r t s o n t h e b e d a n d w e n t a n d g o t [ t h e o t h e r c h i l d who w a s t h e r e ] . I brought h i m i n my b e d r o o m a n d l a y e d [ t h e o t h e r c h i l d ] o n t h e bed. J o d e y J o was l e f t i n t h e l i v i n g room i n h i s bouncer. J o d e y J o was f e d 3 o z . o f f o o d , a n d t h e n put i n h i s bouncer e a r l i e r . W h i l e I was i r o n i n g , J o d e y J o made a n o i s e . I w e n t t o l o o k a n d saw S i m i l a c coming o u t h i s nose, b u b b l i n g o u t . I wiped his nose. I wiped i t o f f . I saw T i f f a n y i n t h e d r i v e w a y a n d y e l l e d t o p l e a s e come h e r e . Jodey Jo was not breathing, but I f e l t h i s heart beat. T i f f a n y came i n , g r a b b e d J o d e y J o a n d t o o k o f f t o the h o s p i t a l . I feel l i k e the doctors are accusing u s o f h u r t i n g h i m . We a r e g o o d t o o u r k i d s . I t h a s m e n t a l l y s t r e s s e d me o u t . I ' v e s e e n t h e o t h e r k i d s h i t Jodey J o , but not hard. The k i d s l i k e t o h i t and p l a y l i k e Power R a n g e r s . They a r e k i d s . I f t h e y d i d , t h e y d i d n ' t mean t o h u r t h i m . I don't k n o w i f t h e y d i d , b u t t h e y d i d n ' t mean t o h u r t h i m . " (C.R. 378.) Sally Franklin Clark County testified Department that she o f Human was employed Resources by the and t h a t she spoke t o W a l d r o p a t C h i l d r e n ' s H o s p i t a l on September 25, 2005. She also while he described testified that was the victim with h i s response she asked and him about another what happened child, and she as f o l l o w s : " A n d h e t o l d me h e w a s i r o n i n g h i s c l o t h e s , t h e y were g e t t i n g r e a d y t o go o u t . He h a d C h a n c e a n d [ a n o t h e r c h i l d ] , t h e y w e r e i n t h e d e n , a n d h e w a s -¬ or the l i v i n g room, a n d he was i r o n i n g i n t h e b e d r o o m . A n d he w e n t a n d g o t [ t h e o t h e r c h i l d ] . He 6 CR-07-0148 s a i d t h a t [ t h e o t h e r c h i l d ] , y o u h a d t o s u p e r -- h e was a y e a r o l d a n d y o u h a d t o s u p e r v i s e h i m a r o u n d t h e b a b y , a n d C h a n c e was i n h i s b o u n c y s e a t . "He w e n t a n d g o t [ t h e o t h e r c h i l d ] a n d b r o u g h t him back i n t h e bedroom w i t h him and continued i r o n i n g h i s c l o t h e s . A f e w m i n u t e s l a t e r he s a i d he h e a r d C h a n c e make a w h i m p e r s o u n d , a n d h e d e s c r i b e d i t a s s o u n d i n g l i k e a c a t . He s a i d h e w a i t e d a m i n u t e , a n d t h e n w e n t t o c h e c k on t h e b a b y a n d t h a t ' s when he n o t i c e d t h a t C h a n c e w a s n ' t b r e a t h i n g , and at that very same t i m e h e n o t i c e d Starlette c o m i n g b a c k t o t h e h o u s e so he y e l l e d f o r h e r t o help." (R. 916-17.) State's redirect Finally, the examination following occurred during of Clark: "[PROSECUTOR:] J u s t o n e o r t w o o t h e r q u e s t i o n s . D i d y o u a s k t h e d e f e n d a n t a b o u t d o i n g a n y CPR o n t h e child? "[CLARK:] I a s k e d w h a t he d i d when h e , y o u know, t h e s e c o n d he r e a l i z e d t h a t Chance w a s n ' t breathing. I d o n ' t t h i n k I s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k e d CPR, b u t I j u s t a s k e d w h a t he d i d when he n o t i c e d t h a t the c h i l d wasn't b r e a t h i n g . "[PROSECUTOR:] A n d w h a t d i d he t e l l you? "[CLARK:] W e l l , he s a i d , y o u know, t h e v e r y s e c o n d t h a t he n o t i c e d t h e c h i l d w a s n ' t breathing t h a t h i s w i f e p u l l e d up i n t h e d r i v e w a y . So I s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k e d , y o u k n o w , who g o t t h e c h i l d o u t o f t h e b o u n c y s e a t , a n d he s a y s t h a t he w a i t e d f o r h e r t o do t h a t . He d e n i e d t h a t h e p i c k e d h i m u p o r did anything t o get him t o breathe. "[PROSECUTOR:] child? D i d he 7 s a y he ever shook t h e the CR-07-0148 "[CLARK:] I s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k e d i f he s h o o k t h e c h i l d , a n d he d e n i e d t h a t he d i d . "[PROSECUTOR:] c h i l d i n any way? D i d he s a y he e v e r touched the "[CLARK:] He s a i d t h a t h e w i p e d t h e f o r m u l a t h a t was c o m i n g o u t o f h i s n o s e a n d t h a t was i t , b u t h e was s t i l l i n t h e b o u n c y s e a t w h e n t h a t h a p p e n e d . "[PROSECUTOR:] When t h a t h a p p e n e d ? And t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r came a n d p i c k e d t h e c h i l d u p o u t of t h e bouncy seat? "[CLARK:] Correct. "[PROSECUTOR:] Okay. He d i d n ' t s a y a b o u t t r y i n g t o p e r f o r m CPR o n t h e c h i l d ? "[CLARK:] He d i d n o t s a y t h a t anything t o me. "[PROSECUTOR:] And d i d n ' t say anything about t r y i n g t o f e e d t h e c h i l d a n d d r o p p i n g t h e c h i l d on the f l o o r o r anything l i k e t h a t ? "[CLARK:] N o . He d i d n ' t say that t o me. "[PROSECUTOR:] Okay. B u t he d i d a s k y o u i f t h e r e were g o i n g t o be any c h a r g e s made? "[CLARK:] (R. Correct." 922-24.) Agent Marc Investigation investigation McCormick testified of of that the victim's the he death Alabama was and involved that W a l d r o p on September 26, 2005, t h e d a y a f t e r 8 Bureau he of in the spoke the victim to died. CR-07-0148 He also following testified that, at that time, Waldrop made statement: "On T h u r s d a y 9 / 2 2 / 2 0 0 5 a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6:00 p.m., I w a s a t home, s i t t i n g i n t h e l i v i n g room f e e d i n g C h a n c e . I was s i t t i n g on t h e s e c t i o n a l s o f a near the f r o n t door. My o t h e r s o n ... w a s i n t h e l i v i n g r o o m w i t h me. T i f f a n y ' s grandparents, Derick N e l s o n and t h e two o l d e r k i d s were o u t s i d e . Tiffany a n d J u d y [ r e t u r n e d a n d ] T i f f a n y came i n t h e h o u s e . She n e e d e d s c i s s o r s t o c u t t h e p i c t u r e s . I t o l d h e r where t h e [ s c i s s o r s ] were b u t she c o u l d n ' t find them. I h a d f i n i s h e d f e e d i n g t h e baby and t o l d T i f f a n y t o take t h e baby w h i l e I found t h e s c i s s o r s . I t o l d h e r t h a t she needed t o burp him. I found t h e s c i s s o r s and gave them t o h e r . T i f f a n y took the baby o u t s i d e and I s t a y e d inside with [another c h i l d ] because T i f f a n y d i d n ' t want t o chase him around the yard. "Judy, D e r i c k , and [ o n e c h i l d ] leave. A few minutes l a t e r , T i f f a n y , h e r grandparents and [ a second c h i l d ] leave. A t t h a t t i m e I was a l o n e w i t h Chance and [ t h e o t h e r c h i l d ] . she "Tiffany left. l a i d Chance on t h e b o u n c i e s e a t before "When t h e y l e f t , I w e n t i n t o t h e b e d r o o m t o i r o n clothes. [ A n o t h e r c h i l d ] was a l o n e w i t h C h a n c e f o r a few m i n u t e s . I went t o t h e l i v i n g room a n d g o t [ t h e o t h e r c h i l d ] s o he w o u l d n ' t d i s t u r b Chance. The b a b y s e e m e d f i n e . He w a s a s l e e p a n d a p p e a r e d t o be o k a y . " I h a d b e e n i r o n i n g f o r a b o u t t e n m i n u t e s when I h e a r d an u n u s u a l w h i n e c o m i n g f r o m t h e b a b y t h a t a l a r m e d me. I w e n t t o t h e b a b y i n t h e l i v i n g room. I c o u l d see formula coming from h i s nose. I knew s o m e t h i n g was w r o n g w i t h t h e b a b y . I w i p e d h i s n o s e and f e l t h i s c h e s t . I could feel h i s heart beating 9 the CR-07-0148 b u t k n e w he w a s n ' t b r e a t h i n g . He made a n o i s e l i k e he was c h o k i n g on h i s f o r m u l a . I p i c k e d h i m up and l a i d h i m o v e r my l e f t s h o u l d e r a n d p a t t e d h i m on h i s back t r y i n g to c l e a r h i s airway. I l a i d the baby b a c k i n t h e b o u n c i e c h a i r and t r i e d t o g i v e him CPR. I gave him c h e s t c o m p r e s s i o n s and t r i e d t o breathe f o r him. I was t r y i n g t o do w h a t e v e r I c o u l d f o r Chance. " I l o o k e d up a n d saw T i f f a n y i n t h e d r i v e w a y . I went t o the c a r p o r t door and c a l l e d f o r her to come i n s i d e . I d o n ' t t h i n k s h e h e a r d me s o I c a l l e d t o h e r a g a i n and t o l d h e r the baby wasn't b r e a t h i n g . T i f f a n y came i n s i d e a n d p i c k e d up t h e b a b y . She c r a d l e d t h e b a b y i n h e r arms and s a i d ' b r e a t h b a b y b r e a t h ' and h e a d e d o u t s i d e t o t h e c a r . Tiffany d r o v e t h e b a b y t o t h e h o s p i t a l and I f o l l o w e d h e r i n the other c a r . " (C.R. 380-81.) McCormick t e s t i f i e d t o him on S e p t e m b e r 28, t h a t W a l d r o p made a s e c o n d 2005. At that time, statement Waldrop stated: "On T h u r s d a y , 9 / 2 2 / 2 0 0 5 , b e t w e e n 6:00 and 7:00 p.m., I was a l o n e a t home w i t h my t w o c h i l d r e n ... I was i r o n i n g my c l o t h e s i n t h e b a c k b e d r o o m o f my home. I h e a r d Chance c r y i n g . I went i n t o the l i v i n g r o o m t o c h e c k on h i m . I had f e d him e a r l i e r a n d t h o u g h t he was hungry. E a r l i e r he o n l y t o o k a b o u t 3 o u n c e s o f b a b y f o r m u l a a n d he u s u a l l y t a k e s 4 ounces. I h e l d C h a n c e i n my l e f t arm a n d s t a r t e d t o g i v e him the r e m a i n i n g ounce of f o r m u l a from the bottle. I p r o p p e d t h e b o t t l e on my s h o u l d e r s o I c o u l d l i g h t a c i g a r e t t e w i t h my r i g h t hand. I d r o p p e d C h a n c e on t h e l i v i n g r o o m f l o o r n e a r the sectional sofa. I p i c k e d h i m up f r o m t h e f l o o r and w i p e d a w a y t h e b a b y f o r m u l a t h a t was c o m i n g f r o m h i s nose. C h a n c e was not b r e a t h i n g but h i s heart was beating. I d i d n ' t know w h a t t o do. I t r i e d to give C h a n c e CPR. I d i d n ' t know w h a t e l s e t o do. About 10 CR-07-0148 t h a t t i m e T i f f a n y c a m e home. She t o o k t h e b a b y t o t h e h o s p i t a l i n Red Bay. I d i d n o t h u r t C h a n c e on p u r p o s e , he s l i p p e d f r o m my a r m s a n d f e l l t o t h e floor. When I w e n t t o t h e h o s p i t a l Tiffany's Grandmother made a comment that made me feel embarrassed. I d i d n ' t t e l l anyone about dropping t h e b a b y b e c a u s e I was s c a r e d a n d c o n f u s e d . " (C.R. 383.) Lieutenant County Sheriff's letter from Investigator Waldrop Greg Department Waldrop on Pinkard testified January 29, that 2006. of the he In Franklin received that a letter, stated: "Hey! Greg P i n k a r d . I'm ready to take the voice stress test. However I would l i k e t o t a l k w i t h you b e f o r e I do. I j u s t w a n t t h e t r u t h t o come o u t f o r my s o n a s w e l l a s f o r me t h e o n l y t h i n g i s i f I do t h i s I w a n t t o h a v e J o e y R u s s i a n t h e r e a n d a l s o I want you t h e r e and I want t o know what t h i s w i l l b e c h a r g e d a s , no B u l l s h i t p l e a s e I'm r e a d y t o get this o v e r w i t h and I a l s o w a n t one of my q u e s t i o n s t o b e d i d I g i v e my s o n CPR a n d d i d s l a m my c h i l d o r t h r o w my c h i l d o r h i t my c h i l d w i t h a n y t h i n g i n t h e h e a d y o u r a n s w e r w i l l be t h e t r u t h know m a t t e r w h a t . P l e a s e h e l p me a n d l e t me no s o m e t h i n g t o d a y , y o u t o l d me t h e n e x t d a y s o now I'm ready." (C.R. 442.) Pinkard testified W a l d r o p on J a n u a r y my or be that 3 0 , 2006. he r e c e i v e d another In that letter l e t t e r , Waldrop stated: " I J o d e y Wayne W a l d r o p am v o u l a n t a r i l y [ s i c ] a t on [ s i c ] f r e e w i l l h a v e r e q u e s t t o t a k e a s t r e s s polygraph test. I j u s t want the e n t i r e t r u t h t o k n o w n f o r I was p r o t e c t i n g m y s e l f a s w e l l a s my 11 from CR-07-0148 l i f e by truth. withholding information about the entire "The d a y my s o n g o t h u r t was t h e m o s t s t r e s s o u t d a y o f my l i f e . My s o n h a d b e e n c r y i n g a l l n i g h t a n d a l l d a y t h a t d a y . My w i f e l e f t me w i t h a l l t h e k i d s 2 or 3 times by myself w i t h the k i d s . I was t r y i n g t o g e t r e a d y , t r y i n g t o f e e d , t r y i n g t o make sure t h e k i d s weren't g e t t i n g d i r t y and t r y i n g t o g e t some m o n e y . My w i f e h a d a l r e a d y made me mad t h a t m o r n i n g b y s h a k i n g t h e c h i l d a n d me a n d h e r h a d gotten i n t o i tabout t h a t . I g u e s s s h e was [ t i r e d ] o f h e a r i n g h i m c r y . W e l l t h a t a f t e r n o o n I was j u s t as w r o n g a s s h e was b e c a u s e I h a d j u s t s t a r t t o g e t r e a d y t o go t o t h e f a i r . My w i f e h a d l e f t a g a i n a n d I had [ a n o t h e r c h i l d ] and Jodey t o watch w h i l e she was g o n e . [ T h e o t h e r c h i l d ] was i n t o e v e r y t h i n g . J o d e y was i n h i s b o u n c e r on t h e c o u c h i n t h e l i v i n g room. I h a d j u s t f e d him n o t l o n g ago. I t o o k [ t h e other c h i l d ] i n t h e bedroom w i t h me and start i r o n i n g my c l o t h e s . J o d e y was c r y i n g . I went t o s e e a n d p i c k 'em u p a n d h e l d h i m a n d h e d i d n ' t s t o p so I shook h i m t o g e t h i m t o s t o p . W e l l he d i d . I l a y e d h i m down a n d r e a l i z e d h e was n o t b r e a t h i n g s o I p i c k h i m b a c k up c a r r y h i m t o t h e s i n k a n d p u t some c o l d w a t e r o n h i s f a c e . S t i l l he was h a v i n g p r o b l e m s s o I l a y e d h i m down a n d s t a r t e d CPR o n h i m and he d i d b r e a t h b y n o t a n o u g h s o I k e p t on a n d t h i n I r a i s e u p a n d l o o k o u t a n d T i f f a n y was i n t h e d r i v e w a y a n d I l a y e d h i m down i n h i s b o u n c e r a n d w e n t t o t h e d o o r a n d t o l d T i f f a n y . S h e come i n a n d g o t h i m up a n d t r i e d t o g e t h i m t o b r e a t h b y s h a k i n g him and r a n o u t t h e door w i t h h i m and t o o k h i m t o the h o s p i t a l and I f o l l o w e d w i t h [ t h e other c h i l d ] . I w a n t y o u t o k n o w I d i d t r y t o s a v e my c h i l d a n d was n o t t r y i n g t o h u r t h i m . I d i d n ' t t r y t o make him d i e . I w a n t y o u a l s o t o k n o w I was o n d r u g s . H o w e v e r I d i d g i v e h i m CPR a n d I d i d n ' t k n o w how d o t h a t b u t I d i d . My c h i l d was n e v e r s l a m m e d i n t o t h e w a l l o r a n y t h i n g i n t h e home o r a n y t h i n g e l s e for that matter. I s w e a r i t . He w a s n e v e r h i t o r anything." 12 CR-07-0148 (C.R. 444-46.) Waldrop Starlette to testified were t a k i n g go t o t h e f a i r . Starlette children left alone with on September with testified time, family and l e f t Waldrop in breathing, child and that seat, checked When h e c o u l d home w i t h t h e Afterward, time, when he was ready to iron h i s i n t o t h e bedroom i n the l i v i n g with room. h i m u p t o f e e d h i m some m o r e . t h a t he t r i e d testified h i s bouncy point, t h a t he h e a r d t h e v i c t i m c r y o u t a n d t h a t he He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d over, ready child. t h e v i c t i m i n h i sbouncy seat c h e c k e d on t h e v i c t i m a n d p i c k e d leaned he a n d a t some f o ra short he was g e t t i n g a n d t h a t he t o o k t h e o t h e r He a l s o t e s t i f i e d he members. t h e v i c t i m and another that that, a n d he s t a y e d h e r grandmother testified 22, 2005, of t h e c h i l d r e n and g e t t i n g He a l s o f o ra short left Waldrop him care a n d some o f t h e i r Starlette clothes that, to light that he a c c i d e n t a l l y d r o p p e d t h e v i c t i m . that he p i c k e d checked up t h e v i c t i m , p u t h i m him, noticed f o r a heartbeat, not find a cigarette, a heartbeat, s i n k a n d p u t c o l d w a t e r on h i s f a c e , 13 that he and shook him a he t o o k was n o t little. the v i c t i m to a b u t i td i d not help. He CR-07-0148 t e s t i f i e d t h a t he p e r f o r m i n g CPR Waldrop Starlette come then put on testified him that, He him got other the to because the while f l o o r and the and was the door was victim started performing not t h e v i c t i m and hospital. child he then went t o t e s t i f i e d that S t a r l e t t e got carried the him. arrived. help t h e v i c t i m on Finally, went to the and told her breathing. shook him he CPR, testified to He and then that he hospital in a different vehicle. Waldrop about what accurate. the admitted happened However, t r u t h and accusing that and he d i d not he had stated made that contended that know what t o do t h e m o f c h i l d a b u s e as s o o n as several most he statements of was them scared because people they got to were to tell started Children's Hospital. Waldrop with assault Mississippi explained man testified when he was recovering t h a t , w h e n he came t o t h e nose, acted that was had previously working for a bail been charged bondsman had jumped w e n t t o p i c k up one such f u g i t i v e , the a r o u n d h i s mouth and cocaine residue g o i n g t o go 14 w i t h him, and bond. in f u g i t i v e s who door with l i k e he he then h i t He him CR-07-0148 with he a baseball h i t t h e man w i t h testified almost for bat. that Waldrop victim and that f o rbounty testified and that testified h i s handcuffs he was c o n v i c t e d one y e a r , one y e a r Waldrop t e s t i f i e d at that and i n j u r e d him. of assault, the judge placed that he hurt that he h i m on d i d not intend the the victim. smoked m a r i j u a n a was He also served probation hunting. shook had point, he to hurt he d i d n o t s h a k e h i m v i o l e n t l y . that accidentally that, victim to Finally, Rather, revive he him he t e s t i f i e d and that he injured. The various State and taken the cross-examined a X a n a x on t h e d a y t h e v i c t i m Waldrop extensively s t a t e m e n t s h e h a d made a n d d i s c r e p a n c i e s statements and h i s t r i a l a d m i t t e d t h a t he i n i t i a l l y c h i l d r e n may h a v e h u r t testimony. he next t h e v i c t i m and omitted mention revive made a s t a t e m e n t picking him. statement up the victim, Waldrop h e made to Sally further dropping t o McCormick, 15 Waldrop one o f t h e o t h e r any reference He a l s o a d m i t t e d Clark admitted between h i s F o r example, told Treslar that p i c k i n g up t h e v i c t i m a n d d r o p p i n g him. about t h e i n which that he d i d n o t him, or t r y i n g that, to i n the he d i d n o t m e n t i o n to first that he CR-07-0148 dropped or he shook the performed CPR r a t h e r t h a n on in a letter earlier v i c t i m and while the the floor. to Pinkard, that day dropping the and Finally, that t h a t he him to had He the prosecutor a r r e s t and had pointed ten that Waldrop minimizing seat wrote, shaken the include denied any victim reference to that staples had then the i t took him entirely ten Waldrop truthful about, about, First, and his he p o i n t e d asked previous out that a p l e a of g u i l t y to aggravated a s s a u l t out that in his said he asked things was hospital. next questioned been entered have prosecutor bouncy a d m i t t e d t h a t he a c t u a l l y sentenced to f i v e years with S e c o n d , he that his in stated e v e r q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r he conviction for assault. Waldrop had was father. to get he have victim. also i f he d i d not victim's The may was Starlette had minutes he victim W a l d r o p d e n i e d t h a t he the that he the head as v i c t i m of a required Waldrop had s i x months t o done, the r e s u l t of only i f he a the few had serve. had assault staples. a referencing a b o u t t h e number o f s t a p l e s t h e v i c t i m o f t h e 16 assault pattern his assault and to and The of testimony required CR-07-0148 and his testimony about his sentence on the assault conviction. The prosecutor happened w h i l e and Waldrop Waldrop t e s t i f i e d that charged with The f o l l o w i n g t h e n "[PROSECUTOR:] "[WALDROP:] about on t h e a s s a u l t he h a d b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h o u t , b u t h e was s t i l l probation. questioned h e was o n p r o b a t i o n the f a c t that marijuana. also conviction conspiring t h e charge had been violating what to sell thrown t h e terms o fh i s occurred: So y o u d o r e m e m b e r that? I do, y e s , s i r . "[PROSECUTOR:] Okay. I t a l l comes b a c k t o y o u now? "[WALDROP:] I t does. "[PROSECUTOR:] r e m i n d e d -"[WALDROP:] And i tbrings me You j u s t Well, exactly "[PROSECUTOR:] happen you reminded t o have me, t o be yes, s i r . -¬ I t just wasn't that you were t r y i n g t o prevent the j u r y from knowing the f u l l f a c t s about t h i s ? "[WALDROP:] I f I was t r y i n g t o p r e v e n t i t , s i r , I w o u l d n ' t e v e n h a v e h a d my l a w y e r s b r i n g u p t h e assault charge. B e c a u s e I f i g u r e d y o u was g o i n g t o come t o me w i t h t h a t . 17 CR-07-0148 "[PROSECUTOR:] And i t wasn't t h e f a c t t h a t you d i d n ' t want t h e j u r y t o know t h e w h o l e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t you d e n i e d t h i s a g a i n today, i s i t ? " (R. 1642-43.) During h i s c l o s i n g argument, t h e p r o s e c u t o r a g a i n p o i n t e d out the inconsistencies statements and h i s t r i a l State's medical what happened. experts and d i s c r e p a n c i e s between testimony. Waldrop's He a l s o a r g u e d that the r e f u t e d Waldrop's e x p l a n a t i o n s Further, during h i srebuttal closing about argument, the p r o s e c u t o r s t a t e d : "[H]e's lied five other times i n five other statements. He d o n ' t w a n t t o s a y i t . Y o u k n o w , finally, h e j u s t s a i d , 'Oh, y e a h , I l i e d i n t h e h a n d w r i t t e n statement where I a d m i t t e d s h a k i n g t h e baby t o d e a t h . ' "And t h e n h e h a s t h e a u d a c i t y t o g e t u p t h e r e and l i e about h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y t o you as a j u r o r , t h i n k i n g we d i d n ' t e v e n k n o w , t o m i n i m i z e i t just like h e ' s done this entire case. From s t a t e m e n t o n e , t w o , he h a d l i e d , he l i e d , he l i e d , he l i e d , h e l i e d . A n d now t o d a y , h e l i e d . Six times. "He l i e d a b o u t h i s c r i m i n a l r e c o r d . Oh, i t ' s j u s t a l i t t l e a s s a u l t , I d i d e l e v e n months. Five years, aggravated assault. That's what t h i s i s about." (R. 1803-04.) did, Finally, he s t a t e d : "When p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n lied, lied, lied, lied, lied, lied 18 o f what today." he CR-07-0148 (R. 1811.) Afterward, jury. trial c o u r t gave During i t s o r a l charge, time, and the instruct could the j u r y not i t s instructions the t r i a l to the court d i d not, at any as t o t h e p u r p o s e s consider evidence f o r which about i t could Waldrop's prior conviction. Waldrop argues not instruct his prior review jury conviction substantive present the i t could consider evidence guilt. to error. the See However, trial Rule r e g a r d t o impeachment by a crime, Rule the of argument i t for plain that 609, court e r r e d because i t d i d o n l y f o r impeachment purposes evidence this With that the t r i a l A l a . R. he court. and did about not not A l a . R. evidence of App. of "(1)(A) evidence that a witness t h a n an a c c u s e d has b e e n c o n v i c t e d 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 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 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 the law under which the witness c o n v i c t e d , and attacking other of a Rule death under was "(1)(B) e v i d e n c e t h a t an a c c u s e d has been c o n v i c t e d of such a crime s h a l l be admitted i f the court determines that the 19 we P. conviction Evid., provides, i n relevant "(a) G e n e r a l r u l e . F o r the purpose c r e d i b i l i t y of a witness, first Therefore, 45A, as of part: CR-07-0148 probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs i t sp r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t t o the accused " Also, regarding purposes, Rule evidence that i s 1 0 5 , A l a . R. E v i d . , convicted fourteen of years was t h a t the victim's counsel, Minor son, Ebious death. admitted assault, second-degree rape On of a victim he d i d n o t c a u s e second-degree jail 780 S o . 2 d 7 9 6 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , murder was less than f o rthe k i l l i n g Jennings. At t r i a l , h i s the injuries that examination by resulted defense convictions f o r unlawful possession of cocaine, and he h a d e s c a p e d w h i l e he was a w a i t i n g t r i a l from the county on t h e c a p i t a l murder c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , he a d m i t t e d that h e h a d made charge. several i n c o n s i s t e n t statements about t h e i n c i d e n t , b u t contended he was had p r i o r and that he who Minor t o death During d i r e c t that limited a d m i s s i b l e as t o one n o t a d m i s s i b l e as t o purpose i s admitted, r e s t r i c t the evidence instruct the jury o f age a n d s e n t e n c e d h i s two-month-old defense in of capital for provides: "When e v i d e n c e w h i c h i s p a r t y o r f o r one p u r p o s e b u t another p a r t y or f o r another the c o u r t , upon r e q u e s t , s h a l l to i t s proper scope and accordingly." In Ex p a r t e Minor, admitted d i d so t o g e t r e l e a s e d on b o n d a n d t o p r o t e c t mother. 20 that the victim's CR-07-0148 After this court affirmed Minor's conviction, p e t i t i o n e d t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t f o r r e v i e w , the trial court committed properly instruct 1) that i t reversible error the j u r y r e g a r d i n g could consider the of c o n v i c t i o n s o n l y f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s and not consider the p r i o r Minor's g u i l t . " agreed with 780 Minor, c o n v i c t i o n s as So. 2d a t 799. reasoning as in his prior evidence arguing 2) convictions -¬ prior substantive evidence The to that i t could of A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t follows: "Minor did not at trial request a limiting instruction regarding the evidence of h i s prior convictions and d i d not at t r i a l object to the court's failure to give such an instruction. However, t h i s C o u r t ' s review of a d e a t h - p e n a l t y case a l l o w s us t o a d d r e s s any p l a i n e r r o r o r d e f e c t f o u n d i n the proceeding under review, even i f the e r r o r was n o t b r o u g h t t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Rule 39(a)(2)(D) and ( k ) , A l a . R. A p p . P. ... E v e n under the s t r i n g e n t standards a p p l i c a b l e to p l a i n error review, we conclude that the failure to p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t the j u r y i n a capital-murder case as t o t h e p r o p e r use o f e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g prior convictions constitutes reversible error. "When a d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e s a t t r i a l , t h e S t a t e i s e n t i t l e d to impeach the defendant's c r e d i b i l i t y by i n t r o d u c i n g e v i d e n c e of p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . See R u l e 6 0 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , A l a . R. E v i d . In c o n s i d e r i n g the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s , t h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d : "'The h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y o f p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t a d e f e n d a n t makes t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f h i s 21 "that failing Minor's he CR-07-0148 previous criminal controversial issue. convictions a "'This n o t i o n o f p r e j u d i c e has been s a i d t o encompass two t e n d e n c i e s o f j u r i e s : 1) T h e t e n d e n c y t o c o n v i c t n o t b e c a u s e t h e defendant i s g u i l t y of the charged offense, b u t b e c a u s e e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d shows he i s a b a d p e r s o n who s h o u l d b e i n c a r c e r a t e d r e g a r d l e s s o f h i s p r e s e n t g u i l t , a n d 2) t h e tendency to infer that, because the defendant committed a prior crime, he committed the crime charged. Thus, a d e f e n d a n t w i s h i n g t o t e s t i f y i n h i s own b e h a l f f a c e s t h i s dilemma: T e s t i f y and r u n the r i s k of g r e a t l y p r e j u d i c i n g h i s defense by i n t r o d u c t i o n o f p r i o r convictions to impeach, or refrain from t e s t i f y i n g and damage h i s d e f e n s e b y n o t t e l l i n g h i s s i d e of the story. "'The rationale for admitting i m p e a c h m e n t e v i d e n c e when a d e f e n d a n t , o r any other witness, testifies i s that c e r t a i n evidence of p r i o r c r i m i n a l a c t s and general character relates to a person's propensity to l i e ;therefore, the jury s h o u l d have and use t h i s e v i d e n c e , b u t o n l y for the l i m i t e d purpose of e v a l u a t i n g the witness's veracity.' " M c I n t o s h v . S t a t e , 443 So. 2 d 1 2 8 3 , 1285 ( A l a 1983). (Citations omitted.) The l a w i n A l a b a m a i s i clear that 'evidence of prior criminal convictions f o r i m p e a c h m e n t p u r p o s e s may n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d o r taken into account i n determining a defendant's g u i l t o f t h e o f f e n s e f o r w h i c h he i s p r o s e c u t e d . ' K i n g v. S t a t e , 521 So. 2d 1360, 1361 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ( q u o t i n g 81 Am. J u r . 2 d W i t n e s s e s § 5 6 9 a t 575 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ) . I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t when p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s a r e i n t r o d u c e d f o r impeachment purposes t h e d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d , upon r e q u e s t , t o have t h e 22 CR-07-0148 j u r y i n s t r u c t e d t h a t those p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s cannot be c o n s i d e r e d as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f g u i l t of the crime charged. King, supra. The i s s u e i n t h e present case i s whether, absent a request or an o b j e c t i o n by t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t has a duty to i n s t r u c t the j u r y that evidence of p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s i s n o t t o be c o n s i d e r e d as s u b s t a n t i v e evidence of g u i l t . We h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t does have such a d u t y i n a c a p i t a l - m u r d e r case. " M i n o 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 t h a t he had had p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s f o r a s s a u l t i n the second degree, f o r p o s s e s s i o n of c o c a i n e , and f o r rape i n the second degree. The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s stated that the evidence of Minor's prior convictions was not admitted for impeachment p u r p o s e s b e c a u s e i t was e l i c i t e d b y M i n o r ' s c o u n s e l on d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n . M i n o r v . S t a t e , 780 S o . 2 d [ 7 0 7 , ] 777 [ ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) ] . We d i s a g r e e . " T h e r e i s no c o n s e n s u s among t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n s as t o t h e p r o p e r t r e a t m e n t o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s direct testimony admitting prior convictions. I n S t a t e v. S m a l l s , 260 S.C. 44, 194 S . E . 2 d 188 (1973), upon d i r e c t examination, defense counsel e l i c i t e d from t h e d e f e n d a n t t h e f a c t t h a t he p r e v i o u s l y h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d of the crimes of robbery, grand l a r c e n y , and housebreaking. The Supreme C o u r t of South Carolina stated: 'When appellant testified, e v i d e n c e o f h i s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s became a d m i s s i b l e solely on the issue of his credibility as a witness.' 260 S.C. a t 4 7 , 194 S . E . 2 d a t 1 8 9 . Thus, the court concluded, the f a c t t h a t the defendant f i r s t t e s t i f i e d as t o h i s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s d i d n o t p r e c l u d e h i s r i g h t t o have the t r i a l c o u r t l i m i t the j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of h i s testimony to the issue of credibility. Similarly, i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. D i a z , 585 F . 2 d 116 (5th C i r . 1978), the f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t 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 t h a t he h a d t w o p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s d i d n o t p r e c l u d e t h e n e c e s s i t y t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t i n s t r u c t the jury t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s was t o be 23 CR-07-0148 considered only for a limited purpose. In C o m m o n w e a l t h v . H u r l e y , 32 M a s s . A p p . C t . 620, 592 N.E.2d 1346 (1992), the court considered the a r g u m e n t t h a t a d e f e n d a n t who e l e c t s to introduce evidence of h i s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s i s not e n t i t l e d to a l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n b e c a u s e the e v i d e n c e has not been i n t r o d u c e d f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s . That court concluded: ' R e a l i s t i c a l l y , the defense puts i n t h e e v i d e n c e o n l y b e c a u s e t h e p r o s e c u t i o n w i l l do so o t h e r w i s e ; the b a s i s f o r a d m i s s i b i l i t y i s the same.' 32 M a s s . A p p . C t . a t 622, 592 N . E . 2 d a t 1347. "The New Hampshire Supreme Court has held differently. T h a t c o u r t has h e l d t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t m u s t p r o v i d e a l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n when e v i d e n c e o f prior convictions is introduced to impeach a d e f e n d a n t ' s c r e d i b i l i t y , u n l e s s s u c h an i n s t r u c t i o n i s s p e c i f i c a l l y w a i v e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t , b u t that t h i s r u l e d o e s n o t a p p l y when t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i o r convictions are admitted during the defendant's d i r e c t testimony. S t a t e v . C a s s e l l , 140 N.H. 317, 666 A . 2 d 953 (1995). The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s r e l i e d on C a s s e l l i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t M i n o r ' s f a i l u r e t o r e q u e s t a l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n c o u l d be v i e w e d as a trial t a c t i c used i n order to prevent calling f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n t o M i n o r ' s c o n v i c t i o n s t h r o u g h an i n s t r u c t i o n to the j u r y . "However, t o h o l d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e of M i n o r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s was not o f f e r e d f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t i t was a d m i s s i b l e f o r another purpose, and i t was not. Minor's introduction, on d i r e c t examination, of evidence r e g a r d i n g h i s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s was a t r i a l tactic t h a t does not change the purpose f o r w h i c h the e v i d e n c e was a d m i t t e d . Minor introduced evidence of these c o n v i c t i o n s i n a n t i c i p a t i o n that otherwise i t would be brought out by the prosecution; his i n t r o d u c t i o n of i t does not waive h i s r i g h t t o have t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t e d as t o t h e p r o p e r use o f i t . 24 CR-07-0148 " T h i s C o u r t has n e v e r a d d r e s s e d t h e q u e s t i o n whether a t r i a l c o u r t has a d u t y t o sua sponte i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y as t o t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e for w h i c h i t may c o n s i d e r e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s h a s h e l d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t does not have a duty, sua sponte, t o inform the jury that evidence of inconsistent s t a t e m e n t s may b e c o n s i d e r e d o n l y f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f impeaching a witness's c r e d i b i l i t y . Varner v. State, 497 So. 2d 1135 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986); W e a v e r v . S t a t e , 466 S o . 2 d 1037 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985). However, V a r n e r and Weaver were n o t c a p i t a l c a s e s , and t h e d o c t r i n e o f p l a i n - e r r o r r e v i e w d i d not apply. I n a d d i t i o n , t h o s e c a s e s do n o t c o n t a i n any h o l d i n g o r a n a l y s i s w i t h r e s p e c t t o impeachment by p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s h e l d i n P a r d u e v . S t a t e , 571 S o . 2 d 3 2 0 , 327 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) , r e v ' d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s , 571 S o . 2 d 333 ( A l a . 1990), t h a t defense c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e to request a l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n or to object to the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e to i n s t r u c t the j u r y r e g a r d i n g the defendant's p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s waived the issue f o r r e v i e w . H o w e v e r , P a r d u e was n o t a c a p i t a l c a s e , and the d o c t r i n e of p l a i n - e r r o r review d i d not apply. "The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was n o t r e q u i r e d to give the j u r y a l i m i t i n g instruction, a b s e n t a r e q u e s t b y M i n o r , c i t i n g C h a r l e s W. G a m b l e , M c E l r o y ' s Alabama E v i d e n c e , § 165.01(2) (5th ed. 1996): "'Once t h e a c c u s e d h a s b e e n i m p e a c h e d by one of the permissible impeachment f o r m s , t h e d e f e n s e may w a n t t o t a k e s t e p s to minimize or o f f s e t the impact of the impeachment. The a c c u s e d i s e n t i t l e d t o have the j u r y i n s t r u c t e d t h a t such e v i d e n c e i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d o n l y as a f f e c t i n g t h e a c c u s e d ' s c r e d i b i l i t y as a w i t n e s s and n o t as t e n d i n g t o show g u i l t . The c o u r t i s n o t 25 CR-07-0148 r e q u i r e d t o g i v e s u c h an i n s t r u c t i o n u n l e s s t h e a c c u s e d r e q u e s t s t h a t i t be g i v e n . ' "However, this Court has acknowledged the inherently prejudicial nature of evidence of a defendant's p r i o r convictions. C o f e r v . S t a t e , 440 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 1 , 1124 ( A l a . 1983) ('[e]vidence of p r i o r bad a c t s of a c r i m i n a l defendant i s p r e s u m p t i v e l y prejudicial to the defendant'). 'The general e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e bars the s t a t e from introducing e v i d e n c e o f an a c c u s e d ' s p r i o r c r i m i n a l a c t s f o r t h e sole purpose of p r o v i n g the p r o p e n s i t y of the a c c u s e d t o commit t h e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e . ' Hobbs v. S t a t e , 669 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 0 , 1032 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1995). Thus, e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s i s a d m i s s i b l e only f o r l i m i t e d purposes. 'The b a s i s f o r t h e r u l e l i e s i n the b e l i e f that the p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t of p r i o r c r i m e s w i l l f a r o u t w e i g h any p r o b a t i v e v a l u e t h a t m i g h t be g a i n e d f r o m them. Most agree that such evidence of prior crimes has almost an i r r e v e r s i b l e impact upon the minds o f the j u r o r s . ' Cofer, 440 So. 2 d a t 1123 (quoting Charles 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 § 69.01 (3d ed. 1 9 7 7 ) ) . The g e n e r a l e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e ' p r o t e c t s t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o a f a i r t r i a l ' by s e e k i n g ' " t o p r e v e n t c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d on a j u r y b e l i e f t h a t [ t h e ] accused i s a person of bad c h a r a c t e r . The jury's d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f g u i l t o r i n n o c e n c e s h o u l d be b a s e d on e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t t o t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d . " ' Cofer, 440 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 2 3 (citation omitted). Thus, i t n a t u r a l l y f o l l o w s that the t r i a l court should take all necessary precautions to ensure that when evidence of a defendant's prior convictions is admitted into evidence, the jury is properly i n s t r u c t e d on t h e p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h i t may c o n s i d e r that evidence. This includes i n s t r u c t i n g the jury, s u a s p o n t e , t h a t i t may n o t c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e defendant committed the charged offense. 26 CR-07-0148 "In t h e p r e s e n t vague instruction evidence: case, t h e t r i a l c o u r t gave t h i s on t h e use of impeachment "'Now, e v i d e n c e h a s b e e n i n t r o d u c e d i n t h i s case f o r t h e purpose o f impeaching c e r t a i n witnesses and d i s c r e d i t i n g their testimony. "'The law allows witnesses t o be i m p e a c h e d i n a n y number o f ways. For e x a m p l e , a w i t n e s s may b e i m p e a c h e d b y proof of c o n v i c t i o n s of crimes involving moral turpitude or a witness may be i m p e a c h e d b y c o n t r a d i c t o r y s t a t e m e n t s made by t h e w i t n e s s e i t h e r on t h e s t a n d w h i l e testifying or a t other times and other p l a c e s , whether under oath or n o t . "'But t h e f a c t t h a t a w i t n e s s has been impeached and s u c c e s s f u l l y impeached does not mean that you must necessarily disregard that witness' testimony, either i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t , f o r t h e r e may b e o t h e r f a c t s and evidence or other testimony or o t h e r e v i d e n c e t h a t i n y o u r j u d g m e n t may tend t o corroborate either a l l or part of that witness' testimony. And as I have a l r e a d y t o l d you, you a r e t h e s o l e and e x c l u s i v e judges of the c r e d i b i l i t y of the witnesses and t h e weight t h a t you w i l l accord their testimony.' "The trial court d i d not t e l l the jury that the e v i d e n c e o f M i n o r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s c o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d a s s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t he c o m m i t t e d the crime charged. Because t h e j u r o r s were n o t so i n s t r u c t e d , t h e y were f r e e t o c o n s i d e r t h e p r i o r convictions f o r any purpose; thus, they could consider the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t Minor committed the c r i m e b e c a u s e he h a d d e m o n s t r a t e d a prior criminal tendency. A l l o w i n g t h e j u r y t o make s u c h u s e o f t h e 27 CR-07-0148 evidence was highly prejudicial and constitutes reversible error. See R a n d o l p h v . S t a t e , 348 So. 2d 858 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1977) (conviction reversed because the trial court failed to adequately distinguish between impeachment evidence and substantive evidence). "The f a i l u r e to i n s t r u c t a j u r y i n a c a p i t a l m u r d e r c a s e as t o t h e p r o p e r use of evidence of p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s i s e r r o r , and t h a t e r r o r meets the d e f i n i t i o n of ' p l a i n e r r o r . ' That f a i l u r e i s 'so obvious that [an appellate court's] failure to n o t i c e i t would s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t the f a i r n e s s or i n t e g r i t y o f t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s . ' Womack, 435 So. 2d at 769. The Court of Criminal Appeals d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r e was no p l a i n e r r o r b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have ' r e a s o n a b l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t ... d e f e n s e c o u n s e l h a d e l i c i t e d M i n o r ' s a d m i s s i o n o f t h e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s as p a r t o f t r i a l strategy and d i d not want t o c a l l a d d i t i o n a l a t t e n t i o n t o t h e e v i d e n c e t h r o u g h an i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e j u r y . ' 780 So. 2d a t 773. We disagree. Assuming the trial court d i d b e l i e v e t h a t the f a i l u r e to request the i n s t r u c t i o n was a trial tactic, the trial court c o u l d h a v e e a s i l y i n q u i r e d as t o w h e t h e r d e f e n s e counsel wanted the i n s t r u c t i o n given. Considering the presumptively p r e j u d i c i a l nature of evidence of a d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s , we consider i t i n c u m b e n t on t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d on t h e p r o p e r u s e o f s u c h e v i d e n c e . We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o instruct the jury that i t could not use such e v i d e n c e a s s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f g u i l t 'has or p r o b a b l y has' s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e j u d i c e d Minor; thus, i t s a t i s f i e s the p l a i n - e r r o r standard. See Rule 3 9 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) and ( k ) , A l a . R. A p p . P. "Furthermore, the prosecutor drew increased attention to Minor's p r i o r convictions through his cross-examination. On cross-examination, Minor provided d e t a i l s concerning each of the prior convictions. He claimed that the second-degree 28 CR-07-0148 a s s a u l t c h a r g e was b a s e d o n a s h o o t i n g t h a t was d o n e in s e l f - d e f e n s e ; t h a t the second-degree rape charge was b a s e d o n t h e s t a t u t o r y r a p e o f a f e m a l e who h a d l i e d about h e r age; and t h a t t h e d r u g - p o s s e s s i o n c h a r g e was b a s e d o n d r u g s t h a t w e r e n o t h i s . The prosecutor used these elaborations t o argue that Minor f a i l e d to take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h i s actions. Specifically, a f t e r Minor t e s t i f i e d that he h a d pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance but that t h e drugs were n o t h i s , t h e following colloquy occurred: "'[Prosecutor]: either? "'[Minor]: No, "'[Prosecutor]: "'[Minor]: No, So that was not your drugs, i t was n o t . And you d i d n o t k i l l I d i d not k i l l Ebious? Ebious.' "(R. 1259.) Thereafter, the prosecutor commented: ' A c t u a l l y , Mr. M i n o r , you h a v e g o t an explanation for everything to minimize your responsibility, don't you?' Considering these statements i n l i g h t o f '1) [ t ] h e t e n d e n c y [of j u r i e s ] t o c o n v i c t not because the defendant i s guilty of the charged o f f e n s e , b u t b e c a u s e e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d shows he i s a b a d p e r s o n who s h o u l d b e i n c a r c e r a t e d regardless of h i s present g u i l t , a n d 2) t h e t e n d e n c y [of juries] to infer that, because the defendant committed a p r i o r c r i m e , he c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d , ' M c I n t o s h , 443 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 8 5 , we must conclude that the t r i a l court's f a i l u r e to i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t h a t M i n o r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s c o u l d n o t be used f o r those purposes c o n s t i t u t e s a p a r t i c u l a r l y egregious error. T h e r e f o r e , we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t of 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 and remand f o r t h a t c o u r t t o o r d e r a new t r i a l . " 780 S o . 2 d a t 7 9 9 - 8 0 4 (footnote 29 omitted). CR-07-0148 Shortly thereafter, i n S n y d e r v. 485-87 (Ala. 2001), the Alabama holding i n Ex parte Minor, State, Supreme reasoning as 893 Court So. 2d limited its follows: "This Court, i n f i n d i n g that p l a i n e r r o r had o c c u r r e d i n Ex p a r t e M i n o r , r e c o g n i z e d t h a t M i n o r ' s t e s t i m o n y was e x t r e m e l y d a m a g i n g , t h a t t h e n e e d f o r an i n s t r u c t i o n l i m i t i n g t h e u s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e was obvious, and that the failure to give the i n s t r u c t i o n was so p r e j u d i c i a l that i t affected Minor's s u b s t a n t i a l rights. While the Court found p l a i n e r r o r i n the t r i a l court's f a i l u r e to i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f M i n o r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n , the Court's h o l d i n g i n t h a t regard d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h a p e r se r u l e . See U n i t e d States v. W a l d r i p , 981 F . 2 d 799 (5th C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( c l a r i f y i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v . D i a z , 585 F . 2 d 116 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) , a n d h o l d i n g t h a t w h e t h e r a f a i l u r e t o i n s t r u c t on the l i m i t e d use of p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n evidence was e r r o r was t o be d e t e r m i n e d on a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s ) . Thus, each i n q u i r y r e g a r d i n g the p r o p r i e t y of an instruction on the use of evidence of prior c o n v i c t i o n s p r e s e n t e d f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s must b e d e t e r m i n e d on a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s . " I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , S n y d e 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 t h a t he h a d p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o s e c o n d degree t h e f t of p r o p e r t y . At the b e g i n n i n g of the state's cross-examination, the following occurred w i t h regard to that p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n : "'[Prosecutor]: Of c o u r s e , y o u s a i d t h a t -- I b e l i e v e y o u s a i d y o u c a u g h t a c a s e i n '87. Is t h a t your word? You caught a case. I s t h a t what you said? "'[Snyder]: May have, yes, s i r . " ' [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : T h a t you c a u g h t a c a s e i n '87 a n d t h a t c a s e was t h e f t o f property? 30 482, CR-07-0148 " ' [ S n y d e r ] : Yes, s i r . ' "(R. 3111.) The p r o s e c u t o r d i d n o t q u e s t i o n S n y d e r further about this conviction. Nor did the prosecutor emphasize Snyder's prior conviction during his closing argument. Thus, u n l i k e the e v i d e n c e i n Ex p a r t e M i n o r , t h e e v i d e n c e o f S n y d e r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n was p r e s u m p t i v e l y p r e j u d i c i a l , b u t i t s i m p a c t was n o t e g r e g i o u s . "The s t a t e r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t g i v e t h e s t a n d a r d c h a r g e on t h e p r o p e r u s e o f S n y d e r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n . The trial court instructed the j u r y as f o l l o w s : "'Now, t h e r e h a s b e e n some t e s t i m o n y o f f e r e d to the e f f e c t t h a t a witness p r i o r to t a k i n g the witness stand during this t r i a l has been c o n v i c t e d of a c r i m e . This t e s t i m o n y i s a l l o w e d t o go t o y o u f o r one p u r p o s e , and t h a t i s f o r y o u r 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 what c r e d i b i l i t y you will g i v e a w i t n e s s ' s testimony from the w i t n e s s stand in this case. This i s f o r your consideration along with a l l the other f a c t o r s i n determining whether a witness i s w o r t h y o f b e l i e f i n w h a t he s a y s f r o m t h e witness stand.' "(Emphasis error trial added.) "The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t p l a i n had o c c u r r e d i n S n y d e r ' s t r i a l b e c a u s e the court "'did not s p e c i f i c a l l y t e l l the j u r y t h a t it c o u l d not consider [Snyder's] prior c o n v i c t i o n as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t he committed the c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s w i t h which he was c h a r g e d . ... [ T ] h e j u r y c o u l d h a v e concluded that [Snyder] committed the 31 CR-07-0148 c h a r g e d o f f e n s e s b e c a u s e he h a d p r e v i o u s l y demonstrated a c r i m i n a l tendency.' " [ S n y d e r v. S t a t e , ] C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ] . 8 93 So. 2d [471,] 477 [(Ala. "In E x p a r t e M i n o r , t h e C o u r t was c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e t h e j u r y was n o t o f f e r e d a n y d i r e c t i o n as t o t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n evidence. We m u s t now d e t e r m i n e i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s case e r r e d by not s p e c i f i c a l l y instructing the j u r y that i t c o u l d not use p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n e v i d e n c e as ' s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f g u i l t . ' "It i s well-settled law that, provided the i n s t r u c t i o n s a c c u r a t e l y state the law, a t r i a l court has b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n 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 t h e j u r y . B r o a d n a x v . S t a t e , 825 S o . 2 d 134 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . I n G a d d y v . S t a t e , 698 S o . 2d 1100, 1132-33 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , a f f ' d , 698 So. 2 d 1150 (Ala. 1997), Gaddy r e q u e s t e d an i n s t r u c t i o n to the e f f e c t that evidence of p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e e v i d e n c e t h a t he h a d committed the charged crime. The r e q u e s t e d c h a r g e stated: ' " I charge you t h a t e v i d e n c e of other offenses than those charged i n the i n d i c t m e n t i s not t o be c o n s i d e r e d a s e v i d e n c e o f t h e t r u t h o f t h e matters contained i n the indictment."' 698 S o . 2 d 1132. The trial court refused to issue the i n s t r u c t i o n but issued the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n : "'"I d i d not t e l l y o u when we first talked that the prior robbery conviction that Mr. Gaddy has s u f f e r e d s u b s e q u e n t t o the e v e n t s i n December here i n Birmingham i s admitted f o r the s o l e and l i m i t e d purpose f o r you to have at your disposal in assessing his c r e d i b i l i t y as a witness. The l a w p r o v i d e s i f one has s u f f e r e d a c o n v i c t i o n f o r an 32 CR-07-0148 offense involving moral t u r p i t u d e , s u c h as r o b b e r y , t h e n t h e s e c o n v i c t i o n s may be c a l l e d to the j u r y ' s a t t e n t i o n . But i t is f o r the l i m i t e d purpose for you having that information at your d i s p o s a l i n assessing his trustworthiness."' "698 So. 2d a t 1 1 3 3 . The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s concluded that that i n s t r u c t i o n properly informed t h e j u r y as t o t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e p r i o r c r i m e s -- c r e d i b i l i t y -- a n d t h a t t h e g i v i n g of that i n s t r u c t i o n was not p l a i n e r r o r . T h i s C o u r t d i d not o v e r r u l e Gaddy i n i t s a n a l y s i s i n Ex p a r t e M i n o r . See a l s o J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 292 A l a . 208, 291 So. 2d 336 (1974)(stating that an instruction on the l i m i t e d use of the evidence satisfies any need t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t h a t the e v i d e n c e may n o t be u s e d a s e v i d e n c e o f t h e c r i m e charged). "The h o l d i n g i n G a d d y i s r e a s o n a b l e , s o u n d , a n d worthy of a p p l i c a t i o n to t h i s case. Here, the t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y as t o t h e p u r p o s e of the evidence of Snyder's p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n . I f an i n s t r u c t i o n c l e a r l y i n f o r m s the j u r y of the sole purpose of prior-conviction evidence -the w i t n e s s ' s c r e d i b i l i t y -- i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e j u r y w o u l d n o t use t h e e v i d e n c e f o r any other purpose. S e e , e . g . , T a y l o r v . S t a t e , 666 So. 2 d 36 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , a f f ' d , 666 So. 2 d 73 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 516 U.S. 1 1 2 0 , 116 S. C t . 928 , 133 L. Ed. 2d 856 (1 9 9 6 ) ( r e c o g n i z i n g that j u r o r s are presumed to f o l l o w i n s t r u c t i o n s ) . U n l i k e t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n Ex p a r t e M i n o r , w h e r e t h e j u r y c o u l d have used the t e s t i m o n y f o r whatever purpose i t d e s i r e d -- t o d e t e r m i n e a w i t n e s s ' s c r e d i b i l i t y o r as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s guilt -- t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s c a s e i n f o r m e d t h e j u r y t h a t t h e p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n e v i d e n c e h a d 'one p u r p o s e ' a n d t h a t t h a t p u r p o s e was t o d e t e r m i n e credibility; 33 CR-07-0148 consequently, i t eradicated the necessity of i n f o r m i n g t h e j u r y t h a t i t w o u l d be i m p r o p e r t o u s e t h e e v i d e n c e as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f g u i l t . The unambiguous instruction adequately cautioned the jury, explicitly s t a t e d the s o l e purpose of the t e s t i m o n y , and e l i m i n a t e d t h e r i s k t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w o u l d be u s e d i m p r o p e r l y . Therefore, the emphasis in the instruction on the one purpose of the evidence overcomes a f i n d i n g t h a t the a l l e g e d e r r o r 'has or probably has adversely affected the s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of [Snyder].' R u l e 45A, A l a . R. A p p . P. To h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s r e q u i r e d t o inform the jury that p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n evidence cannot be used as substantive evidence, would u n n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i n forming j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s , would r e s t r i c t defense counsel's trial strategy, cf. United States v. B a r n e s , 586 F . 2 d 1 0 5 2 , 1059 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) , and i n certain circumstances may unnecessarily emphasize the prejudicial evidence. Therefore, while the i n s t r u c t i o n t o the j u r y must state either that p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n e v i d e n c e c a n be u s e d o n l y f o r t h e purpose of assessing a witness's credibility or state that such evidence may not be used as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e of the d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t of the c r i m e c h a r g e d , i t i s n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r p e r se i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t d o e s n o t i n s t r u c t b o t h as t o the a d m i s s i b l e purpose of the p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n e v i d e n c e a n d t h e p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h s u c h e v i d e n c e may n o t be considered, unless counsel requests such a twop r o n g e d i n s t r u c t i o n and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e evidence. "Under the facts presented here, the trial c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e j u r y on t h e u s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f S n y d e r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n was a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t of the law; i t d i d not c o n s t i t u t e p l a i n error. The judgment of the Court of Criminal A p p e a l s i s r e v e r s e d and t h i s c a u s e i s remanded t o that court for f u r t h e r review consistent with t h i s opinion." 34 CR-07-0148 (Footnote omitted.) Finally, have both recognized that parte Snyder about prior See this v. State, Key State, this In v. case, conviction was situation i n Ex for other Alabama i n Ex those parte 891 So. cases the purposes. 353 Ex purposes, Ex p a r t e M a r t i n , 931 6, 2006] So. 2d (Ala. Crim. about court's failure evidence about instruct Waldrop's the prior parte Minor and was the on parte Minor Both and happened prior cases Waldrop to the assault i n v o l v e d b a b i e s who made babies. conflicting Also, convictions, both which 35 as prior was the rather than in trial proper use of light of the in Snyder. f r o m Ex p a r t e were shaken, statements Minor they 2002). situation This case i s not m a t e r i a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e Minor. (Ala. review the the conviction Ex 759 Waldrop's T h u s , we jury So. App. p a r t e Snyder, as and Key. Ex f o r impeachment f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s , and and evidence evidence parte Minor Court i n which Martin, 2d Supreme parte Minor 1041313, October Ex permissible i n Ex the i s offered Johnson, decisions to [Ms. offered to and decisions limited ( A l a . 2006); 2004); the convictions Johnson 3d are court and admitted and about what Waldrop on both had direct CR-07-0148 examination. acted in the the that be the both convictions, arguing that instruct as crime charged. jury the purpose parte any guidance trial the Ex parte prior In f a c t , as to the were and trial the Waldrop court proper did use of trial Therefore, as the case the jury be not committed I t a l s o d i d not used the instruct solely credibility. for See give the evidence Ex jury for which or could not be used. parte Minor, the jury could could i n Ex he court d i d not purposes conviction testimony that Waldrop's the instruct conviction could conviction could prior was evidence Minor. determining about f o r w h a t e v e r p u r p o s e i t d e s i r e d -- determine Waldrop's c r e d i b i l i t y Waldrop's g u i l t . the both participation Minor d i d not about Waldrop's p r i o r Waldrop's have used the their regarding court substantive of Snyder. the See that jury and they evidence. case, considered the claimed offenses, Finally, evidence the prior Waldrop of m i n i m i z i n g prior-conviction this the and offenses. prior properly In in Minor prosecution appealed t h e i r not both self-defense a c c u s e d by in Further, o r as substantive evidence S p e c i f i c a l l y , the j u r y c o u l d have 36 to of improperly CR-07-0148 found t h a t Waldrop i n t e n d e d t o k i l l demonstrated Based parte on Minor court a prior the and Alabama the Ex parte have should regarding proper We understood, without we was case the prior was of jury conviction R i l e y v. S t a t e , (Ala. a evidence that limiting about jury prior would have evidence conviction only for that, these circumstances, parte Minor, the evidence the trial and i t s impact to of evidence about level of p l a i n A c c o r d i n g l y , we error. instruct Waldrop's See 2009] reverse the also So. with this opinion. 37 3d trial c o u r t ' s judgment and remand t h i s case f o r p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t consistent as Waldrop's court's failure [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 1 0 3 8 , D e c e m b e r 1 8 , 2009). impeachment. about presumptively prejudicial rose to the C r i m . App. trial Waldrop's i t c o u l d use under Ex instruction that that in the the the j u r y r e g a r d i n g the p r o p e r use prior conclude instruction, c o n v i c t i o n was and we decisions that prior i n Ex Court's assume must c o n c l u d e egregious the cannot Waldrop's Rather, Snyder, use had tendency. Supreme given conviction. about criminal t h e v i c t i m b e c a u s e he are CR-07-0148 R E V E R S E D AND Welch, dissents, REMANDED. Kellum, with and Main, JJ., concur. Windom, J., opinion. WINDOM, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I agree circuit could only by (Ala. 2000). failing the manner of rises P. "The the in prior to which the prior the Therefore, standard plain-error 1999). claimed error must See the Ex parte jury of of review is not error. 780 of Waldrop's used Waldrop's that Rule 45A, any only the than the So. a such c l a i m under standard 2d 113, level seriously 38 the Ala. used p r o p e r l y r a i s e d i n the t r i a l to So. R. dissent. i n reviewing S t a t e , 820 rise that i t impeachment purpose f o r plain stricter the conviction Minor, prosecutor I respectfully H a l l v. "'"To the conviction, I disagree level doctrine o r on a p p e a l . " instruct that aggravated-assault obvious r e v i e w i n g an i s s u e t h a t was App. to determination H o w e v e r , b a s e d on t h e n a t u r e c o n v i c t i o n , and admission App. majority's f o r impeachment purposes. defense, error erred court the consider Waldrop's 2 d 796 prior with of 121 plain affect a the in court (Ala. Crim. error, the defendant's CR-07-0148 'substantial prejudicial rights,' impact Bryant, 951 S o . 2 d 7 2 4 , 727 is, 778 933, 938 solely in justice would otherwise 14 those i n turn (1982)). [appellate] any 1111 claim review App. is to be in which Ex p a r t e States v. Frady, the " f a i l u r e in a capital Ex Ex p a r t e That the miscarriage Brown, (1985), 152, 163 n. preclude i t does weigh 472 of 11 S o . 3 d 1, 15 456 U.S. Kennedy, Hyde sparingly, t o o b j e c t does not case, parte to "used a parte 1998)). exception rule unfair i n turn S t a t e s v . Y o u n g , 470 U.S. of p r e j u d i c e . " an (quoting ( A l a . Crim. result."'" United Although have ( A l a . 2002), quoting circumstances (quoting United also d e l i b e r a t i o n s . " ' " Ex p l a i n - e r r o r contemporaneous-objection quoting must ( A l a . 2008) S o . 2 d 1 9 9 , 209 "'the a t 938 i t the j u r y ' s 11 State, 3d on Brown, v. So. but against So. 2d 1106, ( A l a . 1985). I n Ex p a r t e majority Minor, opinion, the circuit court's jury's consideration impeachment failure the case p r i m a r i l y r e l i e d Alabama Supreme to give of an held error. prior 780 the limiting the convictions to So. 2d M i n o r was c h a r g e d w i t h c a p i t a l m u r d e r f o r c a u s i n g 39 i n the that instruction Minor's constituted plain Court upon at 802-04. the death of CR-07-0148 his infant testified Ebious 799. son, i n h i s defense and that he Id. and d i d not at 797-98. cocaine, strike Ebious conclusion of f o r rape the trial, the for impeachment p u r p o s e s . erred Alabama Supreme Minor's purposes. prior Specifically, kill Id. at court possession Id. d i d not At the instruct Minor's p r i o r convictions only Id. Court i n f a i l i n g to sua sponte consider for degree." circuit jury that i t could consider Minor d i d not i n a n y way." degree, i n the second the The trial, impeached w i t h h i s p r i o r f o r a s s a u l t i n the second and At " m a i n t a i n e d t h a t he D u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y , M i n o r was "convictions of Ebious. held that instruct convictions the the circuit court the j u r y that i t could only Supreme C o u r t for impeachment stated: "The trial court d i d not t e l l the j u r y that the e v i d e n c e o f M i n o r ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s c o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t he c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d . B e c a u s e t h e j u r o r s w e r e n o t so i n s t r u c t e d , t h e y were f r e e t o c o n s i d e r the prior convictions f o r any purpose; thus, they could consider the p r o b a b i l i t y that Minor committed the c r i m e b e c a u s e he h a d d e m o n s t r a t e d a p r i o r c r i m i n a l tendency." Id. at 803. "presumptively The Supreme Court went on to hold that the p r e j u d i c i a l nature of evidence of a defendant's p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s , " coupled with the p o s s i b i l i t y that the j u r y 40 CR-07-0148 considered because Minor's i t constituted In has prior not plain Snyder v. convictions been error. State, given d i d not limiting prior So. 6, 2d convictions. Martin, trial be see also So. limited not that instruction on on the use failure on the parte of evidence to give a a of limiting 759, 768 ( A l a . 2004); Snyder, 893 Johnson v. , State, [Ms. ( A l a . 200 6) o f Ex parte by of Court stating purposes basis.'")(quoting 41 of must Snyder, in that the purpose c o n v i c t i o n , the Court's evidence Oct. ' p l a i n e r r o r i n the t h e j u r y on inquiry regarding use 1041313, ("This Minor Minor found to i n s t r u c t 'each the Ex f o r impeachment case-by-case i t s d e c i s i o n i n Ex d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h a p e r se r u l e ' e v i d e n c e and presented ( A l a . 2001), basis. evidence of Minor's p r i o r in that regard 485 case-by-case the h o l d i n g failure 482, that the t h e C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e court's instruction, a 2d 3d 2d given reviewed So. limiting evidence s e r u l e r e q u i r i n g r e v e r s a l when Instead, 931 a t 485; although the must 200 6] Snyder a per i n s t r u c t i o n was instruction parte create substantive 804. So. A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d Minor a Id. at 893 as holding regarding such the p r o p r i e t y of prior be 893 of an convictions determined on So. 485). 2d at a CR-07-0148 Applying a case-by-case Supreme C o u r t , give an analysis I conclude instruction that Part of Waldrop's mandated the c i r c u i t limiting Waldrop's p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s as the d i d not defense by the court's jury's Alabama failure consideration constitute plain was that he to of error. "snapped" and k i l l e d h i s t h r e e - a n d - a - h a l f - w e e k - o l d son, Jodey Chance Waldrop (hereinafter indicating "Chance"). that Waldrop's wife Waldrop and had his Chance's death. before and he had been been engaging wife had Further, a l l day Waldrop 2 on having evidence financial problems. in extramarital affairs, fought Chance had t h e day presented the day Waldrop c r i e d a l lnight of h i s death. Also, c a u s e d Chance's d e a t h , Waldrop had used d r u g s . facts, and Waldrop's extremely counsel argued frustrated. that Counsel and caused the night t h e day Based on he these W a l d r o p was overwhelmed argued due that to his frustration: " [ H ] e j u s t s n a p p e d a t t h a t moment i n t i m e f r o m w h a t h a d b u i l t up o v e r t h e w e e k s t h r o u g h t h e c o u r s e o f that marriage, through the suspected i n f i d e l i t i e s , through the f i n a n c i a l problems, through everything, he s n a p p e d . A n d i f y o u b e l i e v e i t ' s h i m t h a t he j u s t W a l d r o p ' s d e f e n s e was a c t u a l l y t w o - p a r t : 1) he c a u s e t h e c h i l d ' s d e a t h ; a n d 2) he i n j u r e d t h e c h i l d not i n t e n d t o cause the c h i l d ' s death. 2 42 d i d not but d i d CR-07-0148 grabbed a c r y i n g baby, and f o r a b r i e f i n s t a n t and a moment he d i d a t e r r i b l e a c t . (R. 1761-62.) According to defense counsel, and c a u s e d t h e c h i l d ' s d e a t h ; h o w e v e r , W a l d r o p d i d n o t mean t o cause the c h i l d ' s death. specific intent necessary See (R. 1 7 6 8 ) ( c o u n s e l for that kill momentary for a arguing loss Waldrop d i d n o t have t h e capital-murder that "snapped" Waldrop conviction. i s "deeply sorry of c o n t r o l , " but d i d not intend to the c h i l d ) . Based Waldrop to Therefore, Waldrop the representation "snapped" cause failure on and a s s a u l t e d the child's death, by Waldrop's the c h i l d any e r r o r to i n s t r u c t the jury that counsel but d i d not intend i n the t r i a l i tcould that consider court's Waldrop's p r i o r a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n f o r impeachment purposes o n l y d i d n o t "'"have an unfair deliberations."'" parte Bryant, State, 12 Ex p a r t e 951 So. 2d 778 S o . 2 d a t 2 0 9 ) . rational killing prejudicial jurors a t 727, q u o t i n g the i n turn I t i s unreasonable an a s s a u l t between jury's an Ex v. that unintentional killing Compare S t a t e v . 158 N.H. 3 0 6 , 3 1 7 , 965 A . 2 d 1 0 5 9 , 1 0 6 7 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 43 Hyde t o assume a n d an i n t e n t i o n a l b a s e d on W a l d r o p ' s p r i o r a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n . Hebert, on B r o w n , 11 S o . 3 d a t 938 ( q u o t i n g distinguished r e s u l t i n g from impact (holding CR-07-0148 that the f a i l u r e purpose f o r which harmless when offense limiting did that defendant burglary, because or cause for the defendant that established impact 2007) the c i r c u i t a prior on (same). cf. the trial had was not committing the felony 11 S o . 3 d 8 6 6 , Because Waldrop h i s s o n , he h a s n o t failure to i n s t r u c t the f o r assault deliberations. 44 he App. 1998) burglary v. S t a t e , court's conviction the jury's death); t o decide between he u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y k i l l e d that regarding App. Brown that i n d i c a t i n g that admitted a constituted maintained (Ala. Crim. two to give (murder/burglary) warrants i n the 780 S o . 2 d failure his child's of evidence was between Minor, court's thus l e a v i n g the j u r y only ( A l a . Crim. involvement Ex p a r t e the defendant murder); convictions prior convictions capital-murder and c a p i t a l asserted with the l i m i t e d to decide 727 S o . 2 d 8 3 9 , 843 outstanding prejudicial prior asked the c i r c u i t the admission in a unrelated adverse that his child v. S t a t e , 905-06 only i n a case where not s t r i k e murder was regarding d i d n o t deny i n s t r u c t i o n regarding (holding jury the defendant (holding error Barnes consider o f t h e same e v e n t ) , 802-04 plain i t could and t h e j u r y versions at to i n s t r u c t the jury h a d an See Ex unfair parte CR-07-0148 Walker, 972 So. 2d 737, appellant/defendant relating other to an words, that the has issue has unintentional for nonfatal conviction merely not level not assaulted court's of failure Waldrop to give Additionally, that the Ex "the jury [Waldrop] had a or an instinct at 1068. As has conviction examination and not not him, the 3d he I do circuit the at 938. the [prior] would have t o commit the suggested charged [crime] j u r y ' s sense of h o r r o r , outrage Hebert, 158 N.H. at 318, noted, Waldrop introduced defense the So. present i n a manner t h a t facts underlying impeach Waldrop w i t h kill that i n s t r u c t i o n r i s e s to 11 a assault defense that and conviction prior to In likelihood prior his intend Brown, did a propensity through with prejudice murder Waldrop's limiting State majority the his established parte to punish." the on the error). capital did or t h a t would have a r o u s e d the plain between Because and for e s t a b l i s h any based that establish to inconsistent plain error. to failed (recognizing to reviewed homicide Chance that conviction burden assault. was believe the distinguished lesser a ( A l a . 2007) being Waldrop jury 752 that counsel. fact that 45 he his c o n v i c t i o n on The had 965 State A.2d prior direct did not a prior conviction; CR-07-0148 instead, i t elicited misrepresented the testimony facts underlying during h i s direct-examination State d i d not impeached him impeach with indicating his testimony. Waldrop with his prior that Waldrop prior In other his prior inaccurate had conviction words, the conviction; i t direct-examination testimony. For instance, Waldrop's during testimony State asked, "[y]ou did you?" Waldrop's (R. relating had 1635.) The misrepresented testified required 3 staples 1637) actually during State required testimony, 10 conviction, referring direct of the v i c t i m ' s See to that injuries (R. that as of the a s s a u l t ) ; a result testimony staples to close h i s wound). the State his 1528) examination elicited that Waldrop's victim asserted: i t s c l o s i n g argument, the back established sentence imposed. i n h i s head (the State prior then, the extent the on his regarding us t h e w h o l e t r u t h a b o u t t h a t , direct-examination (Waldrop (R. to didn't t e l l Waldrop had m i s r e p r e s e n t e d and i t s cross-examination victim Further, " H i s w h o l e s t o r y i s a l i e . B e f o r e he e v e n s a y s he d r o p p e d i t , y o u h a v e t o do t h i s t o g e t a b a b y t o be a b l e e a t ( d e m o n s t r a t i n g ) . So t h e b a b y was n e v e r e a t i n g . I can t e l l you t h a t . And t h e b o t t l e i s r i g h t where S t a r l e t t e l e f t i t , i n t h e cup h o l d e r . 46 CR-07-0148 "Oh, Mr. W a s s o n m u s t h a v e come i n a n d c l e a n e d up the house w h i l e I was g o n e i n one day. That's r i d i c u l o u s . He w a n t s y o u t o b e l i e v e t h a t . N o t only that, he's lied five other times in five other statements. He d o n ' t want t o say i t . You know, finally, he just said, Oh, yeah, I l i e d in the h a n d w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t where I a d m i t t e d s h a k i n g the baby to death. "And t h e n he h a s t h e a u d a c i t y t o g e t up there and l i e a b o u t h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y t o you as a j u r o r , t h i n k i n g we d i d n ' t e v e n know, t o m i n i m i z e i t j u s t l i k e he's done t h i s e n t i r e c a s e . From s t a t e m e n t o n e , t w o , he h a d l i e d , he l i e d , he l i e d , he l i e d , he l i e d . A n d now t o d a y , he l i e d . S i x t i m e s . "He l i e d a b o u t h i s c r i m i n a l r e c o r d . Oh, i t ' s j u s t a l i t t l e a s s a u l t , I d i d e l e v e n months. Five years, aggravated a s s a u l t . That's what this is a b o u t . Ten m i n u t e s , t e n m i n u t e s i s w h a t S t a r l e t t e t e s t i f i e d i t took [Waldrop] to get to the h o s p i t a l . Ten m i n u t e s . He l i v e d two b l o c k s f r o m t h e h o s p i t a l . " (R. 1802-04) As with the his (emphasis added.) f o r e g o i n g shows, the prior conviction; misrepresentations testimony. The conviction, he made S t a t e d i d not instead, during manner i n w h i c h t h e establish criminal history," (R. 1804), d i d not 158 N.H. at a propensity 318, 965 impeachment urge the to A.2d jury that commit at direct he him with examination prior about his suggest to the j u r y that capital 1068. Nor "lie[d] murder. Hebert, did the State's some improper t o c o n v i c t W a l d r o p on 47 Waldrop State used Waldrop's to had i t impeached his i.e., Waldrop impeach CR-07-0148 basis. met to Id. Accordingly, h i s burden give a error. prior Ex p a r t e purpose the of Waldrop's prior established his to to the to focused us and relating to that truth then, for conviction the through about his during ("[H]e has t h e a u d a c i t y lied, pointed the t o g e t up t h e r e he lied, 48 ... he was: d i d you?" questions, underlying When referring c l o s i n g argument, fact conviction. as a j u r o r . question specifically that, (R. 1 6 3 6 - 4 3 . ) to h i s prior h i s t o r y t o you sole conviction, about a t t e n t i o n on 04) more r e n d i t i o n of the f a c t s false. lied he conviction elicited second the j u r y ' s t w o , he h a d l i e d , State State's the whole plain Waldrop's The had criminal The of "lied State in relation use Waldrop p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n was State of 938. conviction, tell has failure level that testimony prior the show t h a t Waldrop's Waldrop's court's State's prior Waldrop 1804.) (R. The 1635.) 3d a t prejudicial. not Waldrop's didn't to was record." to So. rises f o r the attempting relating (R. 11 that the c i r c u i t purpose relating criminal "[Y]ou instruction Brown, conviction testimony not b e l i e v e to e s t a b l i s h that limiting Finally, I do that See the Waldrop (R. 1803¬ and l i e about h i s From s t a t e m e n t lied, he lied. And one, now CR-07-0148 today, Based he lied. on the conviction, ... manner I do that the lied the conviction Thomas State, (Ala. on other 2004) error, an 824 suggest of the his 13 to I do instruct the Waldrop not has believe impact a injustice. Accordingly, on conviction should of the trial. App. 1999), the 889 So. level 2d of outcome of the was not the plain trial). evidence i n a manner t h a t State propensity to the court's circuit jury's failed 11 So. capital failure an to unfair resulted 3d not would at to e s t a b l i s h p l a i n e r r o r , affirmed. 49 Brown, did commit d e l i b e r a t i o n or parte 528 inconsistent the p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n had Ex be judging and that the W a l d r o p has in Carter, to the Crim. (Ala. rise burden defense, a jury regarding prejudicial manifest of his considered prior conviction theory met prior to i n s t r u c t outcome parte that prior conviction that murder, his 1, Ex be the record."). used Waldrop's failure e r r o r must have a f f e c t e d the part present 2d grounds, Because Waldrop's with only affected (recognizing criminal State court's could So. his t h a t W a l d r o p has circuit credibility overruled the believe Waldrop's v. about i n which not to e s t a b l i s h that jury He in 938. and
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.
