T. D. M. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/25/2010 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 be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-08-0355 T.D.M. v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal MAIN, Court Judge. T.D.M. a p p e a l s abuse, from W i l c o x C i r c u i t (CC-06-12) see § h i s convictions 13A-6-66, A l a . Code f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e sexual 1975, a n d f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy, s e e § 13A-6-63, A l a . Code 1975. He was s e n t e n c e d t o 20 years' imprisonment f o r t h e sodomy c o n v i c t i o n and 5 years' CR-08-0355 imprisonment f o r the sexual-abuse c o n v i c t i o n , t h e sentences t o run concurrently. T.D.M. a r g u e s were violated because change i t s v e r d i c t The record deliberations that h i s rights the t r i a l against court double allowed a f t e r t h e j u r y had been jeopardy the j u r y to discharged. i n d i c a t e s t h a t a f t e r the j u r y had f i n i s h e d i t s and r e t u r n e d t o the courtroom, the following occurred: "THE COURT: L a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , i t ' s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e j u r y has reached a v e r d i c t i n t h i s case. The C o u r t ' s not going t o t o l e r a t e any o u t b u r s t s o r a n y r e s p o n s e f r o m anyone i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e v e r d i c t . Once t h e j u r y r e a d s t h e v e r d i c t , we're g o i n g t o a l l o w t h e j u r y t o go o u t a n d we're g o i n g t o -- e v e r y b o d y ' s g o i n g t o s i t a n d r e m a i n s i l e n t u n t i l the jury leaves. Then one f a m i l y ' s g o i n g t o go o u t a t a t i m e . So does e v e r y b o d y understand that? "Bring them i n . "(The j u r y r e t u r n e d t o t h e c o u r t r o o m a t 5:19 p.m., a f t e r w h i c h t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e e d i n g s were h a d b e f o r e t h e Court and j u r y . ) "THE COURT: You may be s e a t e d . reached a v e r d i c t ? Has t h e j u r y "FOREPERSON: We h a v e , Y o u r Honor. "THE COURT: P l e a s e r e a d t h e v e r d i c t . 2 CR-08-0355 "FOREPERSON: We, t h e j u r y , f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t , [T.D.M.], g u i l t y o f t h e o f f e n s e o f s e x u a l abuse i n the f i r s t d e g r e e a s c h a r g e d i n c o u n t one o f t h e indictment. "We, t h e j u r y , f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t , [T.D.M.], n o t g u i l t y o f t h e o f f e n s e o f sodomy as c h a r g e d i n c o u n t two o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t . "THE COURT: What s a y s t h e S t a t e ? "[Prosecutor]: "THE The S t a t e ' s s a t i s f i e d . Your Honor. COURT: What s a y s t h e d e f e n d a n t ? " [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : We d o n ' t want y o u t o p o l l , J u d g e , i f t h a t ' s what y o u ' r e a s k i n g . A n d we want t o make a p o s t t r i a l m o t i o n . "THE COURT: L a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , on b e h a l f of the lawyers i n v o l v e d i n t h i s case; our C i r c u i t C l e r k , Mr. E r v i n ; t h e S h e r i f f ; a n d t h e o t h e r j u d g e s i n t h i s c i r c u i t , we t h a n k y o u f o r y o u r t i m e . We hope you have e n j o y e d y o u r e x p e r i e n c e . T h i s c o n c l u d e s y o u r j u r y s e r v i c e f o r t h e week. Mr. E r v i n ' s o f f i c e has p r e p a r e d y o u r c h e c k s a n d y o u r e x c u s e s . You w i l l now be f r e e t o go. However, i f you d e s i r e t o s t a y a r o u n d a n d t a l k t o t h e f a m i l y members o r a n y o f l a w y e r s , y o u may. T h a t i s up t o y o u . A g a i n , i t was a p l e a s u r e m e e t i n g y o u . Mr. E r v i n w i l l t a k e y o u r b a d g e s . He w i l l a l s o h a n d y o u t h e i n f o r m a t i o n y o u need t o go. " L a d i e s and gentlemen, you w i l l remain u n t i l a f t e r t h e j u r o r s have b e e n e x c u s e d . "(The seated j u r y was e x c u s e d a t 5:21 p.m.) "THE COURT: [T.D.M.], b a s e d on t h e j u r y f i n d i n g you g u i l t y o f t h e o f f e n s e o f s e x u a l abuse i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e , I'm g o i n g t o f i n d y o u g u i l t y o f t h e o f f e n s e o f s e x u a l abuse i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e . B a s e d 3 CR-08-0355 on the to the t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t o f f i n d i n g you n o t g u i l t y o f o f f e n s e o f sodomy i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e , I'm g o i n g f i n d y o u n o t g u i l t y o f t h e o f f e n s e o f sodomy i n f i r s t degree. "Do y ' a l l want a p r e s e n t e n c e "[Defense report? c o u n s e l ] : Y e s , Y o u r Honor. "THE COURT: I s t h e d e f e n d a n t g o i n g t o r e m a i n on t h e same bond? " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Y e s , s i r . Y o u r Honor. "THE CLERK: E x c u s e me. J u d g e . "(WHEREUPON, an o f f - t h e - r e c o r d d i s c u s s i o n was h e l d . ) "THE COURT: The f o r e p e r s o n s i g n e d t h e wrong o n e . "[Defense She c o u n s e l ] : What happened? "THE COURT: They r e a d t h e w r o n g v e r d i c t s i g n e d t h e wrong v e r d i c t f o r m . "Bring the foreperson form. in.... "THE COURT: [ F o r e p e r s o n ] , y o u h a n d e d t h e C o u r t the j u r y v e r d i c t s and you r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e C o u r t t h a t y o u gave t h e C o u r t i n c o r r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n . "FOREPERSON: Y e s , "THE sir. COURT: E x p l a i n t h a t t o t h e C o u r t . "FOREPERSON: W e l l , when I s t o o d up t o r e a d , I EPERSON: r e a l i z e d t h a t I h a d s i g n e d t h e wrong one. We a g r e e d on b o t h c o u n t s o f g u i l t y . "THE COURT: A n d t h e f o r m i n d i c a t i n g not g u i l t y ? 4 you handed me i s CR-08-0355 "FOREPERSON: R i g h t . "THE COURT: A n d you a r e s a y i n g t h a t i s n o t t h e jury's verdict? "FOREPERSON: No. T h a t w a s n ' t o u r v e r d i c t . "THE COURT: What s a y s t h e S t a t e ? " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Y o u r Honor, i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r e has b e e n a c l e r i c a l m i s t a k e . A n d I t h i n k t h a t t h e y s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o a d j u s t t h a t . "[Defense c o u n s e l ] : Judge, under d o u b l e - j e o p a r d y l a w s , t h e j u r y -- she s i g n e d t h e v e r d i c t , she p u b l i s h e d t h e j u r y v e r d i c t and t h e S t a t e d i d n o t r e q u e s t t h a t t h e j u r y be p o l l e d . The C o u r t a c t u a l l y e n t e r e d j u d g m e n t a f t e r t h a t . Under d o u b l e - j e o p a r d y l a w s , y o u c a n ' t go b a c k a n d change i t . I t i s what i t i s . I t w o u l d n ' t be any d i f f e r e n t i f t h e y r e a d a g u i l t y v e r d i c t . Once t h e y make t h e v e r d i c t a n d t h e y p u b l i s h i t and t h e Court a c c e p t s i t and n e i t h e r p a r t y asks f o r a p o l l i n g o f t h e j u r y , n e i t h e r p a r t y o b j e c t e d t o a n y t h i n g about t h e v e r d i c t s and t h e Court has a c t u a l l y entered judgment and t h a t p r e v e n t s him from b e i n g p u t back i n j e o p a r d y f o r that crime. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Y o u r Honor, being t r i e d again. This i s part mean, she -- t h e f o r e m a n made a s u s p e c t t h a t t h e r e ' s been any bad j u s t human e r r o r . t h i s case i s n o t of the process. I m i s t a k e . We d o n ' t f a i t h on h e r p a r t , "...They j u s t want t o go i n a n d c o r r e c t what t h e v e r d i c t s h o u l d a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t , and t h a t ' s a g u i l t y v e r d i c t on b o t h c o u n t s . "THE COURT: We've p u t a l l t h e i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e r e c o r d . I'm g o i n g t o b r i n g t h e j u r o r s b a c k i n , a n d l e t them make t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o t h e C o u r t . A n d I ' l l g i v e y ' a l l a c h a n c e t o make an i s s u e We'll 5 CR-08-0355 l e t t h e j u r o r s c o r r e c t i t and e x p l a i n r e a s o n why t h e y d i d t h i s . as t o t h e " "(The j u r y r e t u r n e d t o t h e c o u r t r o o m a t 5:30 p.m., a f t e r w h i c h t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e e d i n g s were h a d b e f o r e t h e C o u r t and j u r y . ) "THE COURT: [ F o r e p e r s o n ] , i t ' s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g you w o u l d l i k e t o make a c o r r e c t i o n f o r t h e C o u r t c o n c e r n i n g t h e v e r d i c t . What i s t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t as t o c o u n t two i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t ? "FOREPERSON: We, t h e j u r y , f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t , [T.D.M.], g u i l t y o f t h e o f f e n s e o f sodomy f i r s t d e g r e e as c h a r g e d i n c o u n t two o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t . "THE COURT: We're g o i n g t o s t a r t the end. down h e r e on " ( E a c h j u r o r , upon b e i n g a s k e d b y t h e C o u r t , ' I s t h a t your v e r d i c t ? ' answered i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e . ) "(Short recess.) " "THE COURT: We're g o i n g t o go b a c k on t h e r e c o r d t o c l a r i f y e x a c t l y what h a p p e n e d . My u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s t h a t t h e j u r o r s h a d l e f t t h e c o u r t r o o m a n d were o u t s i d e t o r e c e i v e excuses and t h e y brought i t t o the a t t e n t i o n of the c l e r k t h a t the v e r d i c t they had g i v e n a n d was a c c e p t e d was n o t t h e c o r r e c t v e r d i c t . A t t h a t p o i n t , we b r o u g h t t h e j u r o r s back and q u e s t i o n e d t h e f o r e p e r s o n and then p o l l e d t h e e n t i r e jury. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : That's the S t a t e s ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t that's an accurate understanding as t o what occurred. 6 CR-08-0355 "[Defense c o u n s e l ] : Yeah. I mean, d i s p u t e what t h e C o u r t d e s c r i b e d . " (R. we don't 517-25.) The c l e r k t e s t i f i e d t h a t j u s t b e f o r e s e n t e n c i n g , when t h e j u r o r s were d i s c h a r g e d , t h e o t h e r s p r e s e n t i n t h e c o u r t r o o m r e m a i n e d i n s i d e a s t h e j u r o r s e x i t e d . The c l e r k s t a t e d t h a t he h e l d t h e d o o r open f o r t h e j u r o r s t o e x i t . As t h e f o r e p e r s o n w a l k e d b y , s h e i n f o r m e d h i m o f t h e m i s t a k e a n d he s t e p p e d the h a l l t o c o n f e r w i t h h e r . He s t a t e d "huddled" signed. around h i m a s he was t o l d (R. 353.) He i m m e d i a t e l y that into a l l the jurors t h a t t h e wrong f o r m was informed t h e judge of the m i s t a k e . He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t none o f t h e j u r o r s h a d l e f t the t h i r d floor, w h i c h he c o n s i d e r e d " h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n . " (R. 355.) Subsequently, during the sentencing hearing, the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a d r e f r a i n e d addressing the proposed certified question from from T.D.M. c o n c e r n i n g t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e sodomy v e r d i c t a f t e r t h e j u r y had been d i s c h a r g e d ; t h e C o u r t h a d i n s t r u c t e d t h e t r i a l to rule on t h e m a t t e r . that i t was a c c e p t i n g t h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t as t o t h e sodomy c h a r g e . Defense counsel then argued The t r i a l court stated court t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e j u r y h a d f o u n d T.D.M. 7 CR-08-0355 not guilty, violation t o go of any responded discharged, was properly o r " t o go b e h i n d still correct that within i t " was principles. double-jeopardy prosecutor could further 345.) because the the c o n t r o l the mistake (R. jury, although i n i t sverdict and t h e r e argued: " I n t h i s c a s e . J u d g e , i f you w i l l r e c a l l , t h e c l e r k was i n t h e p r o c e s s o f h o l d i n g t h e d o o r open for t h e j u r y as t h e y were on t h e i r way o u t o f t h e c o u r t r o o m . And one o f t h e j u r o r s -- I b e l i e v e t h e f o r e p e r s o n -- w a l k e d b y t h e c l e r k , t o l d h i m a f t e r she h a d r e a d t h e v e r d i c t t h a t she made a m i s t a k e , t h a t t h a t was n o t t h e i r f i n d i n g s b a c k i n t h e j u r y room. And most o f t h e j u r y -- o r maybe a l l o f them -- were s t i l l on t h i s f l o o r , h a d n o t l e f t t h i s f l o o r . They were i n t h e p r o c e s s o f g o i n g o u t o f t h e c o u r t r o o m . I t was b r o u g h t t o t h e C o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n . The C o u r t r e a s s e m b l e d t h e j u r y , d i r e c t e d them t o go b a c k i n t o t h e j u r y room, n o t t o d e l i b e r a t e f u r t h e r , but t o c o r r e c t t h e mistake t h a t they had d i s c o v e r e d . And a f t e r t h e j u r y corrected the mistake, you brought them b a c k o u t . And they were polled i n d i v i d u a l l y . And t h e y a l l s a i d t h a t t h a t was t h e i r finding. "So, i n c o n c l u s i o n . J u d g e , a l t h o u g h i t may be a r g u e d t h a t a j u r y may n o t be r e c a l l e d t o e f f e c t i t s v e r d i c t once d i s c h a r g e d , A l a b a m a l a w d a t i n g back more t h a n one h u n d r e d y e a r s s t a t e s t h a t a d i s c h a r g e i s o n l y e f f e c t i v e i f t h e j u r y h a s gone b e y o n d t h e immediate and c o n t i n u o u s control of the court; to e x t r-a - t,r i ai l thereby, subjecting themselves ^''^ influences." 346-47.) 8 The of the court, i t was no d o u b l e - j e o p a r d y v i o l a t i o n . The p r o s e c u t o r (R. a CR-08-0355 Defense c o u n s e l responded t h a t because t h e j u r y had l e f t the courtroom, t h e members were out of the c o n t r o l of the c o u r t , h a d b e e n d i s c h a r g e d , a n d no l o n g e r h a d t h e a b i l i t y t o deliberate. "The constitution amendment, d e c l a r e s , twice of the United 'nor s h a l l put i n jeopardy States, clause 163 U.S. of l i f e 662, 669 defendant i s not placed any p e r s o n Ball "[T]he and judges i n jeopardy i n the fifth be s u b j e c t t o be or limb.'" (1896). i s aimed a t p r o s e c u t o r s States, v. double United jeopardy t o ensure twice that a f o r the same o f f e n s e . " U n i t e d S t a t e s v . D a v i s , 656 F.2d 153, 157 ( 5 t h C i r . 1981). "Jeopardy a t t a c h e s a t t h e empaneling and s w e a r i n g i n o f the v. B r e t z , jury, 2160, 734, Crist 437 U.S. 28, 35, 98 S . C t . 2156, 57 L.Ed.2d 24 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ; Downum v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 372 U.S. 83 S . C t . 1033, 10 L.Ed.2d 100 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , a n d f r o m t h e n on, c o n s i d e r a t i o n must be g i v e n t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s ... t o have h i s t r i a l 'valued completed by t h e p a r t i c u l a r right tribunal summoned t o s i t i n j u d g m e n t on h i m . ' I d . a t 736, 83 S . C t . a t 1034." U n i t e d 1978). at States v . Bobo, 586 F.2d 355, 362 (5th C i r . "The u n d e r l y i n g i d e a , one t h a t i s d e e p l y i n g r a i n e d i n l e a s t t h e Anglo-American system of j u r i s p r u d e n c e , i s t h a t 9 CR-08-0355 the State with a l l i t s resources a l l o w e d t o make r e p e a t e d a t t e m p t s an a l l e g e d o f f e n s e , t h e r e b y and power of anxiety and s u b j e c t i n g him insecurity, as well p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t e v e n t h o u g h i n n o c e n t he may Green v. United States, 355 criminal States v. proceedings Jorn, L.Ed.2d 543, 395, 400 553 U.S. U.S. 184, in a continuing as enhancing be f o u n d 187-88 N.W.2d 718, The double-jeopardy holding jury that favor 470, of 479, the 91 (1957). 547, 720 United 554, other the circumstances trial court's t h a t made t h e i r of 391, implications inherent i n r e c a l l i n g have r e s u l t e d d e c l a r a t i o n of e s t a b l i s h e d t h e end o f any p o s s i b l e amendment o f t h e and 27 (1971). t o amend i t s v e r d i c t the cases "The finality defendant. S.Ct. the guilty." ( 1 9 7 1 ) . " P e o p l e v. R u s h i n , 37 M i c h . App. 194 discharged in be to embarrassment, double jeopardy c l a u s e c l e a r l y enunciates a p o l i c y of in not t o c o n v i c t an i n d i v i d u a l f o r e x p e n s e and o r d e a l and c o m p e l l i n g h i m t o l i v e state should the in cases discharge verdict, d e t e r m i n a t i o n by e v a l u a t i n g location and a f t e r t h e c o u r t a n n o u n c e d t h a t i t was conduct of the discharged. "The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t a j u r y may n o t be reassembled a f t e r d i s c h a r g e t o amend a v e r d i c t . W h i l e some s t a t e s a d o p t a s t r i c t ' b r i g h t l i n e ' t e s t , o t h e r s have a l l o w e d t h e amended v e r d i c t , under 10 a jury CR-08-0355 l i m i t e d circumstances, u s i n g v a r i o u s g u i d e l i n e s or tests to ensure the integrity of the verdict. Compare P e r r y m a n v. S t a t e , 102 Tex. C r i m . 531, 278 S.W. 439 (1925) ( j u r y c o u l d n o t amend v e r d i c t where foreman asked judge t o l e t j u r y r e c o n s i d e r almost i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r r e n d e r i n g v e r d i c t ) ; Cook v. S t a t e , 60 A l a . 39 (1877) ( j u r y c o u l d n o t be r e a s s e m b l e d t o render v e r d i c t i n presence of p r i s o n e r f i v e minutes a f t e r rendered i n h i s absence even though the two jurors who had left courtroom swore t h e y had c o n v e r s e d w i t h no o n e ) , w i t h Summers v. United S t a t e s , 11 F.2d 583 ( 4 t h C i r . 1926) ( a l l o w e d amended v e r d i c t , d i s t i n g u i s h i n g merely f o r m a l d i s c h a r g e from d i s c h a r g e i n f a c t ) ; L e v e l l s v. S t a t e , 32 A r k . 585 (1877) ( j u r y c o u l d be r e c a l l e d t o s p e c i f y on w h i c h o f two c o u n t s a v e r d i c t was e n t e r e d ) . " S t a t e v. R o b e r g e , 155 ( w h e r e i n t h e r e was Vt. 121, 124, 582 A.2d 142, 144 (1990) no a l l e g a t i o n o f t a m p e r i n g , " p r a c t i c a l l y o p p o r t u n i t y f o r d i s c u s s i o n o r i n f l u e n c e by o u t s i d e r s " 155 a t 125, by t h e 582 a t 145, j u r y when t h e courtroom counts; A.2d to thus, enter j u r y was guilty t h e r e was of p o s s i b l e e n t a i l m e n t s a jury after Risk Mutual i t has and no r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e no r e c a l l e d a f t e r having v e r d i c t s as impropriety). each of Co. v. Stuart, As 395 from noted the three So. recalling in Preferred 2d 980 1981): "'To p e r m i t an a l t e r a t i o n a f t e r t h e j u r y are d i s m i s s e d , would l e a d to great abuses, and I am u n w i l l i n g t o e x t e n d t h e p r i n c i p l e 11 issues left the Vt. T h e r e a r e a number or problems r e s u l t i n g been d i s c h a r g e d . Insurance to no (Ala. CR-08-0355 f u r t h e r t h a n t h e a d j u d g e d c a s e s . How long s h a l l t h i s p r i v i l e g e l a s t ; how [ t o ] draw t h e l i n e o f d i s t i n c t i o n , and i n what manner shall we a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r i t be the c o r r e c t i o n o f an h o n e s t m i s t a k e , o r t h e result of improper tampering and o u t - o f - d o o r management w i t h t h e j u r y ? .... II I I "....'How l o n g s h a l l t h e p r i v i l e g e l a s t ? ' Once t h e v e r d i c t has b e e n r e c e i v e d and t h e j u r y d i s c h a r g e d , should we or the p a r t i c i p a n t s be allowed to s p e c u l a t e on t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t has lost its control over the conduct or the d e l i b e r a t i o n s o f t h a t j u r y , t o t h e end t h a t e v e r y s u c h i n s t a n c e becomes a r e l a t i v e i s s u e ? What l i n e s of r e a l i s t i c d i s t i n c t i o n s h a l l e x i s t between the c a s e s w h i c h w i l l r e s u l t when we o b s e r v e t h a t t h e j u r y , t h o u g h b e i n g d i s c h a r g e d and t h u s f r e e f r o m t h e c o n s t a n t s u p e r v i s i o n and a u t h o r i t y o f t h e c o u r t , n e v e r t h e l e s s were s t i l l p h y s i c a l l y i n t h e c o u r t r o o m and t h e r e f o r e s t i l l s u b j e c t t o some f o r m o f t h a t supervision?" 395 So. 2d R a w l e 414, at 986-87 16 Am. Dec. (quoting Walters 585 (Pa. "When t h e c o u r t a n n o u n c e s and they v. Junkins,16 Serg. & 1827). [ t h e j u r y members'] l e a v e the presence of the court, t h e i r discharge, functions as j u r o r s have e n d e d , and n e i t h e r w i t h n o r w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e c o u r t can t h e y amend o r a l t e r t h e i r v e r d i c t . The s a n c t i t y of jury trials cannot be thus subjected to s u s p i c i o n . " M e l t o n v. Commonwealth, 132 Va. 291, 294 (1922) . See Cook v. State, 12 60 703, Ala. the hazard 707, 39, 111 42 of S.E. (1877) CR-08-0355 (holding entered t h a t t h e j u r y had been d i s c h a r g e d d e s p i t e the v e r d i c t outside the presence i t s having of the defendant, b e c a u s e t h e j u r y members "had d i s p e r s e d among t h e a u d i e n c e i n the c o u r t h o u s e a n d [among t h e ] p e r s o n s outside"). " U n t i l a j u r y h a s b e e n d i s c h a r g e d , i t i s w i t h i n t h e power of t h e t r i a l court to d i r e c t i tto correct t o make i t a p p e a r i n p r o p e r Co. v. R u s s e l l , Ala.Dig., Stuart, initially Trial, f o r m . R o b e r t P. S t a p p 277 A l a . 84, 167 So. 2d 167 Key 3 3 9 . " P r e f e r r e d as t o w h e t h e r a so as Machinery (1964); 18A R i s k Mut. I n s . Co. v . 395 So. 2d a t 986. However, be made i t s verdict a determination jury must has i n f a c t been d i s c h a r g e d o r has s e p a r a t e d . I n S t a t e v. R o d r i g u e z , 139 N.M. 450, 134 P.3d 737 ( 2 0 0 6 ) , Rodriguez contended that the t r i a l court v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t t o be free from double jeopardy by reassembling the jury c o r r e c t i t s v e r d i c t as t o t h e d r i v i n g - w h i l e - i n t o x i c a t e d to charge f r o m n o t g u i l t y as i n d i c a t e d on t h e s i g n e d f o r m t o g u i l t y . The j u r o r s h a d b e e n d i s c h a r g e d b y t h e c o u r t , b u t t h e b a i l i f f moved the that j u r y b a c k t o i t s room b e c a u s e t h e j u r o r s h a d i n f o r m e d h i m t h e announced v e r d i c t was n o t t h e i r decision. The jury was e x i t i n g t h e c o u r t r o o m when t h e b a i l i f f was i n f o r m e d o f t h e 13 CR-08-0355 impropriety. F i v e minutes l a t e r , the their verdict and a l l affirmed driving-while-intoxicated Mexico that charge. j u r o r s were p o l l e d as i t was The g u i l t y as to the Supreme C o u r t of New stated: "To d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e c o r r e c t i o n o f t h e v e r d i c t form from not g u i l t y to g u i l t y v i o l a t e d Defendant's constitutional right to be free from double j e o p a r d y , we must f i r s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l judge erred i n reassembling the jury once he a n n o u n c e d he was g o i n g t o d i s c h a r g e t h e j u r y . As t h e Court of Appeals pointed out in i t s opinion, ' [ w ] h e t h e r a t r i a l c o u r t may r e a s s e m b l e a d i s c h a r g e d j u r y t o amend, c l a r i f y , o r c o r r e c t a v e r d i c t i s t h e s u b j e c t o f a s u r p r i s i n g number o f c a s e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e c o u n t r y . ' R o d r i g u e z , 2004-NMCA-125, 5 7, 136 N.M. 494, 100 P.3d 200. Some s t a t e s c a t e g o r i c a l l y p r e c l u d e the reassembly of a j u r y t o c o r r e c t a v e r d i c t once t h e t r i a l j u d g e a n n o u n c e s h i s o r h e r i n t e n t t o d i s c h a r g e t h e j u r y . See, e.g., West v. S t a t e , 228 I n d . 431, 92 N.E.2d 852, 855 (1950). O t h e r s t a t e s a n a l y z e w h e t h e r t h e j u r y was d i s c h a r g e d by i n v e s t i g a t i n g w h e t h e r t h e j u r y a c t u a l l y l e f t t h e p r e s e n c e and c o n t r o l o f t h e c o u r t . See, e.g., State v. B r a n d e n b u r g , 38 N.J. S u p e r . 561, 120 A.2d 59, 61 (Hudson C o u n t y C t . 1 9 5 6 ) . I n New M e x i c o , i n a c a s e where t h e j u r y was c a l l e d b a c k t o t h e c o u r t r o o m t o correct a verdict one day after they were d i s c h a r g e d , we s t a t e d t h a t ' [ a ] f t e r a v e r d i c t has b e e n r e c e i v e d and e n t e r e d upon t h e m i n u t e s , and t h e j u r y has b e e n d i s m i s s e d , t h e y have n o t t h e power t o reassemble and alter their verdict.' Murry v. B e l m o r e , 21 N.M. 313, 319, 154 P. 705, 707 (1916). D e s p i t e t h i s s t a t e m e n t , we r e f u s e d t o s e t a s i d e t h e corrected verdict because appellant's attorney 'purposely refrained' from objecting to the r e a s s e m b l y o f t h e j u r y i n an a p p a r e n t a t t e m p t t o f o r c e a new t r i a l f o r h i s c l i e n t . I d . a t 319-20, 154 P. a t 707-08. 14 to CR-08-0355 "What r e m a i n s u n a n s w e r e d i n New M e x i c o l a w i s : when i s a j u r y a c t u a l l y d i s c h a r g e d ? The C o u r t o f Appeals h e l d t h a t a f u n c t i o n a l approach to answering t h e q u e s t i o n was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h New M e x i c o l a w . Rodriguez, 2004-NMCA-125, 5 13, 136 N.M. 494, 100 P.3d 200. We a g r e e w i t h t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s on t h i s point. The f u n c t i o n a l approach to determining w h e t h e r a j u r y has been d i s c h a r g e d requires a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether the j u r y i s s t i l l i n the p r e s e n c e and c o n t r o l o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and i f n o t , w h e t h e r t h e j u r y was p o s s i b l y i n f l u e n c e d by an u n a u t h o r i z e d c o n t a c t . See S t a t e v. G r e e n , 995 S.W. 2d 591, 609-613 (Tenn. C r i m . App. 1998) (reviewing cases from s e v e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s ) . We find the a n a l y s i s i n Green p e r s u a s i v e . In Green, the c o u r t h e l d t h a t a v e r b a l d i s c h a r g e or d i s m i s s a l of the jury does n o t render the jury discharged for purposes of subsequent reassembly t o c o r r e c t or amend a v e r d i c t . I d . a t 609. I n s t e a d , the court c o n s i d e r e d two i s s u e s : (1) w h e t h e r t h e j u r y was s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e p r e s e n c e and c o n t r o l o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ; and (2) w h e t h e r t h e r e was a p o s s i b i l i t y o f o u t s i d e c o n t a c t s o r i n f l u e n c e on t h e j u r y . I d . a t 612-13; see a l s o Commonwealth v. Brown, 367 Mass. 24, 323 N.E.2d 902, 904-05 (1975) (holding r e a s s e m b l y p e r m i s s i b l e where j u r o r s r e m a i n e d i n c o n t r o l o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t by v i r t u e o f b e i n g i n c u s t o d y o f c o u r t o f f i c e r s and had no o p p o r t u n i t y f o r o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e ) . An i m p o r t a n t q u e r y on t h e s e c o n d i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t one or more j u r o r s e n t e r e d an a r e a o c c u p i e d by t h e g e n e r a l public." S t a t e v. R o d r i g u e z , In Rodriguez, 139 N.M. a t 452-53, 134 P. 3d a t 739-40. t h e j u r o r s r e m a i n e d i n t h e p r e s e n c e and c o n t r o l of the t r i a l c o u r t and d i d n o t e n t e r i n t o an a r e a o c c u p i e d by the public. no general The court concluded that, because o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e t a i n t e d the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , the e n t r y of the 15 CR-08-0355 v e r d i c t a c t u a l l y c h o s e n b y t h e j u r y was n o t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y barred. I n Summers v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 11 F.2d 583 ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 2 6 ) , the U n i t e d S t a t e s Court o f Appeals f o r the Fourth C i r c u i t h e l d t h a t t h e r e was no d o u b l e - j e o p a r d y had been discharged additional charge by v i o l a t i o n where the t r i a l to the jury court outside after the jury giving the presence an of the d e f e n d a n t a n d t h e n r e c a l l i n g t h e j u r y , w h i c h e n t e r e d t h e same v e r d i c t of g u i l t . discharged, In determining whether t h e j u r y had been the court stated: "A d i s c h a r g e i n s u c h c a s e may be e f f e c t e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n o r v e r b a l o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t . The d u t i e s o f a j u r y o r d i n a r i l y a r e p r e s u m e d t o be a t an end when i t s v e r d i c t h a s b e e n r e n d e r e d , r e c e i v e d , and p u b l i s h e d . I f t h e r e u p o n , w i t h o r w i t h o u t f u r t h e r p o s i t i v e d i r e c t i o n of the court, i t i s allowed t o d i s p e r s e and m i n g l e w i t h t h e b y s t a n d e r s , w i t h time and o p p o r t u n i t y f o r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e c a s e , w h e t h e r s u c h d i s c u s s i o n be h a d o r n o t , t h e d i s c h a r g e o f t h e j u r y becomes f i n a l , a n d i t s f u n c t i o n s a r e a t an e n d . O r d i n a r i l y , the e f f e c t i v e discharge of a jury i s e v i d e n c e d b y t h e announcement o f t h a t f a c t b y t h e c o u r t , a n d i t i s p e r h a p s n o t t o be c o n s t r u e d so much an o r d e r as a mere announcement o f t h e f a c t b y t h e court when i t says to the jury, 'You a r e d i s c h a r g e d . ' I t i s n o t so much what i s s a i d i n p a s s i n g as what i s a c t u a l l y done a n d a c t e d upon t h a t determines the question of discharge. Without specific announcement, a jury may tacitly be p e r m i t t e d t o r e t i r e and m i n g l e w i t h t h e b y s t a n d e r s a f t e r r e n d e r i n g i t s v e r d i c t , a n d t h e r e b y become e f f e c t i v e l y a n d i r r e v o c a b l y d i s c h a r g e d . On t h e o t h e r 16 CR-08-0355 h a n d , i t may r e m a i n u n d i s c h a r g e d a n d r e t a i n i t s f u n c t i o n s , t h o u g h d i s c h a r g e may have b e e n s p o k e n b y t h e c o u r t , i f , a f t e r s u c h announcement, i t r e m a i n s an u n d i s p e r s e d u n i t , w i t h i n c o n t r o l o f t h e c o u r t , w i t h no o p p o r t u n i t y t o m i n g l e w i t h o r d i s c u s s t h e c a s e w i t h o t h e r s , a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e r e , as h e r e , t h e v e r y c a s e upon w h i c h i t h a s b e e n i m p a n e l e d i s s t i l l under d i s c u s s i o n by t h e c o u r t , w i t h o u t t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f any o t h e r b u s i n e s s . "The c a s e o f B r i s t e r e t a l . v. S t a t e , 26 A l a . [107,] 132 [ ( 1 8 5 5 ) ] , i s i n p o i n t . T h e r e t h e v e r d i c t was r e c e i v e d a n d r e a d a l o u d i n t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s , a n d t h e j u r y was t h e r e u p o n t o l d b y t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e y were d i s c h a r g e d , a n d s t a r t e d o u t o f t h e c o u r t r o o m , b u t b e f o r e t h e y l e f t t h e b a r i t was discovered t h a t t h e p r i s o n e r s were n o t p r e s e n t . Whereupon t h e c o u r t i n f o r m e d t h e j u r y t h a t t h e y were n o t d i s c h a r g e d , t h e p a p e r s were r e t u r n e d t o them, and t h e p r i s o n e r s b r o u g h t i n t o c o u r t . The j u r y t h e n , over o b j e c t i o n , returned a v e r d i c t of c o n v i c t i o n , and t h i s was s u s t a i n e d b y t h e Supreme C o u r t . To t h e same e f f e c t i s t h e c a s e o f L e v e l l s v. S t a t e , 32 A r k . 585 [ ( 1 8 7 7 ) ] , i n w h i c h i t was h e l d t h a t where t h e j u r y h a s n o t s e p a r a t e d , a n d as a body i s s t i l l i n the presence of t h e c o u r t , t h e order of d i s c h a r g e i s still i n the breast o f t h e c o u r t , a n d may be r e c a l l e d . See a l s o J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 45 Ga. 198 [ ( 1 8 7 2 ) ] ; G r a n t v . S t a t e , 14 So. 757, 33 F l a . 2 9 1 , 23 L.R.A. 723 [ ( 1 8 9 4 ) ] , a n d n o t e a t page 732; T a g g a r t v . Com., 46 S.W. 674, 104 Ky. 3 0 1 , 20 Ky.Law Rep. 493 [ ( 1 8 9 8 ) ] ; Denham v . Com., 84 S.W. 538, 119 Ky. 508, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 171 [ ( 1 9 0 5 ) ] . " Summers v. United Cunningham v. S t a t e , States, 11 F.2d at 586-87. See also 14 A l a . App. 1, 8-9, 69 So. 982, 985-86 (1915) ( f i n d i n g no e r r o r " i n t h e c o u r t ' s a l l o w i n g t h e v e r d i c t to be c o m p l e t e d and v e r i f i e d by t h e j u r y 17 as t h e i r verdict CR-08-0355 a f t e r i t h a d b e e n r e a d b y t h e c l e r k , when i t a p p e a r s jury, the that the a l t h o u g h d i s c h a r g e d , was c a l l e d b a c k b y t h e c o u r t f o r purpose of completing the v e r d i c t before leaving the courtroom"). Here, courthouse the jury between remained on the time the t h i r d floor of the t h e judge announced that the the time t h e foreman informed members were d i s c h a r g e d u n t i l t h e c l e r k t h a t s h e h a d s i g n e d t h e wrong f o r m . The j u r y members had n o t d i s p e r s e d o r c o n v e r s e d w i t h o u t s i d e r s . The j u r o r s h a d remained courtroom, i n the hallway just outside t h e doorway and t h e f o r e m a n i m m e d i a t e l y b r o u g h t the c l e r k ' s a t t e n t i o n . of the the mistake to T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e o f any t a m p e r i n g w i t h t h e members o f t h e j u r y . Once t h e members were p o l l e d , t h e y a l l c o n f i r m e d t h e v e r d i c t as i t h a d b e e n i n t e n d e d . See 8 Wigmore, E v i d e n c e act of assent § 2355 a t 717 to a verdict answer t o t h e c l e r k s i l e n c e which (Chadbourn r e v . 1981) i s constituted at the p o l l i n g implies by t h e express i n open c o u r t o r b y t h e an a s s e n t . The o u t w a r d 18 ("The act i s final." CR-08-0355 (emphasis omitted)). Therefore, T.D.M.'s d o u b l e - j e o p a r d y rights. there was no v i o l a t i o n of 1 II. T.D.M. a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l motion f o r a continuance records from c o u r t e r r e d by denying h i s because t h e State f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e t h e Department o f Human R e s o u r c e s and medical r e p o r t s . The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t on A u g u s t 13, 2007, d e f e n s e counsel and made a m o t i o n i n chambers t o d i s m i s s the indictment a m o t i o n t o c o n t i n u e b a s e d on t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o have p r o d u c e d t h e r e c o r d s u n t i l t h a t d a t e . He s u b m i t t e d p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d a motion t o continue Department o f Human Resources i n order records t h a t he h a d to obtain the and t h a t there was e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e d o c u m e n t s , so t h a t t h e r e was a v i o l a t i o n o f B r a d y v . M a r y l a n d , 373 U.S. 83 ( 1 9 6 3 ) . 2 The See a l s o Lamb v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-08-1682, June 25, 2010] So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) . Lamb a p p e a l e d f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n ; t h i s C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t c i r c u i t court's a p p l i c a t i o n of the procedural bars i n Rule 32.2 t o deny t h e p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f was a p p r o p r i a t e b e c a u s e , b a s e d on t h e f a c t s o f t h a t c a s e , t h e trial court's actions regarding t h e j u r y v e r d i c t were p e r m i s s i b l e as c o r r e c t i n g a c l e r i c a l e r r o r p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 29, A l a . R . C r i m . P . 1 T h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s h a d p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d a motion f o r a p r o t e c t i v e order concerning the victim's r e c o r d s , a n d t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e r e c o r d s be p r o d u c e d 2 19 CR-08-0355 prosecutor r e s p o n d e d t h a t t h e r e was n o t h i n g e x c u l p a t o r y i n t h e documents and t h a t the victim h a d been dealing o f f e n s e s f o r a l m o s t two y e a r s . The t r i a l c o u r t t h e n the prosecutor concerning the a v a i l a b i l i t y with the questioned of the witnesses who h a d e x a m i n e d o r i n t e r v i e w e d t h e v i c t i m a n d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the State h a d s u b p o e n a e d a l l o f them. The t r i a l e n s u r e d t h a t T.D.M. was a f f o r d e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y and court then t o examine pursue t h e e v i d e n c e as f o l l o w s : "THE COURT: What I w i l l do i s , a l l o w h i m a d v a n c e n o t i c e t o a t l e a s t t a l k w i t h those witnesses, p a r t i c u l a r l y Dr. K i d d [ t h e f a m i l y d o c t o r ] and Dr. W h i t e [ t h e p e d i a t r i c i a n ] , p r i o r t o them t e s t i f y i n g , s i n c e he j u s t g o t t h e r e c o r d s t o d a y . I ' v e c a l l e d D r . W h i t e ' s o f f i c e a n d s h e was w i t h a p a t i e n t . She's going to call t h e C o u r t b a c k t o work o u t h e r s c h e d u l e i n t e r m s o f when s h e i s p l a n n i n g t o a p p e a r . I have n o t s p o k e n w i t h D r . K i d d ' s o f f i c e . I f y ' a l l want t o t a l k w i t h D r . K i d d ' s o f f i c e , we c a n t a k e a b r e a k a n d do t h a t a n d s e e when h e ' s p l a n n i n g t o be h e r e . I d o n ' t know what t i m e y o u - a l l a r e p l a n n i n g t o c a l l him. " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Can we p u t a l l t h e d o c t o r s on c a l l ? A n d , i f p o s s i b l e , we c a n p r o b a b l y have them h e r e t o d a y b e c a u s e t h e y were aware t o be on c a l l f o r today. for an i n camera r e v i e w . When t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s d i d n o t r e s p o n d , T.D.M. f i l e d a n o t h e r m o t i o n t o c o n t i n u e a n d t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d on A u g u s t 3, 2007 t h a t t h e r e c o r d s be f o r w a r d e d t o T.D.M. 20 CR-08-0355 "THE COURT: I j u s t want t o a t l e a s t g i v e h i m a c h a n c e t o be a b l e t o t a l k t o them a n d go t h r o u g h t h e r e c o r d w i t h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n he h a s . Can we do t h a t ? " (R. 8.) The trial court denied T.D.M.'s motions, and v o i r dire commenced. (R. 12.) A f t e r t h e s e l e c t i o n o f t h e j u r y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e c e s s e d t h e p r o c e e d i n g s u n t i l t h e m o r n i n g o f A u g u s t 15, 2007. At that time, defense counsel affirmed that he h a d p r e v i o u s l y h a d most o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e i n t e r v i e w s w i t h t h e victim, and had s i n c e Resources records. received The t r i a l t h e Department c o u r t asked o f Human the parties i fthe p r o c e e d i n g s were s t i l l g o i n g t o be p a u s e d i n o r d e r f o r d e f e n s e counsel to testimony. five talk Defense minutes, to the expert counsel witnesses a t t h e most, with each p r o s e c u t o r confirmed t h e time a t which available, and defense "about o n e . " (R. 111.) The t h e w i t n e s s e s w o u l d be c o u n s e l s t a t e d t h a t he c o u l d t a l k t o them b e f o r e t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d . had their t h a t he w a n t e d responded before (R. 112.) The t r i a l c o u r t then t h e p r o s e c u t o r c o n f i r m t h a t t h e t h r e e w i t n e s s e s named b y T.D.M. w o u l d be p r e s e n t stated,"[T]hat and a v a i l a b l e . was t h e o n l y making sure t h o s e . . . w i t n e s s e s problem Defense c o u n s e l we h a d b e f o r e , were h e r e . " 21 (R. 112.) then Judge, CR-08-0355 The court's r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t T.D.M. a c q u i e s c e d i n the t r i a l a c t i o n s t o a l l o w him t o i n t e r v i e w t h e w i t n e s s e s and e x a m i n e t h e d o c u m e n t s . See Brown v . S t a t e , 11 So. 3d 866, 882 (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 0 7 ) , 933 ( A l a . 2008), 129 S.Ct. a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e Brown, 11 So. 3 d c e r t . d e n i e d , Brown v . A l a b a m a , 2864 (2009) U.S. , ("The r e c o r d shows t h a t t h i s m a t t e r was r e s o l v e d t o d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s s a t i s f a c t i o n . Thus, i f a n y e r r o r o c c u r r e d i t was i n v i t e d b y d e f e n s e also c o u n s e l ' s c o n d u c t . " ) . See S n y d e r v . S t a t e , 893 So. 2d 488, 518 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) ("Both p a r t i e s a g r e e d w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s h a n d l i n g o f t h e s i t u a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , i f e r r o r d i d o c c u r i t was i n v i t e d b y S n y d e r ' s own c o n d u c t . " ) . H e r e , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e o f s u p p r e s s i o n by t h e S t a t e , n o r i s t h e r e a n y i n d i c a t i o n o f p r e j u d i c e s u f f e r e d b y T.D.M. on t h i s g r o u n d . T.D.M. a c q u i e s c e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a c t i o n s t o allow him access examinations trial t o the evidence concerning and i n t e r v i e w s o f t h e v i c t i m . c o u r t d i d n o t abuse h i s d i s c r e t i o n motions. III. 22 the expert Therefore, the i n d e n y i n g T.D.M.'s CR-08-0355 T.D.M. a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l court committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by a l l o w i n g improper o p i n i o n testimony, bolstered trial. the victim's T.D.M. testimony that that specifically and denied refers he a l l e g e s p r o v i d e d the v i c t i m testimony credibility was telling w h i c h , he s a y s , to him a s i x instances the witnesses' the truth. The of opinions particular i n c l u d e s s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e v i c t i m ' s mother t h a t she believed i nher heart and h e r t e s t i m o n y testimony t h a t t h e v i c t i m was t e l l i n g the truth, t h a t t h e v i c t i m was l o v i n g a n d o b e d i e n t ; t h e of the investigator from Department o f Human Resources t h a t t h e Department's i n v e s t i g a t i o n had found the fair sexual abuse alleged family physician's historian;" that by t h e v i c t i m had o c c u r r e d ; t h e testimony t h a t t h e v i c t i m was a " r e l i a b l e a State's witness's testimony h e r ; " and t h e p e d i a t r i c i a n ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t she " b e l i e v e d concerning the v e r a c i t y of c h i l d v i c t i m s i n g e n e r a l i n r e p o r t i n g a l l e g a t i o n s o f sexual abuse. The objections record other indicates that T.D.M. raised specific than b o l s t e r i n g t h e v i c t i m ' s c r e d i b i l i t y as t o a number o f t h e s e statements or g e n e r a l l y objected without specifying He by t h e grounds. objected 23 t o the testimony CR-08-0355 victim's mother that the the specifying r e p e a t i n g the w i t n e s s ' s language. statement any (R. 322.) concerning the to improper mother's t h a t she b e l i e v e d i n h e r h e a r t t h a t t h e v i c t i m pediatrician's objected as statement without He loving evidence. truthful 324.) was character being (R. child ground other was than He o b j e c t e d t o t h e veracity of child v i c t i m s i n g e n e r a l by c h a l l e n g i n g t h e w i t n e s s ' s e x p e r t i s e as to the t r u t h f u l n e s s of c h i l d v i c t i m s . to the Department of (R. 311-13.) He o b j e c t e d Human R e s o u r c e s worker's testimony as improper o p i n i o n testimony, a p p a r e n t l y concerning the u l t i m a t e issue, r a t h e r t h a n as i m p r o p e r bolstering. (R. 283-84.) "'"To p r e s e r v e an i s s u e f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w , t h e issue must be timely raised and specifically p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t and an a d v e r s e r u l i n g o b t a i n e d . " M i t c h e l l v. S t a t e , 913 So. 2d 501, 505 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . The p u r p o s e o f r e q u i r i n g an i s s u e t o be p r e s e r v e d f o r r e v i e w i s t o a l l o w t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h e f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o r r e c t any e r r o r . See, e.g., Ex p a r t e C o u l l i e t t e , 857 So. 2d 793 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . ' " Ex p a r t e M a l o n e , 12 So. 3d 60, 66 ( A l a . 2008). T.D.M. d i d n o t p r o p e r l y o b j e c t so as t o p r e s e r v e t h e s e comments f o r r e v i e w . As believed to the the testimony victim, of the defense State's counsel 24 witness moved for a that she mistrial CR-08-0355 f o l l o w i n g t h e comment, a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y as follows: "THE COURT: L a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , y o u ia r e t o d i s r e g a r d t h e l a s t s t a t e m e n t f r o m t h e w i t n e s s as t o w h e t h e r o r n o t s h e b e l i e v e d what t h e young l a d y said. "That's n o t r e l e v a n t . "No, ma'am, y o u a r e n o t t o s a y t h a t . "THE WITNESS: I'm s o r r y . "THE COURT: I t ' s s t r i c k e n f r o m t h e r e c o r d . " (R. 191-92.) The t r i a l the T.D.M. made no f u r t h e r o b j e c t i o n o r m o t i o n . court's instructions to the jury to disregard comment were s u f f i c i e n t t o c u r e a n y e r r o r . "A m o t i o n f o r a m i s t r i a l i m p l i e s a m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e a n d s h o u l d o n l y be g r a n t e d where i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t j u s t i c e c a n n o t be a f f o r d e d . Young v . S t a t e , 416 So. 2d 1109 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ) . A t r i a l judge i s allowed broad d i s c r e t i o n i n determining w h e t h e r a m i s t r i a l s h o u l d be d e c l a r e d , b e c a u s e he i s i n t h e best p o s i t i o n t o observe the scenario, t o d e t e r m i n e i t s e f f e c t upon t h e j u r y , a n d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e m i s t r i a l s h o u l d be g r a n t e d . Woods v . S t a t e , 367 So. 2d 982 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) ; Duncan v . C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 384 So. 2 d 1232 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ) ; Wadsworth v . S t a t e , 439 So. 2d 790 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , Wadsworth v . A l a b a m a , [466] U.S. [ 9 3 0 ] , 104 S . C t . 1716, 80 L.Ed.2d 188 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . "The g r a n t i n g o f a m i s t r i a l i s an e x t r e m e m e a s u r e , a n d a m i s t r i a l s h o u l d be d e n i e d where t h e prejudicial qualities o f t h e comment c a n be e r a d i c a t e d b y t h e a c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Young, 25 CR-08-0355 supra; Dickey v. State, (Ala.Cr.App.), c e r t . denied, 1980)." D i x o n v. S t a t e , 390 So. 2d 1177 390 So. 2d 1178 ( A l a . 476 So. 2d 1236, 1240 (1985). "'There i s a p r i m a f a c i e p r e s u m p t i o n a g a i n s t the trial court immediately charges the j u r y error to when disregard i m p r o p e r r e m a r k s o r a n s w e r s . ' G a r r e t t v. S t a t e , 580 So. 2d 58, 59 153 2d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . " W a l k e r v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e W a l k e r , 972 So. 737 ( A l a . 2007). "Where the t r i a l i n s t r u c t s the j u r y not to consider in 932 So. 2d 140, effect, removes o r e x c l u d e s court immediately that instruction, a fact, that matter from t h e j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n , and t h e p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t o f t h e statement i s deemed t o be c u r e d b y s u c h i n s t r u c t i o n . " S o r i a n o v. S t a t e , 527 So. 2d 1367, 1371 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1988). Here, c o u r t removed any i m p r o p r i e t y i n t h e w i t n e s s ' s jury's As the trial remark from t h e consideration. to the testimony of the doctor, although T.D.M's o b j e c t i o n c h i e f l y a d d r e s s e d t h e p h y s i c i a n ' s expertise to adjudge the v i c t i m ' s r e l i a b i l i t y , during his objection b o l s t e r i n g the testimony that the family defense counsel d i d s t a t e witness of the witness." 26 was "improperly (R. 198.) However, CR-08-0355 t h e p h y s i c i a n ' s t e s t i m o n y was r e l i a b l e h i s t o r i a n . She was she was appropriate." t h a t he f o u n d t h e c h i l d t o be i n t e r a c t i v e , she was (R. 197.) This tearful, testimony "a and was not i n t r o d u c e d t o b o l s t e r t h e v i c t i m ' s c r e d i b i l i t y , b u t r a t h e r as an explanation of the results of his examination. The documents c o n c e r n i n g t h i s e x a m i n a t i o n were a l s o i n t r o d u c e d as Defendant's E x h i b i t E.W. One without objection. (R. v. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 170-71 ( A l a . C i v . App. h a r m l e s s as i t was 2003) ( a d m i s s i o n o f DHR 7, 872 217.) So. 2d See 167, Exhibit 4 was c u m u l a t i v e o f o t h e r e v i d e n c e ) . T h e r e was no e r r o r as a r e s u l t o f t h i s t e s t i m o n y by t h e p h y s i c i a n . C f . Ex parte H i l l , 553 So. 2d 1138 ( A l a . 1989) ( f i n d i n g no m e r i t t o H i l l ' s argument t h a t the s o c i a l w o r k e r ' s t e s t i m o n y vouched f o r the credibility of the her a d o l e s c e n t p r o s e c u t r i x by d i s c u s s i n g recantation). Thus, T.D.M.'s c l a i m s c o n c e r n i n g the victim's credibility through improper b o l s t e r i n g witnesses' testimony of are p r e c l u d e d or without m e r i t . B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g a u t h o r i t y , t h e j u d g m e n t i s due to be a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. Wise, P.J., J., concurs and W e l c h and K e l l u m , i n the result. 27 J J . , concur. Windom,

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.