Lugine Capri Caver v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/30/2010 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-08-2014 Lugine C a p r i Caver v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal MAIN, from M o b i l e C i r c u i t (CC-09-455) Court Judge. Lugine Capri Caver was convicted of third-degree b u r g l a r y , a v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-7-7, A l a . Code 1975. t o Alabama's H a b i t u a l Felony Offender Pursuant Act, the t r i a l court CR-08-2014 s e n t e n c e d h i m t o 20 y e a r s ' imprisonment. seq., appeal A l a . Code 1975. This followed. On J u n e 12, 2008, a t 3:15 a.m., drive-through an i n d i v i d u a l b r o k e t h e window a t t h e M c D o n a l d ' s l o c a t e d on S t . S t e p h e n s Road i n M o b i l e cash-register incident. drawer. A See § 13A-5-9, e t fast-food restaurant C o u n t y a n d removed t h e s u r v e i l l a n c e camera recorded the The c a s h - r e g i s t e r d r a w e r t h a t was t a k e n from t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r r e p o r t e d l y d i d n o t c o n t a i n any money. However, it was n o t l o c a t e d . recover Law-enforcement o f f i c i a l s f i n g e r p r i n t s from the broken glass. attempted t o However, they were u n a b l e t o o b t a i n any f i n g e r p r i n t s b e c a u s e t h e g l a s s was i n such s m a l l pieces. Sean B l a c k , Department, a detective with testified that he i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h i s burglary. video-tape and that tape as was in charge o f t h e McDonald's r e s t a u r a n t , same d a y . Caver He r e c o g n i z e d because he photographs and i n p e r s o n . objection, had Police of the He r e c e i v e d t h e s u r v e i l l a n c e on J u n e 26, 2008, f r o m L a n c e W i l l i a m s , operator tape the C i t y of Mobile a n d he v i e w e d t h e the person seen Detective him t h e owner i n the video several Black times testified, in over t h a t he h a d s e e n C a v e r on t h e d a y o f t h e b u r g l a r y 2 CR-08-2014 b e c a u s e C a v e r h a d b e e n b r o u g h t t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n on charges. Caver d i d not t e s t i f y , other and t h e d e f e n s e p r e s e n t e d no evidence. On a p p e a l , Caver argues t h a t the t r i a l court reversibly e r r e d b y r e o p e n i n g t h e c a s e and a l l o w i n g t h e j u r y t o v i e w h i s arms after Specifically, the jury he asserts had begun that: its deliberations. " i n allowing additional p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t C a v e r t o be a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , a f t e r t h e j u r y h a d begun i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s , d e n i e d h i m a f a i r t r i a l and i s t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . " ( A p p e l l a n t ' s at 9.) brief, 1 "Due p r o c e s s g u a r a n t e e s t h a t a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t w i l l be t r e a t e d w i t h 'that fundamental f a i r n e s s e s s e n t i a l t o the very concept of j u s t i c e . I n order t o d e c l a r e a d e n i a l o f i t we must f i n d t h a t t h e absence of t h a t f a i r n e s s f a t a l l y i n f e c t e d the t r i a l ; t h e a c t s c o m p l a i n e d o f must be o f s u c h q u a l i t y as necessarily prevents a f a i r t r i a l . ' Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 2 3 6 , ( 1 9 4 1 ) . " United S t a t e s v. V a l e n z u e l a - B e r n a l , 458 U.S. 858, 872, ( 1 9 8 2 ) . I n s t a t e c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s , due p r o c e s s " s e c u r e s t h e a c c u s e d i n t h o s e c e r t a i n b a s i c and f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t s w h i c h a r e an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e The S t a t e s u b m i t s t h a t C a v e r f a i l e d t o p r e s e r v e t h i s i s s u e f o r r e v i e w . However, we b e l i e v e t h a t , a l t h o u g h C a v e r ' s o b j e c t i o n was n o t a m o d e l o f c l a r i t y , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n d e r s t o o d h i s o b j e c t i o n s , and t h a t h i s a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l a r e c h a l l e n g i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on t h e same or s i m i l a r grounds. 1 3 CR-08-2014 American system of criminal jurisprudence." A p p l i c a t i o n o f S t e c k e r , 271 F.Sup. 406, 409 (D.N.J. 1 9 6 6 ) , a f f ' d , 381 F.2d 379 (3d C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 389 U.S. 929, (1967). "[W]hen a c a s e i s r e o p e n e d f o r t h e r e c e p t i o n o f f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e , i t must be done i n s u c h a manner t h a t t h e r i g h t s o f a l l p a r t i e s w i l l be p r o t e c t e d and ample o p p o r t u n i t y a f f o r d e d them f o r c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n o r r e b u t t a l , and e v e n f o r r e q u e s t i n g a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s , i f the matters i n t r o d u c e d s h o u l d r e a s o n a b l y r e q u i r e them." P e r k i n s v. S t a t e , 253 M i s s . 652, 655, 178 So. 2d 694, 696 (1965) ( h o l d i n g t h a t i t was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t to a l l o w the j u r y to view the v i c t i m ' s s c a r s once d e l i b e r a t i o n s had b e g u n ) . The it r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t , w h i l e t h e j u r y was d e l i b e r a t i n g , returned surveillance to the courtroom video-tape of the several times view the A f t e r viewing the j u r y returned to the burglary. s u r v e i l l a n c e tape f o r a t h i r d time, the jury presented room question (C. 24; to deliberate to the circuit R. 137.) The and then court judge: "Can we to the see following his arms?" f o l l o w i n g exchange t r a n s p i r e d : "THE COURT: Over the objection of the d e f e n d a n t , I'm g o i n g t o a l l o w t h e j u r y t o v i e w t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s arms. They've a s k e d a q u e s t i o n o f can t h e y see h i s arms, a f t e r w a t c h i n g t h e videotape numerous t i m e s . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: J u d g e , h e r e ' s a n o t h e r t h i n g I'm g o i n g t o s a y . T h a t i t r e a l l y b o t h e r s me. I c a n ' t a r g u e t o t h e j u r y now. I c a n ' t make any a r g u m e n t a t a l l t o t h e j u r y c o n c e r n i n g what t h e y see on h i s arms; w h e r e , i f i t had h a p p e n e d d u r i n g t h e t r i a l , I c o u l d h a v e , and I w o u l d h a v e . He's got t a t t o o s on him t h a t s h o u l d be a b l e t o be s e e n i n 4 CR-08-2014 t h a t v i d e o t h a t now I c a n ' t a r g u e t o t h e j u r y : Look, f o l k s , l o o k a t t h i s r i g h t h e r e . Do y o u s e e this? You c o u l d have s e e n t h i s on t h e v i d e o . "THE COURT: "[DEFENSE situation A l l right. COUNSEL]: where he W e l l -¬ Then wants to c r o s s - e x a m i n e h i m o r he w a n t s i t gets -- he into wants a to t o argue about i t . "[PROSECUTOR]: We d o n ' t know why t h e y want t o see i t , t h o u g h . We d o n ' t know why t h e y want t o s e e h i s arms. "THE him. COURT: L e t ' s go a h e a d . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge? Where do y o u want t o p u t "THE COURT: What do y o u t h i n k ? where y o u ' r e a t [ s i c ] ? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: "THE COURT: Yeah, Go a h e a d Just right I think right here. and b r i n g them on o u t . W e ' l l l e t them -¬ "(The j u r y e n t e r s t h e c o u r t r o o m a t 3:45 p.m.) "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . The q u e s t i o n was a s k e d w h e t h e r y o u c o u l d s e e h i s arms, a n d I'm g o i n g t o allow that i n t h i s case. I f y o u w o u l d , Mr. C a v e r , go a h e a d a n d p u t y o u r arms o u t s o t h e j u r y members can s e e i t . of "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: your hands? Make s u r e t h e y s e e t h e t o p "THE COURT: No comments b y anybody on a n y t h i n g o f t h i s . J u s t l e t them s e e i t , a n d we'11 s e n d y ' a l l b a c k i n when y ' a l l a r e r e a d y . A r e y ' a l l r e a d y ? See what y o u n e e d t o s e e ? 5 CR-08-2014 " ( J u r o r s respond "THE COURT: affirmatively.) A l l right. Go a h e a d and go back in." (R. 137-38.) minutes the The later the record jury indicates announced that i t had approximately reached a 13 verdict; j u r y f o u n d C a v e r g u i l t y as c h a r g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t . We turn to Caver's claim that because no evidence was p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l on t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r he h a d m a r k i n g s on h i s arms, t h e v i e w g i v e n t o t h e j u r y o f h i s arms c o n s t i t u t e d e v i d e n c e and Section 15-14-4, permission "at any amounted t o an Code to allow time of Alabama before the reopening of the 1975 the i n t r o d u c t i o n 15-14-4, A l a . Code 1975 the improper conclusion gives a case. trial of a d d i t i o n a l new court evidence of argument § (emphasis added). Further, "[b]efore j u r y r e t i r e s t o begin d e l i b e r a t i o n of the case, the c o u r t , upon a showing reopened." of good cause, may Rule 19.1(h), Ala.R.Crim.P. allow the case to (emphasis added). be See C h a r l e s W. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 4 3 6 . 0 1 ( 2 ) ( 5 t h ed. 1996). "Although i t i s w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the c o u r t t o reopen the case a f t e r the c l o s e of evidence, i t i s c l e a r t h a t c a s e s c o n s t r u i n g § 15-14-4 have c o n s i s t e n t l y it t o be e r r o r t o do so a f t e r trial held s u b m i s s i o n of the case t o the 6 CR-08-2014 jury." Harris App.), State, c e r t . denied, cited therein. Crim. v. App. allowed 371 371 So. So. 2d 2d 984 979, (holding that t h e j u r y t o have t h r e e ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a . 1979), See a l s o Reed v. S t a t e , 1985) 983 and cases 475 So. 2d 641 ( A l a . the t r i a l court improperly a d d i t i o n a l pages of a report a f t e r o n l y one page o f t h e r e p o r t h a d been r e f e r r e d t o d u r i n g the trial). App. 1981) a Cf^ Jolly negatives, i t h a d begun appearing 405 So. 2d 76 ( f i n d i n g no e r r o r where t h e t r i a l photographic after v. S t a t e , on the which the j u r y ( A l a . Crim. judge a l l o w e d i n requested to i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s , which depicted automobile used by the see a tag robbers because, d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e t r i a l , t h e r e had been o r a l testimony about the n e g a t i v e s ) . I n Ex p a r t e Batteaste, 449 So. 2d 798 ( A l a . 1984), the Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a h e l d t h a t i t was e r r o r f o r t h e t r i a l court t o permit "the j u r y , over o b j e c t i o n of the defendant, t o v i e w t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f a c e t o see i f he h a d a s c a r on i t . " So. 2d a t 799. 352 (1972), hands of I n Harnage v. S t a t e , 290 A l a . 142, 274 So. 2d t h i s Court r u l e d that a j u r y request a 449 defendant who was charged with to view the murder s t r a n g u l a t i o n came t o o l a t e b e c a u s e t h e c a s e h a d a l r e a d y 7 by been CR-08-2014 submitted to the jury and any member of the j u r y had the o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s hands d u r i n g t h e t r i a l , particularly behalf. while the defendant 290 A l a . a t 144, S t a t e s v. S a n t a n a , the district 175 F.3d court deliberations, 274 So. 57 return testifying 2d a t 354. allowed to the the in his Accord ( 1 s t C i r . 1999) improperly to was own United (holding that jury, during i t s courtroom to observe the d e f e n d a n t ' s e a r s , w h i c h had been c o v e r e d d u r i n g the t r i a l by h e a d p h o n e s u s e d f o r l a n g u a g e t r a n s l a t i o n ) ; S c o t t v. S t a t e , 664 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. Dist. C t . App. 1995) (finding error in a p r o s e c u t i o n f o r an u n d e r c o v e r d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n , where t h e j u r y requested, after the close of evidence and during d e l i b e r a t i o n s , "to view the defendant's r i g h t p r o f i l e , " had not been viewed a t The arms trial to the deliberations. its which trial). c o u r t e r r e d i n r e q u i r i n g Caver t o d i s p l a y h i s jurors The after display the of jury his had arms retired constitutes for non t e s t i m o n i a l p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e the j u r y had not seen d u r i n g the trial, court and the p r e s e n t a t i o n submitted the Batteaste, supra; case of t h i s to the new jury evidence a f t e r was improper. H a r r i s , s u p r a ; Harnage, s u p r a . 8 the See Because the CR-08-2014 s o l e i s s u e a t t r i a l was w h e t h e r C a v e r was t h e p e r s o n d e p i c t e d in the surveillance video-tape McDonald's restaurant information i n resolving was n o t h a r m l e s s . The judgment and the of the jury that issue, burglary requested of the additional we h o l d t h a t t h e e r r o r F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t . i s reversed and t h e case remanded for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. W e l c h a n d Windom, J J . , c o n c u r . the r e s u l t . Wise, P . J . , recuses 9 Kellum, herself. J . , concurs i n

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.