Wesley Little 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 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-09-0149 Wesley Little v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WELCH, Code seven Court Judge. Wesley after from M a d i s o n C i r c u i t (CC-08-2407) Little i t has been 1975. years' was c o n v i c t e d of possession altered i nviolation The t r i a l court imprisonment sentenced and ordered of a firearm o f § 13A-11-64, A l a . Little Little t o a term o f t o pay a $500 CR-09-0149 fine and Fund. by a $250 assessment to the Crime V i c t i m s Little operation Little filed a m o t i o n f o r a new of law. does This not evidence; therefore, necessary. The F e b r u a r y 2008, Huntsville police following Police violations In of p o l i c e December the door. 2007, the house. the house found a (R. of the f a c t s presented at t r i a l . affairs the is In o f f i c e r f o r the division for by t h e several had responded to an on C a l v a r y S t r e e t b e c a u s e an into k n o c k e d on a shot house. t h e d o o r , and officerindividual Little a man and opened a s k e d t o speak w i t h "Bay B o y , " t h e owner o f 278.) because pistol recitation of a n d was b e i n g i n v e s t i g a t e d Little officer Little denied procedure. run from another o f f i c e r another p o l i c e sufficiency w o r k i n g as a p o l i c e internal needs-assistance c a l l had a brief Department department's the e v i d e n c e was was w h i c h was followed. challenge only Little appeal trial, Compensation there under Several were a then entered a l o t of people i n s i d e . Little bed; police the officers serial number had been removed. According officials, to Little Little's told statement Officer 2 Joe to German, law-enforcement who was on the CR-09-0149 scene, very what had familiar with 279.) want, Officer and Bay Boy Officer a n d he 279.) German t h e n t o l d L i t t l e , but that gun i n the forgot Little trunk about himself of h i s p a t r o l t h e weapon investigators weapon, i t that that he know w h a t "'I'm me.'" (R. do w h a t e v e r give you i t to you.'" Little then put stated c a r and f o r two stated, he c o u l d p u t h i m i n j a i l night. that weeks. when he r e a l i z e d d i d not "'You he w i l l warned Bay Boy t h a t he w o u l d n o t do German i s familiar with b u t i f you e v e r need any i n f o (R. the happened, Little that told then police he h a d n o t t u r n e d i n t o do and o t h e r o f f i c e r s i n t r o u b l e he the because he i f he t u r n e d would get t h e weapon in. As part of the Community ("COPP"), t h e H u n t s v i l l e patrol cars Police f o r equipment Oriented Department functionality In connection with the i n v e s t i g a t i o n department policy, without a serial Little's patrol Police quarter in Officer testified of the trunk a inspects and for nylon found bag a in R a n d y Owens w i t h that the gun of the p a t r o l 3 Program officers' cleanliness. f o r v i o l a t i o n s of p o l i c e - investigators number, car. Department panel the Policing was loaded the the in trunk gun, of Huntsville the left c a r , but i t d i d not CR-09-0149 appear t o be hidden. s c a l e s ; a boot police department; patrol licenses and belonged and credit to the Police which serial number on sheet. The with police i n accordance into respectively. the the i n c i d e n t Offense Report. found driver's several police gun t h e gun had c a r , none been in of department room and removed, t o be r e c o r d e d on evidence-custody records sheet policy, the charges and an the s h o u l d have property room, were b r o u g h t in the H u n t s v i l l e P o l i c e Department required be d o c u m e n t e d i n an A l a b a m a U n i f o r m Incident However, l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t to locate or an A l a b a m a U n i f o r m I n c i d e n t the an the found the Regardless of whether r e l a t i o n t o t h e gun, that by Little. evidence-custody turned digital k n u c k l e s were also policy required been scales; are not i s s u e d card in L i t t l e ' s p o l i c e department gun, hanging a set of b r a s s vehicle. one Because addition: k n i f e ; road f l a r e s , Little's which In o f f i c e r s were u n a b l e evidence-custody sheet p e r t a i n i n g Offense Report to the weapon connected with weapon. Initially, belonged to sentimental Little his told police grandfather purposes. and Later, investigators that Little 4 he that the gun carried i t for recanted his statement CR-09-0149 and t o l d t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s t h a t he r e c o v e r e d t h e w e a p o n a t t h e house on Calvary Street and that b e c a u s e h e was a f r a i d d o i n g action against On appeal, instructing after 64, Little the firearm and another court's to turn argues the t r i a l that court erred i n of a firearm altered i n violation o f § 13A-11- Specifically, i n s t r u c t i o n that 13A-11-64, A l a . "A p e r s o n Little Little would argues Code that be g u i l t y erroneous. 1975, p r o v i d e s : who e i t h e r : "(2) Possesses, obtains, receives, s e l l s , or uses a firearm after the maker, model, manufacturer's number or other mark or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n has been changed, a l t e r e d , removed, or o b l i t e r a t e d , i s g u i l t y o f a C l a s s C f e l o n y . " was c h a r g e d i n Count 2 of the indictment as follows: "Count 2 "The Grand Jury of s a i d County charge, that before t h e f i n d i n g o f t h i s I n d i c t m e n t , WESLEY L I T T L E , w h o s e 5 the i f he " ( 1 ) Changes, a l t e r s , removes, or o b l i t e r a t e s t h e name o f t h e m a k e r , m o d e l , m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s n u m b e r or o t h e r mark o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f any f i r e a r m , o r Little in of possession " u s e d " t h e w e a p o n o r " c o n c e a l e d " t h e w e a p o n was Section i t officer. had been 1975. failed so w o u l d p r e c i p i t a t e d i s c i p l i n a r y t h e j u r y on t h e o f f e n s e A l a . Code trial himself he CR-09-0149 name i s u n k n o w n t o t h e G r a n d J u r y o t h e r t h a n as stated, d i d i n t e n t i o n a l l y possess, obtain, receive, s e l l o r u s e a f i r e a r m , t o - w i t : a .38 S m i t h & W e s s o n revolver, a f t e r t h e maker, model, manufacturer's number o r o t h e r mark o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n had been changed, altered, removed, or obliterated, i n violation of Section 13A-11-64 o f t h e CODE OF ALABAMA, a g a i n s t t h e p e a c e a n d d i g n i t y o f t h e S t a t e of Alabama." (C. 6.) In this S e l f v. S t a t e , Court held that 492 S o . 2 d 3 1 9 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) , the l e g i s l a t u r e d i d not intend 13A-11-64 t o be a s t r i c t - l i a b i l i t y statute as for § s t a t u t e and i n t e r p r e t e d t h e follows: "[W]e believe a criminal intent should be incorporated i n t o § 13A-11-64 b e c a u s e t h e modern trend among o t h e r n o n - f e d e r a l e n a c t m e n t s on t h e s u b j e c t i s t o r e q u i r e some t y p e o f mens r e a . "...[W]e b e l i e v e t h e degree o f c u l p a b i l i t y required for the commission of an offense under § 13A-11-64(1) should comport with the statutory p u r p o s e , i . e . , t h a t a p e r s o n who "'(1) w i l l f u l l y , changes, a l t e r s , removes, or o b l i t e r a t e s t h e name o f t h e maker, m o d e l , m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s number o r o t h e r mark or identification o f any f i r e a r m , with intent to conceal or misrepresent the i d e n t i t y of the firearm' "is guilty of a Class C felony. 6 CR-09-0149 " S i m i l a r l y because the g o a l of § 13A-11-64(2) i s to prohibit the c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n , e t c . , of a firearm whose identifying marks have been obliterated, and because this objective is e q u i v a l e n t to the purpose of the VIN falsification p r o v i s i o n s o f § 3 2 - 8 - 8 6 , we b e l i e v e t h e m e n t a l s t a t e required for criminal possession, e t c . , should r e f l e c t the s t a t u t e ' s goal, i . e . , that a person who "'(2) p o s s e s s e s , o b t a i n s , r e c e i v e s , s e l l s , or uses a f i r e a r m w i t h knowledge t h a t the maker, model, manufacturer's number or other mark or identification has been changed, a l t e r e d , removed or o b l i t e r a t e d and w i t h i n t e n t t o c o n c e a l o r m i s r e p r e s e n t the i d e n t i t y of the f i r e a r m ' "is State v. guilty Self, of a Class 492 So. C felony." 2d 319, 323 ( A l a . Crim. At the c l o s e of a l l the evidence, the jury jury three times. f o r the t h i r d a pre-charge Before and f i n a l conference. The the t r i a l the t r i a l time, trial court the t r i a l court App. court 1986). charged recharged court conducted stated: "THE COURT: I f a p e r s o n innocently possesses t h i s f i r e a r m they're not g u i l t y of t h i s o f f e n s e . " I f t h e y come i n t o p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e f i r e a r m a n d t h e y h a v e no u n l a w f u l i n t e n t t o u s e t h i s f i r e a r m , they're not g u i l t y of t h i s o f f e n s e . " I f t h e y p o s s e s s t h i s f i r e a r m and t h e y have t h e i n t e n t t o u s e i t , c o n c e a l i t , m i s r e p r e s e n t i t , do something u n l a w f u l w i t h i t , then they're g u i l t y of this offense. 7 the CR-09-0149 "MR. GLADDEN [ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : B u t w h a t t h i s i s saying i s intent to conceal or misrepresent the identity. "THE is COURT: A l l r i g h t . "MR. GLADDEN: A n d t h e way t h a t i s g o i n g t o c o n c e a l a weapon. "THE to read COURT: R i g h t . "THE COURT: A n d t h a t ' s w h a t I s a i d j u s t a moment ago. T h a t ' s why I t h i n k t h a t , f i r s t o f a l l , t h i s i s not a s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . This case attempts to s e t f o r t h t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t as i t r e l a t e s t o t h e s t a t u t e , n e v e r went a n y f u r t h e r t h a n t h e C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s . "The cases t h a t have been p r e s e n t e d to the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s a r e such t h a t a d e f i n i t i o n o f t h i s nature w o u l d be a c c e p t a b l e i n that someone i s robbing a convenience store or using the f i r e a r m i n a homicide and t h e r e ' s a q u e s t i o n about t h e use o f that firearm. what " T h e r e a r e no c a s e s we h a v e that are fact specific as fl "THE COURT: So I'm n o t -- I r e a l l y w a n t t o make certain and have given great thought to not c o m m e n t i n g on t h e e v i d e n c e , b u t I t h i n k t h a t t h e y need t o understand. "We c a n ' t c r a c k o p e n a n y d e f e n d a n t ' s head t o d e t e r m i n e what h i s i n t e n t was. They have t o d e c i d e t h a t from the evidence. A n d i f h i s i n t e n t was innocent or accidental or not u n l a w f u l he's not guilty. B u t i f h i s i n t e n t was t o u s e i t , c o n c e a l 8 CR-09-0149 it, misrepresent i t o r u s e i t f o r an unlawful p u r p o s e , and they b e l i e v e t h a t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt, then he's committed t h i s o f f e n s e . And I ' l l hear you out b u t - ¬ "MR. GLADDEN: No. T h a t ' s -- when y o u s a y ' u s e i t , c o n c e a l i t , ' t h a t ' s n o t what t h i s c a s e , S e l f [ v. S t a t e , 492 S o . 2 d 319 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) , ] c a s e says. I t says, conceal the i d e n t i t y , not conceal the gun. Okay. " A n d w h a t I am s a y i n g i s t h a t b y g i v i n g t h e m a r e c h a r g e i n t h e manner t h a t I see t h a t i t l o o k s l i k e i t ' s g o i n g t o be c o m i n g , i t ' s g o i n g t o s o u n d l i k e t h a t i f i t were i n h i s t r u n k and o u t o f s i g h t i t w o u l d be c o n c e a l e d ; t h e r e f o r e , h e ' s g u i l t y . "THE COURT: I f i t ' s i n h i s t r u n k a n d he i n t e n d s -- a n d i t w a s n ' t t h e r e a c c i d e n t a l l y o r i n n o c e n t l y . H i s t e s t i m o n y was he knew i t was t h e r e , he j u s t d i d n ' t know w h a t t o do w i t h i t . "MR. GLADDEN: Right. "THE COURT: O k a y . I f he b e l i e v e s -- i f t h e y b e l i e v e t h a t , i f t h e y b e l i e v e i t was t h e r e f o r a n i n n o c e n t p u r p o s e , I t h i n k we're a l l i n agreement, that he's not g u i l t y of t h i s offense. Do y o u concede t h a t ? But, "MR. RIZZARDI [prosecutor]: I concede that. J u d g e , i n my c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t , I s t i l l b e l i e v e that -¬ "THE there COURT: But f o r some o t h e r i f they purpose. 9 believe that i t was CR-09-0149 "THE COURT: O k a y . No d o u b t . Okay. I'm g o i n g t o make -- I'm g o i n g t o g i v e my c h a r g e t h e n y o u c a n make y o u r e x c e p t i o n s f o r t h e r e c o r d . " 1 (R. 569-573.) After jury as the charge conference, the t r i a l court charged the follows: "In order for a person to be guilty of possession o f an altered firearm there are two elements. The f i r s t one t h e D e f e n s e c o n c e d e s , no doubt about i t . Okay. B u t I ' l l go o v e r i t w i t h y o u again. "A p e r s o n c o m m i t s t h e o f f e n s e o f p o s s e s s i o n o f an altered firearm, element number one, i f he possesses, obtains, receives, sells or uses a firearm with knowledge that the make, model, manufacturer's number or other mark or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n has been changed, a l t e r e d , removed o r obliterated. "Conceded i n t h i s c a s e . That Okay. No i s s u e w i t h t h a t . element's proven. "The second element is what we've been d i s c u s s i n g . O k a y . The s e c o n d e l e m e n t i s t h i s - - i n o r d e r f o r t h e S t a t e t o c o n v i c t t h e y must p r o v e t h e first e l e m e n t , w h i c h i s c o n c e d e d , and t h e s e c o n d e l e m e n t b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . And t h e s e c o n d element is this: that the person possessed this a l t e r e d f i r e a r m w i t h the i n t e n t t o use i t , c o n c e a l i t , or m i s r e p r e s e n t the i d e n t i t y of the f i r e a r m . " C o n c e a l means t o h i d e o r k e e p a secret from. L i t t l e p r e s e r v e d t h i s argument f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w . 581-82.) 1 10 (R. CR-09-0149 "Misrepresent means to misleading representation of. give a false "To u s e i t o r t o c o n c e a l i t o r m i s r e p r e s e n t i d e n t i t y of the f i r e a r m . or the "Now, I c a n ' t h e l p you w i t h t h e f a c t s . I can o n l y i n s t r u c t y o u a s t o t h e l a w . We t a l k e d b e f o r e a b o u t t h e f a c t t h a t a p e r s o n ' s you c a n n o t crack open a p e r s o n ' s h e a d and d e t e r m i n e what t h e i r i n t e n t w a s . T h a t i n t e n t , i n sum a n d s u b s t a n c e , i s a s t a t e of m i n d , a s t a t e o f m e n t a l p u r p o s e , and i s u s u a l l y i n c a p a b l e o f d i r e c t p r o o f . I n t e n t may be inferred f r o m a t t e n d a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s as y o u f i n d t h e m t o be from the evidence. "If you find that [Little] innocently or a c c i d e n t a l l y p o s s e s s e d t h i s f i r e a r m t h e n y o u do n o t find the intent to c o n c e a l or m i s r e p r e s e n t the i d e n t i t y of the f i r e a r m or use the f i r e a r m then the [ L i t t l e ] i s not g u i l t y . "If you find and are convinced beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t by t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t [ L i t t l e ] had the i n t e n t t o use or c o n c e a l or m i s r e p r e s e n t the i d e n t i t y o f t h e f i r e a r m and you a r e c o n v i n c e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , t h e n i t w o u l d be y o u r d u t y t o c o n v i c t [ L i t t l e ] o f t h i s o f f e n s e , p o s s e s s i o n o f an altered firearm." (R. 577-580.)(Emphasis It is well settled added.) that "'"[a] trial court has broad discretion in formulating its jury i n s t r u c t i o n s , provid[ed] those i n s t r u c t i o n s a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t t h e law and t h e f a c t s o f the case. R a p e r v . S t a t e , 584 S o . 2 d 544 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). We do n o t r e v i e w a jury instruction in isolation, but must consider the instruction as a whole, 11 CR-09-0149 Stewart v. State, 601 So. 2d 491 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), a f f ' d i n r e l e v a n t p a r t , 659 S o . 2 d 122 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , a n d we m u s t evaluate instructions like a reasonable j u r o r may h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d t h e m . Francis v . F r a n k l i n , 471 U.S. 3 0 7 , 105 S. C t . 1 9 6 5 , 85 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1985); Stewart v. State."' " G r i f f i n v . S t a t e , 790 S o . 2 d 2 6 7 , 332 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999), q u o t i n g I n g r a m v . S t a t e , 779 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 5 , 1258 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) . 'This c o u r t has c o n s i s t e n t l y held that a t r i a l court's o r a l charge t o t h e j u r y m u s t be v i e w e d i n i t s e n t i r e t y a n d n o t i n " b i t s and p i e c e s . " P a r k s v . S t a t e , 565 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 5 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) ; W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 538 So. 2 d 1250 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) ; L a m b e t h v . S t a t e , 380 S o . 2 d 923 ( A l a . ) , on r e m a n d , 380 S o . 2 d 925 (Ala. C r . A p p . 1 9 7 9 ) , w r i t d e n i e d , 380 S o . 2 d 926 (Ala. 1980).' S m i t h v . S t a t e , 585 S o . 2 d 2 2 3 , 225 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . " Smith v. S t a t e , However, in this State, possession or have to prove judge Under State misrepresent S o . 2 d 2 7 3 , 295 the t r i a l case. the 908 use the was of the i d e n t i t y that incorrectly formulation required the Little ( A l a . C r i m . App. weapon to was i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y set out prove in that with of the firearm. intended 2000). the The Self v. Little's intent State to d i d not t o use or t o c o n c e a l the weapon. The t r i a l court's charge d i d not i n c l u d e t h i s s e p a r a t e d the use or concealment 12 o f t h e weapon e l e m e n t and from the i n t e n t CR-09-0149 to misrepresent concealment. proof that w h e t h e r he firearm In the identity of the Thus, he could the when he of the trial firearm statute. The obtains, receives, identity altered. Because offense, her the charge The to have firearm The a State trial the court was one statute sells, such proper firearm in that without the use or Little convicted i n t e n t to misrepresent the of the the on considering identity of the concealed i t . addition, concealment jury concealed had concealment by the instructed of the forbids the actions one who jury prohibited "possesses, or u s e s a f i r e a r m " w h i c h has legislature had its prohibit the did not the elements firearm. v. Self set out judge s h o u l d have used t h a t of formulation jury. jury charge would have been: "Wesley L i t t l e i s charged w i t h the o f f e n s e of p o s s e s s i o n of a f i r e a r m w i t h knowledge that the maker, m o d e l , m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s number o r o t h e r mark o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n has b e e n c h a n g e d , a l t e r e d , removed o r obliterated. "To c o n v i c t , t h e S t a t e m u s t p r o v e e a c h o f f o l l o w i n g elements beyond a reasonable doubt: "1. That firearm; that Wesley Little 13 possessed a the this in CR-09-0149 "2. That t h e maker, model, m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s number o r o t h e r mark o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h a t f i r e a r m had been changed, altered, removed or o b l i t e r a t e d ; "3. That L i t t l e possessed the firearm knowing that the maker, model, manufacturer's number o r o t h e r mark or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h a t had been changed, a l t e r e d , removed or o b l i t e r a t e d ; and "4. T h a t i n p o s s e s s i n g t h e f i r e a r m , L i t t l e intended to misrepresent the i d e n t i t y of the firearm." This c h a r g e w o u l d be definitions For trial a new o f " k n o w i n g l y " and the court reasons i s due set jury charge "intent." forth t o be r e v e r s e d above, the and t h i s judgment of the cause remanded for trial. R E V E R S E D AND Wise, J., f o l l o w e d by t h e p a t t e r n P.J., REMANDED. and concurs i n the Windom and result. 14 Kellum, J J . , concur. Main,

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.