Lameca Dechawn Turner v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/14/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance 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 , A l a b a m a 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, 2012-2013 CR-09-0739 Lameca Dechawn Turner v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t Court (CC-04-1112) WINDOM, P r e s i d i n g Judge. Lameca Dechawn T u r n e r a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r c a p i t a l murder and h i s sentence of death. Turner m u r d e r made c a p i t a l f o r t a k i n g t h e l i f e during the course Code 1975. of a robbery. The j u r y , by a vote was c o n v i c t e d o f of Prakaschandra Shah See § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . o f 1 1 - 1 , recommended that CR-09-0739 T u r n e r be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h . The c i r c u i t c o u r t f o l l o w e d t h e j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n and s e n t e n c e d T u r n e r t o d e a t h . For the uncontested. most part, On A p r i l the facts of Turner's 20, 2004, H e p a l crime Shah, Shah's are son-in- l a w , was w o r k i n g a t t h e P e t r o S o u t h e a s t M i n i - M a r t c o n v e n i e n c e store i n Dothan. some f o o d . Shah went to the Mini-Mart to take Hepal W h i l e Shah was t h e r e , H e p a l went i n t o t h e b a c k o f the store to stock a cooler. W h i l e H e p a l was i n t h e b a c k o f the store, and C o r d e l l T u r n e r e n t e r e d t h e store to T u r n e r , Ray G r a c e , commit a robbery. Turner pointed a 9mm semi¬ a u t o m a t i c p i s t o l a t Shah, and Shah s a i d "no, no, no, n o . " 774.) the (C. A t some p o i n t d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y , T u r n e r s h o t Shah i n l o w e r abdomen and t h e b u l l e t exited Shah's body through h i s b u t t o c k s . A f t e r s h o o t i n g Shah, T u r n e r and h i s a c c o m p l i c e s fled. Shah d i e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e g u n s h o t wound. After Miranda 1 the crime, rights, and Turner was was arrested, interrogated by was read h i s Corporal Frank M e r e d i t h , L i e u t e n a n t Tony L u k e r , and C a p t a i n S t e v e P a r r i s h o f the Dothan P o l i c e 1 Department. M i r a n d a v. A r i z o n a , Initially, 384 U.S. 2 436 T u r n e r d e n i e d any (1966). CR-09-0739 involvement i n the robbery/murder. of the interrogation, the However, d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e officers confronted c o n f e s s i o n s o f h i s two a c c o m p l i c e s , w h i c h Specifically, implicated with Turner. the a c c o m p l i c e s had b o t h i n f o r m e d the o f f i c e r s t h a t T u r n e r was individual him who involved shot i n t h e r o b b e r y and t h a t he was Shah. Captain Parrish informed the Turner t h a t h i s a c c o m p l i c e s were " s a y i n g t h a t [ T u r n e r h a d ] m u r d e r e d somebody." (C. 769.) C a p t a i n P a r r i s h a l s o stated: " [ G r a c e and C o r d e l l ] s a i d t h a t you s h o t t h a t c l e r k . They showed how you done i t . When [ S h a h ] g r a b b e d t h e phone you s a i d f * * * t h i s and you s h o t . " (C. 766.) Later, c o u l d be heard r e p e a t i n g the a c c o m p l i c e s ' statements t h a t Turner s a i d "f*** t h i s " and s h o t one o f t h e p o l i c e officers Shah. After being repeatedly confronted with h i s accomplices' c o n f e s s i o n s , Turner confessed. T u r n e r s t a t e d t h a t he went t o the Turner Mini-Mart explained Turner, with that he however, According to accidentally Grace had the denied Turner, fired and that while the pistol pistol, rob i t . was and that he Shah intentionally. Shah. h o l d i n g the p i s t o l , shooting Shah. a c c i d e n t a l l y s h o t Shah, he r a n o u t o f t h e s t o r e . 3 shot Turner shot he he to After he he CR-09-0739 At t r i a l , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s t h e o r y o f t h e c a s e was Turner was not guilty intend to shoot and of c a p i t a l kill m u r d e r b e c a u s e he Shah. During voir that d i d not dire of the p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s , defense c o u n s e l informed the v e n i r e that the d e f e n s e s t i p u l a t e d t h a t T u r n e r went t o t h e s t o r e t o commit a robbery. He the p i s t o l , as a was a s h o t was result of venire armed w i t h that the Specifically, pistol. While Turner f i r e d t h a t s t r u c k Shah, and Shah gunshot intent a 9mm would counsel wound. Counsel then be the only issue informed the venire that told at had died the trial. i t was the d e f e n s e ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t T u r n e r s h o t Shah a c c i d e n t a l l y . Later, defense c o u n s e l began h i s opening statement d e c l a r i n g : " [ I ] t ' s n o t c a p i t a l m u r d e r , l a d i e s and (R. 267.) did gentlemen." "What [ T u r n e r ] i s h e r e f o r t o d a y [ , ] he's n o t you t o l e t h i m go. was h o r r i b l e . " He's h e r e t o ' f e s s up and t e l l (R. 267.) by asking you what he C o u n s e l s t a t e d t h a t T u r n e r went t o t h e s t o r e t o commit a r o b b e r y and t h a t he a c c i d e n t a l l y s h o t Shah. Counsel then s a i d : "[Turner] i s here today to t e l l you that he committed a murder or a manslaughter, but not c a p i t a l [murder]. T h e r e i s no way t h a t t h i s i s c a p i t a l m u r d e r . T h e r e i s no way t o p r o v e o r t o show t h a t he i n t e n t i o n a l l y d i d t h i s . No i n t e n t . ... The s h o o t i n g was n o t i n t e n t i o n a l and i t was n o t p l a n n e d . 4 CR-09-0739 T h a t p a r t was an a c c i d e n t . Now, i t ' s a h o r r i b l e t r a g e d y f o r [ t h e Shah] f a m i l y . [ T u r n e r h a s ] g o t t o l i v e w i t h i t . And he's g o i n g t o p a y t h e p r i c e t o society. B u t he s h o u l d n o t be f a c i n g capital murder." (R. 268-69.) A t t r i a l , t o r e b u t T u r n e r ' s d e f e n s e t h a t t h e s h o o t i n g was an a c c i d e n t , t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d T e r r y H a n k s , an who was i n c a r c e r a t e d w i t h T u r n e r According individual i n the Houston County t o H a n k s , he a n d T u r n e r were h o u s e d jail. i n different c e l l s , and Turner c o n f e s s e d t o him t h r o u g h t h e a i r - v e n t i l a t i o n system. Specifically, Hanks testified t h r o u g h an a i r v e n t t h a t "he s h o t g i v e h i m t h e money." The State also Turner [Shah] b e c a u s e he stated wouldn't (R. 386.) admitted Turner's interrogation Turner's accomplices shoot Shah. that into i n which had t o l d evidence the recording of the o f f i c e r s stated them t h a t T u r n e r that intended to The r e c o r d i n g a l s o c o n t a i n e d a p o l i c e officer's statement t h a t the accomplices had informed the o f f i c e r s t h a t when S h a h " g r a b b e d [he] s h o t . " Later, the phone[,] [Turner] said f * * * t h i s and (C. 766.) during Corporal Meredith's following occurred: 5 testimony, the CR-09-0739 "Q: "A: No, s i r . "Q: Would you t e l l t h e l a d i e s and gentlemen o f t h e j u r y , e x p l a i n t o them when you do an i n t e r v i e w why you u s e d t e r m o r t e r m s u s e d t o a d e f e n d a n t Lameco [ s i c ] T u r n e r ? Why do you s a y t h a t ? "A: (R. I f I c o u l d , l e t me a s k y o u , Mr. M e r e d i t h , i f I c o u l d , t h e q u e s t i o n s a r e asked by L t . Luker or P a r r i s h o r y o u r s e l f t o e l i c i t a statement from t h e d e f e n d a n t t h e t e r m i n o l o g y we u s e d t h a t , we know you d i d n ' t mean t o do i t , an a c c i d e n t , was t h e r e any e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t i t was an accident? I t ' s u s e d i n our e x p e r i e n c e and t r a i n i n g i t ' s used t o e l i c i t a response. We know t h e evidence from t h e o t h e r two co-defendants, their statements, l e d us t o b e l i e v e t h a t [ T u r n e r ] s a i d , p a r d o n me, f * * * t h i s , a n d s h o t t h e man. We knew i t w a s n ' t an a c c i d e n t f o r t h a t s t a t e m e n t and t h e n t h e s h o o t e r . " 585-86.) After presented the State evidence rested i t s case, indicating t h a t Hanks w o u l d be g i v e n f a v o r a b l e t r e a t m e n t Turner. been Specifically, incarcerated with f o r "going home." believed that testified that (R. 685.) he he against an i n d i v i d u a l who Hanks s a y t h a t Hanks was g o i n g t o t e s t i f y exchange counsel f o r h i s testimony Rhyeem K i n s e y , Hanks, defense had overheard a g a i n s t Turner i n Kinsey s a i d Hanks's " e x a c t w o r d s were t h a t i f t h e S t a t e s t i c k s t o what t h e y said they that were going t o do, then, I'm 6 going to t e l l them CR-09-0739 [ T u r n e r ] r o b b e d t h e guy and t h a t (R. [Turner] d i d the s h o o t i n g . " 686.) During closing accomplices' arguments, statements to the the State police to used show Turner's that Turner i n t e n d e d t o shoot Shah: "And you h e a r d i n t h e c o u r s e o f [ T u r n e r ' s ] s t a t e m e n t i t was r e c o r d e d t h a t t h a t ' s what C o r d e l l [ T u r n e r ] and Ray [Grace] s a i d . ... T h a t you h e a r d S t e v e P a r r i s h and Tony L u k e r , o r one o r them two o f them o r maybe F r a n k , s a y , [ t h e a c c o m p l i c e s ] s a i d t h a t you s h o t t h e man b e c a u s e he w a s n ' t g i v i n g you t h e money. T h a t i s what h a p p e n e d . " (R. 717.) the D e f e n s e c o u n s e l o b j e c t e d t o t h e S t a t e ' s argument on grounds evidence. that The At guilty on hearsay State responded t h a t t h a t was p l a y e d . " circuit i t relied (R. 717.) on facts " i t i s i n the not i n statement A f t e r the S t a t e ' s response, the court o v e r r u l e d defense counsel's o b j e c t i o n . the conclusion of the of c a p i t a l murder. trial, the jury found T h e r e a f t e r , the j u r y t h a t T u r n e r be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h . the and Turner recommended The c i r c u i t c o u r t f o l l o w e d j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n and s e n t e n c e d T u r n e r t o d e a t h . On State appeal, Turner i m p r o p e r l y used argues, the among o t h e r t h i n g s , statements 7 of his that the nontestifying CR-09-0739 accomplices. admission Specifically, 2 of evidence Turner argues that the State's consisting of h i s accomplices' out-of- court c o n f e s s i o n s t o law enforcement c o n s t i t u t e d i n a d m i s s i b l e hearsay and v i o l a t e d a g a i n s t him. VI. to confront the witnesses See R u l e 802, A l a . R. E v i d . ; U.S. C o n s t . Amend. Although statements h i s right Turner objected to the State's use of t h e d u r i n g c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s , he d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f h i s a c c o m p l i c e s ' s t a t e m e n t s ; t h e r e f o r e , he f a i l e d to p r o p e r l y preserve t h i s i s s u e f o r a p p e l l a t e review. v. S t a t e , 90 So. 3d 227, 237-38 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2011) ("In o r d e r f o r t h i s c o u r t t o r e v i e w an a l l e g e d e r r o n e o u s of evidence, introduction a of timely objection the evidence, must specific C.B.D. be admission made grounds to the f o r the o b j e c t i o n s h o u l d be s t a t e d a n d a r u l i n g on t h e o b j e c t i o n must be made by the t r i a l court." (citations and quotations omitted)). However, b e c a u s e T u r n e r h a s b e e n s e n t e n c e d failure to preserve this issue i s not f a t a l A l t h o u g h Turner r a i s e s C o u r t a d d r e s s e s o n l y one. 2 t o death, h i s to h i s appeal. numerous i s s u e s on a p p e a l , 8 this CR-09-0739 Rather, this Court A l a . R. App. P. must n o t i c e any Rule 45A plain error. Rule 45A, states: " I n a l l c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y has imposed, the Court of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s s h a l l e r r o r or d e f e c t i n the proceedings ^ -I- ^-^ - ^ ^-^ under review, w h e t h e^ r-.^ o^r n o^t-I- b r-.^o^ u-,g, h t -I- -t 1o- ^ 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 , and t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e a c t i o n by r e a s o n t h e r e o f , w h e n e v e r s u c h e r r o r has o r p r o b a b l y has a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of the a p p e l l a n t . " v-^ T^-^ 1-v (Emphasis added.) In Ex parte Brown, A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t 11 So. 3d 933 (Ala. 2008), explained: "'"To r i s e t o the l e v e l of p l a i n e r r o r , the c l a i m e d e r r o r must n o t o n l y s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t a d e f e n d a n t ' s ' s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s , ' b u t i t must a l s o have an u n f a i r p r e j u d i c i a l i m p a c t on t h e j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s . " ' Ex p a r t e B r y a n t , 951 So. 2d 724, 727 ( A l a . 2002) ( q u o t i n g Hyde v. S t a t e , 778 So. 2d 199, 209 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ) . I n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the United States Supreme Court, c o n s t r u i n g the f e d e r a l p l a i n - e r r o r r u l e , s t a t e d : "'The R u l e a u t h o r i z e s t h e C o u r t s o f A p p e a l s to c o r r e c t only " p a r t i c u l a r l y egregious e r r o r s , " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. F r a d y , 456 U.S. 152, 163 (1982), those errors that " s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t the f a i r n e s s , i n t e g r i t y or public reputation of judicial p r o c e e d i n g s , " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. A t k i n s o n , 297 U.S. [ 1 5 7 ] , a t 160 [ (1936) ] . I n o t h e r words, the p l a i n - e r r o r e x c e p t i o n t o the c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s - o b j e c t i o n r u l e i s t o be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances i n which a m i s c a r r i a g e of 9 the CR-09-0739 j u s t i c e would otherwise result." United S t a t e s v. F r a d y , 456 U.S., a t 163, n. 14.' "See a l s o Ex p a r t e Hodges, 856 So. 2d 936, 947-48 (Ala. 2003) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t p l a i n e r r o r e x i s t s only i f failure to recognize the e r r o r 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 of the j u d i c i a l proceedings,' and t h a t t h e p l a i n - e r r o r d o c t r i n e i s t o be 'used s p a r i n g l y , s o l e l y i n t h o s e circumstances i n which a miscarriage of j u s t i c e w o u l d o t h e r w i s e r e s u l t ' ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n marks omitted))." 11 So. 3d a t 938. claim under standard in "The s t a n d a r d the p l a i n - e r r o r doctrine used i n reviewing 121 failure (Ala. Crim. App. to object w i l l i n reviewing i s stricter 1999). Thus, although Turner's n o t b a r t h i s C o u r t f r o m r e v i e w i n g any See D i l l S t a t e , 600 So. 2d 343 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . "The that, the than the H a l l v. S t a t e , 820 So. 2d i s s u e , i t w i l l w e i g h a g a i n s t any c l a i m o f p r e j u d i c e . v. a an i s s u e t h a t was p r o p e r l y r a i s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r on a p p e a l . " 113, of review Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause provides ' [ i ] n a l l c r i m i n a l prosecutions, the accused s h a l l right him.'" ... t o be c o n f r o n t e d with the witnesses C r a w f o r d v. W a s h i n g t o n , 541 U.S. 36, 42 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . " t h e S i x t h Amendment [ p r o h i b i t s the admission hearsay offered [statements asserted], f o r the t r u t h enjoy against Thus, of] testimonial of the matter ... a n d i n t e r r o g a t i o n s b y l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s 10 CR-09-0739 fall squarely within that class." see a l s o i d . a t 59 n.9 409, 414 (1985) Crawford, 541 U.S. at ( c i t i n g T e n n e s s e e v. S t r e e t , 471 (explaining that the Confrontation 53; U.S. Clause "does n o t b a r t h e use o f t e s t i m o n i a l s t a t e m e n t s f o r purposes other asserted")). than e s t a b l i s h i n g the t r u t h of the matter Similarly, under the Alabama R u l e s of E v i d e n c e : " ' H e a r s a y i s n o t a d m i s s i b l e e x c e p t as p r o v i d e d by [the Alabama R u l e s of E v i d e n c e ] , o r by other r u l e s a d o p t e d by t h e Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a o r by statute.' R u l e 802, A l a . R. E v i d . '"Hearsay" i s a s t a t e m e n t , o t h e r t h a n one made by t h e declarant w h i l e t e s t i f y i n g at the t r i a l or h e a r i n g , o f f e r e d i n evidence to prove the t r u t h of the matter a s s e r t e d . ' R u l e 8 0 1 ( c ) , A l a . R. E v i d . " H i l l a r d v. S t a t e , 53 So. 3d 165, 167 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010). Accordingly, " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t [ , when o f f e r e d f o r t h e t r u t h of the matter asserted,] a nontestifying codefendant's statement to p o l i c e i m p l i c a t i n g the accused i n the crime i s i n a d m i s s i b l e a g a i n s t the a c c u s e d ; i t does n o t f a l l w i t h i n any recognized e x c e p t i o n t o t h e h e a r s a y r u l e and ... [ i t ] v i o l a t e s the accused's c o n f r o n t a t i o n r i g h t s . See Lee v. I l l i n o i s , 476 U.S. 530, 106 S. C t . 2056, 90 L. Ed. 2d 514 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ; B r u t o n v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. C t . 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ; R.L.B. v. S t a t e , 647 So. 2d 803 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994); E p h r a i m v. S t a t e , 627 So. 2d 1102 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993)." J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 791 So. 2d 979, 1024 See a l s o L i l l y v. V i r g i n i a , 527 U.S. 11 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 116, 139 (1999) 2000) . (holding CR-09-0739 t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f an a c c o m p l i c e ' s o u t - o f - c o u r t c o n f e s s i o n violated the Hillard, 53 statement t o p o l i c e was A l a . R. petitioner's So. 3d at Confrontation 169 (holding Clause that a rights); codef endant's i n a d m i s s i b l e hearsay under Rule Evid.). Here, the State offered evidence establishing that T u r n e r ' s a c c o m p l i c e s gave c o n f e s s i o n s t o p o l i c e o f f i c e r s in the those confessions, stated that, crime, Shah "grabbed ... s h o t [Shah]." evidence t h a t the accomplices t o l d T u r n e r m u r d e r e d Shah. d u r i n g the commission the phone[, t h i s and and (C. 766.) Turner] said The S t a t e a l s o the p o l i c e 195 (explaining officers that The c o n f e s s i o n s o f T u r n e r ' s a c c o m p l i c e s covers, (2004) that i t State used intended applies the to accomplices' (quoting "'[w]hatever interrogations'")). at Crawford, else a 541 Hiibel Shah. minimum statements statements See R. establish 12 U.S. at 5 42 68 the term [ " t e s t i m o n i a l " ] ... Further, during closing accomplices' kill of f*** v. S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t . C o u r t o f N e v a d a , Humboldt C o u n t y , 177, and, offered t o p o l i c e o f f i c e r s were, w i t h o u t a doubt, t e s t i m o n i a l . U.S. 802, to to police arguments, show t h a t 717 (arguing that Turner Turner that shot the the Shah CR-09-0739 b e c a u s e Shah w o u l d n o t g i v e them money). The S t a t e ' s use of t h e a c c o m p l i c e s ' s t a t e m e n t s d u r i n g c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t l e a v e s no room t o d o u b t t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s were o f f e r e d f o r t h e of the matter statements by asserted. Turner's officers during their to confront inadmissible substantial So. witnesses to and Rule 2d a t him, "adversely 45A, A l a . R. police right constituted affected App. of P. [his] See also 1024. i n t r o d u c t i o n of the a c c o m p l i c e s ' statements not o n l y affected A l a . R. 724, accomplices against App. P., [Turner's] s u b s t a n t i a l but " a l s o ha[d] i m p a c t on t h e j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s . " 2d introduction i n t e r r o g a t i o n s v i o l a t e d Turner's right[s]." "adversely 45A, nontestifying hearsay, J a c k s o n , 791 The the A c c o r d i n g l y , the truth 727 ( A l a . 2002) (citations right[s]," an u n f a i r Rule prejudicial Ex p a r t e B r y a n t , 951 and So. quotations omitted). As s t a t e d a b o v e , T u r n e r c o n c e d e d t h a t he went t o t h e M i n i - M a r t to commit a k i l l e d Shah. to kill robbery, d u r i n g the T u r n e r ' s s o l e d e f e n s e was Shah; accidentally. and, instead, he argued robbery, he shot t h a t he d i d n o t that he and intend shot Shah To r e b u t T u r n e r ' s d e f e n s e , t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t T u r n e r s h o t Shah, and i t a s k e d 13 the CR-09-0739 j u r y t o draw t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t T u r n e r i n t e n d e d Shah's f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t he u s e d a d e a d l y weapon. shot i n the lower abdomen near death However, Shah was his pelvis and the bullet e x i t e d h i s body t h r o u g h h i s b u t t o c k s . Thus, a l t h o u g h t h e j u r y c o u l d have i n f e r r e d an i n t e n t by t h e u s e o f a d e a d l y weapon, location of him. The S t a t e a l s o p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y f r o m Hanks, an i n m a t e , who said Turner shot Shah's i t also c o u l d have to k i l l wound t h a t T u r n e r confessed inferred from the d i d not i n t e n d t o k i l l t o him through an a i r vent that [Shah] b e c a u s e [Shah] w o u l d n ' t g i v e h i m t h e money." Defense counsel, impeach Hanks's presented however, testimony. evidence favorable treatment. Hanks's statement presented Specifically, indicating that t h a t he was a d e a d l y weapon and H a n k s ' s intent, tending defense Hanks (R. 386.) had to counsel received F u r t h e r , K i n s e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h e a r d testifying e x c h a n g e f o r b e i n g a l l o w e d t o "go home." Turner's evidence "he that a g a i n s t Turner A l t h o u g h t h e use of t e s t i m o n y was evidence cannot in be some e v i d e n c e of characterized as overwhelming. R a t h e r , t h e most damning e v i d e n c e t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d t o show t h a t T u r n e r intended to k i l l 14 Shah was the accomplices' CR-09-0739 s t a t e m e n t s and C o r p o r a l M e r e d i t h ' s t e s t i m o n y r e l a t i n g t o those statements. that, From t h e a c c o m p l i c e s ' s t a t e m e n t s , t h e j u r y knew during the robbery, Shah "grabbed T u r n e r ] s a i d f * * * t h i s a n d ... s h o t h i m . " the phone[, (C. 766.) Corporal Meredith t e s t i f i e d that the accomplices' e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e s h o o t i n g was i n t e n t i o n a l . and Further, statements C l e a r l y , the a c c o m p l i c e s ' s t a t e m e n t s and C o r p o r a l M e r e d i t h ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t they "knew [ t h a t t h e s h o o t i n g ] w a s n ' t an a c c i d e n t f r o m [ t h e a c c o m p l i c e s ' ] s t a t e m e n t [ s ] " (R. 5 8 5 - 8 6 ) , s t r u c k a t t h e h e a r t of Turner's o n l y defense and u n d o u b t e d l y impacted the j u r y ' s deliberations. Accordingly, from this the introduction accomplices' Court holds that p l a i n of evidence of Turner's confessions i n violation error resulted nontestifying of Turner's right to c o n f r o n t t h e w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t him and i n v i o l a t i o n 802, A l a . R. E v i d . conviction of Rule As a r e s u l t , t h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e s T u r n e r ' s and sentence of death a n d remands t h i s further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Welch, Kellum, Burke, and J o i n e r , 15 J J . , concur. cause f o r

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.