C. L. F. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/24/2012 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, 2011-2012 CR-10-1887 C.L.F. v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Montgomery J u v e n i l e Court (JU-97-1316.13) JOINER, A of Judge. delinquency Montgomery p e t i t i o n was f i l e d County, charging i n the J u v e n i l e Court C.L.F. with third-degree a s s a u l t , s e e § 13A-6-22, A l a . Code 1975. A f t e r c o n d u c t i n g an evidentiary hearing, found t h e charge i n thej u v e n i l e court CR-10-1887 t h e p e t i t i o n t o be t r u e a n d a d j u d i c a t e d C.L.F. d e l i n q u e n t . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t s e n t e n c e d C.L.F. t o s i x m o n t h s ' p r o b a t i o n upon completion o f t h e Department o f Youth Services ("DYS") HIT program. At trial, Treatment Astrid Center Thomas, a c a s e ("the C e n t e r " ) manager a t the Davis i n Montgomery, t e s t i f i e d t h a t on J u l y 20, 2 0 1 1 , she was m o n i t o r i n g nine other cafeteria juveniles while a t the Center. Alabama, C.L.F. a n d t h e y were e a t i n g b r e a k f a s t Thomas t e s t i f i e d s i t t i n g next to another juvenile--M.C. that i n the C.L.F. Thomas s t a t e d t h a t , a t some p o i n t , C.L.F. t o l d h e r t h a t he was h a v i n g p r o b l e m s some of the other Thomas t e s t i f i e d and students that and asked louder t o move h i m . Thomas s t a t e d t h a t she h a d p r e v i o u s l y w a r n e d C.L.F. t h a t he s h o u l d "the Thomas with she t o l d C.L.F. " t o be t h e m a t u r e one g e t up a n d remove [ h i m s e l f ] . " because of other was arguments. n o t s i t n e x t t o M.C. Thomas t e s t i f i e d t h a t C.L.F. was o f t h e two" a n d t h a t s h e t o l d C.L.F. t o move b u t he i g n o r e d h e r a n d c o n t i n u e d t o a r g u e w i t h M.C. Thomas s t a t e d t h a t C.L.F. t o l d M.C. t h a t he was " g o i n g t o k i c k [ M . C . ' s ] 'A'" and t h a t M.C. d i d n o t "know who [ h e w a s ] m e s s i n g 2 with." CR-10-1887 Thomas come stated that, t o h e r and testified point, t o her about she t o l d C.L.F. t o h i s issues. Thomas t h a t as C.L.F. was w a l k i n g t o w a r d h e r he c o n t i n u e d to get louder that talk at that M.C. a n d c o n t i n u e d t o t h r e a t e n M.C. sat quietly Thomas t e s t i f i e d that "fake ass b l o o d . " Thomas t e s t i f i e d and d i d n o t say a n y t h i n g 1 Thomas stated c h a r g e d a t C.L.F. had t o push pushed that then M.C. then turned and c a l l e d up Thomas s t a t e d t h a t , t o g e t t o C.L.F., M.C. Thomas wrestling stated with t h a t , when she g o t b a c k up, M.C. cafeteria building a n d s a t down and C.L.F. Thomas ran toward the back happened." into her the Thomas s t a t e d t h a t , as a r e s u l t o f g e t t i n g p u s h e d down b y M.C., i n j u r e d h e r arm. M.C. h a d C.L.F. p i n n e d went "as i f n o t h i n g that C.L.F. i n a c o r n e r a n d when she a p p r o a c h e d them M.C. administrative a a and and began picked M.C. chair h e r o u t o f t h e way. h e r down testified C.L.F. t o C.L.F. she Thomas t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d no f e e l i n g i n arm a n d t h a t she went t o a f r e e s t a n d i n g to seek m e d i c a l treatment f o r the i n j u r y . Thomas testified that M.C.'s " s o m e t h i n g a l l t h e s t u d e n t s know." 1 3 medical facility Thomas s t a t e d gang affiliation that is CR-10-1887 her arm was p l a c e d i n a s l i n g a n d h a d t o be s t a b i l i z e d fora couple o f days. Cynthia Williams testified that she i s e m p l o y e d a t t h e C e n t e r as a c o o k , a n d she was w o r k i n g a t t h e C e n t e r on J u l y 20, 2011. witnessed Williams a fight stated that while b e t w e e n C.L.F. s h e was w o r k i n g she a n d M.C. Williams stated t h a t C.L.F. was t a l k i n g w i t h M.C. a n d t h a t C.L.F.'s v o i c e was "really loud." Williams stated that C.L.F.'s voice grew l o u d e r a n d t h a t Thomas t o l d C.L.F. s e v e r a l t i m e s t o come o v e r t o h e r . W i l l i a m s s t a t e d t h a t Thomas t h e n h a d t o g e t up a n d go g e t C.L.F. a n d as Thomas was e s c o r t i n g C.L.F. t o t h e d o o r r a n t o w a r d them w i t h a c h a i r . the altercation, t e s t i f i e d that, after t h e r e was "a l o t o f commotion t r y i n g t o g e t the k i d s s e t t l e d , " M.C. Williams M.C. a n d Thomas a p p e a r e d t o be h u r t . testified that on July 20, 2 0 1 1 , he was a t the C e n t e r a n d C.L.F. a r g u e d w i t h h i m , c a l l e d h i m names, t o l d h i m to s h u t up, a n d t o l d him t h a t he c o u l d s t a t e d t h a t Thomas t h e n i n t e r v e n e d from the t a b l e . "whoop h i m . " and e s c o r t e d M.C. C.L.F. away M.C. t e s t i f i e d t h a t he came a f t e r C.L.F. w i t h a c h a i r a n d t h a t Thomas t r i e d t o s t o p h i m so he p u s h e d Thomas o u t o f t h e way i n o r d e r t o g e t t o C.L.F. 4 M.C. testified that CR-10-1887 he was angry w i t h e x a m i n a t i o n M.C. C.L.F. a n d w a n t e d t o h i t h i m . cross- t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was a n g r y w i t h C.L.F. f o r c a l l i n g him a "fake fake On ass blood" b e c a u s e , he s a i d , he i s " n o t a blood." After the State r e s t e d , C.L.F. moved f o r a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l , which the j u v e n i l e court posttrial motion, which the court denied. C.L.F. f i l e d also denied. This a appeal followed. The juvenile sole issue presented court erred when judgment o f a c q u i t t a l . the State Thomas's appeal i t denied caused evidence injury Specifically, showed t o Thomas that a i s whether C.L.F.'s m o t i o n f a i l e d to present s u f f i c i e n t recklessly State's 2 on C.L.F. because, third for a contends evidence he that the that C.L.F. says, the party--M.C.--caused injury. We r e c o g n i z e t h a t i n h i s b r i e f C.L.F. f i r s t a r g u e d t h a t he p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d h i s i n s u f f i c i e n t - e v i d e n c e c l a i m f o r appellate review. ( C . L . F . ' s b r i e f , pp. 9-12.) B e c a u s e C.L.F. f i l e d a t i m e l y p o s t t r i a l m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e 2 0 . 3 . A l a . R. C r i m . P., t h i s i s s u e i s p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d f o r r e v i e w . F u r t h e r m o r e , " t h e S t a t e c o n c e d e s t h a t [ C . L . F . ] seems t o h a v e s u f f i c i e n t l y preserved h i s issue f o r review." ( S t a t e ' s b r i e f , p. 9.) 2 5 CR-10-1887 Because this is a j u v e n i l e c o u r t judge the juvenile i s the t r i e r court matter, where t h e o f f a c t , we a r e m i n d f u l o f following: "Where e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ore tenus i n a nonjury case, a presumption o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on issues of f a c t ; i t s determination w i l l n o t be disturbed unless clearly erroneous, without supporting evidence, m a n i f e s t l y unjust, or against t h e g r e a t w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e . Odom v . H u l l , 658 So. 2d 442 ( A l a . 1995) . However, when t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y a p p l i e s t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s , no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e c o u r t ' s judgment. Ex p a r t e B o a r d o f Z o n i n g A d j u s t m e n t o f t h e C i t y o f M o b i l e , 636 So. 2d 415 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . " Ex p a r t e Agee, 669 So. 2 d 102, 104 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . See R.L.L. v . S t a t e , 564 So. 2d 474, 476 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) ; State, 552 So. 2d 178, 180 ( A l a . Crim. C.D.U. v . App. 1989) ("When e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s , t h e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n must be given every reasonable presumption its ' i f i t was s u p p o r t e d b y c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e it finding was p a l p a b l y w r o n g . ' Middleton, 519 So. 2d a n d we w i l l Department 540 not overturn unless o f Human R e s o u r c e s ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987)."). Furthermore, " ' S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 5 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e s t h a t an a d j u d i c a t i o n o f d e l i n q u e n c y be s u p p o r t e d b y "proof beyond a reasonable doubt, based on c o m p e t e n t , m a t e r i a l [ , ] a n d r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e . " The credibility o f w i t n e s s e s and t h e t r u t h f u l n e s s o f 6 v. CR-10-1887 testimony i n delinquency proceedings i s f o r the t r i e r of f a c t t o determine. C.T.L. v. S t a t e , 599 So. 2d 94 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . Furthermore, i n r e s o l v i n g questions of s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence, t h i s c o u r t must v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most favorable to the state. I d . ' " R.B.H. v. S t a t e , 762 So. 2d 382, 383 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) ( q u o t i n g A.A.G. v. S t a t e , 668 So. 2d 122, 124 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1995)). Given t h e a b o v e - s t a t e d s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w , we now t u r n t o C.L.F.'s c l a i m on a p p e a l . C.L.F. contends, as stated above, that the evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Thomas was a t t a c k e d by M.C.--not b y C . L . F . - - a n d , t h e r e f o r e , C.L.F. a r g u e s t h a t t h e evidence was insufficient to support C.L.F.'s delinquency a d j u d i c a t i o n f o r t h i r d - d e g r e e a s s a u l t under § 13A-6-22(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975. the evidence The S t a t e , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , c o n t e n d s presented at the h e a r i n g supported that C.L.F.'s a d j u d i c a t i o n as d e l i n q u e n t o f t h i r d - d e g r e e a s s a u l t b e c a u s e , i t says, "[e]ven [Thomas], though h i s actions unreasonable and unjustifiable [C.L.F.] i n provoking conscious risk." did an disregard (State's b r i e f , not directly altercation of a p. 11.) strike were substantial an and Specifically, the S t a t e contends t h a t "[o]ne j u v e n i l e c o n s t a n t l y haranguing and of cursing a t a second and c o n t i n u i n g a s t r i n g 7 insults CR-10-1887 creates occur a reasonable resulting combatants." in likelihood injury to that an [someone] altercation other would than ( S t a t e ' s b r i e f , p. 11.) "The general standard f o r assessing the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence i s a p p l i c a b l e t o our r e v i e w o f j u v e n i l e p r o c e e d i n g s . See J.W.B. v. S t a t e , 651 So. 2d 73, 75 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994) ( a p p l y i n g ' " [ t ] h e g e n e r a l s t a n d a r d b y w h i c h we r e v i e w t h e evidence"' to a j u v e n i l e proceeding (quoting R o b i n e t t e v. S t a t e , 531 So. 2d 682, 687 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) ) ) . "'"'In determining the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n , a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t must a c c e p t as t r u e a l l e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d by t h e S t a t e , a c c o r d the State a l l legitimate inferences t h e r e f r o m , and c o n s i d e r a l l e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . " ' B a l l e n g e r v. S t a t e , 720 So. 2d 1033, 1034 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , q u o t i n g F a i r c l o t h v. S t a t e , 471 So. 2d 485, 488 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 4 ) , a f f ' d , 471 So. 2d 493 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . "'The t e s t u s e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e sufficiency of evidence to sustain a c o n v i c t i o n i s whether, v i e w i n g the evidence in the l i g h t most favorable to the prosecution, a r a t i o n a l f i n d e r of fact c o u l d have f o u n d t h e d e f e n d a n t guilty b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . ' " Nunn v. S t a t e , 697 So. 2d 497, 498 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g O'Neal v. S t a t e , 602 So. 2d 462, 464 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . "'When t h e r e i s l e g a l evidence from which the j u r y c o u l d , by fair inference, find the defendant g u i l t y , the t r i a l court should submit [the c a s e ] t o t h e j u r y , and, i n s u c h a c a s e , this court w i l l not d i s t u r b the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n . ' " F a r r i o r v. S t a t e , 728 8 the CR-10-1887 So. 2d 691, 696 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , q u o t i n g Ward v. S t a t e , 557 So. 2d 848, 850 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . "The r o l e o f a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s i s n o t t o s a y what t h e f a c t s a r e . Our r o l e ... i s t o j u d g e w h e t h e r the e v i d e n c e i s l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w s u b m i s s i o n o f an i s s u e f o r d e c i s i o n [by] t h e j u r y . " Ex p a r t e B a n k s t o n , 358 So. 2d 1040, 1042 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . ' " O l i v e r v. C i t y o f O p e l i k a , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . " J.M.A. v. S t a t e , Section "[a] if 950 So. 2d 1229, 1230 74 So. 3d 487, 492 13A-6-22(a)(2), ( A l a . C r i m . App. A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f a s s a u l t i n t h e t h i r d ... person." [h]e r e c k l e s s l y causes physical 2011). injury to that degree another S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 2 - 2 ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975, d e f i n e s t h e t e r m " r e c k l e s s " as f o l l o w s : "A p e r s o n a c t s r e c k l e s s l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o a r e s u l t o r t o a c i r c u m s t a n c e d e s c r i b e d by a s t a t u t e defining an o f f e n s e when he i s aware o f and consciously disregards a substantial and u n j u s t i f i a b l e r i s k that the r e s u l t w i l l occur or t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e e x i s t s . The r i s k must be o f such n a t u r e and degree that disregard thereof c o n s t i t u t e s a g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from the s t a n d a r d o f conduct t h a t a reasonable person would observe i n the s i t u a t i o n " Thus, t o p r o v e to first show disregarded third-degree that C.L.F. a s s a u l t the State's was "aware of a s u b s t a n t i a l and u n j u s t i f i a b l e 9 evidence had and risk" consciously that M.C. CR-10-1887 w o u l d , as a r e s u l t o f C.L.F.'s i n s u l t s , cause p h y s i c a l i n j u r y causing r e a c t v i o l e n t l y and t o Thomas a n d t h a t t h e r i s k i n j u r y t o Thomas was o f " s u c h n a t u r e [C.L.F.'s] d i s r e g a r d t h e r e o f from the s t a n d a r d o f M.C.'s and degree c o n s t i t u t e [ d ] a gross of conduct that a reasonable that deviation person would [have] o b s e r v e [ d ] i n t h e s i t u a t i o n . " Viewed in a light most favorable to the State, the e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t C.L.F. was "aware of and c o n s c i o u s l y d i s r e g a r d e d a s u b s t a n t i a l and u n j u s t i f i a b l e risk" that Thomas w o u l d i n s u l t e d M.C. suffer physical injury when C.L.F. As d e t a i l e d a b o v e , t h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e tended t o e s t a b l i s h t h e f o l l o w i n g : On J u l y 20, 2 0 1 1 , C.L.F., and nine other juveniles were eating breakfast M.C., i n the c a f e t e r i a a t the Center. W h i l e e a t i n g b r e a k f a s t , C.L.F. b e g a n insulting however, M.C. M.C., r e s p o n d e d t o , C.L.F.'s i n s u l t s . neither t o , nor Thomas, a c o u n s e l o r C e n t e r , t o l d C.L.F. t o remove h i m s e l f C.L.F. i g n o r e d h e r . reacted a t the from the s i t u a t i o n , b u t C.L.F. t h e n t o l d M.C. t h a t he was "going t o k i c k [M.C.'s] 'A'" a n d t h a t M.C. d i d n o t "know who [he was] messing w i t h . " and talk Thomas t h e n t o l d C.L.F. t o come o v e r t o h e r t o her about h i s issues. 10 As C.L.F. was walking CR-10-1887 toward Thomas he threaten M.C. anything continued t o C.L.F. c a l l e d M.C. and M.C. a "fake c h a r g e d C.L.F. pushed her a result, get louder however, M.C., to sat quietly and and C.L.F., k n o w i n g M.C.'s gang ass b l o o d . " M.C. continued to d i d not say affiliation, t h e n p i c k e d up a chair Thomas, h o w e v e r , t r i e d t o s t o p M.C., o u t o f t h e way Thomas f e l l so he c o u l d g e t t o C.L.F. t o t h e g r o u n d and i n j u r e d her and As arm. At the c l o s e of the S t a t e ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f , the f o l l o w i n g occurred: " [ C . L . F . ' s c o u n s e l ] : J u d g e , I ' d l i k e t o make a m o t i o n f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on a s s a u l t . I t ' s an i n t e n t t o c a u s e an i n j u r y . Somebody a t t a c k s him, and a l a d y g e t s h i t b e c a u s e he's b e i n g a t t a c k e d . If t h a t ' s not a s s a u l t - ¬ " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : W e l l , Judge, I t h i n k i f a n y t h i n g t h e r e ' s a t r a n s f e r t h a t ' s i n h e r e b e c a u s e you've h e a r d p l e n t y o f e v i d e n c e t h a t [M.C.] was attempting t o f i g h t [C.L.F.] and, i n fact, did contact him a f t e r w a r d s and t h r e w h i m up a g a i n s t t h e w a l l . And t h e s t a t u t e i s v e r y c l e a r t h a t i t s a y s i f he c a u s e s i n j u r y t o any p e r s o n d u r i n g t h a t w i t h t h a t i n t e n t . " [ C . L . F . ' s c o u n s e l ] : J u d g e , t h a t ' s n o t what t h e f a c t s a r e . The f a c t s a r e he i s w a l k i n g away and somebody i s c h a s i n g him and c o m i n g a f t e r him. Those a r e t h e f a c t s . And w h i l e t h e y were g o i n g a f t e r him t h e y k n o c k e d somebody down, and he's y e l l i n g and screaming. "THE COURT: I u n d e r s t a n d what y o u ' r e s a y i n g , b u t t h e d i r e c t c a u s e o f t h e r e a s o n t h i s guy was chasing 11 CR-10-1887 him was him as f a r as I'm deny y o u r m o t i o n . " (R. 27-28.) criminal Thus, c o n c e r n e d , so I'm i t appears liability in this that case the was State's that a s s a u l t by m e r e l y i n s u l t i n g M.C., c a u s e d M.C. to violently toward to theory C.L.F. third-degree react going of committed which, i t said, Thomas. The State, h o w e v e r , c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y - - a n d t h i s C o u r t i s aware o f none-¬ in w h i c h an when a l o n e has insulted party reacts violently harm t o the insult a third party. This intentional however, t h a t t h e r e liability resulted c o u l d be in criminal are and Court circumstances a r i s e s when i n d i v i d u a l s Although that the C.L.F.'s violently establish result toward warned evidence toward Thomas, t h a t C.L.F. was criminal aware t h a t t h e i r cause words another in this case prompted State's "aware" t h a t injuring established M.C. to evidence insulting Thomas. did M.C. We react not would recognize t h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Thomas had C.L.F. "arguments" M.C. the i n M.C.'s p u s h i n g and that although recognizes, party. State's actions causes i n which o r a c t i o n s s e t i n m o t i o n a c h a i n o f e v e n t s and p e r s o n t o harm a t h i r d liability (R. not 5), to s i t near a previous 12 M.C. because of a r g u m e n t does n o t previous establish CR-10-1887 that C.L.F. was aware that M.C. would cause p h y s i c a l i n j u r y would t o Thomas. react v i o l e n t l y and Because the S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t C.L.F. a c t e d " r e c k l e s s l y " as that term juvenile i s defined court erred judgment o f a c q u i t t a l . in § when 13A-2-2, i t denied A l a . Code 1975, t h e C.L.F.'s m o t i o n A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e for a the juvenile c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a n d r e n d e r a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l f o r C.L.F. REVERSED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED. Windom, P . J . , a n d W e l c h , K e l l u m , 13 and B u r k e , J J . , c o n c u 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.