Montana Jordan Windsor 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-11-0154 Montana Jordan Windsor v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t (CC-10-0581) Court KELLUM, J u d g e . The a p p e l l a n t , M o n t a n a J o r d a n W i n d s o r , was c o n v i c t e d o f robbery i nthe f i r s t d e g r e e , a v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-8-41, A l a . Code 1975. The c i r c u i t felony offender with c o u r t s e n t e n c e d Windsor as a h a b i t u a l two p r i o r felony convictions t o 120 CR-11-0154 y e a r s ' imprisonment. The c i r c u i t c o u r t o r d e r e d W i n d s o r t o p a y a f i n e o f $18,000, r e s t i t u t i o n court i n t h e amount o f $ 3 2 , 0 0 0 , a n d costs. The record indicates the following pertinent facts. On A p r i l 3, 2 0 1 0 , W i n d s o r e n t e r e d a CVS P h a r m a c y r e t a i l s t o r e i n Dothan wearing a beanie and g l o v e s , w h i c h CVS s t a f f found s u s p i c i o u s b e c a u s e " n o b o d y d r e s s e s t h a t warm i n t h e m i d d l e o f S p r i n g . " ( R . 3 0 . ) W i n d s o r w a l k e d q u i c k l y down an a i s l e o f t h e store toward pharmacy, t h e pharmacy department. t h e pharmacy t e c h n i c i a n As he a p p r o a c h e d on d u t y a t t h a t time the saw t h a t W i n d s o r was c a r r y i n g a handgun. W i n d s o r j u m p e d o v e r t h e f r o n t c o u n t e r o f t h e p h a r m a c y a n d demanded O x y C o n t i n . was i n t h e s t o r e f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y two m i n u t e s , Windsor during which t i m e numerous e m p l o y e e s o f t h e p h a r m a c y were a b l e t o s e e a n d i d e n t i f y Windsor. A f t e r Windsor secured the OxyContin he f l e d t h e s t o r e . The p o l i c e e s t i m a t e d t h e v a l u e o f t h e O x y C o n t i n i n his possession t o be b e t w e e n $35,000 and $40,000, with a s t r e e t v a l u e o f over $100,000. At t h e request o f t h e Dothan P o l i c e Department, a l o c a l television by s t a t i o n a i r e d a videotape of the robbery t h e CVS Pharmacy store's security 2 cameras recorded during the CR-11-0154 e v e n i n g news as a " C r i m e S t o p p e r s " segment. Dewey E m f i n g e r saw t h a t v i d e o o f t h e r o b b e r y on t h e news and r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e robber had a s i m i l a r p h y s i c a l appearance t o Windsor, who h a d w o r k e d as an e m p l o y e e a t E m f i n g e r ' s b u s i n e s s f o r t h r e e m o n t h s . Emfinger t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t h o u g h t W i n d s o r was t h e p e r s o n i n t h e v i d e o f r o m " t h e way [ W i n d s o r ] moved, t h e o u t l i n e face, you know, telephoned and h i s b u i l d , the Crimestoppers size." t i p line of h i s (R. 78.) Emfinger and reported this information to authorities. Shortly Barbaree after of the Emfinger's Dothan telephone Police call, Department Cp. Chris brought a photographic l i n e u p c a r d t h a t c o n t a i n e d a p i c t u r e of Windsor to t h e CVS Ferry, store. identified One of t h e pharmacy Windsor as t h e p e r s o n technicians, Megan who h a d r o b b e d the s t o r e . F e r r y was a b l e t o p i c k W i n d s o r o u t " i m m e d i a t e l y . " T h i s led t o Windsor's arrest. During the t r i a l , at the time s e v e r a l CVS e m p l o y e e s who were p r e s e n t of the robbery who h a d r o b b e d the store. i d e n t i f i e d W i n d s o r as t h e p e r s o n The f i r s t CVS e m p l o y e e t o t e s t i f y was Megan F e r r y , who t e s t i f i e d t h a t once she saw W i n d s o r e n t e r t h e s t o r e w i t h a gun she "was t r y i n g t o g e t a d e s c r i p t i o n o f 3 CR-11-0154 [Windsor]... could and t r y i n g t o pay a t t e n t i o n r e l a y t o the o f f i c e r s t o any d e t a i l s I once t h e y g o t on t h e s c e n e . " ( R . 3 3 . ) F e r r y f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she p i c k e d W i n d s o r o u t o f a p h o t o g r a p h i c l i n e u p as t h e p e r s o n t h a t r o b b e d t h e s t o r e , and she a l s o i d e n t i f i e d W i n d s o r i n c o u r t as t h e p e r p e t r a t o r of the robbery. B r i t t a n y H u t t , a n o t h e r p h a r m a c y t e c h n i c i a n on d u t y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e r o b b e r y , t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4:30 p.m. W i n d s o r j u m p e d o v e r t h e c o u n t e r o f t h e p h a r m a c y and t h a t she was " f a c e - t o - f a c e " p h y s i c a l appearance (R. 5 8 . ) She identified then with Windsor. Hutt stated that Windsor's was " c l e a r as d a y , no mask o r a n y t h i n g . " pointed t o Windsor h i m as t h e " p e r s o n i n the courtroom t h a t jumped t h e c o u n t e r . " (R. 59.) H u t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t W i n d s o r demanded O x y C o n t i n behind counter t h e pharmacy and and was f o r two o r t h r e e m i n u t e s . Hutt f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t when shown a p h o t o g r a p h i c l i n e - u p , she t o l d C p l . B a r b a r e e t h a t she was " a h u n d r e d p e r c e n t " s u r e W i n d s o r was t h e p e r s o n who h a d r o b b e d that t h e CVS s t o r e . J a r r o d T i d w e l l was a p h a r m a c i s t a t CVS and was w o r k i n g a t the time Windsor robbed he t h e pharmacy. T i d w e l l t e s t i f i e d h a d an u n o b s t r u c t e d v i e w when 4 Windsor climbed that over the CR-11-0154 counter o f t h e p h a r m a c y d e p a r t m e n t w i t h a gun T i d w e l l was who had a s k e d how robbed the s u r e he was CVS i n h i s hand. t h a t W i n d s o r was store, leading to the the person following response: " I g o t a g r e a t l o o k a t him. I m e a n , i t was w e l l l i t . I h a d , you k n o w , t w o , t h r e e m i n u t e s t o l o o k a t him. T h e r e was n o t h i n g b e t w e e n me and him. He w a s n ' t w e a r i n g a mask. J u s t l i k e l o o k i n g a t anybody i n h e r e t o d a y . I f I l o o k e d a t you f o r two m i n u t e s , and you had a gun p o i n t e d a t me, I'm g o i n g t o remember what you l o o k e d l i k e . " (R. 1 0 5 . ) T i d w e l l f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was s u r e " t h a t W i n d s o r was when he was Barbaree. t h e p e r s o n who presented Tidwell also with a made an "100 percent had r o b b e d t h e CVS s t o r e photographic in-court lineup by Cpl. identification of Windsor. I n a d d i t i o n t o the t e s t i m o n y of the employees p r e s e n t a t t h e CVS s t o r e at the time of the r o b b e r y , the camera v i d e o o f t h e r o b b e r y was The incident State also i n which presented Windsor p l a y e d f o r the evidence jumped over surveillancejury. regarding the a counter prior of the p h a r m a c y d e p a r t m e n t a t a W a l g r e e n s s t o r e . The S t a t e p r e s e n t e d the testimony employees of Jennifer of Walgreens. The Bradshaw State 5 and also Frances Crumwell, presented testimony CR-11-0154 from Tanja W a l k e r , who W a l g r e e n s s t o r e . The 16, 2008, pharmacy when incident Windsor department and pharmacist on duty, indicative of the Crumwell w i t n e s s e d Windsor's testified and from a t W a l g r e e n s o c c u r r e d on jumped over the counter demanded O x y C o n t i n . her description testimony as flight of the of other two July of Crumwell the was events " [ C r u m w e l l ] : I t was a b o u t 9:45, b e c a u s e I was w o r k i n g u n t i l 10:00 t h a t n i g h t . We were g e t t i n g r e a d y t o c l o s e . We was d o i n g o u r c l o s i n g p r o c e d u r e s . And one o f my t e c h s , I h e a r d h e r s a y , you d o n ' t -¬ you a r e n o t s u p p o s e d t o be b a c k h e r e . And a t t h a t p o i n t i n t i m e I w a l k e d o v e r t o see what was g o i n g on. And I saw someone s t a n d i n g t h e r e . And t h e y s a i d , I want O x y c o n t i n . And I s a i d , w e l l , i f y o u ' l l go b a c k o u t f r o n t , I ' l l g e t y o u r p r e s c r i p t i o n . He s a i d , I d o n ' t have a p r e s c r i p t i o n . I want y o u r O x y c o n t i n . " A t t h a t p o i n t I s a i d , you n e e d t o g e t o u t o f my p h a r m a c y . He t o o k a s t e p t o w a r d me. And one o f my o t h e r t e c h s came b e t w e e n u s . And t h e n he jumped o v e r the counter [PROSECUTOR]: D i d he l e a v e a t t h a t p o i n t ? [Crumwell]: Yes, S i r . " "[PROSECUTOR]: D i d t h e i n d i v i d u a l , d i d [he] e v e r g i v e you a name f o r a p r e s c r i p t i o n ? was 6 the a is witnesses. follows: " [ C r u m w e l l ] : No. The o n l y t h i n g t h a t t h a t [he] w a n t e d O x y c o n t i n . the [he] said CR-11-0154 "[PROSECUTOR]: A n d you a s k e d [him] i f [he] w o u l d g i v e you t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n a n d you w o u l d g e t i t ? " [ C r u m w e l l ] : C o r r e c t . B e c a u s e we have a w a i t i n g a r e a , w h i c h we t a k e , a n d we c o u n s e l p e o p l e a n d w h a t n o t . And he s a i d he d i d n ' t have a p r e s c r i p t i o n . He w a n t e d t h e O x y c o n t i n . "[PROSECUTOR]: A n d d i d he e v e r t e l l you a name o r a n y t h i n g f o r a p r e s c r i p t i o n t h a t may have b e e n dropped o f f e a r l i e r ? "[Crumwell]: No, s i r , n o t t o my recollection. "[PROSECUTOR]: A l l r i g h t . Now, do you know who t h a t i n d i v i d u a l was, o r do you s e e them i n t h e c o u r t r o o m t o d a y ? I know i t ' s b e e n a c o u p l e o f y e a r s . "[Crumwell]: Yes, i t c e r t a i n l y resembles the p e r s o n t h a t was b a c k i n t h e p h a r m a c y . "[PROSECUTOR]: A n d c a n you p o i n t o u t t h e p e r s o n t h a t you r e c o g n i z e ? "(Witness Windsor].)" complies [Crumwell pointed toward (R. 137-38.) In a d d i t i o n t o t h e t e s t i m o n y from t h e Walgreens and W a l k e r , C p l . B a r b a r e e incident a t Walgreens apprehended, who a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e p r i o r testified that after Windsor was W i n d s o r v o l u n t a r i l y s t a t e d t h a t he h a d jumped t h e counter a t Walgreens OxyContin employees and i n an u n s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t t o s t e a l subsequently fled the scene. some C p l . Barbaree charged Windsor w i t h o b s t r u c t i o n o f j u s t i c e f o r u s i n g a f a l s e 7 CR-11-0154 identity, because Jeremy Windsor, did Windsor identified not Montana W i n d s o r . 1 himself to police as However, C p l . B a r b a r e e n o t c h a r g e W i n d s o r w i t h any o t h e r c r i m e stemming f r o m t h e Walgreens incident. Windsor testified d e n i e d t h a t he was Windsor Walgreens defense t h e p e r s o n who testified, store. i n h i s own however, Windsor had robbed regarding admitted at t r i a l . that the he Windsor t h e CVS events jumped store. at the over the p h a r m a c y c o u n t e r and demanded O x y C o n t i n . Windsor's c a s e was t r i e d before a jury. A f t e r both had r e s t e d and t h e c i r c u i t the a p p l i c a b l e law, the j u r y found Windsor in the f i r s t degree. c o u r t had This appeal instructed sides the j u r y on g u i l t y of robbery followed. I. Windsor allowing first evidence contends of prior that bad the c i r c u i t acts court erred i n in violation of Rule 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. E v i d . S p e c i f i c a l l y , W i n d s o r a r g u e s t h a t i t was improper for committed a similar the witnesses testify that in 2008 Windsor c r i m e when he jumped o v e r t h e c o u n t e r o f pharmacy department 1 to a t a Walgreens and demanded O x y C o n t i n . Jeremy i s Montana Windsor's b r o t h e r . 8 CR-11-0154 During the trial, witnesses who Windsor testified Walgreens s t o r e to the objected to regarding extent all of the incident the four at the that those witnesses testified t h a t W i n d s o r jumped o v e r t h e p h a r m a c y c o u n t e r a t t h e W a l g r e e n s s t o r e and demanded O x y C o n t i n . "The admission or exclusion within the sound d i s c r e t i o n State, 808 So. 808 2d 1215 So. evidence court, will 2d 1148, the n o t be trial reversed discretion." 2000). This 1191 the Ex left to court's the 940 So. parte Generally, specifically State, v. 695 State, So. 521 344-46 771 true with matter Taylor 2000), v. aff'd, of a d m i s s i b i l i t y discretion So. on 2d regard of the that D a v i s v. 1998) . See of i s prima 2d 70, 85 So. 2d 1018 any facie question 740 of (Ala. admission Irvin of trial 1103 State, also So. v. of 2d State, 2005). offense other than inadmissible." ( A l a . C r i m . App. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 9 1093, to the ( A l a . C r i m . App. "[e]vidence charged a court." determination Loggins, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 331, is e x c e p t upon a c l e a r s h o w i n g o f abuse i s equally 1130 trial question c o l l a t e r a l - b a d - a c t s e v i d e n c e . See 1115, evidence ( A l a . C r i m . App. ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . "The i s generally and of of Bush 1995)(citing 1987)). that v. Nicks However, CR-11-0154 the exclusionary rule operates to exclude only evidence o t h e r c r i m e s t h a t i s o f f e r e d as p r o o f o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s character. See T y s o n v. State, C r i m . A p p . ) , a f f ' d , 784 So. 2d 357 R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. Evid., 784 So. 2d ( A l a . 2000). states, 328, 346 of bad (Ala. Specifically, in pertinent part: "(b) O t h e r C r i m e s , Wrongs, o r A c t s . Evidence of o t h e r c r i m e s , wrongs, or a c t s i s not a d m i s s i b l e t o p r o v e t h e c h a r a c t e r o f a p e r s o n i n o r d e r t o show a c t i o n i n c o n f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h . I t may, h o w e v e r , be a d m i s s i b l e f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s , s u c h as p r o o f o f motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of m i s t a k e or accident " I n I r v i n v. S t a t e , 940 So. 2d 331 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005), t h i s Court e x p l a i n e d : " I n R o b i n s o n v. S t a t e , 528 So. 2d 343 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 6 ) , t h i s C o u r t d i s c u s s e d t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e exclusionary rule, stating: "'"'On t h e t r i a l o f a p e r s o n f o r t h e a l l e g e d commission of a p a r t i c u l a r crime, evidence of h i s doing another a c t , which i t s e l f i s a crime, i s not a d m i s s i b l e i f the o n l y p r o b a t i v e f u n c t i o n of such evidence i s t o show h i s b a d c h a r a c t e r , i n c l i n a t i o n o r p r o p e n s i t y t o commit t h e t y p e o f c r i m e f o r w h i c h he i s b e i n g t r i e d . T h i s i s a g e n e r a l exclusionary rule which prevents the i n t r o d u c t i o n of p r i o r c r i m i n a l a c t s f o r the s o l e purpose of s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the accused i s more l i k e l y t o be g u i l t y o f t h e c r i m e i n q u e s t i o n . ' " Pope v. S t a t e , 365 So. 2d 369, 371 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , q u o t i n g C. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e 69.01 10 CR-11-0154 (3d ed. 1 9 7 7 ) . " ' T h i s e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e i s s i m p l y an a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e c h a r a c t e r r u l e which forbids the State to prove the accused's bad character by particular d e e d s . The b a s i s f o r t h e r u l e l i e s i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t the p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t of p r i o r crimes w i l l f a r o u t w e i g h any probative v a l u e t h a t m i g h t be g a i n e d f r o m them. M o s t agree t h a t such evidence of p r i o r crimes has a l m o s t an i r r e v e r s i b l e i m p a c t upon t h e m i n d s o f t h e j u r o r s . ' " Ex p a r t e A r t h u r , 472 So. 2d 665, 668 ( A l a . 1985), q u o t i n g McElroy's supra, 69.01(1). Thus, the e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e serves to p r o t e c t the defendant's r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l . "'The j u r y ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of g u i l t or innocence s h o u l d be b a s e d on e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t t o t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d . ' " Ex p a r t e C o f e r , 440 So. 2d 1121, 1123 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ; T e r r e l l v. S t a t e , 397 So. 2d 232, 234 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 397 So. 2d 235 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T u r q u i t t , 557 F.2d 464, 468 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) . " ' " I f the defendant's commission of a n o t h e r c r i m e o r m i s d e e d i s an e l e m e n t o f guilt, or tends to prove his guilt o t h e r w i s e t h a n by s h o w i n g o f b a d c h a r a c t e r , then proof of such other act is admissible." S a f f o l d v. S t a t e , 494 So. 2d 164 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). The well-established exceptions to the e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e i n c l u d e : (1) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e i d e n t i t y ; (2) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e r e s g e s t a e ; (3) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e s c i e n t e r ; (4) relevancy to prove intent; (5) r e l e v a n c y t o show m o t i v e ; (6) r e l e v a n c y t o prove system; (7) relevancy to prove malice; (8) r e l e v a n c y t o r e b u t s p e c i a l d e f e n s e s ; and (9) r e l e v a n c y i n v a r i o u s p a r t i c u l a r crimes. W i l l i s v. S t a t e , 449 So. 2d 1258, 1260 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 4 ) ; 11 CR-11-0154 S c o t t v. S t a t e , 353 So. 2d 36 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1977) . However, the fact that e v i d e n c e o f a p r i o r b a d a c t may f i t i n t o one o f t h e s e e x c e p t i o n s w i l l n o t a l o n e j u s t i f y i t s admission. " ' J u d i c i a l inquiry does n o t end w i t h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e o f a n o t h e r c r i m e i s r e l e v a n t and p r o b a t i v e of a n e c e s s a r y element of the c h a r g e d o f f e n s e . I t does n o t s u f f i c e s i m p l y t o see i f t h e e v i d e n c e i s c a p a b l e o f b e i n g f i t t e d w i t h i n an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r u l e . R a t h e r , a b a l a n c i n g t e s t must be a p p l i e d . The e v i d e n c e o f a n o t h e r s i m i l a r c r i m e must n o t o n l y be r e l e v a n t , i t must a l s o be r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a r y t o the government's c a s e , and i t must be p l a i n , c l e a r , and conclusive, before i t sprobative value w i l l be held to outweigh its potential p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t s . ' " A v e r e t t e v. S t a t e , 469 So. 2d 1371, 1374 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1 9 8 5 ) , q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T u r q u i t t , s u p r a a t 468-69 . " ' " P r e j u d i c i a l " i s u s e d i n t h i s phrase t o l i m i t the i n t r o d u c t i o n of p r o b a t i v e evidence of p r i o r misconduct only when i t is unduly and unfairly prejudicial.' [Citation omitted.] 'Of c o u r s e , " p r e j u d i c e , i n t h i s c o n t e x t , means more t h a n s i m p l y damage t o t h e o p p o n e n t ' s c a u s e . A p a r t y ' s c a s e i s a l w a y s damaged by evidence t h a t the f a c t s are c o n t r a r y to h i s c o n t e n t i o n ; b u t t h a t c a n n o t be g r o u n d f o r exclusion. What i s meant h e r e i s an undue t e n d e n c y t o move t h e t r i b u n a l t o d e c i d e on an i m p r o p e r b a s i s , commonly, t h o u g h not a l w a y s , an e m o t i o n a l o n e . " ' " A v e r e t t e v. S t a t e , s u p r a , a t 1374.' 840 940 So. "528 So. 2d a t 347. See a l s o H o c k e r v. S t a t e , So. 2d 197, 213-14 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . " 2d a t 345-46. 12 CR-11-0154 Two rule o f t h e above m e n t i o n e d e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e e x c l u s i o n a r y case. identity With identity, a prior regard motive to -- Rule are present 404(b) i n the evidence used t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has h e l d : crime surrounding presently is the that naturally assume person.'" Ex prior only crime crime anyone them to and viewing the have Brewer v. ( A l a . Crim. been 472 State, also App. I r w i n v. 2005). two With to prove circumstances surrounding great the degree offenses committed So. 440 a instant " [ E ] v i d e n c e of the those such Arthur, 1 9 8 3 ) ) . See when 'exhibit parte 1985)(quoting C r i m . App. admissible charged similarity 345-52 and by of would the same 2d 665, 668 (Ala. So.2d 1155, 1161 (Ala. State, 940 So. 2d regard to Rule 331, 404(b) e v i d e n c e u s e d t o p r o v e m o t i v e , t h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d : " [ I ] t i s p e r m i s s i b l e i n e v e r y c r i m i n a l c a s e t o show t h a t t h e r e was i n f l u e n c e , an i n d u c e m e n t , o p e r a t i n g on t h e a c c u s e d , w h i c h have to l e d or State, 776 tempted So. 2d 206, him 210-11 commit the offense." Estes ( A l a . C r i m . App. an may v. 1999). The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t abuse its d i s c r e t i o n when i t a l l o w e d t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g Windsor's a c t i o n s at the Walgreens s t o r e because t h a t evidence tended t o 13 CR-11-0154 prove both i d e n t i t y and m o t i v e . W i n d s o r ' s defense p l a c e d at i s s u e h i s i d e n t i t y as t h e p e r p e t r a t o r o f t h e c r i m e a t t h e store. Windsor's actions a t the Walgreens store -- CVS namely, j u m p i n g o v e r t h e p h a r m a c y c o u n t e r and d e m a n d i n g O x y C o n t i n -¬ e x h i b i t e d a v e r y h i g h d e g r e e o f s i m i l a r i t y t o t h e r o b b e r y he later committed a t t h e CVS store. The e v i d e n c e a l s o d e m o n s t r a t e d W i n d s o r ' s m o t i v e -- as he demanded O x y C o n t i n and a p p e a r e d t o be u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e drugs during both incidents. This tended to show of that Windsor's m o t i v e f o r jumping over the pharmacy c o u n t e r i n b o t h i n s t a n c e s was because of h i s need f o r OxyContin. Because the R u l e 404(b) e v i d e n c e a d m i t t e d a g a i n s t W i n d s o r was not e n t e r e d a g a i n s t him t o prove h i s bad admitted i n character, b u t was o r d e r t o show i d e n t i t y and m o t i v e , t h e c i r c u i t abuse i t s discretion when i t a l l o w e d the court d i d not State t e s t i m o n y a b o u t t h e 2008 i n c i d e n t a t t h e W a l g r e e n s to present store. II. Windsor next contends t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d when it f a i l e d to give the j u r y a l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n w i t h r e g a r d to the evidence of Windsor's prior bad acts. Specifically, W i n d s o r a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u r y s h o u l d have b e e n i n s t r u c t e d 14 that CR-11-0154 the testimony about Windsor's a c t i o n s a t t h e Walgreens s h o u l d have b e e n c o n s i d e r e d o n l y t o p r o v e m o t i v e , intent, preparation, mistake or accident, conformity As prior or absence of and n o t t o prove t h a t Windsor a c t e d i n i n Part I , supra, Windsor o b j e c t e d about t h e i n c i d e n t a t t h e Walgreens s t o r e . Windsor d i d n o t request that identity, opportunity, w i t h t h a t c h a r a c t e r when he r o b b e d t h e CVS S t o r e . discussed testimony knowledge, store evidence court provide Although a l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n with regard t o a t t h e time to the jury tothe of the testimony, beginning deliberations that the jury with a l i m i t i n g "[Defense Counsel]: he d i d r e q u e s t the c i r c u i t instruction: May I a p p r o a c h , Judge? "THE COURT: Y e s . "(Whereupon, t h e f o l l o w i n g o c c u r r e d a t t h e bench o u t o f t h e h e a r i n g o f t h e j u r y . ) "[Defense Counsel]: "THE Bullard, COURT: We a r e e n t i t l e d t o 404 -¬ You d i d n ' t give i t t o me. Mr. you d i d n ' t a s k f o r i t . "[Defense Counsel]: I d o n ' t have t o a s k f o r i t . "THE COURT: I ' l l l o o k a t i t . Do y o u w i s h t o l o o k at this [requested limiting instruction t o be provided to the jury]? "[PROSECUTOR]: I've seen i t . 15 CR-11-0154 "THE COURT: A n y o b j e c t i o n s ? "[PROSECUTOR]: I o b j e c t t o i t . "THE COURT: I w i l l n o t o f f e r i t . You may make an exception. "[Defense Counsel]: requested i t . L e t t h e r e c o r d know t h a t I "THE COURT: A n d I a s k e d y o u f o r what y o u w a n t e d b e f o r e I began t h i s c h a r g e a n d i t was n o t b r o u g h t f o r t h a t t h a t time. "[Defense Counsel]: All I d i d n ' t hear t h a t , Judge. "THE COURT: I u n d e r s t a n d . B u t i t ' s now right. "(Whereupon, t h e f o l l o w i n g o c c u r r e d h e a r i n g and presence o f t h e j u r y . ) denied. i n the "THE COURT: So now i s t h e t i m e f o r y o u t o b e g i n y o u r work. A n d i f y o u w i l l go on i n t o t h e j u r y room and make y o u r d e t e r m i n a t i o n . The e v i d e n c e w i l l be g a t h e r e d up a n d g i v e n t o y o u . "(Whereupon, t h e j u r y was e x c u s e d t o b e g i n deliberations.) "THE COURT: A n y e x c e p t i o n "[PROSECUTOR]: The S t a t e "[Defense Counsel]: "THE t o t h e charge? i s satisfied. Y e s , y o u r Honor. COURT: You may g i v e y o u r exceptions. " [ D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : We w o u l d r e q u e s t t h e 404 c h a r g e a n d I ' d l i k e i t t o be made p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d t h a t we r e q u e s t e d t h a t c h a r g e . A n d we a r e e n t i t l e d t o a 404 c h a r g e . I ' v e g o t i t m a r k e d . 16 CR-11-0154 "THE COURT: L e t me mark t h e d e n i a l on i t . A n d w e ' l l make i t f o r y o u r r e c o r d p u r p o s e s . A n d i n t h e f u t u r e , Mr. B u l l a r d , when I a s k i f t h e r e i s a n y t h i n g f u r t h e r f o r t h e C o u r t , I would e x p e c t any c h a r g e s t h a t you want t o go t o be g i v e n . "[Defense Counsel]: A l l I c a n do i s a p o l o g i z e . "THE COURT: You d o n ' t i n t e r r u p t s the flow. have to apologize. I t " [ D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : I was s u r e y o u were g o i n g t o g i v e t h e c h a r g e anyway. the "THE COURT: W e l l , y o u ' v e made y o u r o b j e c t i o n s on r e c o r d i n r e g a r d t o t h e 404 r u l i n g . "[Defense Counsel]: (R. 283-85.) preserved this Windsor court As t h e above abused Thank you, exchange issue f o r review i s correct limiting discussed i n Ex P a r t e i n d i c a t e s , Windsor has on a p p e a l . i n h i s assertion i t s discretion requested Your Honor." by failing that the c i r c u i t t o provide the i n s t r u c t i o n . As t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t Billups, 86 So. 3d 1079, 1085 2010): " I n H u d d l e s t o n v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 485 U.S. 6 8 1 , 108 S . C t . 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t , when e v i d e n c e o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s o t h e r c r i m e s , wrongs, o r a c t s i s i n t r o d u c e d u n d e r R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , F e d . R. E v i d . , ' t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l , upon r e q u e s t , i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t h a t t h e s i m i l a r a c t s e v i d e n c e i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d only f o r t h e p r o p e r p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h i t was admitted.' 485 U.S. a t 691-92, 108 S . C t . 1496 17 (Ala. CR-11-0154 ( c i t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. I n g r a h a m , 832 F.2d 229, 235 (1st C i r . 1987)(emphasis added)." Here, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y as t o t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e prior b a d a c t s was r e q u e s t e d by f o r which the evidence of Windsor's admitted after such an instruction was Windsor. Nevertheless, we conclude that the admission of the t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e 2008 i n c i d e n t a t t h e W a l g r e e n s without a l i m i t i n g instruction, a l t h o u g h e r r o r , was store harmless e r r o r . The h a r m l e s s - e r r o r r u l e p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t part: "No j u d g m e n t may be r e v e r s e d o r s e t a s i d e ... on t h e g r o u n d o f ... i m p r o p e r a d m i s s i o n o r r e j e c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e , ... u n l e s s i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e c o u r t t o w h i c h t h e a p p e a l i s t a k e n o r a p p l i c a t i o n i s made, a f t e r e x a m i n a t i o n of the e n t i r e cause, i t s h o u l d appear t h a t t h e e r r o r c o m p l a i n e d o f has p r o b a b l y injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties." R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P. I n L e w i s v. S t a t e , 889 So. 2d 623 ( A l a . C r i m . App. t h i s Court 2003), stated: "'The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t most e r r o r s do n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e n d e r a t r i a l u n f a i r and, t h u s , c a n be h a r m l e s s . ' W h i t e h e a d v. S t a t e , 777 So. 2d 781, 847 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 777 So. 2d 854 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 532 U.S. 907 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , c i t i n g A r i z o n a v. F u l m i n a n t e , 499 U.S. 279 (1991) . 18 CR-11-0154 " ' A f t e r f i n d i n g e r r o r , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may s t i l l a f f i r m a c o n v i c t i o n o r s e n t e n c e on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e e r r o r was h a r m l e s s , i f i n d e e d i t was. Chapman [v. C a l i f o r n i a , 386 U.S. 18 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ] ; S a t t a r i v. S t a t e , 577 So. 2d 535 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1990), c e r t . d e n i e d , 577 So. 2d 540 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; [ A l a . ] R. App. P. 45 In order for a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e r r o r t o be deemed h a r m l e s s u n d e r Chapman, t h e s t a t e must p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t the e r r o r d i d not c o n t r i b u t e to the v e r d i c t and/or sentence. In order f o r a n o n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e r r o r to be deemed h a r m l e s s , t h e a p p e l l a t e court must d e t e r m i n e w i t h " f a i r a s s u r a n c e . . . t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t was n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y swayed by t h e e r r o r . " K o t t e a k o s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). See Brecht v. A b r a h a m s o n , 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ; V i n e s v. United States, 28 F.3d 1123, 1130 (11th C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) . ... I n o r d e r f o r t h e e r r o r t o be deemed h a r m l e s s u n d e r A l a . R. App. P. 45, t h e s t a t e must e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e e r r o r d i d not or p r o b a b l y d i d not i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t the a p p e l l a n t ' s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s The purpose of the harmless e r r o r r u l e i s t o avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence f o r s m a l l e r r o r s or d e f e c t s t h a t have l i t t l e , i f any, l i k e l i h o o d o f c h a n g i n g the r e s u l t of the t r i a l or sentencing.'" " D a v i s v. S t a t e , 718 App. 1995), aff'd, c e r t . d e n i e d , 525 889 So. Our 2d a t 2d 1148, 1164 (Ala. Crim. So. 2d 1166 ( A l a . 1998), 1179 (1999)." 666. review of t h a t beyond the U.S. So. 718 the record testimony i n the regarding 19 i n s t a n t case the Walgreens indicates incident, CR-11-0154 the State p r e s e n t e d overwhelming evidence of Windsor's Three CVS employees robbery c l e a r l y who were present and u n e q u i v o c a l l y a t the time identified guilt. of the Windsor as t h e man who r o b b e d t h e CVS s t o r e . V i d e o t a k e n b y a s u r v e i l l a n c e camera i n t h e s t o r e d e p i c t e d W i n d s o r , whose a p p e a r a n c e was n o t obscured, r o b b i n g CVS. Finally, Windsor's former employer i d e n t i f i e d W i n d s o r f r o m t h e same v i d e o s u r v e i l l a n c e f o o t a g e as the perpetrator evidence of the crime. presented at Therefore, i n l i g h t trial and the of the totality of the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o instruct t h e j u r y on t h e l i m i t e d consider t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e 2008 i n c i d e n t s t o r e was h a r m l e s s b e y o n d purposes f o r which i t could a t t h e Walgreens a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. III. Finally, its discretion Specifically, Windsor contends that the c i r c u i t court abused i n s e n t e n c i n g h i m t o 120 y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t . Windsor argues that h i s sentence i s e x c e s s i v e b e c a u s e t h e maximum s e n t e n c e u n d e r § 13A-5-9(b) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975, i s "not less imprisonment." and than 99 years (Windsor's b r i e f , or a maximum of p. 34.) "'Review on a p p e a l i s r e s t r i c t e d t o q u e s t i o n s i s s u e s p r o p e r l y and t i m e l y r a i s e d a t t r i a l . ' 20 life CR-11-0154 Newsome v. S t a t e , 570 So. 2d 703, 717 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . 'An i s s u e r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on appeal i s n o t s u b j e c t t o a p p e l l a t e review because i t has n o t b e e n p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d a n d p r e s e n t e d . ' P a t e v. S t a t e , 601 So. 2d 210, 213 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992). '"[T]o 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 , i t must be p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t b y a timely and s p e c i f i c motion setting out the s p e c i f i c g r o u n d s i n s u p p o r t t h e r e o f . " ' M c K i n n e y v. S t a t e , 654 So. 2d 95, 99 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1995) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) .... 'The p u r p o s e o f r e q u i r i n g a specific objection t o 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 i s t o p u t t h e t r i a l j u d g e on n o t i c e of t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r , g i v i n g an o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o r r e c t i t b e f o r e t h e case i s s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y . ' Ex p a r t e Works, 640 So. 2d 1056, 1058 ( A l a . 1994)." Ex p a r t e C o u l l i e t t e , In 857 So. 2 d 793, 794-95 ( A l a . 2003). t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , Windsor r a i s e s h i s argument t h a t h i s sentence i s excessive f o r the f i r s t time on a p p e a l . A t t h e time o f h i s s e n t e n c i n g , t h e f o l l o w i n g exchange o c c u r r e d : "THE COURT: I'm g o i n g t o s e n t e n c e y o u t o a hundred and twenty years i n t h e S t a t e p e n i t e n t i a r y . T h e r e i s a c a s e t h a t a l l o w s t h a t . Do y o u have anything t o say before the Court before I r e a f f i r m t h i s sentence? " [ W i n d s o r ] : May God's w i l l "THE be done. COURT: T h a t i s a l l y o u have t o s a y ? "[Windsor]: Yes, s i r . (R.S. 6.) I n h i s m o t i o n above-discussed f o r a new t r i a l , W i n d s o r a s s e r t e d t h e c l a i m s under Rule 21 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., CR-11-0154 but Windsor imposed his made no objection by t h e c i r c u i t court. to the length Because excessive-sentence claim with Windsor of sentence d i d not r a i s e the c i r c u i t court, this c l a i m i s n o t p r e s e r v e d f o r r e v i e w on a p p e a l . Moreover, appeal, 9(b), even he w o u l d i f Windsor had p r e s e r v e d t h i s n o t be e n t i t l e d A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s , to r e l i e f . i n pertinent claim f o r Section 13A-5- part: "In a l l c a s e s when i t i s shown t h a t a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t h a s b e e n p r e v i o u s l y c o n v i c t e d o f any two f e l o n i e s and a f t e r such c o n v i c t i o n s has committed a n o t h e r f e l o n y , he o r she must be p u n i s h e d as follows: " "(3) On conviction of a Class A f e l o n y , he o r she must be p u n i s h e d b y i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r l i f e o r f o r any t e r m o f n o t l e s s t h a n 99 y e a r s . " The Alabama Supreme imprisonment f o r l i f e i n Lane v. S t a t e , Court interpreted t h e meaning of "by o r f o r any t e r m n o t l e s s t h a n 99 y e a r s " 66 So. 3d 824 ( A l a . 2010), holding: "[W]e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p h r a s e ' f o r any t e r m o f n o t l e s s t h a n 99 y e a r s ' means t h a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g o p t i o n s f o r a d e f e n d a n t w i t h two p r i o r felony c o n v i c t i o n s who i s s e n t e n c e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e HFOA are a minimum s e n t e n c e o f 99 y e a r s , a maximum s e n t e n c e o f l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t , and any t e r m o f y e a r s b e t w e e n t h e minimum a n d t h e maximum, i . e . , any t e r m i n e x c e s s o f 99 y e a r s . Lane was s e n t e n c e d t o 120 22 CR-11-0154 years; therefore, h i s sentence i s within p r e s c r i b e d s t a t u t o r y range o f punishment." the 66 So. 3d a t 829-30. In the i n s t a n t c a s e , as i n Lane, Windsor was u n d e r § 1 3 A - 5 - 9 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, t o 120 y e a r s ' because Windsor was a habitual committed a Class A felony after felonies. As such, Windsor's felony sentenced imprisonment offender who h a v i n g committed sentence had two p r i o r i s indistinguishable f r o m t h e s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d i n Lane, a s e n t e n c e t h a t was u p h e l d as within the permissible statutory range by t h e Alabama Supreme C o u r t . "When a s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d b y t h e t r i a l court i s w i t h i n t h e minimum a n d maximum r a n g e p r o v i d e d b y o u r s t a t u t o r y law, t h i s court w i l l not overturn the sentence unless there i s c l e a r abuse b y t h e t r i a l 996, 997 At the c o u r t . " S p a r k s v. S t a t e , 665 So. 2d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . sentencing, the c i r c u i t court explained i t s basis f o r s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d on W i n d s o r as f o l l o w s : "Mr. W i n d s o r , i t ' s b e c a u s e o f p e o p l e l i k e you t h a t we have p l e x i - g l a s s s h i e l d s b e t w e e n m e r c h a n t s and t h e i r c u s t o m e r s t o p r e v e n t i n j u r y t o t h e i r employees and t o t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . "You d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t d r u g s a r e y o u r o b s e s s i o n . And I d o n ' t see t h a t s t o p p i n g . I'm g o i n g t o s e n t e n c e you t o a h u n d r e d a n d t w e n t y y e a r s i n t h e S t a t e penitentiary." 23 CR-11-0154 (R.S. did 6.) B e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t n o t abuse because statutory the i t s discretion sentence range i n imposing t h i s imposed of punishment, on Windsor Windsor court s e n t e n c e , and was within the i s not e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f on h i s c l a i m t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e i s e x c e s s i v e . B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , is t h e judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t court affirmed. AFFIRMED. Windom, P . J . , a n d B u r k e a n d J o i n e r , J J . , c o n c u r . J., dissents, with opinion. 24 Welch, CR-11-0154 WELCH, J u d g e , dissenting. The m a j o r i t y a f f i r m s Montana J o r d a n W i n d s o r ' s for f i r s t - d e g r e e r o b b e r y a t a CVS p h a r m a c y . the majority's resolution court's II, admission Issue I disagree with I , regarding the of c o l l a t e r a l - b a d - a c t - e v i d e n c e , regarding the t r i a l limiting of conviction court's failure and trial Issue to give the j u r y a i n s t r u c t i o n about t h a t evidence. The S t a t e ' s t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t on A p r i l 3, 2010, a man armed w i t h a handgun and w e a r i n g a h a t and g l o v e s jumped a c r o s s t h e c o u n t e r a t a CVS p h a r m a c y and a s k e d where t h e d r u g s were l o c a t e d . The r o b b e r demanded that the pharmacist, Jason T i d w e l l , p u t d r u g s i n a z i p p e r e d b a g he b r o u g h t w i t h h i m . T i d w e l l took p r e s c r i p t i o n drugs As f r o m t h e p h a r m a c y ' s s a f e and p u t them i n t o t h e r o b b e r ' s z i p p e r e d b a g , t h e r o b b e r s t a t e d he w a n t e d O x y c o n t i n and he b e g a n p u t t i n g d r u g s i n t o t h e b a g , t o o . A f t e r t h e b a g was and r a n from drugs with strengths. Oxycontin know. filled, the store. him, Tidwell Oxycontin. we had. Demerol." t h e r o b b e r jumped o v e r t h e c o u n t e r He took said: I Duragesic a variety "Morphine think he patches, (R. 105.) 25 got of prescription sulfate, every liquid various bottle morphine, of you CR-11-0154 A videotape television news. of the A former a u t h o r i t i e s a f t e r he saw CVS robbery employer was of Windsor's CVS lineups, In employees identified and W i n d s o r was addition to on the contacted t h e v i d e o t a p e , and he t o l d them t h a t t h e r o b b e r on t h e v i d e o l o o k e d l i k e W i n d s o r . other shown Windsor T i d w e l l and from two photographic arrested. the foregoing testimony the State p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g a c o l l a t e r a l bad a c t . Specifically, t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t on J u l y 16, 2008, W i n d s o r jumped t h e c o u n t e r a t a W a l g r e e n s p h a r m a c y and demanded O x y c o n t i n . drugs, and dazed; He a p p e a r e d t o be u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f he was not armed. Pharmacy employees r e f u s e d t o c o m p l y w i t h h i s demand f o r O x y c o n t i n , and he jumped back a c r o s s the counter and fled from the store. The State p r e s e n t e d a d d i t i o n a l testimony t h a t , a f t e r Windsor f l e d t h e s t o r e on f o o t , he r a n i n t o a c a r and fell. The from driver of t h e c a r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she t u r n e d h e r c a r a r o u n d a f t e r t h e man s t r u c k i t ; she s a i d t h a t a b y s t a n d e r was man to go t o t h e h o s p i t a l . The driver u r g i n g the dazed further t e s t i f i e d : "And I u s e d t o work n e x t d o o r as a s e c u r i t y o f f i c e r a t t h e H o u s t o n C o u n t y C o r r e c t i o n s Work R e l e a s e . And, I g u e s s , when he saw me i n u n i f o r m , b e c a u s e I was i n u n i f o r m , I was on my way t o work, he s t a r t e d 26 CR-11-0154 o f f t o r u n . And I s a i d , '[W]here he a t ? ' t h a t t i m e he was t r y i n g t o g e t h i s l i t t l e And a b o u t run going on." (R. 143.) She further stated that she caught Windsor, "slammed h i m on t h e g r o u n d , " a n d d e t a i n e d h i m u n t i l t h e p o l i c e arrived. (R. 143-44.) Windsor was Walgreens. not However, charged with the o f f i c e r who attempted theft investigated the at CVS r o b b e r y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e W a l g r e e n s i n c i d e n t , and he s a i d W i n d s o r was c h a r g e d w i t h o b s t r u c t i o n o f j u s t i c e a f t e r the Walgreens i n c i d e n t because Windsor initially gave t h e o f f i c e r an i n c o r r e c t name d u r i n g t h a t i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In spite of the fact that the t r i a l court permitted s u b s t a n t i a l evidence about the Walgreens i n c i d e n t , i n c l u d i n g t e s t i m o n y about W i n d s o r ' s f l i g h t from Walgreens, and about t h e p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the i n c i d e n t , the t r i a l Windsor's request that i t give limit their trial consideration court's First, actions I collateral-act do court refused t h e j u r o r s any i n s t r u c t i o n t o of that c o l l a t e r a l testimony. The resulted i n reversible error. not evidence agree with was the admissible. majority that the Collateral-act e v i d e n c e i s g e n e r a l l y p r o h i b i t e d , R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. E v i d . , 27 CR-11-0154 and t h e w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e i s t h a t a d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t innocence i s t o be w i t h w h i c h he based on i s currently evidence relevant charged. to the Evidence of to i n f e r t h a t , because crimes i n the past, particular the c r i m e w i t h w h i c h he jurors' Drinkard, minds 777 away So. 2d 295, 296 collateral-act right fair a trial t h a t he cause committed committed the i s c h a r g e d -- t h u s , i t draws from prohibiting to t h e d e f e n d a n t has i t i s more l i k e l y crime collateral bad a c t s i s " p r e s u m p t i v e l y p r e j u d i c i a l because i t c o u l d the j u r y or the main issue." ( A l a . 2000). evidence because the The protects Ex parte general rule a defendant's prejudicial effect of e v i d e n c e of bad a c t s or o t h e r c r i m e s i s l i k e l y t o f a r outweigh any p r o b a t i v e v a l u e t h a t m i g h t be evidence. App. E.g., 2005). Irvin v. S t a t e , Gamble, 1996) . The 940 So. 2d 331 McElroy's i m p a c t upon t h e m i n d s o f Alabama Evidence See a l s o Ex p a r t e B i l l u p s , majority holds that § 69.01(1) 86 So. 3d 1079 evidence about the (Ala. Crim. "Most a g r e e t h a t s u c h e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r has a l m o s t an i r r e v e r s i b l e C. g a i n e d from a d m i t t i n g crimes jurors." (5th ed. ( A l a . 2010) . the Walgreens i n c i d e n t was a d m i s s i b l e as an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e o f e x c l u s i o n b e c a u s e i t t e n d e d t o p r o v e b o t h i d e n t i t y and m o t i v e . 28 CR-11-0154 However, when Windsor evidence at t r i a l , objected to the admission the S t a t e d i d not argue t h a t the of the evidence was r e l e v a n t to prove motive, i t argued o n l y t h a t the evidence was r e l e v a n t to prove identity: "But t h e y have i n v o k e d an i d e n t i t y i s s u e . And I n e e d t o know a b o u t t h i s p r i o r b a d a c t s [ s i c ] . And i t i s the robbery of Walgreens. And he was a s k i n g for Oxycontin i n both cases. I t helps prove i d e n t i t y t h a t he has done t h i s b e f o r e . He has a h a b i t of doing t h i s . And i t i s r e l e v a n t . They a r e very, very s i m i l a r . And t h e p r i o r b a d a c t s show t h e i d e n t i t y can be e s t a b l i s h e d t h r o u g h p r i o r b a d a c t s . And identity has b e e n c h a l l e n g e d by them, the defense. I t i s proper." (R. 125.) The majority sets regarding a d m i s s i b i l i t y out the relevant legal o f e v i d e n c e t o show principles identity: " W i t h r e g a r d t o R u l e 404(b) e v i d e n c e u s e d t o p r o v e identity, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has held: ' e v i d e n c e o f a p r i o r c r i m e i s a d m i s s i b l e o n l y when t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e p r i o r c r i m e and those surrounding the presently charged crime " e x h i b i t such a g r e a t degree of s i m i l a r i t y t h a t anyone v i e w i n g t h e two o f f e n s e s w o u l d naturally assume them t o have b e e n c o m m i t t e d by t h e same person."' Ex p a r t e A r t h u r , 472 So. 2d 665, 668 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ( q u o t i n g B r e w e r v. S t a t e , 440 So.2d 1155, 1161 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 3 ) ) . " W i n d s o r v. S t a t e , I do principles not So. believe correctly 3d a t that in this . the case. 29 majority applies I n 2008 W i n d s o r those climbed CR-11-0154 over the counter Oxycontin. at a Walgreens w h i l e W i n d s o r was case brought Walgreens asked w i t h him and Oxycontin, and substances, and The r o b b e r i n t h i s c a s e was n o t armed a t W a l g r e e n s ; a bag demanded controlled and for That i s the o n l y s i m i l a r i t y between the Walgreens i n c i d e n t and t h i s r o b b e r y . later pharmacy left the robber i n t h i s demanded " d r u g s " left w h i l e Windsor empty-handed armed, with a initially, variety of demanded O x y c o n t i n when Walgreens at employees r e f u s e d t o g i v e h i m a n y t h i n g ; W i n d s o r was under the of testimony that drugs robber at Walgreens, at CVS was but intoxicated s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e two CVS robber both t h e r e was jumped or no impaired. the admission of the the i d e n t i t y -- t h a t t h e two degree of s i m i l a r i t y . The the only i n c i d e n t s i s t h a t W i n d s o r and pharmacy counter Oxycontin, but t h a t , alone, h a r d l y s a t i s f i e s the for influence collateral-act c r i m e s be u n i q u e and the demanded requirements evidence to prove and e x h i b i t a h i g h To t h e c o n t r a r y , as t h e p h a r m a c i s t CVS testified, CVS were k e p t i n a s a f e , i n p a r t , as a d e t e r r e n t f o r r o b b e r y ; Tidwell said, the the c o n t r o l l e d substances the robber took at " U s u a l l y when p h a r m a c i e s things they are after." (R. 30 are robbed, 106.) Another those from are pharmacy CR-11-0154 e m p l o y e e t e s t i f i e d t h a t CVS e m p l o y e e s a r e t r a i n e d a b o u t how react i f the robberies, pharmacy is robbed. (R. o b v i o u s l y , are not unique, and 33.) to Pharmacy n o t h i n g about the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s r o b b e r y and t h e W a l g r e e n s i n c i d e n t were so similar t h a t anyone v i e w i n g t h e two crimes a u t o m a t i c a l l y t h a t t h e y had b e e n c o m m i t t e d In fact, "Mr. when t h e t r i a l Windsor, plexi-glass court sentenced i t ' s because of people would assume by t h e same p e r s o n . Windsor, like you s h i e l d s b e t w e e n m e r c h a n t s and t h e i r i t stated: t h a t we have customers to p r e v e n t i n j u r y t o t h e i r e m p l o y e e s and t o t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . " ( S e n t . R. Evid., 6.) 2 T h e r e f o r e , I b e l i e v e t h a t R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. precluded Walgreens admission incident and of that the the testimony trial about abused court the its d i s c r e t i o n when i t a d m i t t e d t h a t e v i d e n c e . Even admitted, i f I the collateral-act believe reversible because the t r i a l evidence error was occurred t h a t the t r i a l the j u r y nonetheless c o u r t f a i l e d t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y so as t o l i m i t the j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the evidence. agrees correctly The m a j o r i t y c o u r t e r r e d when i t f a i l e d t o about the proper uses f o r the collateral instruct evidence, The t r a n s c r i p t of the s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g i s s e p a r a t e l y p a g i n a t e d , and i s d e s i g n a t e d " ( S e n t . R . ) " i n t h i s d i s s e n t . 2 31 CR-11-0154 but i t holds evidence no error was o f W i n d s o r ' s g u i l t was Rule that t h a t the 45, A l a . R. j u d g m e n t may instruction of the App. be P., harmless because, overwhelming. provides, r e v e r s e d on jury unless, after the i t says, I disagree. in relevant part, ground of improper an e x a m i n a t i o n of the e n t i r e cause, i t appears t o the r e v i e w i n g c o u r t t h a t the e r r o r has probably parties. case, injuriously affected substantial rights of the Windsor p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l a l i b i evidence i n t h i s and question the v a l i d i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f W i n d s o r as the robber. the In l i g h t the e n t i r e have had not also evidence from the defense thoroughly of the c a u s e l e a d s me a reasonable been called conflicting to conclude presented and evidence, my t h a t the with the evidence substantial diverting relevant only to review jurors doubt about Windsor's g u i l t about the Walgreens i n c i d e n t issues into of might i f i t had collateral their minds this case. I n s t e a d , t h e j u r o r s were e r r o n e o u s l y p e r m i t t e d t o c o n s i d e r a v a s t amount o f e v i d e n c e u n r e l a t e d t o t h e CVS were instructed Windsor's g u i l t . to consider a l l the For example, the t r i a l jury: 32 r o b b e r y , and evidence they i n deciding court instructed the CR-11-0154 "Once e v i d e n c e h a s b e e n a d m i t t e d b y t h e C o u r t , o n l y t h e j u r y c a n c o n s i d e r two e s s e n t i a l t h i n g s about t h i s evidence: F i r s t , w h e t h e r i t s h o u l d be b e l i e v e d ; a n d , s e c o n d , how i m p o r t a n t i t i s t o y o u r decision. You make t h e s e two d e c i s i o n s w i t h e a c h p a r t o f t h e e v i d e n c e b y u s i n g y o u r own common s e n s e as r e a s o n a b l e men a n d women." (R. 279.) The trial court's failure to give the jury a i n s t r u c t i o n as t o t h e c o l l a t e r a l - a c t e v i d e n c e limiting unquestionably a f f e c t e d W i n d s o r ' s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s , as t h e j u r o r s h e r e were free to consider the c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence as p r o o f of W i n d s o r ' s b a d c h a r a c t e r , as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f W i n d s o r ' s guilt i n this "common sense" crime, and f o r any o t h e r dictated. Alabama c o n v i c t i o n s when t h e l i m i t i n g court d i d not s u f f i c i e n t l y c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence. (Ala. did 3d not l i m i t courts a jury's has reversed by a trial consideration of [Ms. CR-10-0819, F e b . 10, 2012] ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2012) . Here, t h e t r i a l t h e use of the c o l l a t e r a l C o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence i s "presumptively it have i n s t r u c t i o n s given limit the jurors' See Ex p a r t e B i l l u p s , 86 So. 3d 1079 2010); Marks v. S t a t e , So. purpose evidence at court a l l . p r e j u d i c i a l because c o u l d cause t h e j u r y t o i n f e r t h a t , because t h e defendant committed crimes i n the past, 33 i t i s more l i k e l y t h a t he CR-11-0154 committed the p a r t i c u l a r parte Drinkard, was did 777 So. c r i m e w i t h w h i c h he 2d 295, 296 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , and a c t u a l l y encouraged to evaluate the substantive evidence p r e j u d i c e t o W i n d s o r was c a n n o t be considered Therefore, v i o l a t e d and i s charged," of Windsor's guilt. harmless. I b e l i e v e t h a t Rule 404(b), failure to had give A l a . R. E v i d . , p e r m i s s i b l e use reversible fairness of error. of the instruction that The trial. was c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n when been p r o p e r l y any The a c t u a l and s u b s t a n t i a l , and t h e e r r o r t h a t the t r i a l evidence the j u r y t h a t e v i d e n c e j u s t as i t i t a l l o w e d evidence about the Walgreens i n c i d e n t . the Ex admitted, to the collateral-act errors the Windsor's trial jury court's regarding evidence seriously But even i f resulted in undermined conviction the should the be reversed. For a l l of the f o r e g o i n g reasons, 34 I respectfully dissent.

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.