R. C. W. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/02/2012 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, 2012-2013 CR-11-0387 R.C.W. v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CC-10-445-449) JOINER, Court Judge. R.C.W. a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e r a p e , s e e § 13A-6-61, A l a . Code 1975; i n c e s t , s e e § 13A-13-3, A l a . Code 1975; f i r s t - d e g r e e sexual abuse, s e e § 13A-6-66, A l a . Code CR-11-0387 1975; Ala. a n d two c o u n t s Code 1975. At trial, o f f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy, We r e v e r s e a n d remand. T.W., R.C.W.'s b i o l o g i c a l t h a t h e r e a r l i e s t memory o f s e x u a l occurred daughter, father o l d and i n t h e f o u r t h when s h e was 9 y e a r s was f o r c e d occasions. 10 years t o perform T.W. t e s t i f i e d grade; oral w i t h him. T.W. s t a t e d that s e x on R.C.W. on s e v e r a l t h a t on one o c c a s i o n o l d , R.C.W. f o r c e d testified abuse i n v o l v i n g h e r T.W. s t a t e d t h a t she was t h e n 18 y e a r s o l d . she s e e 13A-6-63, her t o have when she was sexual T.W. s t a t e d t h a t on a n o t h e r o c c a s i o n intercourse when she was 11 y e a r s o l d , R.C.W. p e r f o r m e d o r a l sex on T.W. and had sexual i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h her. T.W. s t a t e d t h a t when she was 13 y e a r s old, mother about t h e i n s t a n c e s she i n f o r m e d her abuse, after testified which that a u t h o r i t i e s but brother Pa. the sexual she d i d not report and act l i k e nothing Lastly, any o f t h e s e T.W. events t o e v e r h a p p e n e d . " (R. 1 2 5 . ) W., T.W.'s m o t h e r , t e s t i f i e d Pa. stopped. a g r e e d t o " a l l j u s t be a f a m i l y f o r my l i t t l e R.C.W. a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , pending. abuse of sexual t h a t she was m a r r i e d t o a l t h o u g h d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s were W. s t a t e d t h a t she when T.W. was 12 o r 13 y e a r s had old 2 a conversation regarding w i t h T.W. T.W.'s c o n d u c t ; CR-11-0387 specifically, P a . W. stated that T.W. had s t a r t e d d i s t a n t a n d s t a r t e d l o c k i n g h e r bedroom d o o r . acting P a . W. s t a t e d t h a t a f t e r T.W. t o l d h e r a b o u t t h e s e x u a l a b u s e , she t o o k T.W. to the gynecologist. confronted P a . W. R.C.W. r e g a r d i n g stated that the sexual she t h e r e a f t e r abuse, a t which R.C.W. s t a t e d t h a t he h a d "made some m i s t a k e s " a n d t h a t was sorry" again." date a n d swore ( R . 171-72, 2 1 1 . ) during a recorded R.C.W. w h e t h e r since t o her that anything P a . W. t e s t i f i e d P a . W. t e s t i f i e d telephone happen at a later conversation, she asked between confronted that never "[h]e that h a d happened P a . W. h a d i n i t i a l l y abuse; " i t would time h i m a n d T.W. h i m about R.C.W. s t a t e d the sexual "[n]o, n o t one f u c k i n g t h i n g . " ( R . 1 8 1 . ) L a s t l y , P a . W. s t a t e d t h a t a f a m i l y c o n f l i c t h a d begun a f t e r a l l e g a t i o n s h a d b e e n made t h a t T.W. was h a v i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h an o l d e r man when s h e was 15 years o l d . C.F., was a former wife married several t h a t w h i l e she t o R.C.W., he was i n d i c t e d a n d c o n v i c t e d f o r sex offenses biological o f R.C.W., t e s t i f i e d against her daughter daughter. 3 M.W.T, R.C.W.'s CR-11-0387 P.W., who was 27 y e a r s o l d a t t h e time she t e s t i f i e d , s t a t e d t h a t on one o c c a s i o n when s h e was 10 y e a r s o l d , R.C.W., her biological the house was a s l e e p butt." father, came i n t o h e r room a f t e r e v e r y o n e i n and touched her "[o]n ( R . 1 4 7 . ) P.W. R.C.W. " t o u c h e d [ h e r mouth" and would stated that on s e v e r a l vagina] with h i s penis force my v a g i n a a n d my occasions, as w e l l [ a s ] h i s h e r t o p e r f o r m o r a l s e x on h i m . (R. 148.) M.W.T., who was 34 y e a r s o l d a t t h e time of t r i a l , t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t a young age s h e was i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y t o u c h e d by R.C.W. a n d t h a t R.C.W. f o r c e d h e r t o p e r f o r m o r a l s e x on him. Alex Booker, brother, Bassinger, R.W., Susie Bassinger, R.C.W.'s b i o l o g i c a l a l l testified that Rhonda G a i n e y , Britney s o n , a n d G.S., R.C.W.'s T.W. h a d a p o o r reputation f o r truthfulness. Susie Bassinger, all t h a t T.W. a p p e a r e d t o have a g o o d r e l a t i o n s h i p testified G a i n e y , B o o k e r , R.W., a n d G.S. w i t h R.C.W. The in j u r y returned theindictments: sexual abuse, g u i l t y v e r d i c t s on a l l c o u n t s f i r s t - d e g r e e rape, a n d two c o u n t s incest, first-degree of first-degree 4 charged sodomy. The CR-11-0387 circuit court sentenced R.C.W. t o l i f e imprisonment on t h e i n c e s t and f i r s t - d e g r e e s e x u a l abuse c o n v i c t i o n s and t o l i f e imprisonment without degree-rape pursuant t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r o l e on t h e and both t o the first-degree-sodomy Alabama H a b i t u a l F e l o n y first- convictions, a l l Offender Act. The c i r c u i t c o u r t a l s o o r d e r e d R.C.W. t o pay c o u r t c o s t s and a $50 crime victims This appeal On assessment appeal, R.C.W. a r g u e s allowed under Rule that the jury thet r i a l t o consider conviction. Because court's jury collateral-act 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. E v i d . , f o r p u r p o s e s a s t o w h i c h t h e r e were n o t open a n d c o n t e s t e d agree. on e a c h followed. instruction evidence compensation we r e v e r s e on t h i s issues a tt r i a l . ground, We we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f o t h e r i s s u e s r a i s e d b y R.C.W. R.C.W. a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l i n t o evidence R. Evid. "other c o u r t e r r e d when i t a l l o w e d a c t s " testimony Specifically, under Rule 404(b), Ala. R.C.W. a r g u e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e 1 of p r i o r i n c i d e n t s o f s e x u a l abuse p e r p e t r a t e d b y R.C.W. a g a i n s t I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e t e s t i m o n y o f M.W.T. a n d P.W., t h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e i n c l u d e d C.F.'s t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g R.C.W.'s 1984 i n d i c t m e n t a n d g u i l t y - p l e a c o n v i c t i o n f o r two c o u n t s o f f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy a n d two c o u n t s o f s e x u a l abuse a g a i n s t M.W.T. 1 5 CR-11-0387 his two other erroneously biological admitted daughters, b e c a u s e , he M.W.T. and s a y s , (1) the P.W., was evidence was o f f e r e d f o r p u r p o s e s as t o w h i c h t h e r e were n o t r e a l and issues the at t r i a l jury to purposes." and (2) consider trial the trial, the i n t r o d u c e Rule 404(b), incidents e v i d e n c e was of State filed for notice contested prejudicial value. was at was trial. effect (C. 9-10, of the 12-14.) of not necessary Further, evidence The improper i t s intent R.C.W. a r g u e d c a s e b e c a u s e , he s a i d , m o t i v e , i n t e n t , and be those allowed E v i d . , evidence regarding abuse. t o o r e m o t e and "improperly 15.) A l a . R. sexual court evidence (R.C.W.'s b r i e f , p. Before prior the open that to the argued the the State's i d e n t i t y would he to that not the outweighed i t s p r o b a t i v e S t a t e argued t h a t the evidence a d m i s s i b l e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. E v i d . , f o r t h e purposes After of showing hearing motion arguments, in limine. evidence, the motive, (C. 82.) following opportunity, the trial Later, colloquy ensued: 6 court at the i n t e n t , or plan. denied R.C.W.'s c l o s e of a l l the regarding jury charges CR-11-0387 "[The c o u r t ] : Okay. L e t ' s t r y t h i s one. I d i d b o r r o w some o f y o u r s and some o f t h i s i s o r i g i n a l . But I guess n o t h i n g i s ever r e a l l y o r i g i n a l . "You have h e a r d t e s t i m o n y and e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g o t h e r c r i m e s r e g a r d i n g c r i m e s , w r o n g s , o r bad a c t s r e g a r d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t . The d e f e n d a n t i s o n l y on t r i a l f o r t h e c h a r g e s t h a t I have r e a d t o you i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t s , not f o r a n y t h i n g e l s e . Evidence of c r i m e s , w r o n g s , o r b a d a c t s was a l l o w e d i n e v i d e n c e not t o p r o v e the d e f e n d a n t i s a bad p e r s o n or a p e r s o n o f b a d c h a r a c t e r b e c a u s e t h a t w o u l d be wrong and i m p e r m i s s i b l e o r t h a t i t made him more l i k e l y t o commit t h e crimes charged i n these indictments because t h a t w o u l d a l s o be impermissible. The evidence of other a c t s , wrongs, or crimes was a l l o w e d i n t o e v i d e n c e f o r one n a r r o w p u r p o s e o n l y . T h a t i s , i t may be c o n s i d e r e d by you o n l y f o r t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e as r e g a r d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i v e , o p p o r t u n i t y , i n t e n t or p l a n . "[Prosecutor]: Perfect. "[The c o u r t ] : I know you d o n ' t a g r e e w i t h t h e w h o l e l i n e . B u t i s t h a t a b o u t as good you t h i n k we can g e t i t ? I'm n o t a s k i n g you t o a g r e e w i t h any o f i t b u t i f you t h i n k o f any o t h e r way t o tweak i t t o make i t any l e s s - ¬ "[Defense c o u n s e l ] : Judge, the main q u e s t i o n I w o u l d h a v e , what was t h e p u r p o s e s you s a i d a g a i n ? "[The c o u r t ] : Motive, o p p o r t u n i t y , i n t e n t or p l a n . And one o f t h e r e a s o n s I had l e t i t i n a l l a l o n g i s t h e r e ' s one o f t h e c a s e s , and I t h o u g h t I had i t and maybe had i t up h e r e , i s maybe i t ' s - - a n d o b v i o u s l y d o n ' t want t o g e t i n t o t h i s , t h a t - - m a y b e t h e you one you gave me, N i c k i , t h a t t h e C o u r t t h e n l e t i t i n , I t h i n k i t was i n t e n t i n o r d e r t o show t h e j u r y t h a t a d e f e n d a n t c o u l d i n f a c t have a p l a n - - i n t e n t o r p l a n t o have sex w i t h g i r l s o f t h i s age w h i c h a n o r m a l p e r s o n w o u l d [ f i n d ] u n b e l i e v a b l e . 7 CR-11-0387 I t h i n k i t was i n t e n t . T h i s may be i t . Of c o u r s e , i t t a k e s us b a c k t o a n o t h e r c a s e , Ex p a r t e H a t c h e r . B u t the Alabama Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d i n Ex p a r t e H a t c h e r , 646 So. 2d 676, t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e r a p e was r e l e v a n t t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f H a t c h e r ' s m o t i v e w h i c h was a - - w h i c h a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n c o u l d f i n d was an u n n a t u r a l s e x u a l d e s i r e f o r s m a l l c h i l d r e n . A n d i n t h i s c a s e , w h i c h was W o r t h y v. S t a t e , [724 So. 2d 55 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , ] t h e i n c i d e n t s t e s t i f i e d b y a p p e l l a n t ' s d a u g h t e r s were s u f f i c i e n t l y s i m i l a r t o t h e p r e s e n t o f f e n s e as t h e y include evidence from which the jury could reasonably--the j u r y reasonably could conclude t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was m o t i v a t e d b y an u n n a t u r a l d e s i r e f o r a l l t h r e e o f h i s young f e m a l e v i c t i m s . So t h a t ' s k i n d o f t h e k i t c h e n s i n k on [ R u l e ] 4 0 4 ( b ) . I t h i n k when I g e t my grammar c l e a n e d up I t h i n k t h a t w i l l k i n d o f do i t . We've g o t t o t a k e i n t o account t e s t i m o n y r e l a t e d t o t h e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . So I ' l l g e t t h a t c l e a n e d up a b i t . "Let's get to the rest t h i n k , i s c o v e r e d now " (R. 347-50.) follows, The t r i a l of--Your sixteen, court t h e r e a f t e r charged I t h e j u r y as i n pertinent part: "You have h e a r d t e s t i m o n y a n d e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g c r i m e s , wrongs o r b a d a c t s r e g a r d i n g t h e D e f e n d a n t . The D e f e n d a n t i s on t r i a l o n l y f o r t h e c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s t h a t I have r e a d t o y o u a n d t h e i n d i c t m e n t s , not f o r a n y t h i n g e l s e . Evidence o f other crimes, w r o n g s , o r b a d a c t s was a l l o w e d i n t o e v i d e n c e n o t t o p r o v e t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t may o r may n o t be a b a d person o r may o r may n o t be a p e r s o n of bad c h a r a c t e r o r t h a t i t made h i m more l i k e l y t o commit the crimes charged i n these i n d i c t m e n t s , because t h a t w o u l d be wrong a n d l e g a l l y i m p e r m i s s i b l e . The e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r c r i m e s , wrongs o r b a d a c t s was a l l o w e d i n t o e v i d e n c e f o r one n a r r o w p u r p o s e o n l y . T h a t i s , i t may be c o n s i d e r e d b y y o u f o r t h e l i m i t e d 8 CR-11-0387 purpose as opportunity, (R. 415-16.) defense regarding the Defendant's i n t e n t , or p l a n . " Before the case was motive, submitted c o u n s e l o b j e c t e d t o the charge and to the jury, stated: " J u d g e , w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e c h a r g e on [ R u l e ] 404(b) e v i d e n c e . The p o r t i o n where you s a i d t h a t i t ' s f o r the l i m i t e d purpose of motive, o p p o r t u n i t y , or p l a n , I would submit t h a t those are not matters i n c o n t r o v e r s y and by h a v i n g i t go-- I b e l i e v e t h a t t h a t is different than what the State had said o r i g i n a l l y , was t h e i r purpose for offering that e v i d e n c e . We e x c e p t and o b j e c t t o t h e C o u r t g i v i n g i t w i t h t h a t b r o a d o f r e a s o n f o r i t coming i n . " (R. 436-37.) On a p p e a l , R.C.W. a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a d m i s s i o n of the error State's evidence because, offered the i s s u e by he says, of the collateral-acts collateral a c t s was reversible purposes f o r which the evidence [R.C.W.] a t t r i a l . " "were n e v e r (R.C.W.'s b r i e f , p. State placed i n 20.) "For c o l l a t e r a l - a c t e v i d e n c e t o be a d m i s s i b l e f o r one o f t h e ' o t h e r purposes' i n Rule i s s u e as t o one v. S t a t e , 886 404(b), t h e r e must be So. 2d 105, 117 ( A l a . C r i m . App. q u o t i n g i n t u r n Bowden v. S t a t e , The real and o r more o f t h o s e " o t h e r p u r p o s e s . " ' " ' G i l l e s p i e v. S t a t e , 549 So.2d 640, 645 1988)). "'a State argues, 538 however, 9 2d 1226, that the Draper 2002)(quoting ( A l a . C r i m . App. So. open 1227 1989), (Ala. evidence of CR-11-0387 c o l l a t e r a l s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t i n v o l v i n g T.W.'s h a l f s i s t e r s was admissible the f o r the purpose of showing motive. Indeed, S t a t e i s c o r r e c t on t h i s p o i n t . See Bowden, s u p r a . A t k i s s o n v. S t a t e , 640 So. 2d 33, 38 See also ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993) ( h o l d i n g e v i d e n c e o f c o l l a t e r a l s e x u a l o f f e n s e s p e r p e t r a t e d by the defendant motive exception first-degree The have against been offered, prosecutor the and against his goes on t o a s s e r t t h a t other that abuse under f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy i n prosecution sexual State h i s stepdaughter admissible reasons is cited irrelevant gave an as to because erroneous natural daughter). "[a]lthough why '[t]he reason in may evidence the there was fact that the arguing for the a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e i s u n i m p o r t a n t when t h e r e i s , i n fact, 11) a v a l i d reason f o r a d m i s s i b i l i t y . ' " (quoting Ex parte 1994)). We consider evidence Register, with disagree of i m p l a u s i b l e purpose. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 680 State. the So. (State's b r i e f , 2d The 225, 226 jury collateral sexual misconduct See M a r k s v. State, 94 So. (Ala. may for 3d 409, 2012). "The rule regarding admissibility of prior m i s c o n d u c t by a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t has b e e n w e l l s t a t e d i n 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 (1) ( 3 r d e d . 1 9 7 7 ) : 10 p. not an 413 CR-11-0387 "'This i s a general exclusionary r u l e which prevents the introduction of [ c o l l a t e r a l ] c r i m i n a l acts f o r the sole purpose of suggesting 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 question. This r u l e i s g e n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e whether the other c r i m e was committed before o r a f t e r t h e one f o r w h i c h t h e defendant i s p r e s e n t l y being t r i e d . " ' 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 of the character r u l e which f o r b i d s the s t a t e t o prove the accused's bad c h a r a c t e r b y p a r t i c u l a r d e e d s . The basis f o r the r u l e l i e s i n the b e l i e f that the prejudicial e f f e c t of [collateral] c r i m e s w i l l f a r o u t w e i g h 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 g a i n e d f r o m them. M o s t agree t h a t such evidence of [ c o l l a t e r a l ] c r i m e s 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 Cofer, 440 So. 2d 1121, 1123 I n Anonymous v. S t a t e , ( A l a . 1983). 507 So. 2d 972, 975 t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d ( A l a . 1987), t h i s C o u r t ' s judgment and h e l d t h a t , under the f a c t s o f t h a t case, the evidence o f other collateral "intent" acts was exceptions inadmissible to the general under the " i d e n t i t y " exclusionary rule. and The d e f e n d a n t i n t h a t c a s e was c o n v i c t e d o f t h r e e c o u n t s o f f i r s t degree rape and t h r e e his c o u n t s o f i n c e s t ; t h e v i c t i m was one o f d a u g h t e r s , who was an a d u l t a t t h e t i m e t h e a l l e g e d occurred. The C o u r t reasoned: 11 acts CR-11-0387 "The i d e n t i t y o f t h e p e r s o n who a c t u a l l y c o m m i t t e d t h e a c t s w i t h w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d was n o t a t i s s u e . The defendant d i d not argue t h a t 'someone e l s e c o m m i t t e d t h e a c t s w i t h w h i c h he was c h a r g e d ' ; i n s t e a d , he m e r e l y d e n i e d t h a t t h e a c t s e v e r o c c u r r e d . T h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e t h e r e was no ' r e a l and open' i s s u e c o n c e r n i n g i d e n t i t y , t h e c o l l a t e r a l a c t s c o u l d n o t be a d m i s s i b l e as g o i n g t o w a r d s u c h an i s s u e . See C o f e r , s u p r a ; [Ex p a r t e ] K i l l o u g h , [438 So. 2d 333 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ] . " N e i t h e r can t h e ' i n t e n t ' e x c e p t i o n be a p p l i e d i n t h i s c a s e . Under §§ 13A-6-60 and -61, Code o f 1975, r a p e i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e does n o t r e q u i r e any s p e c i f i c c r i m i n a l i n t e n t . S i m i l a r l y , no specific criminal intent, other than knowledge of r e l a t i o n s h i p , i s r e q u i r e d u n d e r § 13A-13-3, Code o f 1975, d e f i n i n g t h e c r i m e o f i n c e s t . The intent e x c e p t i o n i s s i m p l y not a p p l i c a b l e i n a case t h a t requires no specific criminal intent as a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o c o n v i c t i o n . See M c E l r o y ' s § 69.01(5) and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . As was e x p l a i n e d by J u s t i c e S h o r e s i n C o f e r , s u p r a , any i n t e n t n e c e s s a r y t o t h i s t y p e o f c r i m e c o u l d be i n f e r r e d by t h e j u r y f r o m t h e t e s t i m o n y about the a c t charged: " ' T h i s i n t e n t may be i n f e r r e d by t h e j u r y f r o m t h e a c t i t s e l f . P a r k e r v. S t a t e , 406 So. 2d [1036,] 1039 [ ( A l a . Crim. App. 1981)]. The prosecutrix testified that Cofer k i s s e d her, removed some o f her c l o t h i n g , i n s e r t e d h i s f i n g e r i n t o h e r , and l a y c l o s e to her. I f the j u r y b e l i e v e d her t e s t i m o n y , i t c o u l d i n f e r t h a t C o f e r had t h e r e q u i s i t e i n t e n t and f i n d him g u i l t y o f t h e o f f e n s e . T h e r e i s , t h e r e f o r e , no r e a l and open i s s u e a b o u t h i s i n t e n t , and the e v i d e n c e o f t h e p r i o r r a p e was erroneously allowed to prove Cofer's i n t e n t . ' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) 440 So. 12 2d a t 1124." CR-11-0387 507 So. 2d a t 975. In the present first-degree rape, case, R.C.W. was c h a r g e d incest, first-degree with sexual crimes-¬ abuse, and s o d o m y - - t h a t do n o t r e q u i r e a n y s p e c i f i c c r i m i n a l i n t e n t . The i n t e n t n e c e s s a r y t o t h e s e t y p e s o f c r i m e s may be i n f e r r e d b y the jury from Accordingly, the acts the themselves. testimony See Anonymous, regarding the prior supra. sexual m i s t r e a t m e n t o f R.C.W.'s d a u g h t e r s was i n a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. E v i d . , t o p r o v e Additionally, intent. t h e r e was no r e a l a n d open i s s u e a s t o t h e o t h e r p u r p o s e , i . e . , s h o w i n g a common p l a n , f o r w h i c h t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d i t could consider the evidence. T h i s Court has h e l d t h a t t h e common p l a n , scheme, o r d e s i g n e x c e p t i o n a p p l i e s only when identity i s actually S t a t e , 718 So. 2d 123, at issue. See C a m p b e l l 128-29 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g R e g i s t e r v. S t a t e , 640 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) , 680 v. So. 2d 225 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . aff'd, The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s also held that the i d e n t i t y exception i s coextensive with the e x c e p t i o n f o r p l a n , scheme, o r s y s t e m . See Ex p a r t e D a r d y , 516 So. 2d 786, 789 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ; 1 C h a r l e s W. Gamble & R o b e r t J . Goodwin, 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(6) 13 ( 6 t h e d . 2009) CR-11-0387 ("Indeed, there exceptions--plan of rendering plan i s some judicial language that and i d e n t i t y - - a r e co-extensive o r scheme u n a v a i l a b l e c l e a r l y a t i s s u e i n the case."). unless t h e s e two i n the sense identity i s H e r e , t h e r e was n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t i n d i c a t e s t h a t R.C.W.'s i d e n t i t y was i n i s s u e . R.C.W. n e v e r a l l e g e d t h a t someone e l s e was t h e p e r p e t r a t o r o f the crimes. C r i m . App. See M o t h e r s h e d v . S t a t e , 596 So. 2d 47, 1991) . 48 ( A l a . Thus, t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e c o l l a t e r a l sexual m i s c o n d u c t was i n a d m i s s i b l e t o p r o v e p l a n . As noted above, the State correctly argues that the e v i d e n c e o f c o l l a t e r a l s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t i n v o l v i n g T.W.'s h a l f s i s t e r s was a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e 404(b) t o p r o v e m o t i v e . A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d i n Bowden: " ' M o t i v e i s d e f i n e d as "an i n d u c e m e n t , o r t h a t w h i c h l e a d s o r t e m p t s t h e m i n d t o do o r commit t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d . " S p i c e r v . S t a t e , 188 A l a . 9, 1 1 , 65 So. 972, 977 ( 1 9 1 4 ) . M o t i v e h a s a l s o b e e n d e s c r i b e d as ' " t h a t s t a t e o f mind which works t o 'supply t h e r e a s o n t h a t nudges t h e w i l l a n d p r o d s the mind t o i n d u l g e the c r i m i n a l i n t e n t . ' " ' [Charles Gamble, C h a r a c t e r Evidence: A C o m p r e h e n s i v e A p p r o a c h 42 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ] . "'Furthermore, testimony o f f e r e d f o r the purpose o f showing motive i s always a d m i s s i b l e . M c C l e n d o n v . S t a t e , 243 A l a . 218, 8 So. 2d 883 ( 1 9 4 2 ) . A c c o r d , Donahoo v. S t a t e , 505 So. 2d 1067 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 14 The CR-11-0387 1986). " ' " I t i s permissible in every 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 an 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 may have l e d o r t e m p t e d him t o commit t h e o f f e n s e . " ' M c A d o r y v. S t a t e , 62 A l a . 154 [ ( 1 8 7 8 ) ] . " N i c k e r s o n v. S t a t e , 205 Ala. 684, 685, 88 So. 905, 907 (1921).'" H a t c h e r v. State, Bowden, 538 So. Register, charged 680 646 So. 2d 2d a t 1235 So. with stepdaughters. At 679 ( A l a . 1994) (emphasis i n Bowden)). 2d 225, various 676, 227 sex trial, (quoting I n Ex parte ( A l a . 1994), the defendant crimes the against State his presented two was minor evidence of c o l l a t e r a l a c t s of s e x u a l misconduct a l l e g e d l y o c c u r r i n g seven to nine years before the charged offense d a u g h t e r ; t h e d e f e n d a n t was against his natural c o n v i c t e d o f f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy and f i r s t - d e g r e e s e x u a l a b u s e . On a p p e a l , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t a f f i r m e d t h i s C o u r t ' s judgment h o l d i n g t h a t the e v i d e n c e of the alleged sexual misconduct was properly admitted to p r o v e m o t i v e i n t h e r a p e and s e x u a l abuse o f h i s s t e p d a u g h t e r . Specifically, the Court stated: "Under t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e trial court did not abuse i t s discretion in p e r m i t t i n g evidence of R e g i s t e r ' s c o l l a t e r a l s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t c o m m i t t e d upon h i s n a t u r a l d a u g h t e r , b e c a u s e t h a t e v i d e n c e had some t e n d e n c y t o show t h a t R e g i s t e r had a p a s s i o n o r p r o p e n s i t y f o r u n u s u a l and 15 CR-11-0387 a b n o r m a l s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s . See C. Gamble, E v i d e n c e , s u p r a , a t 45-46." 680 So. (Ala. 2 d a t 228. C r i m . App. See G a r n e r v. S t a t e , 977 So. 2007) ( t e s t i m o n y Character 2 d 533, regarding c o l l a t e r a l s e x u a l abuse was r e l e v a n t t o show t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s s e x u a l d e s i r e f o r young g i r l s " a b u s e ) ; see "unnatural a l s o Bedsole v. S t a t e , 1034, (Ala. Crim. A p p . 2006) admissible under Rule 404(b) t o prove that b y an u n n a t u r a l sexual Here, as p r e v i o u s l y noted, R.C.W. T.W. The p r i o r sex crimes against evidence was a d m i t t e d 974 So. (collateral "motivated various acts of was h i s m o t i v e f o r c o m m i t t i n g charged sexual 1038-40 d e f e n d a n t was d e s i r e f o r young were a s f o l l o w s : night and touch P.W. on h e r v a g i n a 2d sex acts girls"). was c h a r g e d acts with as t o which P.W. t e s t i f i e d when she was 10 y e a r s o l d , R.C.W. w o u l d come i n t o h e r at 536-38 that bedroom and buttocks. P.W. t e s t i f i e d t h a t R.C.W. " t o u c h e d [her v a g i n a ] w i t h h i s p e n i s a s well [as] h i s mouth." R.C.W. w o u l d f o r c e (R. 148.) P.W. t o p e r f o r m o r a l t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t a young age, by R.C.W. oral M.W.T. t e s t i f i e d s e x on h i m . P.W. f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d Also, s e x on him. that M.W.T. she was i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y t o u c h e d t h a t R.C.W. f o r c e d h e r t o p e r f o r m C.F. t e s t i f i e d 16 that R.C.W. was CR-11-0387 indicted and c o n v i c t e d of several sexual offenses against M.W.T. At t r i a l , t h e S t a t e o f f e r e d the testimony c o r r o b o r a t e d T.W.'s t e s t i m o n y . to offer (Ala. Crim. collateral needed Thus, t h e S t a t e d i d n o t n e e d P.W. a n d M.W.T.'s t e s t i m o n y T.W.'s t e s t i m o n y . i n order t o corroborate Compare A l l e n v . S t a t e , 624 So. 2 d 650, 653 App. 1993) ("In t h i s evidence to offer case, T.K.'s testimony a n d M.W.T. was no o t h e r Thus, regarding [the] State the collateral the victim's However, t h e S t a t e o f f e r e d t h e c o l l a t e r a l P.W. there offered a t the t r i a l . sexual misconduct t o corroborate against o f Pa. W. t h a t testimony."). committed to establish i n order offenses R.C.W.'s " u n n a t u r a l s e x u a l d e s i r e f o r the s m a l l c h i l d r e n l i v i n g i n h i s household" supra. as a m o t i v e Therefore, f o r the present the collateral a d m i s s i b l e t o p r o v e R.C.W.'s acts offense. were Hatcher, r e l e v a n t and motive. Even t h o u g h t h e c o l l a t e r a l - a c t e v i d e n c e the proper purpose o f p r o v i n g motive, 2 was a d m i t t e d for i t was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r The S t a t e a l s o contends t h a t the c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence was a d m i s s i b l e t o show R.C.W.'s o p p o r t u n i t y t o commit t h e charged offenses. Our c a s e l a w r e g a r d i n g o p p o r t u n i t y a s a p o s s i b l e u s e o f o t h e r - a c t s e v i d e n c e i s u n c l e a r . See 1 C h a r l e s W. Gamble & R o b e r t J . Goodwin, 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(12) ( 6 t h e d . 2 0 0 9 ) . R e g a r d l e s s , t h e S t a t e does n o t 2 17 CR-11-0387 f o r the t r i a l c o u r t to a l l o w the j u r y to c o n s i d e r the evidence o f c o l l a t e r a l s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t i n v o l v i n g T.W.'s h a l f s i s t e r s f o r the improper purposes of i n t e n t , o p p o r t u n i t y , I n M a r k s , we and plan. held: "The c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s i n t h i s c a s e p e r m i t t e d the j u r y to c o n s i d e r the c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence for the purposes of showing motive, o p p o r t u n i t y , p l a n , k n o w l e d g e , and modus o p e r a n d i . On a p p e a l , t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t o p p o r t u n i t y and p l a n were a t i s s u e and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y as t o t h o s e p u r p o s e s . The State also argues that the evidence was admissible to prove identity and preparation-¬ p u r p o s e s f o r w h i c h t h e j u r y was not i n s t r u c t e d r e g a r d i n g the c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence. The State does n o t a d d r e s s t h e a d d i t i o n a l p u r p o s e s - - m o t i v e , k n o w l e d g e , o r modus o p e r a n d i - - o n w h i c h t h e j u r y was instructed i t could consider the collateral-act evidence i n t h i s case. " A l t h o u g h n o t as b r o a d as t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s a t i s s u e i n Ex p a r t e B i l l u p s , [86 So. 3d 1079 (Ala. 2010),] the i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s case r e g a r d i n g the p e r m i s s i b l e use o f t h e c o l l a t e r a l - a c t e v i d e n c e was t o o g e n e r a l and a u t h o r i z e d t h e j u r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e evidence for 'implausible purposes,' such as i d e n t i t y . F o r e x a m p l e , I.C. i d e n t i f i e d M a r k s , and Marks a d m i t t e d t h a t he knew I.C.; he denied, h o w e v e r , t h a t he had had s e x w i t h I.C. o r t h a t he had r a p e d h e r . Thus, I.C.'s and M a r k s ' s c r e d i b i l i t y , n o t M a r k s ' s i d e n t i t y , were a t i s s u e . Compare G i b s o n v. S t a t e , 677 So. 2d 238, 240 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1995) ( i d e n t i t y was a t i s s u e where t h e a c c u s e d c o n t e n d e d t h a t someone e l s e c o m m i t t e d t h e s e x u a l o f f e n s e s w i t h address the a d d i t i o n a l purposes f o r which the j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d i t c o u l d c o n s i d e r the c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence i n t h i s case. Marks, supra. 18 CR-11-0387 w h i c h he was c h a r g e d ) , w i t h M o t h e r s h e d v. S t a t e , 596 So. 2d 47 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991) (evidence of c o l l a t e r a l s e x u a l acts of the accused a g a i n s t the a l l e g e d v i c t i m s was i n a d m i s s i b l e t o p r o v e i d e n t i t y where t h e a c c u s e d d e n i e d c o m m i t t i n g t h e o f f e n s e s w i t h w h i c h he was c h a r g e d and he d i d n o t a l l e g e t h a t the c r i m e s were c o m m i t t e d by someone e l s e ) . Thus, the circuit c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s were erroneous because they p e r m i t t e d the jury, over Marks's o b j e c t i o n , to c o n s i d e r the c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence for purposes not at i s s u e i n the case. Given the g r a p h i c nature of the c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence at i s s u e h e r e , t h e ' c o n f u s i o n o f t h e j u r y and t h e p r o b a b l e p r e j u d i c e t o [ M a r k s , ] ' as a r e s u l t o f t h e erroneous instruction ' i s obvious.' Ex parte B i l l u p s , 86 So. 3d a t 1086 ( q u o t i n g B i l l u p s v. S t a t e , 86 So. 3d 1032, 1079 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009) (Welch, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ) . Thus, i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n B i l l u p s , t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s i n t h i s case c o n s t i t u t e d reversible error. "For the above-stated reasons, Marks's c o n v i c t i o n f o r rape i n the f i r s t degree i s hereby r e v e r s e d and t h i s c a s e i s remanded t o t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t Court f o r proceedings consistent with t h i s opinion." 94 So. 3d a t Here, 413. as in Marks, the trial court's instructions p e r m i t t e d the j u r y to c o n s i d e r the c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence f o r purposes not at issue in this case. The trial court i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y as t o t h e p u r p o s e s o f m o t i v e , o p p o r t u n i t y , intent, State and p l a n . does not Although the S t a t e addresses motive, address the additional 19 the purposes--intent, CR-11-0387 opportunity, could and consider plan--for the which the j u r y was e v i d e n c e of c o l l a t e r a l instructed i t sexual misconduct. "Thus, the circuit court's instructions were erroneous because they p e r m i t t e d the j u r y , over [R.C.W.]'s o b j e c t i o n , t o c o n s i d e r t h e c o l l a t e r a l - a c t evidence f o r purposes not at i s s u e i n the case. Given the graphic n a t u r e of the collateral-act evidence at i s s u e here, the 'confusion of the j u r y and t h e p r o b a b l e p r e j u d i c e t o [R.C.W.,]' as a r e s u l t o f t h e e r r o n e o u s i n s t r u c t i o n ' i s o b v i o u s . ' Ex p a r t e B i l l u p s , 86 So. 3d a t ( q u o t i n g B i l l u p s v. S t a t e , 86 So. 3d 1032, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009) (Welch, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ) . Thus, i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e Supreme Court's d e c i s i o n i n B i l l u p s , the j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s i n t h i s case c o n s t i t u t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . " 3 M a r k s , 94 So. 3d a t 413-14. The j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s c a s e , as we have n o t e d , l i k e the i n s t r u c t i o n i n Marks, a l l o w e d the j u r y to c o n s i d e r the R u l e 404(b) e v i d e n c e f o r s e v e r a l p u r p o s e s n o t a t i s s u e . The d i s s e n t a r g u e s t h a t any e r r o r i n a l l o w i n g t h e j u r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e c o l l a t e r a l - a c t e v i d e n c e f o r t h o s e p u r p o s e s was h a r m l e s s b e c a u s e , t h e d i s s e n t r e a s o n s , t h e j u r y c o u l d n o t "draw an i n f e r e n c e t h a t the e v i d e n c e c o u l d not l o g i c a l l y s u p p o r t . " In o t h e r words, the d i s s e n t ' s p o s i t i o n i s t h a t a l t h o u g h the j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i t c o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e R u l e 404(b) e v i d e n c e f o r p u r p o s e s n o t a t i s s u e , we s h o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t b e c a u s e t h o s e p u r p o s e s were n o t a t i s s u e , t h e j u r y " l o g i c a l l y " must n o t have c o n s i d e r e d t h e e v i d e n c e f o r t h o s e p u r p o s e s . That p o s i t i o n i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h B i l l u p s and M a r k s , as w e l l as w i t h o u r c a s e l a w h o l d i n g t h a t we presume t h e j u r y f o l l o w e d t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o i t by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See Ex p a r t e B e l i s l e , 11 So. 3d 323, 333 ( A l a . 2008) ("[A]n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t 'presume[s] that the jury follows the trial court's i n s t r u c t i o n s unless t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e to the contrary.'" ( q u o t i n g C o c h r a n v. Ward, 935 So. 2d 1169, 1176 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ) ) . 3 20 CR-11-0387 A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l court and remand t h i s c a u s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Welch and Burke, J J . , concur. Windom, P . J . , a n d K e l l u m , J . , d i s s e n t , w i t h w r i t i n g b y Windom, P . J . , j o i n e d b y K e l l u m , J. 21 CR-11-0387 WINDOM, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I agree R.C.W.'s with prior the majority's sexual abuse holding that of h i s other evidence of daughters was a d m i s s i b l e t o e s t a b l i s h h i s motive f o r r a p i n g , sodomizing, and s e x u a l l y a b u s i n g t h e d a u g h t e r T.W. So. 2 d 2 2 5 , 228 ( A l a . appellant's admissible past See Ex p a r t e R e g i s t e r , 680 1994) ( h o l d i n g sexual abuse i na prosecution that evidence of the of h i s stepdaughters for sexual was abuse o f h i s d a u g h t e r because i t e s t a b l i s h e d the a p p e l l a n t ' s motive, i . e . , a p a s s i o n or propensity f o runusual H a t c h e r v. S t a t e , and abnormal sexual relations); 646 So. 2d 676, 680 ( A l a . 1994) ( h o l d i n g that evidence of c o l l a t e r a l sexual acts against another was relevant t o prove t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s g r a t i f y sexual in d e s i r e s by having ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . m o t i v e , w h i c h was " t o s e x w i t h young g i r l s h i s h o u s e h o l d " ) ; B e d s o l e v. S t a t e , l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n t o the j u r y e r r o n e o u s l y allowed to consider sexual So. 3d 1079, e v i d e n c e o f R.C.W.'s c o l l a t e r a l 1084-85 ( A l a . 2010). living 974 So. 2d 1034, I a l s o agree t h a t the c i r c u i t p u r p o s e s o t h e r t h a n t o show m o t i v e . child court's the See Ex p a r t e B i l l u p s , Specifically, jury abuse f o r 86 I agree w i t h the m a j o r i t y t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g the 22 1040 jury CR-11-0387 to consider purposes . of the collateral intent, sexual opportunity, acts and for "the plan." improper So. 3d at I , however, d i s a g r e e w i t h the m a j o r i t y ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t R.C.W. suffered Therefore, any harm from the erroneous instruction. I respectfully dissent. Rule 404(b), A l a . R. Evid., provides: "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 prove the c h a r a c t e r of a person 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 proof of motive, opportunity, intent, p r e p a r a t i o n , p l a n , knowledge, i d e n t i t y , or absence o f m i s t a k e o r a c c i d e n t , p r o v i d e d t h a t upon r e q u e s t by t h e a c c u s e d , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e s h a l l p r o v i d e r e a s o n a b l e n o t i c e i n advance of t r i a l , or d u r i n g t r i a l i f the c o u r t excuses p r e t r i a l n o t i c e on good c a u s e shown, o f t h e g e n e r a l n a t u r e o f any such evidence i t i n t e n d s to i n t r o d u c e at t r i a l . " "The beginning premise of Evid.,] is s i m p l y p a r t o f an e v e n b r o a d e r p r i n c i p l e p r e c l u d i n g p r o o f of a p e r s o n ' s c h a r a c t e r i n any in 69.01(1) 404(b), to 404(b), A l a . R. f o r m when o f f e r e d t o p r o v e a c t i o n c o n f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h on a p a r t i c u l a r o c c a s i o n . " Gamble and bad [Rule Charles W. R o b e r t J . Goodwin, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e , § (6th ed. 2009). Thus, i s to p r o h i b i t the admission a c t s when t h e establish the the purpose behind of evidence of Rule collateral s o l e purpose of a d m i t t i n g t h a t evidence i s defendant's 23 bad character and action in CR-11-0387 conformity 772, therewith. 775-76 McElroy's, (Ala. (5th States C i r . 1993); see § 69.01(1); Knight Crim. prevents United App. the 1995) v. ("The introduction of v. also Carrillo, Gamble State, general collateral 675 981 and So. F.2d Goodwin, 2d 487, 499 exclusionary rule c r i m i n a l acts not c h a r g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t when t h e s o l e p u r p o s e i s t o show t h e accused's bad p o s s e s s e d an character or inclination to suggest or p r o p e n s i t y that the accused t o commit t h e crime." Committee's Notes t o Rule 404(b), (emphasis a d d e d ) ) . However, t h e A d v i s o r y Ala. R. Evid., explain that "[t]he general rule excluding c h a r a c t e r e v i d e n c e does n o t b a r e v i d e n c e o f s p e c i f i c a c t s when that evidence impermissible is one offered of J., 802 So. 2d dissenting) 265, some proving particular character." State, for purpose action in (Emphasis added.) 273 (same). than conformity See ( A l a . C r i m . App. Thus, other with the a a l s o H u n t e r v. 2000) " [ i ] f the (Baschab, defendant's c o m m i s s i o n o f 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 g u i l t , or tends t o prove h i s g u i l t o t h e r w i s e t h a n by showing of c h a r a c t e r , then proof of such other a c t i s a d m i s s i b l e . " v. S t a t e , 49 So. 3d 228, 232 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 24 2009) bad Moore (quoting CR-11-0387 Harris v. State, 2007)(emphasis 2 So. 3d 880, 907 (Ala. Crim. App. added)). I n Ex p a r t e Billups, 86 So. 3d a t 1084-85, t h e Alabama Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t when e v i d e n c e o f c o l l a t e r a l b a d is a d m i t t e d f o r one o r more p u r p o s e s o t h e r t h a n t o show acts bad c h a r a c t e r , 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 g i v e an i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t l i m i t s the j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h a t evidence to o n l y the purpose f o r which i t was admitted constitutes S p e c i f i c a l l y , the Court h e l d t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s instruction relating to r e c i t [ e d ] the complete under Rule evidence], 404(b) ... gave 404(b) 'laundry l i s t ' [ f o r the constituted error]." The Rule the evidence Billups, "simply of p e r m i s s i b l e theories of c o l l a t e r a l - b a d - a c t inadequate 86 So. limiting that admission jury error. 3d a t guidance [and 1086. Supreme C o u r t d i d n o t , h o w e v e r , c r e a t e a p e r se r u l e requiring reversal every time a circuit court's limiting i n s t r u c t i o n r e l a t i n g t o c o l l a t e r a l bad a c t s i n c l u d e s purposes l i s t e d i n R u l e 404(b) f o r w h i c h t h e e v i d e n c e was n o t a d m i t t e d . To the c o n t r a r y , the f a i l u r e of an t h e Supreme C o u r t has to give a l i m i t i n g erroneous limiting repeatedly i n s t r u c t i o n and/or i n s t r u c t i o n must be 25 held that the g i v i n g reviewed on a CR-11-0387 case-by-case (Ala. basis. 2001) ( e x p l a i n i n g propriety parte Martin, ( A l a . 2006) court's [Ms. 1041313, O c t . 6, 2006] limiting So. 3d instruction i n this So. 3 d a t State, acts was evidence of h i s g u i l t , are a d m i s s i b l e , case properly was (holding that c o l l a t e r a l bad acts App. 2011) ( h o l d i n g motive quotations omitted)). as i . e . , t o show h i s m o t i v e . [Ms. CR-06-0454, J a n . 13, 2011] Crim. admitted a s s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t o show m o t i v e ) ; establish i s always that So 3 d "evidence admissible" Revis , tending t o (citations and Thus, t h e j u r y was p r o p e r l y a l l o w e d t o e v i d e n c e o f R.C.W.'s c o l l a t e r a l b a d a c t s . Further, that (same); (same). collateral Johnson, consider regarding the R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P. As s t a t e d a b o v e , e v i d e n c e R.C.W.'s (Ala. inquiry 931 So. 2d 759, 768 ( A l a . 2004) erroneous substantive v. "each t h e reasons that f o l l o w , I b e l i e v e that the c i r c u i t harmless. of that 893 So. 2d 482, 485 ... must be d e t e r m i n e d on a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s " ) ; Johnson v. S t a t e , For v. S t a t e , o f an i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e u s e o f e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r convictions Ex Snyder i t could the c i r c u i t court c o r r e c t l y i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y not consider R.C.W.'s c o l l a t e r a l 26 bad acts f o r CR-11-0387 the i m p r o p e r p u r p o s e o f e s t a b l i s h i n g R.C.W.'s b a d c h a r a c t e r and action i n conformity Court must presume that court's instructions. (Ala. trial court's 827 See (R. 415-16.) the jurors followed This the c i r c u i t P e r a i t a v . S t a t e , 897 So. 2d 1161, 1204 C r i m . App. 2003) So. therewith. ("'Jurors instructions.'" a r e presumed t o f o l l o w t h e (quoting Bryant v . S t a t e , 727 2d 870, 874-75 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ) ) ; B u r g e s s v . S t a t e , So. 2d 134, 162 ( A l a . Crim. presumed t o f o l l o w t h e c o u r t ' s App. 1998) ( " J u r o r s a r e instructions."). Thus, t h e j u r y d i d n o t c o n s i d e r R.C.W.'s c o l l a t e r a l b a d a c t s a s e v i d e n c e of h i s bad c h a r a c t e r and a c t i o n i n c o n f o r m i t y therewith, the only purpose f o r which such evidence i s o u t r i g h t p r o h i b i t e d . H u n t e r , 802 So. 2d a t 273; Moore, 49 So. 3d a t 232; H a r r i s , 2 So. 3 d a t 907. Although evidence properly admitted and although o f R.C.W.'s c o l l a t e r a l b a d a c t s was as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t o show h i s m o t i v e thec i r c u i t court c o r r e c t l y p r o h i b i t e d the j u r y f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g R.C.W.'s c o l l a t e r a l b a d a c t s as e v i d e n c e o f h i s bad character, the m a j o r i t y f i n d s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n the circuit court's limiting instruction because i t allowed t h e j u r y t o consider t h a t evidence f o r the "improper purposes o f 27 CR-11-0387 [establishing] were] n o t intent, opportunity, at issue i n t h i s however, d i s a g r e e . of R.C.W.'s opportunity, or consider evidence the United States 1995), the plan, v. bad The any So. points 3d , . I, not p l a u s i b l e f o r evidence to establish his intent, error in allowing jury 67 offered F.3d harmless. 1002, evidence of the 1011 the gave a limiting to In (1st C i r . appellant's acts to e s t a b l i s h h i s consciousness of however, that acts Levy-Cordero, court, trial bad plan[, f o r t h o s e p u r p o s e s was government collateral case." B e c a u s e i t was collateral and guilt. i n s t r u c t i o n that d i r e c t e d the j u r y to c o n s i d e r the c o l l a t e r a l - b a d - a c t evidence for the purpose knowledge. of Id. First Circuit The United to the jury consider Rule the court the improperly intent Court of Appeals court's appellant's for and the limiting instruction improperly k n o w l e d g e b e c a u s e t h o s e were not admitted. i n s t r u c t e d the jury that bad the as e v i d e n c e was collateral allowed acts the a p p e l l a n t ' s c o l l a t e r a l bad the F i r s t C i r c u i t appellant's 404(b) e v i d e n c e e v i d e n c e o f h i s i n t e n t and reasons that States held that a t r i a l relating to e s t a b l i s h i n g the A l t h o u g h the i t could a c t s f o r i n t e n t and h e l d t h a t t h e e r r o r was 28 harmless. trial consider knowledge, Id. The CR-11-0387 Court explained that the erroneous b e c a u s e t h e r e was "no l o g i c a l acts] would demonstrate respect t o [charged] court's instruction instruction was h a r m l e s s r e a s o n why [ t h e c o l l a t e r a l b a d a p p e l l a n t ' s i n t e n t o r knowledge w i t h offenses Id. Thus, the c i r c u i t was h a r m l e s s b e c a u s e i t " i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y t h a t i t c o u l d draw an i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e not l o g i c a l l y In allowed this could support." I d . case, the jury the c i r c u i t t o consider court's instruction that R.C.W.'s s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t f o r "improper purposes o f [ e s t a b l i s h i n g ] i n t e n t , o p p o r t u n i t y , and plan," So. 3d a t , was h a r m l e s s b e c a u s e t h e r e was "no l o g i c a l r e a s o n why [ t h e c o l l a t e r a l b a d a c t s ] w o u l d demonstrate appellant's respect t o [charged] intent[, plan, offenses or opportunity] Levy-Cordero, with 67 F . 3 d a t 1011. S t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y , R.C.W.'s c o l l a t e r a l s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h h i s s p e c i f i c i n t e n t t o commit, h i s o p p o r t u n i t y to commit, Therefore, was or a plan t o commit t h e charged the c i r c u i t court's erroneous l i m i t i n g harmless because i t merely allowed the jury offenses. instruction t o "draw an i n f e r e n c e t h a t the evidence c o u l d not l o g i c a l l y support." I d . 29 CR-11-0387 A d d i t i o n a l l y , a s t h e m a j o r i t y e x p l a i n s , R.C.W.'s i n t e n t , opportunity, T.W.'s a n d p l a n were n o t a t i s s u e a t t r i a l . f a t h e r , and they offenses. From t h i s lived evidence, together R.C.W. was a t t h e time of the t h e j u r y must have drawn t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t R.C.W., who was l i v i n g w i t h h i s d a u g h t e r , h a d the opportunity t o rape, sodomize, B e c a u s e R.C.W.'s o p p o r t u n i t y was clearly instruction established that bad opportunity the jury was h a r m l e s s . 897, acts t o commit t h e c h a r g e d at t r i a l , allowed collateral offenses the c i r c u i t t o consider f o r t h e purpose court's R.C.W.'s of establishing C f . Dawson v . S t a t e , 675 So. 2d 900 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1995) ("The e r r o n e o u s a d m i s s i o n o f evidence that i s merely cumulative v. a n d s e x u a l l y abuse h e r . City o f Dothan, Woods v . S t a t e , 2007). Likewise, from C r i m . App. 13 So. 3 d 1, 23 ( A l a . C r i m . App. as t h e m a j o r i t y states, "[t]he intent t o t h e s e t y p e s o f c r i m e s may be i n f e r r e d b y t h e j u r y the acts R.C.W.'s ( c i t i n g Reese 642 So. 2 d 5 1 1 , 515 ( A l a . 1993))); necessary i s harmless." themselves." general intent So. 3 d a t was established . by Because the acts themselves, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n a l l o w i n g the j u r y to consider a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e o f i n t e n t was h a r m l e s s . 30 Cf. CR-11-0387 Dawson, 675 So. 2 d a t 900; Woods, 13 So. 3 d a t 2 3 . Finally, as t h e m a j o r i t y s t a t e s , R.C.W.'s i d e n t i t y was n o t a t i s s u e i n this case because committed R.C.W. d i d n o t a l l e g e t h e crime. identity at issue, Because R.C.W. that someone d i d not place h i s t h e j u r y h a d two c h o i c e s : believe R.C.W. c o m m i t t e d t h e a c t s o r b e l i e v e t h a t no a c t s B e c a u s e R.C.W.'s i d e n t i t y left t o decide jury t o consider identity was n o t h a r m f u l . This acts occurred, t o show a p l a n occurred. allowing the a n d t h u s R.C.W.'s Id. i s n o t a case i n which evidence was i m p r o p e r l y that was n o t a t i s s u e a n d t h e j u r y was o n l y whether t h e a c t s evidence else admitted o r i n which of c o l l a t e r a l bad thec i r c u i t court e r r o n e o u s l y a l l o w e d t h e j u r y t o c o n s i d e r t h a t e v i d e n c e t o show bad character. sexual acts substantive correctly for was prevented evidence properly evidence the sole character Instead, o f R.C.W.'s admitted o f h i smotive, and collateral considered and t h e c i r c u i t t h e j u r y from c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t purpose and a c t i o n f o r which i t i s not allowed i n conformity therewith. as court evidence -- b a d Because e v i d e n c e o f R.C.W.'s c o l l a t e r a l s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t was p r o p e r l y considered by t h e j u r y as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e o f motive and 31 CR-11-0387 because the c i r c u i t c o u r t p r e v e n t e d the j u r y from the evidence limiting that to prove instruction evidence p u r p o s e s was for that character, allowed additional harmless. Kellum, J . , bad the the circuit court's jury to a l s o consider implausible Therefore, concurs. 32 considering and/or I respectfully irrelevant 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.