Joey Lee Rigsby v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/12/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may 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-11-1279 Joey Lee Rigsby v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Walker C i r c u i t Court (CC-09-431) WINDOM, P r e s i d i n g Judge. Joey Lee R i g s b y appeals h i s c o n v i c t i o n s o f t h r e e counts o f s e x u a l a b u s e o f a c h i l d l e s s t h a n 12 y e a r s o l d , s e e § 13A6-69.1, A l a . Code, 1975, a n d 2 s e n t e n c e s o f 20 y e a r s i n p r i s o n CR-11-1279 t o r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y and 1 sentence run c o n s e c u t i v e l y w i t h t h e o t h e r The December State 1, presented 2008, o f 20 y e a r s i n p r i s o n t o sentences. evidence Rigsby indicating h a d , f o r many that years, before been good f r i e n d s w i t h Do.G. a n d A.G., t h e p a r e n t s o f Da.G. a n d J.G. On December 1, 2008, R i g s b y , who was o v e r t h e age o f 16, went t o Do.G. a n d A.G.'s h o u s e . While there c o u l d s l e e p a t t h e i r house t h a t n i g h t . he a s k e d Do.G. i f he I t was n o t u n u s u a l f o r R i g s b y t o s p e n d t h e n i g h t a t Do.G. a n d A.G.'s home, a n d Do.G. a l l o w e d h i m t o do so t h a t n i g h t . A t some p o i n t i n t h e e v e n i n g , J.G., who was l e s s t h a n 12 y e a r s o l d , went t o b e d i n t h e t o p bunk o f a bunk b e d i n t h e bedroom he s h a r e d w i t h Da.G., who was a l s o l e s s t h a n 12 y e a r s old. S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , Da.G. went t o b e d , g e t t i n g i n t o t h e b o t t o m bunk o f t h e same b u n k b e d . Da.G. going t o bed, Rigsby came W i t h i n a few m i n u t e s into t h e bedroom. of After e n t e r i n g t h e room, R i g s b y f o n d l e d a n d s o d o m i z e d b o t h J.G. a n d Da.G. A f t e r s c h o o l t h e n e x t d a y , Da.G. a n d J.G. t o l d A.G. what had h a p p e n e d t h e n i g h t b e f o r e . home e a r l y f r o m w o r k . A.G. c o n t a c t e d Do.G., who came A f t e r Do.G. s p o k e w i t h Da.G. a n d J.G., 2 CR-11-1279 Do.G. a n d A.G. m o r n i n g , A.G. t a l k e d about contacted the s i t u a t i o n . law enforcement The f o l l o w i n g t o r e p o r t what h a d happened. On a p p e a l , R i g s b y a r g u e s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t d u r i n g r e b u t t a l c l o s i n g argument, t h e S t a t e i m p r o p e r l y commented on h i s f a i l u r e t o i n c r i m i n a t e h i m s e l f and t h a t t h e c i r c u i t erroneously the refused to give a curative i n s t r u c t i o n State's comment. During the State's court regarding rebuttal closing a r g u m e n t , t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t was made: " S i n c e I f i r s t h e a r d a b o u t [Da.G. a n d J . G . ] a n d s t r u g g l i n g w i t h [Rigsby's] b e t r a y a l of t h i s f a m i l y , I've b e e n t h i n k i n g a b o u t one q u e s t i o n m y s e l f : Why? Why d i d [ R i g s b y ] do i t ? Why d i d he do t h i s t o t h e s e l i t t l e boys? A n d why d i d he l i e a b o u t d o i n g i t ? Why d i d n ' t he j u s t a d m i t what he done [ s i c ] a n d g i v e t h e s e b o y s some p e a c e ? " (R. 1124-25.) Defense counsel following specific immediately objected and gave the r e a s o n s as t h e b a s i s o f t h e o b j e c t i o n : "Your Honor, t h a t i s a d i r e c t comment on [ R i g s b y ] n o t o f f e r i n g any t e s t i m o n y i n t h i s c a s e ; not giving a statement to the p o l i c e , not incriminating himself. He c h o s e n o t t o t e s t i f y . T h a t i s a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e l a w , Y o u r Honor. It is a m i s t r i a l a b l e [ s i c ] o f f e n s e , m i s t r i a l and render t h i s c a s e -- I move f o r a m i s t r i a l a n d t h a t a l l c h a r g e s be d i s m i s s e d a g a i n s t my c l i e n t . " 3 CR-11-1279 (R. 1126.) the State When a s k e d b y t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r a response, said: " J u d g e , I do n e e d t h a t s t a t e m e n t r e a d b a c k . As I was e x p l a i n i n g i t , t h a t i s n o t i n anyway what I remember s a y i n g . I d i d s a y , why -- w h i l e I was t h i n k i n g o f i t I t h o u g h t why d i d n ' t [ R i g s b y ] a d m i t t o g i v e t h e s e b o y s some p e a c e , n o t why d i d n ' t he t a k e t h e s t a n d , n o t why d i d n ' t he make a s t a t e m e n t , nothing to that e f f e c t . " (R. 1126.) The c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d Rigsby's motion f o r a m i s t r i a l and a s k e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l i f he w a n t e d a c u r a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n . Defense counsel rebuttal read had t h e complained-of p o r t i o n o f t h e S t a t e ' s back by t h e c o u r t reporter and then t o l d the c i r c u i t c o u r t t h a t R i g s b y h a d " n e v e r made a s t a t e m e n t a t a l l . " (R. 1128.) The c i r c u i t c o u r t replied: " I t ' s argument. I t ' s argument. T h i s d e f i n i t e l y d o e s n ' t amount t o a comment t h a t y o u r c l i e n t d i d n ' t t e s t i f y a n d I d o n ' t t h i n k i t ' s e v e n due a c u r a t i v e statement." (R. 1128.) mistrial The c i r c u i t c o u r t and d e n i e d a request again denied the motion f o r a for a curative instruction. The S t a t e ' s a r g u m e n t , " [ w ] h y d i d n ' t he j u s t a d m i t what he done [ s i c ] and g i v e these a d i r e c t comment on e i t h e r guilt b o y s some p e a c e " Rigsby's or h i s f a i l u r e to plead failure to t e s t i f y to h i s guilty. 4 (R. 1 1 2 4 - 2 5 ) , was In e i t h e r event, the CR-11-1279 State improperly commented on Rigsby's "right against self-incrimination." 3d 77, 81 955 ( A l a . 2010) . ( A l a . 2010) three pleading constitutional Ex p a r t e Landrum, 57 So. guilty, rights: 1111, 1993) 303, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 238 305 844 (1969))."); United ( 9 t h C i r . 1973) ("A 4 t h 297, 308, 27 P.3d (2001) right against v. S t a t e , 624 So. 2d ( c i t i n g B o y k i n v. A l a b a m a , S t a t e s v. Sherman, plea of complete form of s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n . " ) ; Cal. waives t h e r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y , and t h e r i g h t Heptinstall 395 U.S. a defendant the to confront h i s accusers.' 1112 of h i s C f . G.E.G. v. S t a t e , 54 So. 3d 949, ("'By self-incrimination, invocation guilty 474 F.2d i s the most P e o p l e v. C o l l i n s , 26 726, 733, 109 C a l . R p t r . (recognizing that "the r i g h t 2d 836, t o p l e a d not g u i l t y ... e n c o m p a s s e s t h e r i g h t t o j u r y t r i a l , t h e r i g h t t o c o n f r o n t opposing witnesses, self-incrimination"); A.2d 235, incriminate and [oneself], the S t a t e v. C o r b i t t , (1977) t o have a j u r y Amendment)") 583 237 and (recognizing privilege 74 N . J . 379, 384, 378 the as b y a p l e a o f g u i l t trial should against he p l e a d right "not ( F i f t h Amendment) not g u i l t y ( c i t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. J a c k s o n , 390 U.S. (1968)). 5 to (Sixth 570, CR-11-1279 "The S e l f - I n c r i m i n a t i o n C l a u s e o f t h e F i f t h Amendment [ t o the U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n ] reads: compelled i n any himself.'" criminal Doe v. U n i t e d case 'No p e r s o n ... s h a l l be t o be a witness against S t a t e s , 487 U.S. 2 0 1 , 207 (1988). A r t i c l e I , § 6, A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901, p r o v i d e s : "That i n a l l c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s , t h e a c c u s e d has a r i g h t ... t o testify do; i n a l l cases, i n h i s own b e h a l f , ... a n d he s h a l l n o t be c o m p e l l e d himself that " "[t]he i f he e l e c t s so t o t o give evidence The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t opportunity to testify has e x p l a i n e d i s also a necessary c o r o l l a r y t o t h e F i f t h Amendment's g u a r a n t e e a g a i n s t testimony." Rock v. A r k a n s a s , Accordingly, 483 U.S. 44, 52 i t i s well settled against compelled (1987). "that a prosecutor n o t comment on a d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t a g a i n s t may self-incrimination H e r e f o r d v. S t a t e , 608 So. 2d 439, 442 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992) (quoting 1992). on a Ex p a r t e Purser, 607 So. 2d 3 0 1 , 304 ( A l a . The r u l e o f l a w p r o h i b i t i n g t h e S t a t e f r o m commenting defendant's right against self-incrimination comments on a d e f e n d a n t ' s right r i g h t to plead not g u i l t y . S t a t e v. W i l e s , 59 O h i o S t . 3d 71, 6 not t o t e s t i f y bars a n d on h i s CR-11-1279 88, 571 N.E.2d 97, 118 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; s e e a l s o S t a t e v. Landrum, 53 O h i o S t . 3d 107, 110, 559 N.E.2d 710, 717 (1990). "Comments b y a p r o s e c u t o r on a d e f e n d a n t ' s testify are highly p r e j u d i c i a l carefully guard constitutional So. against right a n d h a r m f u l , a n d c o u r t s must a violation not t o t e s t i f y . " 2d 184, 188 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . failure to of a defendant's Ex p a r t e B r o o k s , "Where t h e r e h a s b e e n a d i r e c t comment on, o r d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e t o , a d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i f y and t h e t r i a l 695 failure to c o u r t does n o t a c t p r o m p t l y t o c u r e t h e comment, t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s conviction must be r e v e r s e d . " Ex p a r t e P u r s e r , 607 So. 2d a t 304 ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e W i l s o n , 571 So. 2d 1251 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ) ; s e e a l s o H a r r i s o n v . S t a t e , 706 So. 2d 1323, 1325 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997) ("Where t h e r e has b e e n a direct comment on a d e f e n d a n t ' s failure to t e s t i f y o r an i n d i r e c t comment w i t h a c l o s e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t as t h e p e r s o n who d i d n o t become a w i t n e s s a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t does n o t a c t p r o m p t l y conviction Likewise, failure must be t o cure reversed an i m p r o p e r to incriminate 270, 275 " (citations omitted)). comment b y t h e S t a t e on a d e f e n d a n t ' s h i m s e l f by p l e a d i n g g u i l t y result i n reversible error. F.2d t h e comment, t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s may also C f . U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S m i t h , 934 (11th C i r . 1991); 7 V i l l a r r e a l v. State, 860 CR-11-1279 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex. App. 1993) (holding the following comment by t h e S t a t e t o amount t o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r : " T h i s [] made a conscious decision to rape a ten-year-old man child. B u t he d i d n ' t do i t j u s t o n c e . He f o r c e d h e r t o have t o come into of a this Although courtroom in comments on h i m s e l f by reversal objection be to bunch a defendant's r i g h t testifying may front or p l e a d i n g prevented the guilty i f the improper trial remark of strangers."). not to are improper, court and incriminate "[a] sustains promptly and a p p r o p r i a t e l y i n s t r u c t s t h e j u r y as t o t h e i m p r o p r i e t y o f remark." App. P e t t i b o n e v. S t a t e , 891 2d 280, 283 "admit peace," what (R. Rigsby's State's he argument r e l a t i n g (Ala. Crim. [had] 1124-25), right against done was an and give improper, to Rigsby's [the direct self-incrimination. refused State's to give comment was therefore, defense a curative instruction. made d u r i n g counsel did some comment Further, on the objection Moreover, the r e b u t t a l c l o s i n g argument; not r e s p o n d t o t h e comment t o t h e j u r y . 8 failure victims] c i r c u i t court erroneously f a i l e d to s u s t a i n Rigsby's and the 2003). Here, the to So. an have an opportunity U n i t e d S t a t e s v. to Miller, CR-11-1279 621 F.3d 723, 732 ( 8 t h C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . comment r e s u l t e d i n p r e j u d i c i a l Finally, the evidence Consequently, the State's error. in this case was not o v e r w h e l m i n g s o as t o r e n d e r h a r m l e s s the p r e j u d i c i a l See R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P.; Ex p a r t e Greathouse, error. 624 So. 2d 208, 211 ( A l a . 1993) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r be harmless, "virtually the State's doubt. (holding held ironclad"). of the defendant's As s u c h , this could guilt i s Court cannot say that i m p r o p e r comment was h a r m l e s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e See Chapman v . C a l i f o r n i a , that t o be declare when t h e e v i d e n c e so before harmless, a belief that a federal 386 U.S. 18, 87 (1967) constitutional error c a n be the appellate i t was court harmless must beyond be a able to reasonable doubt). Accordingly, Rigsby's conviction i s reversed, and t h e c a u s e i s remanded 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 opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Welch, Kellum, Burke, and J o i n e r , J J . , concur. 9 this

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.