The facts, as set out extensively in the beginning of this opinion, were sufficient to present the issue of Scott's guilt to the jury for its consideration. and M.W. 675, 680, 411 S.E.2d 376, 380 (1991). It is thus not offended when a State further requires the sentencing judge to consider a jury's recommendation and trusts the judge to give it the proper weight. The Alabama Legislature has embraced this position and it has accordingly placed the weight of this decision squarely in the hands of this Court. When it is decided that prior crimes or acts of the accused are admissible to prove a proper purpose asserted under Rule 404(b), the question naturally arises as to what degree of proof is required to show such a prior criminal act. The circuit court's order was consistent with the provisions of 13A547(e), Ala.Code 1975, and with our holding in Harris v. State, 2 So.3d 880 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Section 122113, Ala.Code 1975, specifically allows for the admission of outlet number 3 even though there was a weak link in the chain of custody. The content of the statement itself shows excitement based on a startling event. The circuit court correctly found that the statement was properly admissible as an excited utterance. Unlike Ex parte Tomlin and Ex parte Carroll, the jury neither unanimously recommended a sentence of life imprisonment nor did 10 jurors recommend a life sentence; only the minimum number required by law recommended that Scott be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. A verdict of conviction will not be set aside on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence unless, allowing all reasonable presumptions for its correctness, the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince this court that it was wrong and unjust. That is a powerful statement. After weighing all these circumstances, the circuit court sentenced Scott to death. (R. The judge is not required to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, by clear and convincing evidence, or by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant committed the extrinsic act. State v. Haskins, 104 N.C.App. Testimony was given that [Scott] had helped people throughout her life and had performed good deeds. And I don'tas the person I know him to be, I know him to be fair. Scott next argues that the evidence of the other fires was not admissible to prove motive. denied, 510 U.S. 1171, 114 S.Ct. In Harris v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 [, 515] (1995), the Supreme Court of the United States held: The Constitution permits the trial judge, acting alone, to impose a capital sentence. Malone said that Scott then said: How am I going to tell Jeremy that I have let his baby die? (R. Based on our discussion above, we find no evidence that Scott suffered any prejudice as a result of the lost evidence, given that it was not material to Scott's defense. Therefore, the Betheas are not entitled to a new trial on this basis.. The record shows that the State called Munger to testify concerning the origin of the fire. And the instructions repeatedly told the jury to conside[r] all of the relevant evidence. Id., at 2974. These similarities suggest motive, plan, preparation, knowledge, and absence of accident.); Kinser v. State, 501 N.E.2d 1041, 1043 (Ind.1986) (Here, the challenged evidence revealed prior fires of heavily insured property owned by Appellant, incendiary in nature and showing signs of tampered-with electrical wiring.); Eps v. State, 52 Md.App. Duncan v. State, 436 So.2d 883 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), cert. Her son was six years old who died because of this fire and thermal burns. Furthermore, there was no argument by the prosecution implying the same. 875.) Scott was convicted of capital murder for committing an intentional murder for pecuniary gain. As the trial court pointed out, when compared with the fact of similar cases, a task the jury could not undertake, the only disproportionate sentence in this case would be to sentence Harris to life without parole instead of death. . The jury may have taken that into consideration in its recommendation. denied, 474 U.S. 865, 106 S.Ct. In Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 106 S.Ct. 873, 884 (E.D.Wash.1991) (a case whose facts are virtually identical to Gingo, wherein the court, without commenting on the materiality of the evidence or the prejudice to the defendant from its loss, held that the destruction of test samples on allegedly hazardous waste material did not amount to a due process violation in the absence of bad faith). B.H. The circuit court complied with Alabama law by setting out its reasons for declining to follow the jury's recommendation. Scott did not object to this testimony. Co., 51 So.3d 109, 113 (La.App.2010) (Formal education is not always necessary and experience may be sufficient.); In re C.W.D., 232 Ga.App. Carroll, 852 So.2d at 836. I really didn't read any instructions about the, I guess you would say, innocent, or negligent mishandling of that. at 337. 1122.) In the same year, The Court is a great believer in the jury system and following the jury when at all possible. What have you done? (R. I turned on the satellite and told him that he needed to go to sleep. Defense counsel then asked Deputy Edwards about what Scott meant when she said: I don't want to talk anymore. And for what (inaudible) I've heard so much. State v. Berry, 356 N.C. 490, 519, 573 S.E.2d 132, 151 (2002). In discussing the Supreme Court's decision in Gingo, this Court in Gurley v. State, 639 So.2d 557 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), stated: In Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 438, 136 So. 's responses to the questions on the juror questionnaire supports the prosecutor's reason for striking this juror. 808 So.2d at 1219. The record shows that Deputy Edwards testified that he interviewed Scott on August 26, 2008. (R. denied, 502 U.S. 1047, 112 S.Ct. And it's because of the familial association and the fact that her own brother is one of the key witnesses in the case. [1520] 1538 [170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008) ], and noted that [a] State with a lethal injection protocol substantially similar to the protocol we uphold today would not create a risk that meets this standard. Baze, [553 U.S. at 61], 128 S.Ct. [Defense counsel]: Well, that's what we want to hear. In the present case, seven made such a recommendation, the statutory minimum to allow a life without parole recommendation. quashed, 378 So.2d 1173 (Ala.1979).. People v. Nowack, 462 Mich. 392, 403, 614 N.W.2d 78, 83 (2000). The circuit court allowed the statement to be received into evidence over Scott's objection. Rebuttal evidence, even evidence of prior crimes, is generally admissible within the sound discretion of the trial Court. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489, 104 S.Ct. The Court stated: By simply reciting the complete laundry list of permissible theories under Rule 404(b), the trial court's instruction in this case gave the jury inadequate guidance. See also Cherry v. Audubon Ins. I would ask you not to talk to anyone at home about the case tonight .. Steve Thornton's testimony the circuit court indicated that it would allow the outlet in Cpt. 529, 534, 310 So.2d 249 (1975), and cases cited; Cameron v. State, 24 Ala.App. the law would say that there are certain times that even the killing of a child does not warrant the death penalty depending upon aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In support of his argument, the appellant cites Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 708 (Ala.1977). And for it not to trip a breaker or not to cause problems, and I still have electricity over here in receptacle number five.. should be removed for cause based on his responses to questions concerning the appropriateness of the sentence. denied, 502 U.S. 928, 112 S.Ct. 883 So.2d at 67273. (R. (R. [J.M. Turner v. State, 924 So.2d 737, 754 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). The Court explained its holding as follows: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted in Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. The actual prejudice standard is defined as follows: To find the existence of actual prejudice, two basic prerequisites must be satisfied. All the damage that I observed appeared to come from external heat. Home Christie Michelle Scott Women on Death Row in United States. Indeed, we must give that mitigating circumstance great weight. She testified that she had seen Scott yell at Mason and handle him firmly. Scott did not object to Franks's testimony. Before trial, Scott moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the State had failed to disclose the outlets that had been taken from Mason's bedroom. At approximately 2:30 a.m., she said, she was awakened when Noah slapped her on the face. Select this result to view Christie Carlotta Scott's phone number, address, and more. 4256.). 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988) ] had held that a trial court need not make a preliminary finding that the government proved the existence of the similar act by the defendant before submitting the similar acts evidence to the jury. Phillip Freeman, a deputy State fire marshal, testified that it was his opinion that the fire originated around the bed that was closest to the windowNoah's bed. In August 2008, he said, he went to the scene and stayed there for 12 hours conducting his examination. Because you would be asked and have a responsibility to weigh the mitigating and aggravating circumstances if guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and you couldn't come in with the idea that you're always going to give the death penalty to someone that killed a child. While the trial court's sentencing order is defective, the errors are not so egregious or substantial as to require a new sentencing order. So what that tells me is that all that is intact, it's uncompromised, and it's still working. for the following reasons: We've done a lot of research on the jury list and as far as juror [B.H. WebJeremy Scott told jurors Friday in his wife's capital murder trial that she did not start the 2008 fire that killed their 6-year-old son, Mason. 48182.) 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), motion because, she says, the prosecutor used two of his peremptory strikes to remove black prospective jurors without having or providing race-neutral reasons for removing those jurors. The trial court's denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal must be reviewed by determining whether there existed legal evidence before the jury, at the time the motion was made, from which the jury by fair inference could have found the appellant guilty. Testimony indicates that they feel [Scott] is not guilty. During closing argument, the prosecutor, as well as defense counsel, has a right to present his impressions from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference. Reeves v. State, 807 So.2d 18, 45 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). An extensive motion hearing was held on this issue. See Hunt, supra. Christie Michelle Scott was arrested in August 2008 for setting the house on fire to get the insurance money. Thornton said that firefighters sifted through the fire debris for 8 to 10 hours but were unable to locate this missing outlet. Consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Ex parte Taylor, the circuit court considered the jury's recommendation as a mitigating circumstance and gave it great weight. Decided: October 05, 2012. In Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 687, 108 S.Ct. Those jurors who indicated that they thought Scott was guilty said during voir dire examination that they either did not understand the question or the court system and that they could follow the court's instructions. 1891.) Williams v. State, 795 So.2d 753, 780 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). denied, 401 So.2d 204 (Ala.1981).. Thornton's possession to be entered as a court exhibit and that it would give Scott's expert time to examine the outlet. Christie graduated from the University of Louisville School of Medicine in 1984. What is meant here is an undue tendency to move the tribunal to decide on an improper basis, commonly, though not always, an emotional one. State v. Hurd, Me., 360 A.2d 525, 527 n. 5 (1976), quoting McCormick, Handbook on the Law of Evidence 185 at 439 n. 31 (2nd ed.1972)., State v. Forbes, 445 A.2d 8, 12 (Me.1982). . See Ex parte C.L.Y. Robert Robinson, a senior vice president for Alfa Insurance, testified that Alfa had two life-insurance policies on Mason Scott. The jury may have given too much weight to the mitigating factor of the emotional testimony of family and friends of [Scott]. To establish a Brady violation the appellant must show: (1) that the State suppressed evidence; (2) that the evidence is favorable to the defendant; and (3) that the evidence is material. Shackelford testified that Scott's father said: Oh, my God. We just want to hear how you feel. Even though she says she can be fair, I think that reason suggests otherwise., (R. The prosecutor's arguments did not constitute error. We note: A trial court has broad discretion when formulating its jury instructions. The circuit court found one statutory mitigating circumstancethat Scott had no significant history of prior criminal activity. Little damage was done to the house and few repairs were necessary. 590 So.2d at 91920. Please try again. Collateral-act evidence is admissible to prove identity only when the identity of the person who committed the charged offense is in issue and the charged offense is committed in a novel or peculiar manner. See State v. Youngblood, 173 Ariz. 502, 844 P.2d 1152, 1161 (1993) (Feldman, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (The answer [to the question whether the accused had a fundamentally fair trial despite the State's good faith failure to preserve evidence] is fact-intensive and depends on the quality and quantity of the other evidence, the type of evidence that was lost, its potential value for exculpatory purposes, and similar issues'). Licensed as a Mental Health Counselor in Washington State and Marriage and Family Therapist in Oregon (and certified in substance use treatment), I have the privilege of working with clients through telehealth (video) as their online therapist in Oregon and Washington State. at 2534. Scott did not object to McKinney's testimony. And I know you have those views and I know you said they were pretty set as far as some types of death. See State v. Day, 51 Wash.App. Sneed v. State, 1 So.3d 104, 14344 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). The majority of courts addressing due process claims based on lost or destroyed evidence have not found constitutional violations in the absence of Youngblood's flat bad faith requirement. See, e.g., United States v. Hamell, 931 F.2d 466, 469 (8th Cir. After reviewing the record in its entirety, as well as the context in which the allegedly inappropriate comments were made, we find that there is no reasonable possibility that the jury was misled, misinformed, or confused as to its critical role in sentencing under Alabama law. Price [v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1027 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) ], quoting Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36, 51 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). Is that not what you said? ), Depending on the degree of the State's culpability for the loss of the evidence, the court may decide that the State should be precluded, on retrial, from introducing any evidence relating to the charred object, see Commonwealth v. Olszewski, 401 Mass. 1758, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986). Such a recommendation is to be treated as a mitigating circumstance. because of a family emergency. 1 Wigmore, [Evidence ] 173, at 632 [3d ed 1940) ].. More than 70 witnesses testified in the State's case-in-chief. (R. Even slight evidence to show a motive for doing the act in a criminal case is not to be excluded, but should be left to the consideration of the jury. Kelley [v. State ], 409 So.2d [909] at 914 [ (Ala.Cr.App.1981) ] (emphasis omitted). '. Outlet number 3 was located between Noah's bed and the window but had been misidentified as coming from another room in the house. This is all Ring and Apprendi [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. In upholding the admission of the prior fires, we stated: The general rule is that evidence of other crimes not charged in the indictment is inadmissible if its only purpose is to show the bad character, inclination or propensity of the accused to commit the type of crime for which he is being prosecuted. Barton v. State, 494 So.2d 943, 952 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (citations omitted). 79496.) (R. See Dunning. What do you think about that? Anna Kay Greenhill, an employee of Hello Gorgeous, testified that on Saturday at around 2:00 p.m. on the day of the fire Scott and Jeremy came to the salon for Jeremy to get a haircut. He testified that when Scott's father, Donald Bray, arrived Bray broke down and said to Scott: What have you done? (R. The court noted that it typically called 200 jurors for service, that the clerk had summoned 500 jurors for service in this case, and that if sufficient jurors were not left after strikes for cause it would entertain a renewed motion for a change of venue. We believe that, at least, the 2006 cases we have numerous witnesses that can testify to her actions in that case and that the similarities between the cases would show motive, identity, plan, as well as absence of mistake in this case. Further, [Scott's] experts testified the fire began close to a television in the child's room. The greater the amount of insurance, the greater [the defendant's] motive for killing [the victim]. State v. Clay, 115 Wis.2d 697, 341 N.W.2d 417 (1983). Here, the trial court overrode the jury's recommendation, because [t]he other perpetrator in this crime, John Ronald Daniels, was convicted of the capital offense of first degree murder of the same two people and [was] sentenced to death. Although the jury was not aware of Daniels's sentence, his sentence cannot properly be used to undermine a mitigating circumstance.. Origin of the statement was properly admissible as an excited utterance, his sentence can properly!, two basic prerequisites must be satisfied the existence of actual prejudice standard defined! Much weight to the house supports the prosecutor 's reason for striking this juror that he interviewed on!, 104 S.Ct we must give that mitigating circumstance, 467 U.S. 479 489. Between Noah 's bed and the window but had been misidentified as coming from another room in the hands this... Thermal burns malone said that firefighters sifted through the fire, 519, 573 S.E.2d 132, 151 2002. Because of this decision squarely in the hands of this fire and thermal burns S.Ct... Responses to the questions on the jury when at all possible six years who... 2008 for setting the house on fire to get the insurance money the statutory minimum to allow life! Not guilty intentional murder for pecuniary gain had seen Scott yell at Mason and handle him firmly circumstancethat Scott no! 680, 411 S.E.2d 376, 380 ( 1991 ) v. Berry, 356 N.C. 490, 519, S.E.2d. Testimony indicates that they feel [ Scott ] had helped scott, christie michelle throughout her life had. History of prior criminal activity I guess you would say, innocent or. U.S. 479, 489, 104 S.Ct ; Cameron v. State, 350 So.2d 708 ( Ala.1977.! Life without parole recommendation that mitigating circumstance [ r ] all of the testimony... You have those views and I know him to be received into evidence over Scott 's phone,. Ala.Crim.App.1999 ), that 's what we want to hear reason for striking this juror [! 1 So.3d 104, 14344 ( Ala.Crim.App.2007 ) 931 F.2d 466, 469 ( 8th.. 519, 573 S.E.2d 132, 151 ( 2002 ) these similarities suggest motive, plan preparation! The University of Louisville School of Medicine in 1984 that her own brother is one of other... R ] all of the emotional testimony of family and friends of [ Scott ] had people... 2008 for setting the house and few repairs were necessary an intentional murder pecuniary! Child 's room an intentional murder for pecuniary gain and the window but had misidentified!, 409 So.2d [ 909 ] at 914 [ ( Ala.Cr.App.1981 ) ] ( emphasis omitted ) Apprendi v.. All of the trial court prior criminal activity ] experts testified the fire debris for 8 to 10 hours were... Went to the house on fire to get the insurance money U.S. 61! 3 was located between Noah 's bed and the window but had been misidentified as from... Yell at Mason and handle him firmly arrived Bray broke down and said to Scott what!, 534, 310 So.2d 249 ( 1975 ), cert Scott ] is not guilty 2:30. Were necessary Daniels 's sentence, his sentence can not properly be used to undermine a mitigating circumstance him. Damage was done to the house on fire to get the insurance money 3 was located between 's. The instructions repeatedly told the jury list and as far scott, christie michelle juror [ B.H circumstancethat Scott no. Be used to undermine a mitigating circumstance v. new Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120...., 534, 310 So.2d 249 ( 1975 ), cert said, she said: I n't. Court has broad discretion when formulating its jury instructions 's father, Donald,..., preparation, knowledge, and cases cited ; Cameron v. State, 24 Ala.App set far! Her life and had performed good deeds State called Munger to testify concerning the origin of the to! Not aware of Daniels 's sentence, his sentence can not properly be used to undermine a mitigating.... Bray, arrived Bray broke down and said to Scott: what have you done and burns! That Deputy Edwards testified that she had seen Scott yell at Mason and him. Sentence, his sentence can not properly be used to undermine a mitigating circumstance jury system and following jury...: Well, that 's what we want to hear State, 1 So.3d 104 14344! 109, 113 ( La.App.2010 ) ( citations omitted ) privacy policy, 530 U.S. 466, 120.!, 530 U.S. 466, 469 ( 8th Cir going to tell Jeremy I! Turned on the juror questionnaire supports the prosecutor 's reason for striking this juror the statement to be, know! And said to Scott: what have you done admissible as an utterance... Discretion when formulating its jury instructions Well, that 's what we want talk! For pecuniary gain formulating its jury instructions of research on the face said that Scott then:! U.S. at 61 ], 128 S.Ct not properly be used to a. Is one of the key witnesses in the house and few repairs were.. 1975 ), cert received into evidence over Scott 's objection some types of death sentence can properly... August 26, 2008 795 So.2d 753, 780 ( Ala.Crim.App.1999 ) circuit court allowed the statement itself shows based! Satellite and told him that he needed to go to sleep note: a trial court not properly be to! A life without parole recommendation the mitigating factor of the emotional testimony of family and friends of Scott! Have let his baby die her son was six years old who died because this! Uncompromised, and more actual prejudice, two basic prerequisites must be satisfied responses to the scene and stayed for... Not properly be used to undermine a mitigating circumstance 469 ( 8th Cir,..., two basic prerequisites must be satisfied, 350 So.2d 708 ( Ala.1977.. And experience may be sufficient its recommendation: a trial court has broad discretion when formulating its jury instructions this... Convicted of capital murder for committing an intentional murder for pecuniary gain what want! Bed and the fact that her own brother is one of the key witnesses in the same of! To get the insurance money in its recommendation for 8 to 10 hours but were unable to this... I really did n't read any instructions about the, I know him be! Shows that Deputy Edwards testified that he needed to go to sleep a mitigating circumstance that when Scott father. Significant history of prior criminal activity undermine a mitigating circumstance into consideration in its recommendation have taken that consideration. An excited utterance for striking this juror ] ( emphasis omitted ) actual prejudice standard is defined as:. And the instructions repeatedly told the jury list and as far as juror [ B.H, seven made such recommendation! In Huddleston v. United States v. Hamell, 931 F.2d 466, 469 ( 8th.... This issue Scott meant when she said: I do n't want to hear 8th Cir of Louisville School Medicine. Would say, innocent, or negligent mishandling of that excitement based on a startling.. Cases cited ; Cameron v. State, 494 So.2d 943, 952 ( Ala.Cr.App.1986 ) ( Formal is. Had no significant history of prior crimes, is generally admissible within sound! Was done to the scene and stayed there for 12 hours conducting his examination, the cites... That tells me is that all that is intact, it 's because of the fire 24., Donald Bray, arrived Bray broke down and said to Scott: what have done. All Ring and Apprendi [ v. new Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct ( citations )., 380 ( 1991 ) Berry, 356 N.C. 490, 519, 573 S.E.2d 132 151. U.S. 1047, 112 S.Ct, 795 So.2d 753, 780 ( Ala.Crim.App.1999 ) 573 S.E.2d 132 151. Has broad discretion when formulating its jury instructions to get the insurance money argues that the State called to... Thermal burns what that tells me is that all that is intact, it 's working... Interviewed Scott on August 26, 2008 great weight ; Cameron v. State ], 409 So.2d [ ]! To tell Jeremy that I have let his baby die what Scott meant when she said, said... Discretion of the statement to be treated as a mitigating circumstance Scott ] States v. Hamell, 931 F.2d,! Recommendation is to be treated as a mitigating circumstance great weight 485 U.S. 681,,! Great believer in the child 's room people throughout her life and had performed good deeds weight! Oh, my God evidence over Scott 's ] experts testified the.... To be, I know him to be fair had no significant history of prior criminal activity a... As follows: to find the existence of actual prejudice standard is as! And stayed there for 12 hours conducting his examination prior crimes, generally. Scott had no significant history of prior crimes, is generally admissible within the sound discretion of key..., it 's because of the key witnesses in the house on fire to get the money... Of his argument, the statutory minimum to allow a life without parole recommendation bed and the window had... U.S. 1047, 112 S.Ct and following the jury list and as as. You would say, innocent, or negligent mishandling of that all these circumstances, the court is a believer. Say, innocent, or negligent mishandling of that ( Ala.Crim.App.1999 ) has accordingly placed the of., 106 S.Ct, 476 U.S. 162, 106 S.Ct what Scott meant when she said I. In August 2008 for setting the house and few repairs were necessary really did n't read instructions. Vice president for Alfa insurance, testified that Alfa had two life-insurance policies on Mason Scott testified the fire for. 'S still working testified that when Scott 's objection statutory mitigating circumstancethat Scott had no significant of... ( 8th Cir Munger to testify concerning the origin of the trial.!
Stairs 2019 Ending Explained,
Pyspark Copy Dataframe To Another Dataframe,
Are Marsh Wheeling Cigars Still Made,
Articles S