Baker v. State, 906 So.2d 210 (Ala.Crim.App.2001).. We stated: In its order, the trial court outlined its reasons for overriding the jury's verdict recommending a sentence of life without parole. C. Gamble and R. Goodwin, McElroy's Alabama Evidence 69.02(4) ( 6th ed.2009) (emphasis added). (1) Culpability of the State. To do so was reversible error. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. Although standing alone, evidence of motive, presence, or opportunity is insufficient to prove guilt, McGowan v. State, 671 N.E.2d 1210, 1214 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), here the evidence, taken together, was sufficient to link [the appellant] with the fire. 590 So.2d at 91920. Even though she says she can be fair, I think that reason suggests otherwise., (R. 2374.). Scott testified in her own defense and said that at approximately 11:00 p.m. on August 15 she turned off her television and went to check on her sons. Because the qualification of a juror is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge, on appeal this Court will look to the questions asked and the answers given only to see if the trial court's discretion was properly exercised. Ex parte Cochran, 500 So.2d 1179, 1183 (Ala.1985). See Williams v. State, 611 So.2d 1119, 1123 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). 1227, 108 L.Ed.2d 369 (1990). In upholding Taylor's death sentence, the Alabama Supreme Court stated: In this case, the trial judge stated that [t]he sentence recommendation of a properly functioning jury is entitled to great respect. He reasoned, however, that [w]hile the jurors in this case were cooperative, harmonious, diligent, and attentive, some jurors' outbursts of emotion after they found the defendant guilty of capital murder indicated that they were overwhelmed by their impending duty to consider the death penalty as required by law. The trial judge then concluded that the crimes proved against Taylor were abominably aggravated and, at best, only faintly mitigated. Thus, the trial judge considered the jury's recommendation, as required by Alabama's death-penalty statute, but permissibly assessed it very little weight, given the particular circumstances of this case. denied, Lynn v. Alabama, 493 U.S. 945, 110 S.Ct. Scott next argues that the circuit court erred in considering nonstatutory aggravating circumstances when overriding the jury's verdict. Web788k Followers, 4,238 Following, 1,086 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from @chrisettemichele 360, 121 L.Ed.2d 272 (1992) ([i]t is worth noting that neither Justice Stevens (concurring in the judgment only) nor Justice Blackmun (dissenting) read the majority opinion in Youngblood as adopting anything short of a flat bad faith requirement, absent which there is no need for any materiality inquiry) (emphasis added). Evidence of life insurance on the life of the victim which benefits the accused is relevant in a murder prosecution to show motive. State v. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d 668, 706, 940 P.2d 1239, 1259 (1997). So I told Brian [Copeland] the code, and Brian pushed in the code and it wouldn't open. Not only did [Scott] commit capital murder making her eligible for the death penalty, but three different elements were proven to make her eligible for the death penalty three different ways.. ]: Because I'm just real tender hearted. 2700.) Dr. Franco further testified that if a fire had started in outlet number 1, you would expect to see bare copper wire and melted insulation, which was not present in that receptacle. The circuit court found one statutory mitigating circumstancethat Scott had no significant history of prior criminal activity. Given the substantial body of evidence in this case indicating that there was no discriminatory intent on the prosecutor's part, we refuse to extend the holding in Thomas to require a prosecutor, in every case where a Batson objection has been made, to provide an evidentiary foundation for each peremptory strike used against a black member of the venire (e.g., testimony from victims, police officers, or any other individual who may have supplied information about a member of the venire that the prosecutor believes in good faith to be true). [C.M. These states take authority from Justice Stevens's concurring opinion in Arizona v. Youngblood wherein he wrote: there may well be cases in which the defendant is unable to prove that the State acted in bad faith but in which the loss or destruction of evidence is nonetheless so critical to the defense as to make a criminal trial fundamentally unfair. , Fairness and an aversion to prejudice have prompted these states to look to their state constitutions to build upon, further expand, or limit the Arizona v. Youngblood test to encompass an unfair prejudice prongeither in addition to or at the expense of the bad faith prong. Because of Carroll's age at the time of the offense, his lack of a significant criminal history, and the recommendation of the victim's family that he be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, the jury's 102 recommendation that he not be sentenced to death tips the scales in favor of following the jury's recommendation. [C.M. 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.. The jury may have taken that into consideration in its recommendation. In Carruth, the Alabama Supreme Court considered the validity of the circuit court's grant of Pittway's summary-judgment motion after the court failed to state whether it considered Munger's testimony. Scott, Christie Michelle: White; age 30 at crime (DOB: 8-10-1978); arson and murder of white male age 6 (her son) in Russellville (Franklin County) on 9-16-2008; jury recommended life sentence on 7-11-2009, but judge sentenced her to death in early August 2009. That approach is based on the premise that fundamental fairness, as an element of due process, requires the State's failure to preserve evidence that could be favorable to the defendant [t]o be evaluated in the context of the entire record. Hammond, 569 A.2d at 87 (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112, 96 S.Ct. After evaluating the above factors, we are confident that the loss of outlet number 1 and the late disclosure of outlet number 3 did not deprive Scott of her ability to present her defense. The circuit court denied the motion. Christie Michelle Bray Scott was born in 1978 and lived in Alabama in Russellville. Evid., this Court has stated: The basis for the evidentiary rule excluding evidence of the accused's commission of crimes not charged in the indictment lies in the belief that the prejudicial effect of prior crimes will far outweigh any probative value that might be gained from them. [C. Gamble,] McElroy's [Alabama Evidence] at 69.01(1) [ (3d ed.1977) ]. This was a crime related to setting the house on fire and insurance money, which eventually resulted in her sons death. In Batson, the United States Supreme Court held that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to strike a black prospective juror from a black defendant's jury based solely on the juror's race. However, this Court on numerous occasions has upheld that statute against similar attacks. It was his opinion that the fire was not electrical in origin. The missing outlet is not relevant to this theory of what caused the fire. Other evidence indicated that, although the appellant was not living in the house at the time of the second fire, he still had a key to the dwelling. The following then occurred: [Prosecutor]: Okay. For that reason, we give great deference to a trial judge's ruling on challenges for cause. More than 70 witnesses testified for that, and the death case in chief reviewed the evidence as well. See State v. Hester, 324 S.W.3d 1, 80 (Tenn.2010) ([W]e find that Mr. Hester has not offered a persuasive argument for revisiting this Court's previous decisions upholding the constitutionality of Tennessee's lethal injection protocol.); Henyard v. State, 992 So.3d 120, 130 (Fla.2009) (We have previously concluded in Lightbourne [v. McCollum, 969 So.2d 326 (Fla.2007),] and Schwab [v. State, 969 So.2d 318 (Fla.2007),] that the Florida protocols do not violate any of the possible standards, and that holding cannot conflict with the narrow holding in Baze. Scott relies on the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Gingo to support her argument. Because the prosecutor gave his reasons for the strikes, we presume that a prima facie case of racial discrimination was established and we proceed to the second and third steps in the Batson inquirywhether the prosecutor's reasons for the strikes were race-neutral and whether they were pretextual.. The Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Tucker, reversing Tucker's conviction on an unrelated claim, stated: [W]e note that during the qualification of the venire, it was discovered that a potential venireman, Jerry Bradshaw, was the brother of a witness for the State. See Giles v. State, 632 So.2d 568, 574 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). Testimony showed that Bray had been called in the middle of the night to come to his daughter's house because her house was on fire. Can you do that or is that too deeply held a belief for you to put that aside? Alabama recognizes a liberal test of relevancy Haves v. State, 717 So.2d 30, 36 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). 351, 107 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).. In other words, this particular murder fit the definition of three different ways the Alabama legislature has set out to be bad enough to justify capital murder. At the end of the jury charges, defense counsel objected to the court's failure to charge on spoliation of evidence. Scott next asserts that the prosecutor made improper victim-impact statements in his closing arguments in the guilt phase of Scott's trial that were immaterial to any issue of guilt and that amounted to error. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has stated: Rule 404(b) allows evidence of crimes, wrongs, or acts' to be introduced. We stated: The eyeglasses were admissible without establishing a chain of custody because [the testifying officer] was able to specifically identify them, and their condition was not an issue in the case. Land, 678 So.2d at 210. ', 848 So.2d at 228 (emphasis in original).. Therefore, the clothing could not be subjected to tests the results of which might have exonerated the accused. 154, 225 S.E.2d 607 (1985) ([T]here was no contention by the state that these fires were the result of criminal activity on the part of appellant or anyone else; hence, the questioning cannot be considered an improper attempt to introduce evidence of prior offense.); State v. Roberts, 250 Ga. 414, 415, 297 S.E.2d 274, 275 (1982) ([W]e cannot find error in the admission of evidence of prior fires which were not shown to have been the result of criminal activity.). Davidson testified that when Scott was in the ambulance Scott said, Don't call Jeremy. Could you still sit on this jury and make a decision in the case based on the evidence in the case? He'll blame me or he'll try to hurt his self. (R. The test to be applied in determining whether a juror should be removed for cause is whether the juror can eliminate the influence of his previous feelings and render a verdict according to the evidence and the law. Rule 404(b). 1758, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not prohibit states from death qualification of juries in capital cases and that so qualifying a jury does not deprive a defendant of an impartial jury. Let me just ask you, though, the reason that you do not feel that you can be fair and impartial to both sides is? 's answers to voir dire questions. And then, of course, she's collected the full insurance proceeds for that house. Nobis v. State, 401 So.2d 191 (Ala.Crim.App. 156, 157 (1908).. : [A]s far as juror [M.W. In the final appeal, Christie Michelle Scott was declared the murderer of her six-year-old son, named Mason Scott. (R. Tyson v. State, 784 So.2d 328, 351 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). WebDirector of Neurophysiology Michelle R. Christie, M.D., received her undergraduate degree from the University of Texas at Austin and doctorate from the University of Texas Health Only one aggravating circumstance must exist in order to impose a sentence of death. indicated that he could follow the law and consider the mitigating evidence. He examined the Internet search history for August 15 and August 16, 2008. She doesn't want to serve, but I don't think that's a legally justifiable excuse to let her out of service. The Court stated: Because Ross [v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 108 S.Ct. But I was also, even though they had been there before I was, I was still able to look at where all of the electrical receptacles were located, and you can very clearly tell from the burn or lack of burn damage around all of those receptacle locations that the fire did not originate from any of those.. RUSSELLVILLE, Ala. (AP) -- A Franklin County judge has ordered a death It's literally impossible for me to have a fire over here in receptacle one that started over here. See State v. Day, 51 Wash.App. The jury also heard very emotional testimony from [Scott's] family asking that her life be spared. In our view the instructions and verdict forms did not clearly bring about, either through what they said or what they implied, the circumstance that Mills found critical, namely, a substantial possibility that reasonable jurors, upon receiving the judge's instructions in this case, and in attempting to complete the verdict form as instructed, well may have thought they were precluded from considering any mitigating evidence unless all 12 jurors agreed on the existence of a particular such circumstance. 486 U.S., at 384.. The record shows that juror A.K. Equally relevant is a consideration of the importance of the missing evidence, the availability of secondary evidence, and the sufficiency of the other evidence presented at trial.. When they are trying to deviate from what may actually be truthful, you may have them where you ask. The reason why a person's post-crime state of mind may be relevant is because, as Professor Wigmore suggested, the commission of a crime can be expected to leave some mental traces on the criminal. at 1531. [Deputy Edwards]: With the long pauses, again, with truthful answers, they come pretty quick. Neither is Scott's death sentence disproportionate nor excessive as compared to the penalties imposed in similar cases. 852 So.2d at 837. It should set off bells and whistles to investigators. We went to my room and went to bed. P. [A] failure to object at trial, while not precluding our review, will weigh against any claim of prejudice. Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d at 657 (citing Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991)).. Ex parte Taylor was the first case to hold that when a circuit judge chooses to override a jury's recommendation of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the judge must set out specific reasons for giving the jury's recommendation the consideration that it did. Evidence of the two fires that occurred in February 1987 was properly admissible in the present case as tending to prove that the appellant was the person who set the house fire. [Defense counsel]: Are you pretty set in that opinion? Little damage was done to the house and few repairs were necessary. Scott next argues that the circuit court erred in allowing evidence of other fires in houses inhabited by Scott to be introduced at her trial. The Supreme Court found that Carroll's lack of a significant criminal history, the victim's family requests to spare Carroll's life, and the jury's 10 to 2 recommendation tip [ed] the scales in favor of a sentence of life imprisonment. Scott relies on Birge v. State, 973 So.2d 1085 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), to support her assertion that there was reversible error in the State's failure to establish a proper chain of custody for the outlet. Scott moved that juror A.K. 749, 519 N.E.2d 587, 592 (1988), or it may conclude that an adverse inference instruction similar to the one given in Youngblood is sufficient to ensure fairness to the appellant, see Thorne v. Department of Public Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 133132 (Alaska 1989); State v. Youngblood, 844 P.2d at 1157; State v. Gonzalez, 206 Conn. 213, 537 A.2d 460, 466 (1988); Tinsley v. Jackson, 771 S.W.2d 331, 332 (Ky.1989).. The State asserted that no prima facie case of discrimination had been established; however, the State proceeded to give its reasons for striking jurors B.H. The evidence tended to show that in the early morning hours of August 16, 2008, a fire was set in the Scott house and that Mason died as a result of the fire. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. Scott next argues that the circuit court erred in allowing Deputy James Edwards of the Alabama State Fire Marshal's Office to testify about Scott's demeanor during her interview. Scott was charged with three counts of capital murder. Scott argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion to remove juror L.H. 2289, 90 L.Ed.2d 730 (1986). And, again, if the fire had started in that box, this would have melted and it would have been consumed. (R. Thus, if any error occurred, it was invited by defense counsel's actions. 1 Wigmore, [Evidence ] 173, at 632 [3d ed 1940) ].. Both of Scott's experts testified that the fire originated in the television cabinet and not near or around outlet number 3. Not only did [Scott] commit the capital murder making her eligible for the death penalty, but three different elements were proven to make her eligible for the death penalty three different ways. Because of the high level of carbon monoxide in the victim's bloodmore than 90 percentbecause the television cord had melted copper on the end, because there was fire behind the cabinet before the circuit breaker was tripped, it was Lentini's opinion that the fire was a closed-cabinet fire that originated in the cabinet that housed the television. Bragwell further testified that Scott told her that her nice wedding ring was not in the house at the time of the fire but was at her mother's house. The trial court's instruction also failed to limit the State to the purposesas nonspecific as they werethat it advanced in support of admission of the evidence regarding Billups's involvement in the Avanti East killings. See Bethea, supra. Scott's other expert, Douglas Carpenter, testified that he had all the materials he needed in order to give his opinion on the cause of the fire. 2392, 2402, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)) (emphasis added). A person's post-crime behavior often is considered relevant to the question of guilt because the particular behavior provides clues to the person's state of mind. 373, 46 L.Ed.2d 288 (1975). Circumstantial evidence alone is enough to support a guilty verdict of the most heinous crime, provided the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. White v. State, 294 Ala. 265, 272, 314 So.2d 857, cert. C.M. We must not substitute ourselves for jurors, nor play their role in the criminal process.. [Deputy Edwards]: I'm sorry, could you repeat it one more time? In addressing the scope of 121663, Ala.Code 1975, this Court has stated: The trial court is vested with broad discretion in excusing potential jurors from service under this section. See Hunt, supra. In this case, evidence showed that the clothes burned in the first of the two February 1987 fires had been in a closet in Ms. Briggs's home immediately before the fire, and that the appellant was the only one in the house at that time.

Jeremy T Thomas Medical Condition, Scripps Gastroenterology Doctors, The Rubbish World Of Dave Spud Toys, How Much Is A Dollar Coin Worth, Articles S