Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Several Citites and their employees, police officers J.J. Oglesby, J.M. Stewart, A.T. Caffey, Q.O. Commander, and N.W. McMahon petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Circuit Court to enter a summary judgment in their favor on certain claims asserted against them by Plaintiffs Dashad Berry, Kamessa Williams, and Miguel Johnson. Plaintiffs' claims stemmed from a traffic stops conducted by the City officers. Each of plaintiffs suffer from a type of paralysis that inhibited their abilities to respond quickly and directly to officers' orders incident to the officers' initial investigations. Plaintiffs sued the City and the individual officers alleging assault and battery, wantonness, negligence, negligent hiring, negligent training and negligent supervision. A trial court entered an order denying the City and officers' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the City and officers argued they were immune to Plaintiffs' claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Officers Oglesby and McMahon showed a clear legal right to the relief sought, and, as to them, their petition was granted and the trial court was directed to enter a summary judgment in their favor. Officers Stewart, Commander, and Caffey failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief they sought, and, as to them, their petition was denied. However, the City has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought as to the claims against it based on the acts of Officers Stewart, Commander, and Caffey, and its petition was denied as to those claims. Finally, the City has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought based on the claims alleging negligent hiring, training, and supervision, and its petition was denied as to those claims. View "Berry et al. v. City of Montgomery et al." on Justia Law

American Family Care, Inc. (AFC) petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate its order staying a civil action filed by AFC against Anita Salters. Salters was a former employee of AFC, acting as the director of the center from 2007 to June 2010 before her employment was terminated. As director, she was responsible for handling billing issues and claim audits performed by insurance companies and governmental agencies. In some instances, Salters had the only copies of communications related to billing inquiries and claim audits. In April 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigation executed a search warrant at AFC's corporate office. The FBI removed mostly billing records. After the search warrant was executed, AFC determined that it was missing corporate records it would need to defend itself against any criminal charges that might be filed as a result of the FBI investigation. According to AFC, several of its employees reported that Salters had been seen removing files and records from the corporate offices shortly before she was fired. AFC made written demand upon Salters for the return of the records, but she did not respond. AFC then sued Salters seeking the return of any business records she might have. Salters answered the complaint, denying that she had removed any AFC records from its offices. The trial court, sua sponte, entered an order staying AFC's action "until further notice." The trial court expressed no reason for entering the indefinite stay. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the indefinite stay ordered by the trial court, with no stated justification for it, was "immoderate" and beyond the scope of the trial court's discretion. For that reason, the Court granted AFC's petition and issued a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its order staying AFC's action against Salters. View "American Family Care, Inc., v. Salters" on Justia Law

Following a 1987 conviction for first-degree theft of property and his unsuccessful direct appeal of that conviction, Defendant Joseph Pate filed a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim P. petition (Rule 32) for relief. The circuit court summarily denied his petition. Defendant filed a second Rule 32 petition in 2010. In the petition, he asserted that: his sentence was illegal because the trial court improperly used two of his prior controlled-substance convictions as sentence enhancements; and, that the State failed to provide notice that it intended to proceed under the Habitual Felony Offender Act for sentence enhancement. The State moved to dismiss, asserting that the petition was barred because those claims could have been, but were not, raised at trial, and because those claims could have been, but were not, raised on appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the circuit court's denial of Defendant's Rule 32 petition without an opinion. On appeal, Defendant contended that in not addressing the denial of his motion for sentence reconsideration the Court of Criminal Appeals incorrectly applied the law to the facts of his case. Because the record supported Defendant's claim that his request for sentence modification was made in a separate motion, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that the claim was not proper for appellate review. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment to the extent it held that the trial court's ruling on Defendant's request for sentence reconsideration was not properly before it, and remanded the case for the Court of Criminal Appeals to review the circuit court's denial of Defendant's motion for sentence modification. View "Pate v. Alabama" on Justia Law

Defendant Ralph Burnell petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Bibb Circuit Court to vacate its 2011 order that denied his motion to dismiss claims Plaintiff Christi Burry Kelley filed against him. In 2007 while she was an inmate at the Bibb County jail, Plaintiff slipped in the shower and was injured. Petitioner was the warden of the jail at the time. Plaintiff sued the warden, the jail, the sheriff's department, and the sheriff, alleging negligence and wantonness. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims against them under state immunity. The trial court dismissed as to the County, the jail and the sheriff's department and sheriff, but denied the motion as to Defendant. Defendant argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that he was entitled to State immunity because he was being sued for money damages for actions that arose out of his performance of his duties as a deputy sheriff. Finding that Defendant established a clear legal right to the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against him, the Supreme Court issued the writ. View "Kelley v. Burnell" on Justia Law

The State of Alabama petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate its order that granted a mandamus petition filed by Jeremy B. Jones, and that directed Mobile Circuit Judge Charles Graddick to recuse himself from presiding over Jones's postconviction proceedings. In October 2005, Judge Graddick presided over a trial in which Jones was convicted on four counts of capital murder and was sentenced to death. The jury was sequestered throughout the trial, which lasted several days. After his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, Jones filed a petition for postconviction relief. In that petition Jones alleged that juror "T.E." was unfit to serve on the jury on account of alcohol dependence and that T.E. had failed to answer truthfully certain questions on voir dire regarding his alcohol dependence. According to Jones, posttrial interviews revealed: (1) that T.E. had told Judge Graddick during Jones's trial that he was an alcoholic; (2) that T.E. had received permission from Judge Graddick to drink alcohol during sequestration; and (3) that Judge Graddick did not inform Jones's counsel that T.E. had requested such permission and that Judge Graddick had granted it. Jones's petition alleged juror misconduct, as well as juror incompetence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because Judge Graddick would not be a material witness in Jones's postconviction proceedings, no "reasonable person knowing everything that the judge knows would have a 'reasonable basis for questioning the judge's impartiality.'" Thus, the Court held Judge Graddick did not exceed his discretion in denying Jones's motion for his recusal, and the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that he did. The Court granted the State's petition for mandamus. View "Alabama vs. Jones" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court pertained to the admissibility into evidence a child witness's prior inconsistent out-of-court statements. The Court granted certiorari to address this as an issue of first impression: whether a part of the Child Physical and Sexual Abuse Victim Protection Act conflicted with the Alabama Rules of Evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that an "inherent tension" existed between the Act and the Rules of Evidence insofar as it permitted a prior inconsistent out-of-court statement of a child witness to be considered substantive evidence of asserted facts when the rules considered those statements as hearsay. "M.L.H." was adjudicated a youthful offender based on the trial court's finding that he was guilty of first-degree sodomy, and he was sentenced accordingly. M.L.H. appealed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that M.L.H.'s prior out-of-court statements, although admissible as substantive evidence under the Act, were inadmissible as substantive evidence under the rules of evidence. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The State appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals, finding no conflict between the Act and the rules of evidence. The case was remanded for reassessment of the substantive admissibility of M.L.H.'s prior inconsistent out-of-court statements. View "M. L. H. v. Alabama" on Justia Law

Defendant Brandon Mitchell was convicted on four counts of capital murder for killing three people during the course of a robbery at a hotel. The jury recommended that Defendant be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parol on each conviction. After considering Defendant's presentence report and holding a sentencing hearing, the trial court overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Defendant to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Defendant petitioned the Supreme COurt for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the appellate court, asserting seventeen separate grounds for review. The Court granted the writ in May 2011, and issued the writ to examine the sole question on whether the trial court complied with Ala. Code 1975 section 13A-5-47(d) and (e). Upon receiving the record, the Court determined the writ was "improvidently issued" and quashed it. The Court found that the trial court fully complied with Alabama Code. View "Mitchell v. Alabama " on Justia Law

Defendant James Beauford Lamb, Jr. appealed the Court of Criminal Appeals' affirmance of his 2004 conviction for first-degree sexual abuse. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in entering a judgment based on an amended written jury verdict that differed from one taken from a direct poll of the jury after it had been discharged from its duty. Alabama case law held that once a jury had been discharged and "left the court's control, the jury could not properly be resummoned to correct or amend an insufficient verdict, and that the judgment entered on the amended verdict of that recalled jury must be reversed." Following precedent, the Supreme Court concluded that the amended verdict would constitute double jeopardy. Accordingly, the Court reversed the appellate court's affirmance of the amended verdict and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lamb v. Alabama" on Justia Law

Defendant T.D.M. was convicted on one count of first degree sexual abuse and one count of first degree sodomy. At the end of Defendant's trial, the jury first returned verdicts of guilty and not guilty, respectively. The jury was then discharged. The clerk of the court informed the trial judge that due to a clerical error, the 'not-guilty' verdict was entered incorrectly. The jury was recalled, and each juror polled stated that he/she had voted Defendant guilty on the sodomy charge. Ultimately the trial court entered a corrected judgment finding Defendant guilty on the sodomy charge, and passed sentence accordingly. Defendant unsuccessfully appealed the convictions. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Defendant's constitutional rights against double jeopardy had been violated by the poll of the jury and change in Defendant's sentence. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that under the circumstances of this case, Defendant's constitutional rights were violated. The Court reversed the sodomy conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "T. D. M. v. Alabama " on Justia Law

The State petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision to reverse Sean Travis Howard's criminal conviction based on the trial court's failure to charge the jury on manslaughter as a lesser offense to capital murder, the offense with which Howard was charged. The Court granted review to consider whether the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision conflicted with its decision in "Fox v. State." The Court concluded that it did, and reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment: "Reckless murder and reckless manslaughter do not involve the same degree of recklessness. … [t]he difference between the circumstances which will support a murder conviction and the degree of risk contemplated by the manslaughter statute is one of degree, not kind. ... [T]he degree of recklessness which will support a manslaughter conviction involves a circumstance which is a 'gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation,' but is not so high that it cannot be 'fairly distinguished from' the mental state required in intentional homicides." Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Howard v. Alabama" on Justia Law