Dill v. State

• Decision Date: 31 May 1991
• Citation: 600 So.2d 343
• Parties: Jimmy Lee DILL v. STATE. CR 89-1125.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 343

600 So.2d 343

Jimmy Lee DILL v.STATE.

CR 89-1125.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 31, 1991.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 23, 1991.

Michael D. Blalock, Birmingham, for appellant.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Thomas W. Sorrells and Sandra J. Stewart, Asst. Attys.Gen., for appellee.

TYSON, Judge.

Jimmy Lee Dill was indicted for capital murder in violation of § 13A-5-40(a)(2),Code of Alabama 1975.He was found "guilty as charged in the indictment" and was sentenced to death.The record reveals that the victim, Leon Shaw, drove to Terry Dill's house on the afternoon of February 8, 1989.Shaw was not supposed to be driving because he was serving time at the Federal Work Release Center for a drug violation.Shaw was, however, allowed to leave the center to go to work.He operated the Rose Boutique, which he owned with his wife, Junatha Shaw.Terry Dill left the house and got in the car with Shaw.The appellant was in the front seat with Shaw.Shaw told Terry Dill that the appellant wanted to buy drugs from Shaw.

The testimony reveals that Terry Dill was a former cocaine addict who had sold cocaine with Shaw for four years.Shaw would pay Terry Dill to bring him customers.

Shaw, Dill, and the appellant ran into Jacqueline Ball and Freddie Carter near a church on 85th Street.Shaw was still driving the car and Terry Dill was sitting in the backseat behind him.The appellant was still in the front passenger seat.Apparently, Shaw and the appellant got out of the car.Shaw talked to Jacqueline Ball, and the appellant talked to Freddie Carter.Shaw was carrying a black pouch in which he normally kept cocaine and money.Shaw had at least $200 in his hand.

After Ball and Carter left, the appellant asked Shaw if he would give him some cocaine until he could get the money to pay for it.Shaw refused.They left for Druid Hills, where the work release center was located, because Shaw had to sign in at the center.When they got to Druid Hills, Shaw's beeper went off.They all got out of the car and Shaw made a telephone call.They went to the Curb Market and Shaw bought wine coolers.Shaw had a "folded wad of money."(R. 481.)When they left the store, Shaw had everyone in the car switch places so that the people at the center would not see him driving.Terry Dill was now driving and the appellant was in the backseat.Terry Dill drove to the center.

The appellant again asked Shaw for cocaine.Shaw told him that he would give him the cocaine when the appellant got some money.He also showed the appellant a half ounce of cocaine.The appellant asked for cocaine again when they pulled up to the center.Shaw went to the building.He pulled a "big wad of money" out of his pocket.(R. 395.)There was so much money that it could not be rolled up.He told the case manager at the center that he had just left the Rose Boutique and was going to make a deposit.

While Shaw was inside the center, the appellant said to Terry Dill, "You don't believe I'll rob him or shoot him."(R. 490.)The appellant continued to talk about killing Shaw.When Shaw got back in the car, the appellant said that he would shoot Shaw if he did not give him some cocaine.After they drove off, there was a gunshot.Blood spurted onto Terry Dill.The appellant had a small automatic pistol, approximately .25 or .22 caliber.The appellant told Terry Dill to be quiet and keep driving.The appellant pulled the trigger as if he was going to shoot Shaw again.They eventually stopped in an alley.The appellant searched Shaw and took the money and cocaine.The appellant then got a rag and started wiping fingerprints off of the car.Terry Dill ran away.The appellant also ran away.Terry Dill called his girlfriend to pick him up.He went home later that evening.

Shaw was taken to the hospital where emergency brain surgery was performed.The bullet entered the left, back side of his brain.Shaw was unconscious.He had abnormal movement in his extremities which indicates that the brain is functioning extremely abnormally.Both a feeding tube and breathing tube were inserted.He was discharged from the hospital on April 26, 1989, because there was nothing more the hospital could do for him.Shaw could not function independently and required round-the-clock care.Shaw eventually pulled the feeding tube out.However, his doctor said he would not replace the tube since he could eat and drink by mouth.Shaw was readmitted to the hospital on October 31, 1989.He never regained consciousness and died on November 22, 1989.Shaw's doctors testified that he died of complications from a gunshot wound to the head.

Forensic evidence revealed that the bullet removed from Shaw's head was consistent with a .22 caliber projectile.The characteristics of the wound were consistent with a contact gunshot wound.

The appellant gave a statement to the police on February 18, 1989.He stated that he and Terry Dill were with Shaw and that they drove to North Birmingham.Terry Dill was driving the car, Shaw was on the front passenger seat, and the appellant was in the backseat behind Terry Dill.The appellant stated that Shaw's door opened and that he heard a shot from behind Shaw.The appellant was then asked how Shaw was shot from behind without the window being shot out of the car.The appellant then stated that Shaw was actually getting into the car when someone ran up to Shaw's door.The appellant stated that he heard a gunshot.He and Terry Dill got out and ran.The appellant then stated that after hearing the shot, they drove off and a car followed them.They drove to an alley, jumped out of the car, and ran away.The appellant stated that Shaw had some cocaine in a black bag but he did not see any money.

The appellant raises 22 issues on appeal.We note that most of the arguments raised on appeal were not raised at the trial court level.

"[S]ince this is a death case, we must review the [alleged] error before us to see if it constitutes plain error and, thus, should be noticed despite the lack of a proper objection by defense counsel.Rule 45A, A.R.A.P.In considering what constitutes 'plain error' in a capital case, the Alabama Supreme Court has looked to the federal court's interpretation of what is 'plain error.'SeeEx parte Harrell, 470 So.2d 1309(Ala.1985);Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766(Ala.1983)[cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986, 104 S.Ct. 436, 78 L.Ed.2d 367(1983) ].

"In United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1(1985), the Supreme Court stated that the plain error doctrine should be used to correct only 'particularly egregious errors' ... which are those errors that 'seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings'....The plain error rule should be applied 'solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.'Young, supra, 105 S.Ct., at 1047....

"Furthermore, the court noted that the plain error doctrine requires that the 'claimed error not only seriously affects "substantial rights"[of the defendant], but that it had an unfair prejudicial impact on the jury's deliberations.Only then would [a]court be able to conclude that the error undermined the fairness of the trial and contributed to a miscarriage of justice.'Young, supra, 105 S.Ct., at 1047, n. 14."

Hooks v. State, 534 So.2d 329, 351-52(Ala.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 534 So.2d 371(1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050, 109 S.Ct. 883, 102 L.Ed.2d 1005(1989).See alsoKuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474(Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531(Ala.1991);Ex parte Hinton, 548 So.2d 562, 568(Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969, 110 S.Ct. 419, 107 L.Ed.2d 383(1989).Our examination of the record in this case reveals no plain error.

I

The appellant first contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when Officer Forrest Duncan referred to the appellant's parole officer during his testimony.The appellant did not object to the testimony.The record reveals that the following occurred during the direct examination of Officer Duncan "Q: After Terry Dill made a statement, what, if anything, did you or Lieutenant Jordan do after that?

"A: I attempted to locate Jimmy Dill.

"Q: All right.How did you attempt to do that?

"A: By several means.Through some of his relatives and through his parole officer.

"Q: And did this start on the very day that Terry Dill made the statement, did your efforts start then?"

(R. 619-620.)Following this exchange, this subject was never raised again either on direct or on cross-examination.Following Duncan's testimony and out of the jury's presence, the appellant moved to exclude the statement and moved for a mistrial.The court denied the motion for mistrial but offered to instruct the jury to exclude the statement.The appellant asked for time to think about the offer.The appellant later refused the offered curative instruction because such an instruction might further emphasize the statement.

Although the failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, such failure weighs against any claim of prejudice.Kuenzel;Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106(Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975, 106 S.Ct. 340, 88 L.Ed.2d 325(1985)."Plain error is error which, when examined in the context of the entire case, is so obvious that failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceedings."United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528, 1535(11th Cir.), cert. denied, Waites v. United States, 479 U.S. 933, 107 S.Ct. 407, 93 L.Ed.2d 359(1986).

We find that the testimony does not rise to the level of plain error.The statement was elicited incidentally and was never mentioned again.The appellant did not object to the statement.Furthermore, the appellant refused an offer of curative instructions by the court.We note that " 'an indirect reference to the defendant's involvement in other crimes is not...