Ex parte Martin
Decision Date | 18 February 2005 |
Docket Number | 1022040. |
Parties | Ex parte George MARTIN. (In re George Martin v. State of Alabama). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Al Pennington, Mobile, for petitioner.
William H. Pryor, Jr., and Troy King, attys. gen.; Nathan A. Forrester, deputy atty. gen.; and A. Vernon Barnett IV and Anne C. Adams, asst. attys. gen., for respondent.
George Martin, a former Alabama State Trooper, was convicted of the murder of his wife, Hammoleketh Martin. The murder was made capital because it was committed for pecuniary gain (§ 13A-5-40(a)(7), Ala.Code 1975). The jury, by a vote of 8-4, recommended that Martin be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The trial court overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Martin to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Martin's conviction and sentence. Martin v. State, 931 So.2d 736, 759 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). Martin petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari; we granted the writ only as to two of the issues set forth in Martin's petition. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals in part and reverse it in part.
We quote from the trial court's written findings of fact, as set forth by the Court of Criminal Appeals:
931 So.2d at 739-41 (footnote omitted).
We granted certiorari review to address Martin's contention regarding the admissibility of statements allegedly made by the victim days before her death and to address the procedure used by the trial court in overriding the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment without parole.
The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling that allowed the State's witness, Pamela Carey, a friend of the victim's, to testify over Martin's objection as to certain statements the victim had made to Carey before her death. The basis of Martin's objection was that the statements were hearsay and that they did not fit within an exception to the general rule that hearsay is inadmissible. In making his objection to the testimony when Carey was on the stand, defense counsel stated, 1
Carey testified that, a few days before the victim's death, Carey had a conversation with the victim in which the victim told Carey that if she did not hear from the victim in "three or four days," she was to "call the victim's mama and daddy and tell them he did it." Carey also testified that the victim said to her during that same conversation: "he might not do it, George loves me."
The State argues that the statements were offered for the purpose of showing the victim's fear of Martin. In other words, according to the State, the testimony was not intended to prove the truth of the fact that Martin planned to kill the victim, but simply to show the victim's belief that he might do so. The State makes this argument by referring to the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule set forth in Rule 803(3), Ala. R. Evid.
We note that the statements attributed to the victim in this case are not expressions of a state of mind, as would be the case with statements such as, "I hate him" or "I am afraid." The first statement attributed to the victim consists entirely of an instruction as to what Carey should do should she not hear from the victim in three or four days after their conversation. From this instruction, one can only infer a state of mind. Therefore, under a literal reading of the state-of-mind exception contained in Rule 803(3), Ala. R. Evid., that exception does not apply to this particular statement. The other statement is the victim's observation that Martin might not kill her, because she believed that he loved her. This statement relates to Martin's state of mind, not the victim's. Consequently, Rule 803(3) is also inapplicable to the second statement.
While the state-of-mind exception of Rule 803(3) is not applicable to the statements in this case, it does not follow that these statements were inadmissible hearsay. Whether the two statements attributed to the victim are subject to a hearsay objection depends upon whether they fall within the definition of hearsay set forth in Rule 801(c), Ala. R. Evid: "`Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." If the victim's statements to Carey were offered to prove that Martin was indeed planning on harming or killing the victim, then they were offered for the truth of the matters asserted and are hearsay. If they were offered simply to show circumstances from which one might infer the victim's state of mind, then the statements were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted therein (that Martin might or might not kill the victim) and they therefore do not fit within the definition of hearsay.2 Further, even if these statements were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted therein and are therefore not hearsay, we must determine whether the purpose for which they were offered is relevant to the case under Rule 401, Ala. R. Evid.
Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Two potential bases exist for determining that the victim's statements were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capote v. State
...therefore, this Court reviews Capote's challenge to the admission of the autopsy photographs for plain error only. See Ex parte Martin, 931 So. 2d 759 (Ala 2004) (holding that, unless the trial court's ruling on a motion in limine is absolute or unconditional, proper objections at trial are......
-
Petersen v. State
...under Ring. See, e.g., Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So. 2d 1181 (Ala. 2002) ; Ex parte Hodges, 856 So. 2d 936 (Ala. 2003) ; Ex parte Martin, 931 So. 2d 759 (Ala. 2004) ; Ex parte McNabb, 887 So. 2d 998 (Ala. 2004) ; and Ex parte McGriff, 908 So. 2d 1024 (Ala. 2004)...." 223 So. 3d at 962-63.Therea......
-
Reynolds v. State Of Ala.
...the evidence." Martin v. State, 931 So. 2d 736, 748-4 9 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003); aff'd in part, rev'd in part on unrelated ground, 931 So. 2d 759 (Ala. 2004.)"Additionally, "'"'"The purpose for requiring that the chain of custody be shown is to establish to a reasonable probability that ther......
-
Ingram v. State
...upheld death sentences based on the Supreme Court's rationale in Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So.2d 1181 (Ala.2002). See Ex parte Martin, 931 So.2d 759 (Ala.2004); Gaddy v. State, 952 So.2d 1149 (Ala.Crim.App.2006); Blackmon v. State, 7 So.3d 397 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); Barber v. State, 952 So.2d 393......