Ex Parte State Of Ala.(in Re State Of Ala. v. Murphy)

Decision Date20 November 2009
Docket Number1071528.
Citation39 So.3d 1045
PartiesEx parte State of Alabama.(In re STATE of Alabamav.Jason MURPHY).
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Troy King, atty. gen., and Bill Lisenby, Jr., and Pamela L. Casey, asst. attys. gen., for petitioner.

Chip Cleveland, Prattville; and Donald R. Jones, Jr., Montgomery, for respondent.

On Application for Rehearing

PARKER, Justice.

This Court's opinion of September 4, 2009, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor.

The State of Alabama petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Elmore Circuit Court to vacate a pre-trial order suppressing certain prosecutorial evidence. We deny the petition.

On July 29, 2003, Ronnie Holman was shot and killed outside his house in Titus, allegedly during a robbery. He was lured outside the house and was then shot. The next day, Jason Murphy was arrested for snatching purses, and on August 11, 2003, Murphy and his brother were arrested for Holman's murder. Murphy was tried twice, and each trial ended in a mistrial.1 This pretrial appeal by the State concerns an evidentiary issue in Murphy's third trial.

In the two earlier trials, the State was permitted to introduce evidence of Murphy's conviction for assault that stemmed from Murphy's shooting of Carlos King. In that incident, Murphy and some friends threw rocks and debris at King's home, breaking a window, in an effort to encourage King to come outside. King emerged from the house with a firearm, which he allegedly fired, and he was then shot by Murphy, who used a .22-caliber revolver. King survived the gunshot wound. Murphy entered a plea of guilty to an assault charge and was convicted. In the proceedings leading up to the third trial, the defense, as it had in the earlier murder trials, filed a motion in limine seeking to have the evidence of the assault conviction ruled inadmissible as evidence of a prior bad act. At a hearing on Murphy's motion in limine and all other pretrial motions on April 9, 2008, the State had available to testify an inmate who had previously testified that Murphy had told him that Murphy and others had thrown rocks and debris at Holman's house to lure him outside, just as they had done in the earlier incident when Murphy shot King; the State argued that testimony concerning that earlier incident is admissible under an exception in Rule 404(b), Ala. R. Evid., to the general rule that evidence of other crimes is not admissible, i.e., evidence of other crimes is admissible as proof of, among other things, preparation, plan, and identity. Murphy challenges the veracity of the inmate's testimony and argues that the inmate was biased. Moreover, Murphy argues that there is no evidence indicating that any rocks were thrown at Holman's house. Kathy Holman, the victim's spouse, testified that she and Holman were watching television when they heard their dogs barking. She said that she and Holman went outside to see what the dogs were barking at. She testified that when they went outside Holman was shot.

On April 10, 2008, the trial court issued its order; that order states, in part:

“Upon argument being received, this Court modifies the previously made ruling concerning the reference to the Carlos King incident as referenced in the Motion [in limine]. This Court hereby rules that the reference to [Murphy's] previous incident wherein Carlos King was summon[ed] out of his residence and thereafter shot is not substantially similar so as to allow testimony of that incident in the prosecution in this Capital Murder case. This Court finds that the only similar facts are the dog barking and someone being shot outside their residence.”

On April 23, 2008, the State filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Court of Criminal Appeals, which denied the petition on July 24, 2008, without an opinion. State v. Murphy (No. CR-07-1265, July 24, 2008), 27 So.3d 631 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) (table). This petition followed. In its petition, the State explains that it proceeded with a petition for a writ of mandamus because it could not appeal under Rule 15.7, Ala. R. Crim P., which requires that the State certify that the challenged order, if it remains in force, will be fatal to its case, and the State could not make such a certification in this case.2 The State can and will proceed to trial, even if it is unable to introduce [the desired] evidence....” Petition, at 15.

After the State filed its petition, this Court issued its decision in Ex parte King, 23 So.3d 77 (Ala.2009). In supplemental briefs, both parties addressed the applicability of Ex parte King, a case that presents issues similar to those presented in this case. The procedural history of Ex parte King is as follows: The Court of Criminal Appeals had issued a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its order denying the State's motion in limine seeking to suppress certain evidence. State v. King, 23 So.3d 72 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). King then petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus seeking to have the order of the Court of Criminal Appeals vacated. She argued that by issuing the writ, the Court of Criminal Appeals had enabled the State to file an interlocutory appeal under the guise of a petition seeking mandamus relief. The State argued that the Court of Criminal Appeals had exercised its supervisory authority to avoid a “gross disruption in the administration of the criminal justice system,” which, it argues, would result if its motion in limine was denied. Relying on Ex parte Nice, 407 So.2d 874 (Ala.1981),3 this Court agreed with King and issued the writ directing the Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate its order issuing the writ to the trial court. In regard to the allegation of an impending “gross disruption in the administration of the criminal justice system,” we stated:

“If the trial court allows the jury to consider the evidence the State seeks to keep out, it will be acting within its lawful authority, and the State will have no right of appellate review. Such an outcome
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Kandola (Ex parte Kandola)
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • July 29, 2011
    ...for a writ of mandamus may not be used as a substitute for an appeal. See Ex parte Bentley, 50 So.3d 1063 (Ala.2010); State v. Murphy, 39 So.3d 1045 (Ala.2009); Ex parte King, 23 So.3d 77 (Ala.2009); Ex parte A.M.P., 997 So.2d 1008 (Ala.2008); Ex parte Ward, 957 So.2d 449 (Ala.2006); Ex par......
  • State v. Arrington (Ex parte State)
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 27, 2011
    ...in postconviction proceedings unless the State “can demonstrate that an appeal will not provide an adequate remedy”); State v. Murphy, 39 So.3d 1045, 1048–49 (Ala.2009) (the State may not use mandamus to obtain review of a pretrial ruling granting a defendant's motion in limine); Ex parte K......
  • Ex Parte State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 27, 2011
    ...in postconviction proceedings unless the State "can demonstrate that an appeal will not provide an adequate remedy"); State v. Murphy, 39 So. 3d 1045, 1048-49 (Ala. 2009) (the State may not use mandamus to obtain review of a pretrial ruling granting a defendant's motion in limine); Ex parte......
  • Johnson v. Neal
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 11, 2009
    ...... owners of property located outside the state of Alabama that said heirs of the testator are ... of the testator in violation of § 43-8-161, Ala.Code 1975, and (2) that the contestants were ...Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983) (holding ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT