Ex parte Tiller
Decision Date | 06 April 2001 |
Parties | Ex parte Anshonetta Marie TILLER. (In re Annshonetta Marie Tiller v. State). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Thomas D. Motley of Motley, Motley & Yarbrough, Dothan, for petitioner.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Andy S. Poole, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
Anshonetta Marie Tiller was convicted on April 12, 1999, of trafficking in cocaine, a violation of § 13A-12-231(2), Ala.Code 1975. Tiller's conviction was a felony conviction, and for that conviction the trial court sentenced her to 22 years' imprisonment; ordered her to pay a $1,000 victim's compensation assessment; fined her $1,000 in accordance with the Alabama Demand Reduction Assessment Act, § 13A-12-281, Ala.Code 1975; and assessed a $50,000 mandatory fine pursuant to § 13A-12-231(a)(2)(a).
Tiller appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing: 1) that the State had failed to establish a prima facie case of trafficking in cocaine, 2) that the trial court erred in overruling her objections based on the hearsay rule, 3) that she did not receive effective assistance of counsel, and 4) that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her to 22 years' imprisonment.
On March 24, 2000, the Court of Criminal Appeals, with an unpublished memorandum, affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Tiller v. State (No. CR-98-2040), ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (table). Tiller requested certiorari review as to three issues: 1) whether the Court of Criminal Appeals had misapplied the holding of George v. State, 675 So.2d 77 (Ala. Crim.App.1995), relating to the principle of "constructive possession" as a basis for upholding her conviction; 2) whether the Court of Criminal Appeals had misapplied the holding of Edwards v. State, 502 So.2d 846 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), to support its holding that certain evidence had been properly admitted in the trial court; and 3) whether the Court of Criminal Appeals improperly applied Rule 22.2, Ala. R.Crim. P., regarding a supplemental instruction to the jury. We granted Tiller's petition. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and render a judgment of acquittal in favor of Tiller. Because we base our judgment on the conclusion that the State failed to prove constructive possession, we pretermit discussion of Tiller's issues 2 and 3.
The Court of Criminal Appeals, in its unpublished memorandum, summarized the relevant facts of the case against Tiller:
(Footnote omitted.)
The role of an appellate court in reviewing a case based upon a criminal defendant's claim that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction is a limited one:
"
It is undisputed that Tiller was not in actual possession of the narcotics. Thus, the State had to demonstrate that Tiller was in constructive possession of the narcotics:
The Court of Criminal Appeals has stated the indicia that will provide the legally necessary connection to prove constructive possession:
After analyzing the separate indicia that can be used to establish constructive possession and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scott v. State
...of an issue for decision [by] the jury.’ Ex parte Bankston, 358 So.2d 1040, 1042 (Ala.1978) (emphasis original).”Ex parte Tiller, 796 So.2d 310, 312 (Ala.2001).“In deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the trial court, the evide......
-
Ware v. State (Ex parte Ware)
...of an issue for decision [by] the jury." Ex parte Bankston, 358 So.2d 1040, 1042 (Ala.1978) (emphasis original).’ "Ex parte Tiller, 796 So.2d 310, 312 (Ala.2001) (quoting Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652, 658 (Ala.1998) ).Accepting as true all the evidence introduced by the State, according ......
-
T.L.S. v. State
...at the time of the arrest, had either used the contraband very shortly before, or was under its influence.’ ” ' ”Ex parte Tiller, 796 So.2d 310, 312–13 (Ala.2001). Mere proximity to the controlled substance is insufficient to support a conviction. Id. at 313.In the present case, T.L.S. was ......
-
Black v. State
...of an issue for decision [by] the jury.” Ex parte Bankston, 358 So.2d 1040, 1042 (Ala.1978) (emphasis original).’ ” “ Ex parte Tiller, 796 So.2d 310, 312 (Ala.2001)(quoting Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652, 658 (Ala.1998)).”882 So.2d at 277. Furthermore, concerning constructive possession, t......