Pilley v. State
Decision Date | 27 May 2005 |
Docket Number | CR-01-1275. |
Citation | 930 So.2d 550 |
Parties | Stephen PILLEY v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
John Scott Waddell and Daniel W. Wainscott, Birmingham, for appellant.
William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Tracy Daniel, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Stephen Pilley was convicted of murder made capital in connection with the deaths of Pamela Dodd, Lester Edward Dodd, William A. Nelson, Sr., James Watkins, and Florence Adell Elliott. The murders were made capital because they were committed "by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct." See § 13A-5-40(a)(10), Ala.Code 1975. After a sentencing hearing, the jury unanimously recommended that Pilley be sentenced to death. The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Pilley to death.
On August 14, 1998, this Court affirmed Pilley's conviction and sentence. Pilley v. State, 789 So.2d 870 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). Pilley petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for certiorari review on October 16, 1998. The Supreme Court granted the petition, pursuant to former Rule 39(c), Ala.R.App.P.1 On January 28, 2000, the Supreme Court reversed Pilley's conviction and sentence, holding that the circuit court should have declared a mistrial after learning that the deputy district attorney who tried this case contacted a juror who attended church with him after the jury was selected, but before Pilley's trial began. However, the court noted, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found either that Pilley was directly responsible for the murders or that he was an accomplice. Ex parte Pilley, 789 So.2d 888 (Ala.2000). The Supreme Court remanded Pilley's case for this Court to order a new trial, which we did. Pilley v. State, 789 So.2d 895 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).
Pilley's new trial began on October 1, 2001. After hearing all of the evidence the jury once again convicted Pilley of the same capital offense—murder made capital because the five homicides were committed "by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct." Following a sentencing hearing, the jury recommended, by a vote of 10-2, that Pilley be sentenced to death. The circuit court adopted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Pilley to death.
In the original opinion affirming Pilley's capital-murder conviction and death sentence, this Court made detailed findings of fact, which the Supreme Court quoted in its opinion. We quote from those facts the facts presented during Pilley's second trial, indicating by brackets the information gleaned from the evidence presented during this trial:
Sgt. Johnny Long, a Birmingham Police Department homicide detective, was the lead investigator of the murders at the Changing Times Lounge. During his investigation, Sgt. Long interviewed Pilley several times.2 Pilley initially told Sgt. Long that the last time he had gone to the Changing Times Lounge was more than a month before the killings. However, in subsequent interviews, Pilley told Sgt. Long that he had, in fact, been in the lounge on the night of the killings, but he claimed that he went there alone and that he left before 11:00 p.m. Finally, Pilley told Sgt. Long that he had been in the Changing Times Lounge with Andrew Apicella, who was his accomplice, but he denied knowing Apicella or participating in the robbery-homicides of the five victims. As a result of Sgt. Long's investigation, he arrested two people—Pilley and Apicella— and charged them with capital murder.
At trial, Pilley denied any knowledge of Apicella's plan to rob and murder the customers and employees of the Changing Times Lounge. Pilley claimed that Apicella had threatened him and his family if he told the police what had happened. Pilley's version of the events surrounding the murders was detailed, but somewhat inconsistent. However, Pilley did not blame the inconsistencies on intoxication. Rather, Pilley claimed that he had not told the police the facts to which he now testified because, at the time of his interviews, he did not believe this information to be relevant to the investigation. Pilley also denied using cocaine at Rhonda Haynes's house following the murders. He maintained that he filled his syringe with water, rather than a cocaine solution.
After both sides had rested and the circuit court had instructed the jury on the law applicable to Pilley's case, the jury determined that the murders of the Dodds, Nelson, Watkins, and Elliott were committed pursuant to a common scheme or plan, and it convicted Pilley of capital murder.3
During the penalty phase of Pilley's trial, the State resubmitted all of the evidence it had introduced during the guilt phase. Pilley presented no evidence. After both sides had rested and the circuit court had instructed the jury on the law applicable to the penalty phase, the jury returned an advisory verdict recommending that Pilley be sentenced to death.
In every case in which the death penalty is imposed, this Court must review the record for any plain error, i.e., for any defect in the proceedings, whether or not the defect was brought to the attention of the trial court. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P., provides:
"In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant."
As this Court stated in Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113, 121-22 (Ala.Crim. App.1999), aff'd, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala.2001):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petersen v. State
...This Court has previously stated:" ‘Similar crimes have been punished by death on numerous occasions. See, e.g., Pilley v. State, 930 So. 2d 550 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) (five deaths); Miller v. State, 913 So.2d 1148 (Ala. Crim. App.), opinion on return to remand 913 So. 2d at 1154 (Ala. Crim......
-
Lindsay v. State
...that the defendant ingested alcohol or drugs, standing alone, does not warrant a charge on intoxication." Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550, 562 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). " ‘[T]here must be evidence that the ingestion caused a disturbance of the person's mental or physical capacities and that th......
-
Reynolds v. State Of Ala.
...are not required when they would be inconsistent with the defense strategy.' Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d at 23." Pilley v. State, 930 So. 2d 550, 562 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). Reynolds's defense was that he was not present during the murders or the robbery and that he only went to the scene o......
-
Lansdell v. State
...aff'd, 841 So.2d 292 (Ala.2002), quoting Downing v. State, 620 So.2d 983, 985 (Ala.Crim.App.1993)." Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550, 564-65 (Ala. Crim.App.2005). At the time Lansdell made the threat to "blow up" the Jones house, he was aware that Jones believed Lansdell was responsible for t......