Shaw v. State
Decision Date | 18 July 2014 |
Docket Number | CR–10–1502. |
Parties | Aubrey Lynn SHAW v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1141089.
Angela Setzer, Bryan A. Stevenson, Randall S. Susskind, and Jennae R. Swiergula, Montgomery, for appellant.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and James C. Crenshaw and Kristi Deason Hagood, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.
Aubrey Lynn Shaw was convicted of murdering 83–year–old Doris Gilbert and 79–year–old Robert Gilbert during the course of a burglary and pursuant to one act or course of conduct, offenses defined as capital by §§ 13A–5–40(a)(4) and 13A–5–40(a)(10), Ala.Code 1975, respectively. The jury, by a vote of 10 to 2, recommended that Shaw be sentenced to death. The circuit court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Shaw to death.
The State's evidence tended to show that on August 20, 2007, police were dispatched to the Gilberts' residence in the Gilbert Stables community after receiving a 911 emergency telephone call concerning a possible double homicide. David James Melton, a law-enforcement officer with Blakeley State Park, testified that he was working patrol on the morning of August 20, 2007, and was dispatched to the Gilberts' house, that he was the first to enter the house, that the door was unlocked, and that when he entered the house he found Doris Gilbert's body lying face up on the bed and Robert Gilbert's body lying face down on the floor near the bed. Dr. F. John Krolikowski, a medical examiner for the State of Alabama, testified that the victims had a total of 50 stab wounds
to their bodies, that Doris had 18 stab wounds, and that Robert had 32 stab wounds. The Gilberts, Dr. Krolikowski said, both died as a result of "multiple sharp force injuries." (R. 1234.)
Tera Orellana, a neighbor of the Gilberts, testified that on the morning of August 20, 2007, Joanne Shaw—Shaw's mother—knocked on Orellana's door and asked her to come across the street and talk with Shaw because, she said, something "terrible had happened." When Orellana entered Joanne's house, Orellana said, Shaw said to her: "I killed two people." (R. 1000.) Orellana said that she asked who he had killed, and he looked out the window and gestured towards the Gilberts' house. (Joanne's house was approximately 50 yards from the Gilberts' house.) Orellana testified that Shaw kept repeating: "I f – – – ed up." He asked her to give him a ride, and she left, she told him, to get her keys. Orellana then called one of her neighbors, Karen Rivers, and Rivers called emergency 911. Orellana said that, on the morning of August 20, 2007, Shaw appeared to be "high," was sweating, and was wearing a muscle shirt, shorts, and tennis shoes. She did not notice any blood on him or on the clothing he was wearing.
Herald L. Drake testified that he was the Gilberts' caretaker and that he lived in a trailer behind their house. He said that on August 19, 2007, Shaw came by his residence at around 8:30 p.m. and asked him for $20. He told Shaw that he did not have any money. Drake said that about five minutes later Shaw came back and again asked for $20 but that he did not give Shaw any money. Drake also testified that Robert Gilbert kept a .357 Magnum gun on his bedside table and a .38 caliber Charter Arms revolver in the living room. Testimony showed that, after the Gilberts were killed, those two guns were missing from the Gilberts' residence.
James Watson testified that Shaw came by his house on August 19, 2007, and stayed three or four hours, that he left and came back at around 1:00 a.m. on the morning of August 20, that he asked to borrow a T-shirt, that he asked if Watson knew anyone who was interested in buying a .357 Magnum gun, and that Shaw stayed the night at his house.
Corporal Charles Nathaniel Bailey, Jr., a crime-scene investigator with the Mobile County Sheriff's Department, testified that he collected numerous items at or near the scene of the murders. He said that, approximately 1,500 feet from the Gilberts' driveway, police discovered an NBA T-shirt that appeared to have blood on it, that a Charter Arms gun was found about 1,200 feet from the victims' driveway, and that north of the driveway he found a Ruger .357 Magnum revolver. A steak knife was also recovered near the Gilberts' residence, and it appeared to have blood on it. Bailey testified that he took several swabs of the substance on the knife and sent the swabs to the Department of Forensic Sciences to be tested. Forensic tests revealed the presence of Robert Gilbert's blood on the recovered knife.
Richard Cayton, a deputy with the Mobile County Sheriff's Department, testified that he assisted in apprehending Shaw, that Shaw was arrested within hours of police discovering the Gilberts' bodies, and that Shaw was found in his mother's house halfway under a bed. Shaw was wearing no shirt or shoes and had what appeared to be blood stains on his socks and pants. A pair of Nike tennis shoes were in the room where he was arrested, and those shoes had what appeared to be blood on them. Forensic tests revealed that the substance on the socks and the tennis shoes was blood and that the blood was consistent with Robert Gilbert's DNA. The tread pattern on those shoes matched the pattern that was left by bloody shoe prints in the Gilberts' garage.
No witnesses testified in Shaw's defense. Shaw's main defense was that he was so intoxicated at the time of the murders he was unable to form the specific intent to kill. Shaw also argued that the State had failed to prove that the murders occurred during the course of a burglary because, he said, he was welcome in the Gilbert house.
The jury convicted Shaw of four counts of capital murder as charged in the two indictments. After a penalty-phase hearing, the jury recommended, by a vote of 10 to 2, that Shaw be sentenced to death. The circuit court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Shaw to death. This appeal, which is automatic in a case involving the death penalty, followed. See § 13A–5–53, Ala.Code 1975.
Many of the issues that Shaw raises in his brief on appeal were not raised in the circuit court. Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P., however, requires this Court to review the circuit court proceedings for "plain error." That rule states:
"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."
(Emphasis added.)
In discussing the scope of plain-error review, this Court, in Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), stated:
820 So.2d at 121–22. " ‘The plain error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.’ " United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982) ).1
Shaw first argues that the circuit court erred in admitting into evidence a portion of his statement to police.2 Specifically, he contends that the State failed to show that this statement was voluntary or that he had waived his Miranda3 rights.
The record reflects that before trial Shaw moved to suppress his statements to police. In that motion, Shaw argued that the statements he made to police should be suppressed because, he said, they were taken in violation of his right against self-incrimination and his right to counsel. (C. 162.) A hearing was held on the motion. (C. 69–87.) The circuit court found that Shaw invoked his right to counsel and that any statements he made after invoking that right were not admissible. (C. 171.) That portion of Shaw's statement that was made before Shaw invoked his right to counsel was admitted without objection from Shaw. (R. 1140.) Accordingly, we review this claim for plain error. See Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P.
On appeal, Shaw argues for the first time that the circuit court erred in admitting the portion of his statement that occurred before he invoked his right to counsel because, he argues, statements made by Det. Don Gomien of the Mobile County Sheriff's Department rendered Shaw's statement involuntary. Det. Gomien said the following to Shaw:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petersen v. State
......(Petersen's brief, p. 97.) Once again, this argument was not raised at the trial level and will thus be reviewed for plain error. See Rule 45A, Ala. R. App. P. In Floyd , 289 So. 3d at 366–67, this Court addressed a nearly identical argument. We stated: "In Shaw v. State , 207 So. 3d 79 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014), this Court rejected an identical argument: " ‘Shaw next argues that his two convictions for the capital offense of murder during the course of a burglary were improper because, he says, the State improperly relied on the murder of each victim as ......
-
Dearman v. State
...... not find evidence of a Batson violation. See. Keaton v. State , [Ms. CR-14-1570, Dec. 17, 2021] ___So. 3d___ (Ala.Crim.App.2021); Lane v. State, 327 So.3d. 691 (Ala.Crim.App.2020); DeBlase v. State , 294 So.3d. 154 (Ala.Crim.App.2018); Shaw v. State , 207 So.3d 79. (Ala. . 68 . . Crim. App. 2014); and Whatley v. State , 146 So.3d. 437 (Ala.Crim.App.2010). In both Penn v. State , 189. So.3d 107 (Ala.Crim.App.2014), and Lane v. State , 80. So.3d 280 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), this Court remanded ......
-
Russell v. State, CR–10–1910
...... at § 2[b], at 493 (footnotes omitted)." Norris v. State , 793 So.2d at 859–860. See also Shaw v. State , 207 So.3d 79 (Ala.Crim.App.2014). The theory that Katherine had been chased before being shot was first presented at trial by the State in its guilt-phase closing argument when the State asserted that Katherine's location and position in the cubby at the time she was shot disclosed that ......
-
Petersen v. State, CR-16-0652
...45A, Ala. R. App. P. In Floyd, ___ So. 3d at ___, this Court addressed aPage 209 nearly identical argument. We stated:"In Shaw v. State, 207 So. 3d 79 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014), this Court rejected an identical argument:"'Shaw next argues that his two convictions for the capital offense of mur......