State v. Martin

• Decision Date: 15 December 2017
• Docket Number: CR–15–0664
• Citation: 287 So.3d 355
• Parties: STATE of Alabama v. George MARTIN
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

287 So.3d 355

STATE of Alabama

v.George MARTIN

CR–15–0664

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 15, 2017

Rehearing Denied February 2, 2018

Luther Strange and Steve Marshall, attys. gen., and Audrey K. Jordan, asst. atty. gen., for appellant.

Bryan A. Stevenson and Aaryn M. Urell, Montgomery; and John H. Sharer, Andrew R. Keats, and Zathrina G. Perez, Los Angeles, California, for appellee.

JOINER, Judge.

The State of Alabama appeals the circuit court's dismissal with prejudice of the capital-murder indictment returned against George Martin by a Mobile County grand jury.

Facts and Procedural History

In June 1999, Martin was indicted for one count of murder made capital pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, §§ 13A–6–2 and 13A–5–40(a)(7) (defining as capital "[m]urder done for a pecuniary or other valuable consideration"). The State's evidence at trial tended to show the following: At approximately 11:30 p.m. on October 8, 1995, police and firefighters responded to the area of Willis Road and Highway 90 in Mobile County to find a burning 1991 Ford Escort automobile that had collided with a tree. Inside the vehicle were what appeared to be charred human remains; the victim was determined to be Hammoleketh Martin, Martin's wife. Hammoleketh was alive when the fire started and died as a result of smoke inhalation and body burns. Martin, who was an Alabama State Trooper at the time of Hammoleketh's death, was ultimately arrested and charged with capital murder. While incarcerated, Martin allegedly told Clifford Davis, a fellow inmate, that he had killed Hammoleketh.

A brief summary of the circumstantial evidence the State presented at Martin's trial is as follows:

" ‘The investigations revealed that the fire was intentionally set. According to the evidence, the fire started in the right rear passenger compartment and spread forward. The minimal damage to the front of the vehicle precluded any conclusion that the impact of the car with a tree in the area could have started the fire; rather, the evidence was uncontroverted that the scene was consistent with a staged wreck.

" ‘A traffic homicide investigator from the Alabama Department of Public Safety testified that he examined the vehicle and the scene in question. He conducted speed calculations of a vehicle and analyzed the kind of force that would have been necessary to cause such a fire. He concluded that the fire was not an accident and the collision of the vehicle with a tree did not produce sufficient force to start the fire.

" ‘[Martin], when initially notified by officers of the Mobile Police Department that his car had been found with a body in it, stated that he had last seen his wife at approximately 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. that evening. He stated she left the house without telling him where she was going and that he fell asleep watching a football game on television. He initially stated that he had awakened at approximately 1:00 or 1:30 in the morning and, after noticing that his wife was not home, decided to go look for her.

" ‘[The State] introduced evidence of several inconsistencies in [Martin's] various statements. Among the inconsistencies were the time that he awoke to discover his wife missing, that the victim carried a gasoline can in her automobile with her because the gas gauge did not work, and that a BIC lighter found at the scene was used by his wife, the victim, as a flashlight because the dome light in her car did not work. The evidence also established that the defendant was less than honest when questioned about the existence of life insurance policies insuring the life of his wife, Hammoleketh Martin. Though [Martin] acknowledged the existence of a policy insuring his wife's life for $200,000, he lied when he stated there were no other policies. In particular, another policy insuring the life of Hammoleketh Martin for $150,000 was introduced into evidence and, according to the State's evidence, this amount was collectible only if Hammoleketh Martin died in a passenger vehicle.

" ‘The State also introduced evidence of a Traffic Accident Investigation Report prepared by [Martin] approximately one year prior to the death of his wife. The report involved a traffic accident in which an automobile left the road, hit a tree, and burst into flames. The State contended that the report of [t]his incident, which was [Martin's] version of what occurred, was strikingly similar to the occurrences of one year prior.

" ‘The State linked the evidence of the insurance proceeds with the purported financial difficulties of the defendant. According to the prosecution's testimony, [Martin's] financial condition had deteriorated to the point where he was approaching bankruptcy.’ "

Martin v. State, 931 So.2d 736, 740–41 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003), rev'd in part, 931 So.2d 759 (Ala. 2004) (footnote omitted).

State's witness James Taylor also testified that he saw an African–American male driving a state-trooper car in the vicinity of the crime scene on the night of the murder. Moreover, during closing statements, the State argued: (1) that Martin, who is African–American, fled the crime scene on a bicycle he had planted there earlier; (2) that, other than Martin's relatives, no one had ever seen a gasoline can in Hammoleketh's vehicle; and (3) that the jury could infer from Taylor's testimony that Martin was the state trooper Taylor had seen.

Martin's defense theory was that he did not kill Hammoleketh and that he did not know who, if anyone, did. Martin speculated during opening arguments that Hammoleketh's death could have been the result of an accident, that an unknown person carjacked and killed Hammoleketh, or that Hammoleketh committed suicide.

Martin was convicted, and the jury recommended by a vote of 8–4 that he be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The trial court overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Martin to death. After his conviction and sentence were ultimately affirmed on direct appeal, Martin filed a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief alleging that the State had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to him, thus violating Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court granted Martin's Rule 32 petition and held that he was entitled to a new trial.

"The circuit court held, among other things, that the prosecution had suppressed several pieces of material evidence that were favorable to the defense. Specifically, the circuit court held that the State improperly suppressed: (1) certain statements made by witness James Taylor during his discussions with police officers on April 22, 1997, and May 8, 1997, (2) an identification made by Taylor from a photographic lineup on May 8, 1997, (3) statements made by the victim's sister[, Terri Jean Jackson,] concerning the presence of a gas can in the victim's vehicle, (4) statements made to police officers by witness Norma Broach, and (5) evidence concerning two anonymous telephone calls received by law enforcement officers."

State v. Martin (No. CR-12-2099, December 12, 2014), 195 So.3d 1077 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014) (table).¹

Specifically, Taylor had made a statement to the case agent, Major Thomas Calhoun, describing the person he saw in the state-trooper car as "a big man who filled up the car"; Martin, however, was not a large man. Taylor had also identified Trooper Grayling Williams from a photographic lineup of African–American male troopers as being the size of the man he saw in the trooper car; Martin's photograph was included in the lineup, and Taylor did not identify Martin in any way. Hammoleketh's sister, Jackson, had also stated to Major Calhoun that she had seen a gas can in Hammoleketh's car approximately one month before the murder, which was contrary to the State's argument at Martin's trial that only Martin's relatives had seen a gas can in Hammoleketh's vehicle. Norma Broach, who was at a Texaco gasoline station located near the crime scene on the night of the murder, made statements to police that pointed to a different possible suspect; Broach had seen a white male fill up two large gas cans at the Texaco and watched him move a heavy object from a small black car into the passenger seat of the cab of a camper truck. Finally, the State suppressed evidence of anonymous telephone calls to police indicating that Trooper Williams was involved in Hammoleketh's murder.

On appeal from that ruling, this Court, in an unpublished memorandum, held that the "circuit court's finding that the State violated Brady through its suppression of Taylor's photographic identification and his comments from his May 8, 1997, police interview is sufficient to support the trial court's holding that Martin is entitled to a new trial." State v. Martin (No. CR-12-2099, December 12, 2014), 195 So.3d 1077 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014) (table).²

While preparing for a new trial, Martin moved the circuit court, pursuant to Rule 16.5, Ala. R. Crim. P., to dismiss the capital-murder indictment with prejudice both as a sanction for misconduct by the State and because the resulting prejudice precluded Martin from receiving a fair retrial. In response, the State argued that its misconduct was not willful and that a new trial would cure any prejudice that had resulted from the discovery violations. The State, citing State v. Moore, 969 So.2d 169 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), and State v. Hall, 991 So.2d 775 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007), asserted that this Court, when given the opportunity, has never affirmed a circuit court's dismissal of an indictment as a sanction for a discovery violation. Martin argued in response that Moore and Hall are factually distinguishable from his case.

The circuit court held a hearing on Martin's motion, and Martin and the State offered evidence and arguments. The circuit court ultimately dismissed the indictment on the grounds that the State's misconduct was willful and that the resulting prejudice to...