State v. Martin (Ex parte State)

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MAIN, Justice.
• Citation: State v. Martin (Ex parte State), 287 So.3d 384 (Ala. 2018)
• Decision Date: 31 August 2018
• Docket Number: 1170407
• Parties: EX PARTE STATE of Alabama (In re: State of Alabama v. George Martin)

287 So.3d 384

EX PARTE STATE of Alabama

(In re: State of Alabama

v.George Martin)

1170407

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 31, 2018

Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and Audrey Jordan, asst. atty. gen., for petitioner.

John H. Sharer, Andrew R. Keats, and Zathrina G. Perez of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California; and Bryan A. Stevenson and Aaryn M. Urell of Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, Montgomery, for respondent.

MAIN, Justice.

In 2000, George Martin was convicted of murdering his wife, Hammoleketh Martin. The murder was made capital because it was "done for a pecuniary or other valuable consideration," see § 13A-5-40(a)(7), Ala. Code 1975. Specifically, the jury found that Martin killed his wife to collect the proceeds from life-insurance policies he had taken out on her life. The jury recommended by a vote of 8-4 that Martin be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, but the trial court overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Martin to death.

After his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, Martin filed a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief in which he alleged, among other things, that the State had suppressed material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court granted Martin's Rule 32 petition and held that he was entitled to a new trial. Specifically, the circuit court held that the State had 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 concerning the presence of a gasoline 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 naming another man as a suspect.

On the State's appeal from that ruling, the Court of Criminal Appeals, in an unpublished memorandum, held that the "circuit court's finding that the State violated Brady through its suppression of Taylor's photographic identification and his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). The Court of Criminal Appeals declined to address the circuit court's remaining findings concerning other Brady violations. This Court denied the State's petition for a writ of certiorari, and the certificate of judgment was issued on April 17, 2015.

While preparing for a new trial, Martin moved the trial court, pursuant to Rule 16.5, Ala. R. Crim. P., to dismiss the capital-murder indictment against him with prejudice. According to Martin, the indictment was due to be dismissed both as a sanction for the State's willful misconduct and because the prejudice resulting from that misconduct could not be corrected by a new trial. In response, the State argued that its misconduct was not willful and that any prejudice could be corrected by a new trial. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Martin's motion. The trial court ultimately dismissed the indictment with prejudice on the grounds that the State's misconduct was willful and that the prejudice to Martin resulting from that misconduct could not be corrected by a new trial. The State appealed.

In a 3-2 decision, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. State v. Martin, 287 So. 3d 355 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017). This Court granted certiorari review; we now reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

The Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion thoroughly sets forth the lengthy facts and procedural history of this case. See Martin, 287 So. 3d at 357-75. We summarize the pertinent facts here.

In 1995, the charred remains of Martin's wife, Hammoleketh, were found inside a burned vehicle that had collided with a tree. Although it appeared to be an accident, evidence indicated that the vehicle fire was intentionally set and that the victim was alive when the fire started. Further evidence indicated that Martin made inconsistent statements to law enforcement concerning the time he discovered his wife missing, whether his wife carried a gasoline can in her vehicle, and whether his wife had used a BIC brand lighter found at the scene as a flashlight because the dome light in her vehicle did not work. Also, evidence indicated that Martin acknowledged the existence of an insurance policy insuring his wife's life for $200,000 but stated that there were no other policies. However, another policy insuring the life of Martin's wife for $150,000 was introduced into evidence, and evidence indicated that this amount was collectible only if Martin's wife died in a "passenger vehicle." Martin was an Alabama State Trooper at the time of his wife's death. The State introduced evidence of a traffic-accident-investigation report prepared by Martin approximately one year before his wife's death that involved an accident in which an automobile left the road, hit a tree, and burst into flames.

Further, State's witness James Taylor testified that, on the night Martin's wife was killed, he saw a black state trooper in a patrol car sitting at a stop sign near where the victim's body and vehicle were found. Martin is black and, as noted earlier, was an Alabama State Trooper at the time of his wife's death. At trial, Taylor was not asked to specifically identify Martin as the trooper he saw near the scene of the crime. However, during the guilt-phase closing argument, the State argued that Martin was the trooper that Taylor saw, and the State relied on Taylor's testimony to place Martin near where the victim's body and vehicle were found and to place Martin in that area immediately before the vehicle, with the victim inside, was set on fire.

Also, while incarcerated before his original trial, Martin allegedly told Clifford Davis, a fellow inmate, that he had killed his wife. At trial, the State presented Davis's testimony that Martin had confessed to the murder.

Through discovery during the Rule 32 proceedings, Martin obtained information regarding an identification made by Taylor from a photographic lineup. Martin also obtained a handwritten note and a typed narrative concerning Taylor's interaction with police regarding this case. The lineup contained photographs of 13 black Alabama State Troopers, including Martin. However, when presented with that lineup on May 8, 1997, Taylor identified Trooper Grayling Williams, not Martin, as the trooper he had seen in the area where the vehicle was found. Further, the handwritten note and typed narrative indicated that Taylor stated that the trooper he had seen was a "big man that filled up the car." Testimony and observation from the Rule 32 hearing revealed that Martin is not a "big" man. Based solely on the State's suppression of both Taylor's photographic identification and his comments to the police, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the circuit court's holding that the State had violated Brady and that Martin was entitled to a new trial.

Further, as the Court of Criminal Appeals noted, in addition to the Brady violations concerning Taylor, the Rule 32 circuit court found three other Brady violations concerning statements made by the victim's sister, statements made by Norma Broach, and two anonymous telephone calls received by law-enforcement officers. Specifically,

"Hammoleketh's sister, [Terri Jean] Jackson, had also stated to [the police] 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."

Martin, 287 So. 3d at 359.

The following is the trial court's entire discussion of the applicable law and facts in its order dismissing the indictment:

"APPLICABLE LAW

"In the case of State of Alabama v. Moore, 969 So.2d 169 (Ala. Ct. Crim. App. 2006), a case prosecuted by Assistant Attorney General Don Valeska and William Dill, the Court reviewed the allegations which led to the granting of the Rule 32 new trial, and then to a dismissal of the Indictment by Judge Glenn E. Thompson of Morgan County. In reversing the dismissal, the Court of Criminal Appeals stated:

" ‘Our decision should not be meant as condoning the conduct of the prosecutor. Like the circuit court, we are concerned at the prosecutor's actions. "We are not unmindful of the court's frustration with the prosecutor's defiance in the face of the court's order." (cite omitted). However, any prejudice that was suffered in the first trial may be corrected by a new trial. Accordingly, based on the cases cited above, we hold that the circuit court erred in imposing the extreme sanctions of dismissal of the capital-murder indictment returned against Moore.’ 969 So.2d at 185.

"In the later case of State of Alabama v. Hall, 991 So.2d 775 (Ct. Crim. App. Ala. 2007), in reversing the granting of the dismissal of the indictment with prejudice, the Court noted:

" ‘As was the case in Moore, , our decision in the instant case should not be seen as condoning the conduct of the Government.

" ‘....

" ‘Like the

...