State v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 18 March 2016
• Docket Number: CR–14–1374.
• Citation: 203 So.3d 134
• Parties: STATE of Alabama v. David Todd STEPHENS.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

203 So.3d 134

STATE of Alabama

v.David Todd STEPHENS.

CR–14–1374.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 18, 2016.

Luther Strange, atty. gen., and John M. Porter, asst. atty. gen., for appellant.

Shelly H. Standridge, Tuscaloosa; and Ritchie Lee Tipton, Tuscaloosa, for appellee.

KELLUM, Judge.

The State of Alabama appeals the trial court's granting of David Todd Stephens's pretrial motion to dismiss, on double-jeopardy grounds, an indictment charging him with abuse of a corpse, a violation of § 13A–11–13, Ala.Code 1975.

On January 4, 2009, Stephens killed his ex-wife, Tonya Stephens ("Tonya"), in her home in Hale County. After he had killed Tonya, Stephens put Tonya's body in his pickup truck and drove to Pickens County, where he wrapped Tonya's body in a blanket and buried it on property owned by his father, David Stephens ("David"). Tonya was soon reported missing, and law enforcement, as well as David, suspected that Stephens was involved in Tonya's disappearance. Ten days after Tonya's disappearance, on January 14, 2009, David told Stephens that he was planning to allow cadaver dogs to search his property in Pickens County. Upon learning of the upcoming search, Stephens returned to the location he had buried Tonya, dug up Tonya's body, partially dismembered the body, and then set the body on fire. Law enforcement arrested Stephens shortly after he had set the body on fire, and Stephens confessed his involvement in Tonya's death to law enforcement.

In July 2010, Stephens was indicted in Hale County for one count of murder made capital because it was committed during the course of a burglary and one count of abuse of a corpse. The second count of the indictment, charging Stephens with abuse of a corpse, read:

"The Grand Jury of said county further charge that, before the finding of this indictment, DAVID TODD STEPHENS, whose name is unknown to the Grand Jury [sic], did knowingly treat a human corpse in a manner that would outrage ordinary family sensibilities, by taking the deceased, without proper burial and placing deceased in [an] unmarked grave, in violation of Section 13A–11–13 of the Code of Alabama, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama."

(C. 44; capitalization in original.) Before, during, and after his October 2013 trial in Hale County, Stephens argued that venue for the abuse-of-a-corpse charge was not proper in Hale County, but was proper in Pickens County, where, he argued, all the abuse of Tonya's body occurred. The trial court overruled all of Stephens's objections, finding that venue was a question of fact for the jury. The Hale County jury ultimately convicted Stephens of one count of manslaughter as a lesser-included offense to the murder charge and of one count of abuse of a corpse as charged in the indictment, and the trial court sentenced Stephens to 15 years' imprisonment for the manslaughter conviction and to 10 years' imprisonment for the abuse-of-a-corpse conviction.

This Court affirmed Stephens's Hale County convictions in an unpublished memorandum issued on January 30, 2015. Stephens v. State (No. CR–13–1019), ––– So.3d –––– (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (table). The sole issue raised by Stephens in that appeal was whether venue of the abuse-of-a-corpse charge was proper in Hale County. Stephens argued to this Court that the abuse for which he had been convicted occurred on January 14, 2009, when he dug up Tonya's body, partially dismembered the body, and set the body on fire—abuse that occurred entirely in Pickens County. This Court disagreed, noting specifically that Stephens had been indicted in Hale County for abusing Tonya's corpse by burying it in an unmarked grave—not for digging it up, partially dismembering it, and setting it on fire—and that the act of abuse for which Stephens was convicted had begun in Hale County when Stephens put Tonya's body in his truck and was completed in Pickens County when Stephens buried Tonya's body. Because Stephens's abuse of a corpse as charged in the Hale County indictment began in Hale County and ended in Pickens County, we held that pursuant to § 15–2–6, Ala.Code 1975, venue over the crime as charged in the indictment was proper in either Hale County or Pickens County.

In April 2012, while the Hale County charges were still pending, Stephens was indicted in Pickens County for one count of abuse of a corpse. The indictment read:

"The Grand Jury of said County charge that, before the finding of this indictment, David Todd Stephens, whose name is otherwise unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly, treat a human corpse, to-wit: the corpse of Tonya Stephens, in a way that would outrage ordinary family sensibilities, in violation of Section 13A–11–13 of the Code of Alabama, AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA."

(C. 29; capitalization in original.)

On November 15, 2013, shortly after he was convicted in Hale County, Stephens filed in Pickens County a motion to dismiss the indictment against him charging abuse of a corpse, arguing that trying him in Pickens County for abuse of a corpse after he had already been convicted in Hale County of abusing the same corpse would violate double-jeopardy principles. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. On November 19, 2014, Stephens filed a second motion to dismiss the indictment, or, in the alternative, for a speedy trial, again arguing that trying him in Pickens County for abuse of a corpse when he had already been convicted in Hale County of the offense of abuse of a corpse for what he said was the same conduct would violate his right to be free from double jeopardy. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on November 20, 2014.

At the hearing, Stephens argued that "there has been only one abuse of a corpse that has occurred in this matter" and that he had already been convicted of that crime in Hale County. (November 20, 2014, hearing, R. 3.) He also argued that because the State had asserted at his trial in Hale County that venue for the charge of abuse of a corpse was proper in Hale County based on the theory that the abuse of the corpse was a continuing offense that began in Hale County and ended in Pickens County, the State could not now assert in Pickens County the opposite—that venue of the charge of abuse of a corpse was proper in Pickens County, not Hale County, and was not a continuation of events that began in Hale County.

The prosecutor argued, on the other hand, that Stephens had abused Tonya's corpse on two separate and distinct occasions. First, the prosecutor argued, Stephens abused Tonya's corpse on January 4, 2009, by driving it from Hale County to Pickens County and burying it, the crime for which he was charged and convicted in Hale County. Second, the prosecutor argued, Stephens abused Tonya's corpse again 10 days later, on January 14, 2009, when he dug it up, partially dismembered it, and set it on fire, the crime with which, the prosecutor said, Stephens was charged in Pickens County. Because Stephens committed the crime of abuse of a corpse on two different occasions, the prosecutor asserted, Stephens could be tried and convicted for both crimes without violating double-jeopardy principles. On July 2, 2015, the trial court issued an order granting Stephens's motion to dismiss the indictment. The State timely filed a notice of appeal on July 9, 2015.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a criminal defendant from being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. "The Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal, a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and against multiple punishments for the same offense." Woods v. State, 709 So.2d 1340, 1342 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). " ‘ "Before the double jeopardy prohibition is triggered, however, it must appear ... that the crimes arose out of the same act or transaction." ’ " R.L.G., Jr. v. State, 712 So.2d 348, 359 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (quoting State v. Snook, 210 Conn. 244, 261, 555 A.2d 390, 399 (1989), quoting in turn, State v. Amaral, 179 Conn. 239, 242, 425 A.2d 1293, 1296 (1979) ). The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit prosecution, conviction, and punishment for discrete acts of the same offense. See Williams v. State, 104 So.3d 254, 257 (Ala.Crim.App.2012). As the New Mexico Supreme Court succinctly explained in Swafford v. State, 112 N.M. 3, 810 P.2d 1223 (1991) :

"Clearly, if the defendant commits two discrete acts violative of the same statutory offense, but separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness, then a court may impose separate, consecutive punishments for each offense. Thus, for example, the double jeopardy clause does not bar separate convictions and sentences for two thefts from the same victim committed on separate days, even though the statutory offenses are identical. The double jeopardy clause bars conviction and punishment only for the same statutory offense based upon unitary conduct."

112 N.M. at 13, 810 P.2d at 1233. See also State v. McGilton, 229 W.Va. 554, 565, 729 S.E.2d 876, 887 (2012) ("[M]ultiple convictions are appropriate where a defendant performs separate acts that would support different violations of the same statute.").

In determining whether a defendant's conduct constituted the same act or transaction for purposes of double jeopardy, courts look to various factors.

"For example, in [State v.] Schoonover, [281 Kan. 453, 133 P.3d 48 (2006) ], the Kansas Supreme Court set forth the following factors to be considered:

" ‘[S]ome factors to be considered in determining if conduct is unitary, in other words if it is the "same conduct," include: (1) whether the acts occur at or near the same time; (2) whether the acts occur at the same location; (3) whether there is a causal relationship between the acts, in particular whether there was an intervening event; and (4) whether there is a fresh impulse motivating some of the conduct.’

" 281 Kan. at 497, 133 P.3d

...