Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 10 December 1999
• Citation: 795 So.2d 753
• Parties: Marcus Bernard WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

795 So.2d 753

Marcus Bernard WILLIAMS v. STATE.

CR-98-1734.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 10, 1999.

Rehearing Denied January 28, 2000.

Joe Morgan III, Birmingham; and Dennis L. Rushing, Ashville, for appellant.

Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and A. Vernon Barnett IV, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.

BASCHAB, Judge.

The appellant, Marcus Bernard Williams, was convicted of capital murder for the killing of Melanie Dawn Rowell. The murder was made capital because the appellant committed it during a rape or an attempted rape. See § 13A-5-40(a)(3), Ala.Code 1975. After a sentencing hearing, the jury recommended, by a vote of 11-1, that the appellant be sentenced to death. The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution.

The trial court prepared the following summary of the relevant facts of this case:

"On November 6th, 1996, the defendant had been out with friends, drinking and smoking marijuana. Upon returning home that evening, the defendant's thoughts turned to a young female neighbor of his, Melanie Dawn Rowell, and his desire to have sexual relations with her.

"At approximately 1:00 a.m. that night, Williams attempted to enter Rowell's back door, but the door was locked. He then noticed a kitchen window beside the door. He removed the screen from the window and found that the window was not locked. It was through that window that Williams obtained entrance to the apartment.

"Williams proceeded through the kitchen to the stairs leading to the upstairs bedroom. Before exiting the kitchen, Williams removed a knife from a set of knives in a holder on a kitchen countertop. Part way up the stairs, knife in hand, Williams removed his pants. Upon reaching the upstairs area, Williams crossed over a `baby gate' which protected Rowell's two children, ages 15 months and 2 years, from the stairs. Williams looked into the children's room and found them both asleep.

"Williams then entered the room of Melanie Rowell. He climbed in bed on top of her. When he began removing Rowell's clothes, a struggle ensued. Rowell fought Williams and began screaming despite [his] being armed with a knife. Williams placed his hand over her mouth to silence her and once again attempted to remove her clothes. As Rowell continued to struggle, Williams placed his hands around her neck. Eventually Rowell ceased to struggle as Williams continued to strangle her. When she was motionless, Williams proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her for 15 to 20 minutes. Prior to ejaculation, Williams pulled out and ejaculated on Rowell's stomach. There was a small cut inflicted upon Rowell's throat that was determined to be post-mortem. The cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.

"As he left Rowell's apartment, Williams took her purse. According to his statement, he threw the purse and the knife into a dumpster outside the apartment, although a search of the dumpster the next day by law enforcement failed to find either.

"The defendant was subsequently arrested after being identified by the elderly female victim in a subsequent break-in in the Ashville area. Upon being taken into custody for that offense, the defendant gave a statement admitting his involvement in the death of Melanie Rowell."

(C.R.105-07.) Additional facts are included, as necessary, throughout this opinion.

In his brief, the appellant raises several issues that he did not first present to the trial court. His failure to object will not bar our review of an issue in a case involving the death penalty. However, it will weigh against any claim of prejudice he may allege. See Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.),

cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975, 106 S.Ct. 340, 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). 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... whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant."

"[This] 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, 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 n. 14 (1982)).

I.

The appellant's first argument is that the trial court erred by not allowing the defense to perform independent DNA tests on blood samples taken from other suspects. (Issue I in the appellant's brief to this court.) At a pretrial hearing, the State indicated that, during the course of the investigation in this case, law enforcement officials had gathered blood samples from approximately 14 other suspects and had had DNA tests performed on those samples. The appellant requested funds to perform an independent analysis of each of those samples. The trial court granted the defense's request for funds to have independent tests performed on his own blood, but denied the request to independently test the samples from the other suspects. The trial court explained its ruling as follows:

"I will allow you to re-run the matching sample of the defendant to the sample found on the victim. I don't believe I'm going to let you run all the other potential samples unless you show me some strong evidence. Normally, evidence that another person may have committed the offense is not admissible in the defense of an individual."

(R. 9.) The appellant did not subsequently present this request to the trial court again.

"In [Ex parte] Moody, [684 So.2d 114 (Ala.1996),] the Alabama Supreme Court defined the standard by which a trial court must assess an indigent defendant's request for expert assistance.

"`Although the [United States] Supreme Court has not specifically stated what "threshold showing" must be made by the indigent defendant with regard to the need for an expert, the Court refused to require the state to pay for certain experts when the indigent defendant "offered little more than undeveloped assertions that the requested assistance would be beneficial." Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472, U.S. 320 at 323, 105[,] S.Ct. 2633 at 2637, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). As we stated in Dubose [v. State, 662 So.2d 1189 (Ala.1995) ] the Supreme Court cases of Ake [v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) ] and Caldwell, viewed together, seem to hold that an indigent defendant must show more than a mere possibility that an expert would aid in his defense. "Rather, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that an expert would aid in his defense and [must show that] a denial of an expert to assist at trial would result in a fundamentally unfair trial." Dubose, 662 So.2d at 1192, citing Moore v. Kemp, 809 F.2d 702 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1054, 107 S.Ct. 2192, 95 L.Ed.2d 847 (1987).

"`. . . .

"`Based on the foregoing, we conclude that for an indigent defendant to be entitled to expert assistance at public expense, he must show a reasonable probability that the expert would be of assistance in the defense and that the denial of expert assistance would result in a fundamentally unfair trial. To meet this standard, the indigent defendant must show, with reasonable specificity, that the expert is absolutely necessary to answer a substantial issue or question raised by the state or to support a critical element of the defense. If the indigent defendant meets this standard, then the trial court can authorize the hiring of an expert at public expense.'

"684 So.2d at 119. See also Burgess v. State, (Ala.Cr.App. 1997); MacEwan v. State, 701 So.2d 66 (Ala.Cr.App.1997); Ex parte Dobyne, 672 So.2d 1354, 1357 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1169, 116 S.Ct. 1571, 134 L.Ed.2d 670 (1996)."

Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 910-11 (Ala. Cr.App.1997). In this case, the trial court gave the appellant an opportunity to make such a showing, but the appellant did not satisfy his burden of proof. After independently testing his own blood, he did not show that there was a reasonable probability that independent DNA testing of the samples from the other suspects would aid his defense and that a denial of the opportunity to have independent DNA testing performed would result in a fundamentally unfair trial. He did not specifically show that independent testing was absolutely necessary to answer a substantial issue or question raised by the State or to support a critical element of the defense. In fact, throughout the trial, his defense was that he entered the victim's apartment with the intent to have sex with her, but that he did not intend to kill her. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's request to have the samples from the other suspects independently tested.

II.

The appellant's second argument is that the trial court erroneously allowed the victim's mother to testify that the victim's children were in the residence when she found the victim's body. (Issue II in the appellant's brief to this court.) Specifically, he contends that the trial court should have excluded the testimony because its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect on the jury. Prior to trial, the appellant filed a motion in limine to prevent any reference to the presence of the children at the crime scene. After jury selection, the trial court conducted an extensive hearing regarding the admissibility of such testimony. In denying the appellant's motion in limine, the trial court stated:

"She can testify. We are not going into it and rehash it and delve into her emotional feelings or the child's emotional feelings. That has nothing to do with the case. As far as her being the first witness on the scene—that that is what she observed; that the presence of the child in the room may have some materiality concerning the evidence or what was there or what

...