Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 10 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | CR-2022-0543 |
| Parties | Michael Carvese Williams v. State of Alabama |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Michael Carvese Williams
v.
State of Alabama
No. CR-2022-0543
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
February 10, 2023
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division (CC-16-665, CC-16-666, CC-16-667, CC-16-668, CC-16-669, CC-16-670, CC-16-671, CC-16-672, and CC-16-673)
KELLUM, JUDGE.
The appellant, Michael Carvese Williams, was convicted of two counts of rape in the first degree, see §13A-6-61, Ala. Code 1975; three counts of the sexual abuse of a child under the age of 12, see § 13A-6-69.1, Ala. Code 1975; two counts of sodomy in the first degree, see § 13A-6-63, Ala. Code 1975;
one count of enticing a child for immoral purposes, see § 13A-6-69, Ala. Code 1975; and one count of facilitating the travel of a child for an unlawful sexual act, see § 13A-6-125, Ala. Code 1975.[1] The circuit court sentenced Williams to 20 years in prison for each rape conviction, 10 years in prison for each sexual abuse conviction, 20 years in prison for each sodomy conviction, 10 years in prison for the enticing conviction, and 10 years in prison for the facilitating conviction. The circuit court ordered that the sentences run concurrently with the exception of the sentences for the rape convictions, which the court ordered were to run consecutively.
Williams does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support any of his convictions, thus, we give only a brief rendition of the facts presented at trial. A.W. testified that at the time of trial she was 18 years old.[2] In the summer of 2015, A.W. was 11 years old and was living with her mother, stepfather, and her brothers in Edgewater. (R. 272.) Williams was her stepfather's brother and would often visit when
her parents were not at home. The first time he touched her, A.W. said, Williams "put [her] hand in his private area and made [her touch him]. Once stuff started coming out, that is when he stopped." (R. 276-77.) At this time, she said, Williams told her that if she told anybody he was "going to kill my momma and my stepdad." (R. 282.)
In another instance, she said, she was in her room and Williams came in and tried to make her watch pornography on his cellular telephone. "[Williams] told me to look at a couple of videos to show me how to do the nasty. So, he -- I didn't want to watch the video. I told him no. So, he put his phone back up. After that, he put me on my bed and he pulled my pants down. He tried to eat my stuff [her privates, she explained] but [she] wouldn't let him." (R. 278.) A.W. said that he then put his penis in her butt but "pulled it out and then he stopped." (R. 279.)
Another time, A.W. said, her mother and stepfather were getting ready to go out and Williams was going to go with them. She said that Williams came back and told her to go into the living room and get on the couch. A.W. testified: "When I laid down, he told me he isn't going to stick it in too far because he didn't want to pop my cherry." (R. 284.) A.W. said that he put his penis in her vagina and that she told him to
stop because it hurt and that he stopped once "the white stuff came out." (R. 285.) She said that she bled and went to the bathroom to clean herself.
The last time, A.W. testified, Williams took her to a park late at night. A.W. testified: "Cars were flying by -- passing by. So he turned around and we got back in the car. And once we got in the car, he tried to put his hands in my pants. And he used his fingers but he didn't stick his fingers all the way in me. He rubbed my -- my private." (R. 289.)
A.W. testified that her grandmother was notified by a friend that A.W. had been at a nearby park with an adult man late at night. When her grandmother confronted her, she said, she "just broke down" and she told her family what Williams had done to her. (R. 291.)
The jury convicted Williams of the nine counts charged in the indictment. Williams filed a timely notice of appeal.
I.
Williams first argues that the circuit court erred in allowing the State to present evidence of prior bad acts pursuant to Rule 404(b), Ala. R. Evid. Specifically, he argues that the circuit court erred in allowing
two witnesses to testify that when Williams was 18 years old he had been arrested and charged with the rape of a 12-year-old.
The record shows that the State filed notice that it intended to present Rule 404(b), Ala. R. Evid., evidence. The notice read that the State intended to present "any incidents of [Williams], being an adult, engaging in sexual intercourse with minors around the age of 11 or 12 years old." (C. 51.) Williams moved in limine that the court bar the State from presenting any Rule 404(b) evidence. He argued that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, that there was no purpose to be served in admitting the evidence, and that the evidence was barred by § 15-19-5, Ala. Code 1975, because, he said, he had been granted youthful-offender status for the prior offense.[3] (C. 157.) This motion was discussed at a pretrial hearing. (R. 5-24.) The following discussion occurred:
"THE COURT: Next is a motion in limine by the defense. I think this follows a notice of Rule 404(b) evidence by the State. Although the State was not specific in its 404(b) notice of what it intends to offer, the defense in their motion seems
to be saying it expects the State to offer the defendant's prior plea of guilty and conviction for youthful offender in an underlying case where the charge is rape in the second degree. Is that what the State wishes to offer?
"[Prosecutor]: In part, Your Honor. But what we actually want to offer is the conduct, not the conviction necessarily, but the conduct to show motive. The State did put in its motion specifically as our 404(b), that [Williams] being an adult involving with sexual intercourse with minors around the age of 11 or 12. It is that conduct to prove motive which is always admissible to show an unnatural attraction for little girls. I have lots of caselaw. If you want him to go first or argue the caselaw showing that the conduct is admissible and not necessarily the adjudication of the case -- not the guilty plea but the conduct of the unnatural attraction to little girls is always admissible to prove motive. That is what we would introduce as 404(b). …
"THE COURT: And how would you do that? How would you introduce it?
"[Prosecutor]: There are various ways you can introduce that testimony; statement by party opponent, his admission to other people about the charges, and of course witness testimony that have been there and have firsthand knowledge of the facts. There are several ways to introduce. We want to be able to present that evidence.
"THE COURT: Would you also have an investigator -- a police investigator testify that they did an investigation of [Williams's] background and found this other case and what happened?
"[Prosecutor]: Potentially, Your Honor. Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: You would elicit that testimony of an investigator?
"[Prosecutor]: Investigator, witness or anybody that would have firsthand knowledge or were involved in the investigation or, again, admissions, by a party opponent that he engaged in these actions to other people. "
(R. 5-8.) The circuit court ruled that §15-19-5, Ala. Code 1975, did not "exclude evidence of a youthful offender plea" and that "there is no code section that excludes evidence of a youthful offender plea being admissible for anything other than sentencing." (R. 14.)[4] When asked to further explain how the previous conviction showed motive, the State explained:
"To the issue of motive, motive in the case that we represented to Your Honor, Brownlee v. State, [197 So.3d 1024 (Ala.Crim.App.2015),] case is very similar in that the State was trying to introduce prior bad acts or uncharged, actually, victims in the case, that he was charged with rape and it was a similar -- so the motive as defined is an inducement or that which leads or attempts to do or commit the crime. …
"Specifically, in this case -- the caselaw in this case talks about the testimony regarding collateral acts of sexual abuse was admissible to show the defendant's motive, i.e., his unnatural sexual desire for young girls."
(R. 19-20.) The circuit court found that the prior act was admissible to establish motive and that "its probative value is substantial in this case and is not outweighed by the prejudicial effect to [Williams]. (R. 22-23.)
In this case, two witnesses testified concerning Williams's prior rape charges -- Brenda Williams and Captain Jacob Reach. Brenda testified that she is employed at the Jefferson County Department of Human Resources as a supervisor in the Child Abuse and Neglect Unit. (R. 117.) She said that she was involved in the investigation involving A.W. and testified that as part of that investigation she examined Department of Human Resources ("DHR") records to determine if Williams had any prior contact with DHR and that she used the Family, Adult and Child Tracking System. (R. 122.)
"[Brenda Williams]: I found out that this particular person had a prior investigation in 2002, where this person was indicated for sexual abuse, sexual penetration of a child.
"[Prosecutor]: And what does indicated mean, again?
"[Brenda]: Indicated means that based on our investigation and based on all of the information that we gather; we have enough evidence to prove to the State that what this person did was true."
(R. 134-35.) She further testified that the victim in that case was 12 years old.
Captain Jacob Reach testified that he is a captain with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and that in July 2002 he was assigned to investigate a case involving Williams and the rape of a 12-year-old girl. (R. 213.) He said that in 2002, Williams was 18...
To continue reading
Request your trial