James Allen Main

The case arose when mall owners and managers, sued by a customer who slipped and fell and later suffered paralysis after disk-replacement surgery at a German hospital, filed a third-party complaint against the hospital and its doctors alleging medical malpractice, fraud, and related claims and seeking reimbursement for any damages. The hospital parties moved to dismiss, arguing the mall parties lacked standing, but the trial court denied the motion. The Alabama Supreme Court granted mandamus relief and ordered dismissal, reasoning that Alabama law bars contribution among joint tortfeasors and that Rule 14 third-party practice cannot be used to tender defendants allegedly solely liable to the original plaintiff or to assert claims belonging only to that plaintiff.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned whether an Alabama trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce and adjust restitution payments in a 1995 assault conviction after the defendant's probation term had expired and he had completed his prison sentence. Kevin Byrd challenged post-2000 restitution collection efforts, leading the Court of Criminal Appeals to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its payment orders for lack of jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the trial judge's petition for mandamus, quashing the lower appellate court's writ and holding that the trial court had authority under restitution statutes to modify payment schedules based on the defendant's ability to pay without imposing incarceration. The core reasoning was that restitution obligations survive completion of incarceration and probation, and statutes such as § 15-18-72 and § 12-17-225 et seq. permit ongoing civil enforcement and adjustments by the sentencing court.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a products liability lawsuit filed in the Bessemer Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court by the administrator of estates of two individuals killed in a car accident in Tuscaloosa County, alleging defects in a 1993 Ford Escort's seatbelt system. The automobile manufacturers and related companies petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to transfer the case to Tuscaloosa Circuit Court under the forum non conveniens statute. The Supreme Court granted the petition in part, ordering the transfer, reasoning that while venue was proper in Bessemer due to the original sale there, the interest of justice required transfer because Tuscaloosa County had substantially stronger connections to the events and parties, and local venue rules do not override the forum non conveniens statute.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves the convictions of Esaw Jackson for three counts of capital murder and two counts of attempted murder, resulting in a death sentence and life imprisonment terms. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals initially affirmed the convictions and sentences. However, the Alabama Supreme Court determined that certain testimony from the victim's mother constituted plain error due to inadmissible opinion and victim-impact elements. Consequently, this court reverses the lower court's judgment and remands the case for a new trial as directed by the Supreme Court.

criminal lawprocedure

The case is the State's appeal from a circuit court order granting Larry Reynold Smith's Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief following his 1995 capital murder conviction and death sentence, which had been affirmed on direct appeal. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to conduct any meaningful pretrial investigation, delegating limited tasks to an unqualified investigator, and presenting only a modest defense and sentencing case due to lack of preparation rather than strategy. The court therefore vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial. The appellate opinion recites the underlying facts of the murder investigation, the procedural history of the petition, and the circuit court's specific credibility and factual findings on counsel's performance.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves James Allen Harrison, Jr.'s Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition for post-conviction relief, which the circuit court summarily denied. This Court initially affirmed the denial in an unpublished memorandum, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of Harrison's juror-misconduct claims and a determination whether he is entitled to a new trial. In accordance with that directive, this Court remands the case to the Russell Circuit Court for further proceedings, with directions to file a return within 42 days.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns a conviction for second-degree receiving stolen property entered against Little in the Mobile Circuit Court. Following the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Little, 54 So.3d 960 (Ala.2010), the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the matter with directions for the circuit court to vacate that conviction. The court acted solely on the authority of the Supreme Court's opinion and issued no independent analysis. All judges on the panel concurred in the remand.

criminal law

Maxine Williams was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and chemical endangerment of a child after officers executing a search warrant found crack cocaine in a bedroom and kitchen of a house where she was present along with two children. The court affirmed the possession conviction, holding that evidence of her personal items in the rooms containing the drugs and her connection to the residence was sufficient to establish constructive possession. It reversed the chemical endangerment conviction, however, because the state presented no evidence that Williams met the statutory definition of a responsible person with permanent or temporary care or custody of the children.

criminal law

Barbara Ann Roberts appealed her convictions for two counts of capital murder during a kidnapping, intentional murder, and first-degree robbery, for which she received concurrent life sentences including life without parole. She argued that the trial court should have granted a continuance because medication changes for her mental health issues rendered her incompetent to understand and respond to the State's plea offer, though she did not dispute her competence to stand trial; the trial court denied the motion after reviewing a forensic psychiatrist's report finding her competent under Rule 11, Ala.R.Crim.P., and no further evidence from her doctors was presented at a follow-up hearing. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but remanded for a new order, holding that the multiple murder convictions violated double jeopardy principles because they arose from the same killing and directing entry of a single capital murder conviction plus the robbery count.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Shelby Myers Hurd, who pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment and misdemeanor DUI after a car accident injuring his passenger Brandy Tingle. The trial court sentenced him to probation and ordered $20,000 in restitution, which Hurd appealed on grounds that the amount lacked support, statutory factors were ignored, and the order failed to include required findings. The appellate court remanded for the trial court to issue a compliant restitution order with specific findings on the facts, amount, payment method, and consideration of Hurd's ability to pay under Alabama Code §§ 15-18-68 to 15-18-70 and Rule 26.11, Ala.R.Crim.P.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Lugine Capri Caver's conviction for third-degree burglary after a surveillance video showed someone breaking into a McDonald's and taking a cash register drawer. Caver appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by reopening the case after the jury began deliberating and allowing the jury to view his arms for comparison with the video, which defense counsel had not had an opportunity to address. The court held that displaying the defendant's arms constituted the improper introduction of new non-testimonial physical evidence after deliberations had started. Relying on precedents such as Ex parte Batteaste and Harnage v. State, the court found this violated due process protections and that the error was not harmless because the central issue at trial was the defendant's identity as the person in the video. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Smith v. Houston, Brian A. Smith filed a declaratory judgment action in Montgomery Circuit Court against various state officials, seeking a declaration that Alabama had unconstitutionally interpreted and applied the capital murder statute § 13A-5-40(a)(18) by charging defendants, including himself, for non-gang-related murders committed with a deadly weapon from a vehicle, contrary to a 2006 joint legislative resolution. The circuit court denied the complaint after a hearing. After multiple transfers among the Court of Civil Appeals, the Alabama Supreme Court, and this Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal under applicable transfer statutes and therefore transferred the case back to the Court of Civil Appeals.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Keebrey Jackson's conviction for manslaughter after he drove while intoxicated, lost control of his vehicle, and caused a wreck that killed his cousin Anthony Cunningham. Jackson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that recklessness could support a conviction for the lesser offense of vehicular homicide under Alabama law. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the jury instructions improperly limited the definition of 'unintentional' conduct in the vehicular-homicide statute and prevented the jury from considering recklessness as a basis for the lesser offense, contrary to precedent in Ex parte Edwards. The error was deemed not harmless because the evidence of intoxication and speeding could have supported a vehicular-homicide verdict instead. The case was remanded for a new trial.

criminal law

The case concerned the revocation of Hill's assignment to a community-corrections program after he entered a guilty plea. The Alabama Supreme Court held that the circuit court had revoked the assignment during an initial appearance without providing Hill a meaningful hearing, thereby denying him the chance to present witnesses or confront adverse witnesses and violating minimum due-process standards established in Morrissey v. Brewer, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, and Armstrong v. State. The Court of Criminal Appeals, acting on the Supreme Court's remand, therefore returned the matter to the circuit court with directions to conduct a new revocation hearing that complies with Rule 27, Ala. R. Crim. P.

criminal lawprocedure

Esaw Jackson was convicted of three counts of capital murder for killing Pamela Montgomery and Milton Poole III by shooting them with a rifle fired from a vehicle, as well as for killing both during one scheme, and of two counts of attempted murder for injuring two other passengers. Following a jury recommendation of death by a 10-2 vote, the trial court sentenced Jackson to death on the capital murder convictions and consecutive life terms on the attempted murder convictions. On automatic appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the trial evidence, including prior threats by Jackson, eyewitness identifications, and ballistics linking the weapon to him, along with the penalty phase and sentencing findings. The court found no plain error in the guilt or sentencing proceedings, determined that aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating ones, and concluded the death sentence was proportionate to similar cases before affirming all convictions and sentences.

criminal lawguns

The case involved the State's appeal of a trial court's order granting J.L.D.'s pretrial motion to suppress cocaine seized during a traffic stop for driving without lights. At the suppression hearing, the arresting officer testified that J.L.D. dropped a bag of cocaine and attempted to kick it away, while J.L.D. denied dropping anything and claimed his lights were on; a video recording was also introduced. The trial court granted suppression after finding credibility issues with the officer's account that undermined the seizure. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the suppression order, determining that the evidence and record did not support excluding the cocaine. The core reasoning centered on evaluating the officer's testimony and the circumstances of the stop and seizure under applicable Fourth Amendment standards.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Watts, the State appealed the trial court's pretrial dismissal of charges against Brandon Watts for breaking and entering a motor vehicle and third-degree theft. The dismissal occurred after the prosecutor requested a continuance because the victim and a witness were unavailable for presentation to the jury venire during voir dire, despite being available to testify later; the trial court denied the continuance and granted the defense's motion to dismiss when the State indicated it was not ready without them. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked authority to dismiss for want of prosecution under these circumstances and abused its discretion by not employing less severe sanctions, such as ordering the State to proceed or using contempt powers, especially since no prejudice to the defendant was shown and there were no prior continuances. The case was remanded for reinstatement of the charges.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. C.B.D., a juvenile faced 13 delinquency petitions for possessing obscene matter depicting a person under 17, in violation of Alabama law. The juvenile court suppressed evidence seized from his home and his statements after a search, because the executed warrant had been lost and not returned to the issuing judge as required by statute. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the failure to return a properly executed warrant is a ministerial defect that does not invalidate the search or require suppression of the evidence. The court further ruled that the State should have been permitted to prove the warrant's existence and contents through secondary evidence, such as officer testimony, and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Antonio Jackson, Jr., whose conviction was initially affirmed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in an unpublished memorandum. Jackson petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for certiorari review, leading that court to reverse the affirmation and remand the case for a new trial. In accordance with the Supreme Court's directive, the Court of Criminal Appeals has now reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded the matter for retrial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Foster v. State, the defendant appealed his conviction for rape, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing an investigator to testify that he found the victim's disclosure of being raped by Foster to be credible. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama affirmed the conviction in an unpublished memorandum. The majority reasoned that the testimony addressed only the victim's credibility and did not directly opine on the ultimate issue of the defendant's guilt, so it did not violate the ultimate-issue rule under Alabama evidence law. A dissent argued that the testimony improperly invaded the jury's role as fact-finder by bolstering the victim's account of the specific crime.

criminal lawprocedure