Liles C. Burke

This case concerns Jimmy Lamar Killingsworth's criminal conviction in Alabama and his claim that he was denied a fair trial. The Alabama Supreme Court previously reversed an earlier decision by this court, ruling that Killingsworth was not tried by an impartial jury and was therefore entitled to a new trial. Following that holding, this court now reverses the circuit court's judgment and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. The outcome implements the higher court's determination without additional analysis from this panel.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hudson v. State, the defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted murder and one count of discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle arising from two separate shootings targeting victim Stanley Miles in 2009. On appeal, Hudson challenged the admission of evidence concerning three prior collateral shootings involving Miles and his brother as improper under Alabama Rule of Evidence 404(b), as well as the trial court's limiting instructions to the jury regarding that evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the collateral-act evidence was admissible to prove identity and intent, that any error in the limiting instructions was not preserved, and that admission of one irrelevant collateral incident was harmless error given the strength of the other evidence; the convictions were therefore affirmed. A dissent argued that evidence of the collateral acts against the victim's brother was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Arthur David Ahmed's fifth petition for postconviction relief under Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, challenging his 1999 conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision by unpublished memorandum. In a special concurrence, the court noted that repeated filings of such petitions with precluded or meritless claims consume judicial resources unnecessarily and suggested that trial courts consider imposing sanctions on Ahmed and similar inmates to deter future frivolous litigation, referencing prior cases on the matter.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Leonard Jerome Black, Jr.'s appeal of his conviction for trafficking in cocaine under Alabama law, stemming from drugs found in a locked white Ford Taurus parked near him in a Mobile park. Officers discovered the cocaine after a drug dog's alert, along with a document linking Black to the vehicle and a recorded phone call in which Black referred to the car as 'dirty' and asked someone to report it stolen. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama reversed the conviction and rendered judgment for Black, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish constructive possession because Black did not own or control the vehicle, no keys were recovered, and the statements and circumstances did not support a reasonable inference of knowledge and control beyond speculation. The court noted that proximity alone and unconfirmed links were inadequate to prove the elements of the offense.

criminal law

The case involved a 14-year-old juvenile, H.A.M., charged with murdering another student at his middle school, who appealed the juvenile court's decision to transfer his case to adult circuit court for prosecution. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the transfer, holding that the juvenile court properly considered all statutory factors under Alabama law, including the juvenile's mental maturity and potential mental health issues, before ordering the transfer. Although expert testimony suggested H.A.M. might benefit from commitment to a mental health institution due to depression and other disorders, the court had discretion to weigh this evidence against other factors, such as the nature of the offense and evidence of premeditation, and found clear and convincing evidence supported trying him as an adult. The decision emphasized that the final determination rests with the juvenile judge, not experts.

criminal lawfamily law