ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

No reversals reported

ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

CLICK TO READ Brandon Dewayne Sykes v. State of Alabama, Docket # CR-2022-0546

The Defendant was convicted of Capital Murder for intentionally killing Keshia Nicole Sykes during a first-degree burglary (Alabama Code § 13A-5-40(a)(4), during the commission of a first-degree kidnapping (Alabama Code § 13A-5-40(a)(1), and during the commission of a first-degree robbery (Alabama Code § 13A5-40(a)(2).

At trial, the evidence established that Defendant and Keshia Nicole Sykes were married with two young children and went through a contentious divorce. Keshia Nicole Sykes started dating a man who had a pending charge of sexual misconduct with a minor. Defendant attempted to get custody of his children unsuccessfully. When she went missing, her family called police and law enforcement found bloodstains throughout the home and outside the home. DNA testing showed most of the blood was Keshia Sykes, but Defendant’s blood could not be excluded as a potential contributor to a minor component of a sample of DNA on a mop handle that was apparently used to clean up blood. Police later found two droplets of dried blood in the back of Defendant’s truck that DNA testing established was Keshia Sykes.

At trial, Defendant did not testify. During rebuttal closing arguments, the prosecutor stated the following: “There’s only two people in the world that know what happened in that house. One of them’s dead, and the other one is sitting right over there at the end of that table.” The defense did not object, and the trial court did not take any prompt curative action.

The jury unanimously sentenced Sykes to death and he appealed.

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Court relied upon the right to remain silent under the Alabama Constitution, Art. I, § 6, and Alabama Code § 12-21-220, which requires a new trial if a prosecutor comments on the defendant’s failure to testify. The Court also relied upon Alabama Supreme Court caselaw which specifically condemned the exact same types of remarks made by other prosecutors in other cases. Even in the absence of an objection, this constituted plain error.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

CLICK TO READ Jennifer Ryan Harmon v. State of Alabama, Docket # CR-2022-1131

Law enforcement officers were looking for the Defendant’s husband because he had two active warrants for his arrest. Deputy Sheriff Nathanial Morrow of the Randolph County Sheriff’s Office saw the couple’s car parked in a road intersection, and saw Defendant sitting in the passenger seat “laid back.” The car was not registered in anyone’s name and had no license plate. Police asked her to get out of the vehicle and asked for consent to search the car, which she gave. In the back seat area, police found a hard plastic tool case with a 16-guage sawed off shotgun inside it. No one ever saw her holding the shotgun, nor was it tested for fingerprints. Defendant was arrested for possession of the sawed off shotgun. Shortly after that, police saw the Defendant’s husband walking down the road with a gas can in his hand, less than a mile away from the car. He was arrested on his outstanding warrants.

At trial, Defendant testified that her husband picked her up from her family’s home and they were going to his mother’s house when the ran out of gas. She testified she was waiting for him to return with gas when police knocked on the window and asked her to search the car. She also testified that the car belonged to her husband and she had only ridden in it twice. Defendant testified she did know there was a gun in the back seat of the car. The jury found her guilty of possession of a sawed off shotgun under a theory of constructive possession.

The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and dismissed. In order to establish constructive possession, the State must prove (1) actual or potential physical control, (2) intention to exercise dominion, and (3) manifestations of intent and control.

In Harmon’s case, the State failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that Harmon was in constructive possession of the short-barreled shotgun. Her presence in the vehicle alone was legally insufficient to prove constructive possession. There was no evidence indicating that Harmon owned the car or that the car was registered in her name. There was also no evidence indicating that Harmon possessed keys to the car. Harmon testified that the car belonged to her husband, and when police approached the car, Harmon was in the front passenger’s seat, not the driver’s seat. Meanwhile, the husband was going to get gas to put in the car which he had been driving. There was, thus, insufficient evidence that Harmon had exclusive possession, ownership, or control over the car. Furthermore, the evidence of the husband’s control over the vehicle, in addition to police officer testimony that he had “information” that the husband had a sawed-off shotgun, did not exclude other “possible possessors” of the firearm.

Reversed and dismissed.

CLICK TO READ Michael Anthony Powell v. State of Alabama, Docket # CR-20-0727

In 2016, a gas station was robbed and the clerk was found dead in the bathroom with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. Surveillance video showed that right before the robbery and murder, a black male wearing a white shirt, black pants, and a black fedora hat left “The View” apartment complex on foot, walked northbound on Route 31 toward the gas station, and entered the gas station. Surveillance video from businesses around the gas station also showed that, after the time of the murder, the same black male left the gas station on foot, continued southbound on Route 31 toward The View, and entered the apartment complex. Sarah Knighten, who was driving on Route 31 at that time, also saw a black male wearing a white shirt, black pants, and a black fedora running southbound along Route 31. A customer later found the clerk dead on the floor and called 911. Law enforcement released still shots from the apartment complex surveillance video and asked for the public to identify the person of interest. Two employees contacted police and told them they believed Defendant to be the person in the still photos. Defendant was identified by the customer as a person she saw running before she pulled into the gas station.

Police executed a search warrant at Defendant’s apartment and found similar clothing to that worn by the person in the video, and .380 caliber ammunition, which was the same ammunition used to kill the victim. No gun was ever found. Defendant was arrested and charged with capital murder, and while in the Shelby County jail, Powell telephoned one of his girlfriends and told her to find alibi witnesses who would say that he was in Andalusia the day the victim was murdered. While he was jail, Powell also convinced another inmate — David Jackson — to author a letter confessing to being an accessory to the murder. Powell had Jackson read that letter on a recorded jail telephone call. Jackson said that, for his work, Powell “gave [him] two packs of cookies,” “a tablespoon of coffee,” and “one phone call.” Jackson implicated another person in the murder other than Defendant.

At the end of the guilt phase at trial, the State argued to the jury The State, in its rebuttal argument, addressed the missing gun, telling the jury: “You know there is only one person in this room who knows where the gun is. One person, he is sitting over there. That guy knows where the gun is.” Defense counsel objected, and the court overruled it. The State then went on to argue “Thank you, Your Honor. There is one man in this courtroom who knows where that gun is, one man and he is sitting right over there next to that jury box.” Defense counsel objected again, and was overruled again. The jury convicted Defendant, and ultimately recommended a sentence of death, which the court imposed.

The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. Because Defendant did not testify at his trial, the State’s repeated comments on his right to remain silent violated the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the Alabama State Constitution, both of which protect the right to remain silent.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

CLICK TO READ State of Alabama v. Joshua Lamont MacGrady, Docket # CR-2023-0867

On December 15, 2021, MacGrady’s wife rented a moving truck from a rental company in Palm Beach County, Florida. The truck was not returned as scheduled, and the rental company reported the truck as stolen on January 28, 2022. Law enforcement initiated a traffic stop of the truck in Jefferson County on February 21, 2022. MacGrady was driving the truck at the time and was arrested for first-degree receiving stolen property, Alabama Code § 13A-8-17.

MacGrady was released on bond on February 24, 2022. On March 28, 2022, MacGrady entered a written demand for a speedy trial. MacGrady waived his preliminary hearing on May 10, 2022, and the case was bound over to the grand jury. On May 16, 2023, MacGrady filed a motion to dismiss the pending charge because, he argued, his right to a speedy trial had been violated, and he filed an amended motion on October 17, 2023, that included several images of what appeared to be emails from a potential employer. The trial court granted the motion, and the State appealed.

The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and reinstated the Indictment. The Court applied the four factors from the United States Supreme Court decision in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972)

(1) length of delay,
(2) the reason for the delay,
(3) the defendant’s assertion of their right, and
(4) prejudice to the defendant

The Court held that the 20-month delay was presumptively prejudicial. The State argued that the COVID-19 epidemic was the cause of the delay because of a backlog of cases, but the Court held that the reason for the delay was attributed to the State. The State conceded that Defendant promptly asserted his right to a Speedy Trial shortly after his arrest and Indictment.

However, the Court ruled that Defendant did not establish actual prejudice. MacGrady was not incarcerated, and he did not suggest that his defense was impaired in any way by virtue of the delay. Instead, MacGrady asserted the second type of harm – anxiety and concern of the accused. His arguments that he could not find a job because of the pending case was undercut by his extensive criminal record.

With no presumed prejudice and minimal – if any – actual prejudice in Defendant’s case, the delay did not violate his right to a Speedy Trial under the Sixth Amendment or the Alabama Constitution.

Reversed and reinstated.