Billups v. State, 86 So. 3d 1079

Billups was convicted of capital murder for killing Stevon Lockett during a first-degree robbery.
The jury recommended life without parole; the trial court imposed death, which was appealed.
The State sought to introduce evidence of Billups’s involvement in four Avanti East killings three days later; trial court admitted it based on similarities and proximity.
Trial court gave limiting instructions stating the evidence could be used for specific non-character purposes only.
Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed admission and limiting instructions; Judge Welch dissented, arguing reversible error and improper limiting instructions.
This Court granted certiorari to address whether the Avanti East evidence was admissible and whether the limiting instructions were sufficient; held that the limiting instructions were inadequate and the case must be retried, with other issues not reached.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Avanti East evidence was admissible at trial for purposes other than character in conformity.	Billups contends evidence was inadmissible collateral-act evidence.	State argues evidence is admissible to prove identity, plan, motive, etc.	Plain error; admission of collateral-act evidence improper absent proper limiting instruction.
Whether the trial court’s limiting instructions adequately restricted jury consideration to legitimate purposes.	Billups argues instructions were too broad, allowed irrelevant purposes.	State contends instructions limited to Rule 404(b) purposes.	Instructions were improper; jury could consider for purposes not asserted by the State.
Whether the error constitutes plain error warranting reversal and remand.	Error affected substantial rights and fair trial.	State disputes severity of the instruction error.	Plain error; reversal and remand for new trial.

Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1988) (instruction to limit 404(b) evidence to proper purposes upon request)
Ex parte Brown, 11 So.3d 933 (Ala. 2008) (plain-error standard for reviewing trial error)
Ex parte Drinkard, 777 So.2d 295 (Ala. 2000) (exclusionary rule protecting fair trial in evidence of prior bad acts)
Ex parte Cofer, 440 So.2d 1121 (Ala. 1983) (prior bad acts not admissible to prove bad character)
Lewis v. State, 889 So.2d 623 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (prior bad acts cannot be used to prove knowledge/intent where not at issue)