222 So. 3d 457
Ala. Crim. App.2015Background
- In December 2010 Bohannon shot and killed Anthony Harvey and Jerry DuBoise in the parking lot of Paradise Lounge; security cameras captured the events and two victims’ guns and spent cartridges were recovered.
- Bohannon was convicted of capital murder (killing two or more persons pursuant to one act or scheme) and the jury recommended death by an 11–1 vote; the trial court imposed death.
- Video recordings, 911 calls, witness testimony (including two waitresses who said Bohannon attempted to buy meth earlier), and toxicology reports showing methamphetamine in the victims’ systems were admitted at trial.
- Bohannon’s defense: self-defense; he presented character witnesses and disputed state evidence.
- On appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed multiple guilt- and penalty-phase claims (many for plain error because no contemporaneous objections were made) and remanded to vacate one of two duplicative capital convictions on double-jeopardy grounds, otherwise affirming conviction and death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bohannon) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Death-qualifying jury created conviction-prone panel | Death-qualification denied fair trial and reliable sentencing | Lockhart permits death-qualification; no error shown | No plain error; death-qualification allowed |
| Failure to remove various prospective jurors for cause | Several venirepersons were biased (connections to victims/DA; death-penalty views; law-enforcement background) | Voir dire showed ability to be impartial or defense used peremptory strikes; trial judge discretion | No abuse of discretion; no relief (many jurors removed by peremptories or were properly retained/struck) |
| Batson challenge (peremptory strikes of black jurors) | Prosecutor struck five black prospective jurors for discriminatory reasons | State proffered race-neutral reasons shown in voir dire (criminal history, anti-death-penalty views, health) | No plain error; record showed race-neutral bases |
| Cross-examination of State witness (Weaver) about pending charges | Defense should have been allowed to probe Weaver’s pending/disposition matters to show bias | State argued irrelevance; court limited inquiry to pre-existing matters | Court erred to extent of excluding inquiry into pending charges, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Admission of post-Miranda silence / spontaneous statement (Doyle) | Testimony revealing Bohannon invoked Miranda then remained silent violated Doyle | Statement followed invocation but defendant made a spontaneous volunteered remark; trial counsel invited predicate | Even if Doyle issue existed, any error was harmless beyond reasonable doubt |
| Admission of evidence that Bohannon sought meth earlier (prior-bad-act) | Irrelevant and 404(b) improper without notice/limiting instruction | Evidence was part of the res gestae/complete story (victims had meth; search of pockets) and no notice required for intrinsic evidence | Admissible as res gestae; no reversible error |
| Admission/authentication of surveillance video | Lacking an expert or sufficient foundation for system reliability | Owner and custodian testified to system, access, copying and chain; silent-witness foundation satisfied | Video properly admitted under silent-witness Voudrie standard; no plain error |
| Toxicology reports and Confrontation Clause (Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming) | Reports were testimonial; analyst who ran tests didn’t testify—Confrontation violation | Defense relied on toxicology in opening; reports corroborative of defense; invited error; any error harmless | No plain error; confrontation claim either invited or harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Exclusion of evidence that victims lacked permits to carry concealed weapons | Relevant to self-defense; should be admissible | Rule 404(a) prohibits specific bad-act evidence about victims; evidence of victims being armed was admitted | Exclusion of permit-status evidence was proper under Rule 404(a); no relief |
| Jury instructions on self-defense / manslaughter and intoxication | Court misstated/improperly conflated retreat/imminence and manslaughter; failed to instruct on intoxication | Court’s instructions read as a whole were correct; any slip was harmless; intoxication instruction inconsistent with defense strategy | No plain error; supplemental wording harmless; no sua sponte intoxication instruction required |
| Double jeopardy / multiplicity of indictments | Two indictments charged same §13A-5-40(a)(10) offense with victims’ names transposed, producing two convictions for same one-act scheme | State conceded double-jeopardy problem for duplicative convictions | Remanded to vacate one of the duplicative capital convictions and sentence; otherwise affirmed |
| Penalty-phase: victim-impact and mitigation evidence (cost of death penalty) | Exclude victim-impact; admit cost-of-death evidence as mitigation | Payne permits victim-impact at penalty phase; cost is irrelevant to statutory mitigation | Victim-impact testimony admissible; evidence about costs excluded as irrelevant to mitigation |
| Jury’s role characterization as "recommendation" (Caldwell) | Calling the jury’s verdict a recommendation undermines responsibility (Caldwell) | Term reflected statutory language and did not mislead jury about role | No Caldwell violation; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (standard for excluding jurors for cause based on death-penalty views)
- Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986) (upholding death-qualification despite potential convicting tendency)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (post-Miranda silence cannot be used to impeach defendant)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (laboratory certificates can be testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (surrogate testimony cannot replace the analyst who performed test for Confrontation Clause)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing prescribed punishment must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (Apprendi principle applied to capital sentencing)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) (victim-impact evidence admissible in penalty phase)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (Confrontation Clause errors are subject to harmless-error analysis)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omitted-element jury-instruction errors are subject to harmless-error review)