217 So. 3d 1
Ala. Crim. App.2015Background
- Campos (born 1979) lived with girlfriend C.J. and her children; K.S. (born Dec. 28, 2006) alleged sexual abuse beginning when she was about five or six.
- K.S. testified at trial about being forced to perform oral sex and to touch Campos’s penis; corroborating out-of-court statements were given to C.J., Angela Churchwell, and a forensic interviewer (video admitted).
- Campos was convicted of two counts of sexual abuse of a child <12 (Ala. Code § 13A-6-69.1) and two counts of first-degree sodomy (Ala. Code § 13A-6-63(a)(3)).
- Trial court sentenced Campos to 20 years on each sexual-abuse count and life without parole on each sodomy count under Ala. Code § 13A-5-6(d) (21+ defendant and victim ≤6), sentences to run concurrently.
- Campos appealed raising multiple claims including an Apprendi challenge to the unsubmitted statutory-age enhancement, hearsay/admission of child statements, insufficiency of evidence for one sexual-abuse count, exclusion of evidence pointing to C.J.’s stepfather, and redaction of his police-interview video.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding the Apprendi error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and rejecting the preserved and unpreserved evidentiary and procedural claims on the merits or for lack of preservation.
Issues
| Issue | Campos’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing under Ala. Code § 13A-5-6(d) (life without parole for 21+ defendant and victim ≤6) violated Apprendi when ages were not submitted to the jury | Apprendi violated because the jury did not find defendant’s or victim’s ages required for the sentencing enhancement | Although Apprendi error occurred, the age facts were uncontested and proved at trial so any error was harmless | Apprendi error found but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; enhancement application affirmed |
| Admissibility of K.S.’s out-of-court statements and forensic-interview video (hearsay) | Testimony/video were inadmissible hearsay | Statements fit Ala. Code § 15-25-31 procedure; K.S. testified and was cross-examined, so statements admissible as substantive evidence | Admission was proper under the Child Sexual Abuse Victim Protection Act; preserved objections lacking for some claims, but admission upheld |
| Sufficiency of evidence for one sexual-abuse conviction (alleged lack of evidence of inappropriate touching) | State failed to prove touching element; hearsay-only evidence insufficient | K.S.’s trial testimony and admissible out-of-court statements supplied prima facie evidence of sexual contact | Claim not preserved (specific ground not raised at trial); even if reviewed, evidence sufficient to support conviction |
| Exclusion of evidence that C.J. had been sexually abused by her stepfather (third-party perpetrator theory) | Such evidence was relevant to bias and to show an alternate suspect | Evidence was speculative, not res gestae, would not exclude Campos, and risked jury confusion | Trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusion proper and the three-prong Griffin test not satisfied |
| Redaction of references to C.J.’s stepfather in Campos’s police-interview video (completeness/Rule 106) | Video should be played complete under completeness doctrine to show alternative suspect | Trial court previously granted motion in limine; references to stepfather were inadmissible and redaction was within discretion | Issue not preserved; even if reviewed, redaction proper because references were inadmissible; Webster testified Campos named the stepfather anyway |
| Alleged improper jury instructions and court comments / bolstering witness credibility | Trial court erred in several instructions and comments; bolstering improper | Majority of these objections were not timely raised at trial and thus not preserved | Claims not preserved for appellate review; preserved issues rejected on the merits where addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Clarifies statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes is the sentence authorized by jury verdict or defendant’s admission)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omitted-element jury instruction error is subject to harmless-error analysis)
- Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006) (Apprendi-type failures to submit sentencing factors to the jury are subject to harmless-error analysis)
- M.L.H. v. State, 99 So.3d 911 (Ala. 2011) (child out-of-court statements admissible as substantive evidence under Ala. Code § 15-25-31 when statutory criteria met)
- Lightfoot v. State, 152 So.3d 445 (Ala. 2013) (discussed in context of Apprendi harmlessness but did not disallow harmless-error review in all cases)