74 So. 3d 1039
Ala.2011Background
- Brown was convicted of three counts of capital murder arising from the killings of Dotty and Cherea Jemison and sentenced to death after a 10–2 jury vote; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, and Brown sought certiorari review in this Court.
- The State’s theory linked the murders to a first-degree robbery conspiracy, with Brown’s daughter T.S. as a key child-witness corroborating events.
- Brown argued the admissibility of the child-witness testimony and certain prosecutorial and jury-instruction issues, claiming plain error under Rule 45A and related standards.
- The Court declined to reverse on sufficiency or other unchallenged facts, focusing instead on the admissibility of child-witness testimony, prosecutorial remarks, and the reasonable-doubt jury instruction under plain-error review.
- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals; it held no reversible plain error occurred on the challenged issues and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of child-witness testimony | Brown argues the trial court should have excluded or limited T.S.’s testimony by addressing reliability. | Brown contends the court must assess reliability beyond understanding of truthful testimony. | Plain error not shown; competency addressed under Rule 603 and Rule 601, with admissibility balanced under Rule 403. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct by remarks | Brown claims the prosecutor’s comment about his vote cast long ago was improper personal opinion. | State contends the remark, viewed in context, did not undermine due process. | Not plain error; overall closing argument did not substantially prejudice the trial. |
| Reasonable-doubt jury instruction | Brown asserts the instruction equating reasonable doubt with moral certainty/substantial doubt violated due process. | State argues instruction adequately conveyed proof beyond a reasonable doubt and trial context. | No plain error; instruction viewed in its entirety did not mislead the jury or undermine Winship standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985) (prosecutor's personal-opinion comments risked prejudice but require substantial unfairness for reversal)
- Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990) (no reversible error where instruction could mislead but did not)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (analyze likelihood jury applied instruction unconstitutionally)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (proper inquiry is reasonable likelihood of unconstitutional application)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (standard for due-process impact of closing argument)
- Quinlivan v. State, 579 So. 2d 1386 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) (prosecutor's inappropriate express of guilt must prejudice)
- Ex parte Windsor, 683 So.2d 1042 (Ala. 1996) (instructions on robbery-murder linkage—no plain error)
- Ex parte Beavers, 598 So.2d 1320 (Ala. 1992) (reasonable-doubt instruction held permissible)