Ex parte State of Alabama.
190 So. 3d 37
Ala.2014Background
- Margie Morgan Kelley pleaded guilty in 2011 to hindering prosecution (first degree) and abuse of a corpse arising from murders of Rocky Morgan and James Bachelor; she served her sentence.
- Robert Kelley (her husband) pleaded guilty to the murders and implicated Margie in a plea agreement.
- In March 2013 Margie Kelley was indicted for three counts of capital murder relating to the same deaths (one count alleging pecuniary gain).
- Kelley moved to bar the capital-murder prosecution on double-jeopardy and collateral-estoppel grounds; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals granted mandamus, directing the trial court to bar the capital-murder prosecution, relying on its precedents (e.g., Davenport, Goodwin).
- The State petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for mandamus review; the Supreme Court granted the State’s petition, concluded Davenport was wrongly decided, and directed the Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate its writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior conviction for hindering prosecution and abuse of a corpse bars later prosecution for capital murder based on same facts (double jeopardy / collateral estoppel) | Kelley: Davenport and related decisions preclude prosecuting a person as a principal for the same underlying crime after conviction for hindering prosecution; prior conviction proves she was not a principal, so prosecution is barred | State: The plain language of §13A‑10‑43(a) criminalizes rendering assistance to another; it does not prevent prosecution of someone who also participated in the underlying crime; Davenport misstates the statute | Held: Supreme Court reverses Court of Criminal Appeals; Davenport is incorrect to the extent it bars prosecution; prior hindering conviction does not automatically bar later prosecution for being a principal under the statute’s plain language |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Alfab, Inc., 586 So. 2d 889 (Ala. 1991) (mandamus standard)
- Ex parte T.B., 698 So. 2d 127 (Ala. 1997) (statutory interpretation—plain language rule)
- Washington v. State, 562 So. 2d 281 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) (held hindering prosecution inapplicable to a principal; historical analysis of accessory/hindering statutes)
- Goodwin v. State, 644 So. 2d 1269 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) (applied Washington to reverse hindering convictions when defendants also prosecuted as principals)
- Davenport v. State, 968 So. 2d 27 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) (applied Goodwin; held convictions for both underlying offense and hindering prosecution were improper)
- Nichols v. State, 500 So. 2d 92 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986) (hindering prosecution is distinct from the underlying offense)
- Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137 (1977) (noted exception where facts of greater offense were not discovered despite due diligence; discussed by concurring justice)