Ex Parte T.D.M., 1091645 (Ala. 10-28-2011)
117 So. 3d 933
Ala.2011Background
- T.D.M. was convicted on counts of sexual abuse in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree; verdicts were initially guilty on sexual abuse and not guilty on sodomy, then clerical error caused the sodomy verdict to be misentered.
- The jury was discharged after delivering verdicts; the foreperson later informed the court that the sodomy verdict form was signed incorrectly.
- The court recalled the jury and ultimately allowed correction to reflect guilty on both counts.
- At sentencing, the court treated the sodomy verdict as not guilty per the initial reading, then later permitted a recall and polling.
- The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed; the Alabama Supreme Court reviewed only whether double jeopardy was violated by discharging, recalling, and amending the verdict.
- The Court ultimately reversed and remanded, finding double jeopardy violated due to discharge, recall, and potential outside influence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did discharge and recall after a verdict amendment violate double jeopardy? | T.D.M. argues double jeopardy barred reentry of judgment. | State contends correction is permissible within trial process. | Yes, double jeopardy violated; reversal and remand. |
| Should discharge be determined by presence/supervision rather than tampering proof? | T.D.M. emphasizes potential outside influence. | State relies on correction as legitimate within process. | Alabama favors focus on presence/supervision and appearance of impropriety; remedy warranted. |
| What is the proper remedy given the discharge/recall sequence? | Remand to address double jeopardy concerns. | Correction of verdict reflects true jury intent. | Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brister v. State, 26 Ala. 107 (1855) (discharge revocable when in presence of court)
- Cook v. State, 60 Ala. 39 (1877) (disallowing recall after jurors dispersed)
- Hayes v. State, 44 Ala. App. 499, 214 So. 2d 708 (1968) (discharged jurors cannot be recalled to alter verdict)
- Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stuart, 395 So. 2d 980 (Ala. 1981) (recall of discharged jury permissible only to ensure correct verdict; strict on discharge)
- Edwards v. Seaboard Coast Line R. R., 384 So. 2d 96 (Ala. 1980) (appearance of impartiality concerns; improper in-chambers discussions)
- Masters v. State, 344 So. 2d 616 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977) (quoted regarding tampering concerns)