Hulsey v. State
196 So. 3d 342
Ala. Crim. App.2015Background
- On April 28, 2009, officers pursued Hulsey after a traffic stop attempt; they later found his abandoned truck containing items commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine and mail addressed to him. Hulsey was arrested May 28, 2009.
- Winston County grand juries returned four indictments at different times (Dec. 3, 2009; Sept. 20, 2011; Dec. 5, 2011; June 18, 2013) charging variously attempt, second-degree manufacture, first-degree manufacture, and reckless endangerment; several counts were mislabeled or defective in their language.
- Hulsey was tried by jury and convicted of first-degree unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance (§ 13A-12-218) and reckless endangerment (§ 13A-6-24); the first-degree conviction produced a split 15-year sentence (3 years imprisonment, 12 years probation).
- Hulsey appealed raising (inter alia) statute-of-limitations objections to the first-degree manufacturing charge, sufficiency of evidence for reckless endangerment (constructive possession), jury-qualification defects, discovery/delay and denial of continuance relating to a DART forensic test, and admissibility of the DART results.
- The court held the first-degree manufacturing indictment (returned June 18, 2013) was untimely and reversed that conviction; it affirmed the reckless-endangerment conviction after rejecting Hulsey’s sufficiency and procedural claims as to that count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hulsey) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for 1st-degree manufacture | Indictment returned June 18, 2013 was beyond 3-year felony limitations (Apr. 28, 2009 offense) and tolling provisions don’t apply because prior indictments didn’t charge the same offense | State argued Hulsey failed to preserve challenge to substituted indictment and that earlier indictments tolled limitations | Court: Waived-preservation rules don’t bar review of limitations; prior indictments did not properly charge first-degree offense so did not toll; June 18, 2013 indictment untimely — reverse conviction for 1st-degree manufacture |
| Sufficiency of evidence for reckless endangerment (constructive possession) | Insufficient evidence to show Hulsey constructively possessed items in truck or that driving was reckless/created substantial risk | State relied on officers’ pursuit, abandoned truck with meth lab items, and mail addressed to Hulsey to infer constructive possession and risk | Court: Evidence, viewed favorably to State, sufficed to submit constructive-possession/reckless-endangerment to jury — conviction affirmed |
| Jury venire qualification (served on prior grand jury) | Trial court failed to ask venire whether any jurors had served on the Sept. 2011 grand jury that indicted Hulsey; no timely objection made | State: No timely objection; trial court asked about other indictments; record silent but presumption that court did its duty | Court: Presence at voir dire and absence of contemporaneous objection waived review; where record silent court presumes duty performed — claim denied |
| Denial of continuance / late disclosure of DART test results | Counsel needed more time to obtain and prepare a defense expert and evaluate new DART method; denial prejudiced defense | State: DART results were disclosed orally June 7 and written report provided Sept. 6; trial court invited renewal during trial and exercised discretion | Court: Plaintiff’s trial objections were limited to late disclosure (not the fuller grounds raised on appeal); trial court didn’t abuse discretion under continuance standards — claim denied |
| Admissibility of DART scientific evidence | DART method did not meet § 12-21-160 standards; evidence was unreliable and should be excluded | State: Experts qualified and testified; trial court ruled on admissibility; procedural objection focused on timeliness not scientific reliability | Court: Hulsey only preserved a timeliness objection, not the § 12-21-160 reliability challenges; reliability claim waived — admission upheld |
| Cumulative error | Aggregation of alleged errors denied fair trial | Same as above; each error either not preserved or not established | Court: No preserved or proven errors; cumulative-error claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Money v. State, 138 So.3d 332 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012) (statute-of-limitations challenges may be raised on appeal despite preservation rules)
- Ex parte Campbell, 784 So.2d 323 (Ala. 2000) (statute-of-limitations in criminal prosecutions treated as jurisdictional for appellate review)
- Ex parte Seymour, 946 So.2d 536 (Ala. 2006) (defective indictment does not necessarily deprive court of subject-matter jurisdiction; defects may be waived)
- Ex parte Russell, 643 So.2d 963 (Ala. 1994) (a subsequent indictment supersedes and nullifies an earlier charging instrument)
- Zimlich v. State, 872 So.2d 881 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (defective indictment failing to allege an essential element may be void for purposes of tolling limitations)
- Cox v. State, 585 So.2d 182 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) (discussing limitations and waiver principles)
- Griffin v. State, 352 So.2d 847 (Ala. 1977) (prosecution commences at issuance of warrant for purposes of tolling)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (U.S. 2002) (defects in an indictment do not deprive a court of power to adjudicate a case)