113 So. 3d 686
Ala.2011Background
- Lamb was charged with four counts, including first-degree sexual abuse (count II) and other related offenses.
- The jury returned oral guilty verdicts on counts I–III, but count II’s written verdict signed as not guilty caused a discrepancy.
- The court instructed the jury to correct the error on count IV, then discharged the jury.
- After discharge, seven jurors, including the foreman, were recalled to address the written verdict for count II.
- The foreman corrected the count II verdict to guilty after discussion and a recall poll, yielding an amended written verdict.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of Lamb’s Rule 32 petition challenging the amended verdict; this Court granted certiorari to review with Hayes v. State as a potential controlling rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could amend the verdict after discharge | Lamb argues Hayes bars recall and correction after discharge | State contends Rule 29 allows clerical corrections after discharge under scrutiny | Yes; the amended verdict after discharge violated precedent (reversed) |
| Whether recalling seven jurors tainted the verdict | Lamb asserts potential taint from outside influence | State argues polling confirmed true verdicts despite recall | Court emphasizes taint risk and improper recall; reversal warranted |
| Whether the original written verdict of not guilty on count II should control | Lamb claims written verdict governs; risk of double jeopardy otherwise | State argues oral verdict and poll reflect true intent | Written verdict not guilty on count II must stand; reversal of appellate decision as to the petition |
| Rule 29 vs. Rule 60(a) distinction in clerical vs. judicial correction | Lamb relied on Rule 29 as clerical correction authority | State treated correction as permissible under Rule 29 | Court distinguishes; applies Rule 29 to permit correction but ultimately reverses due to improper recall |
| Effect on double jeopardy and integrity of verdict system | Correction after discharge jeopardizes finality | Correction aligns verdict with actual jury intent | Reversal to avoid double jeopardy and taint to jury system |
Key Cases Cited
- Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stuart, 395 So.2d 980 (Ala. 1981) (discharge ends jury consideration; corrections must occur before dismissal)
- Allen v. State, 52 Ala. 391 (1875) (duty to prevent unreliable verdicts passing into records)
- St. Clair v. Caldwell & Riddle, 72 Ala. 527 (1882) (verdicts must be corrected before jury is discharged)
- Hayes v. State, 44 Ala.App. 499, 214 So.2d 708 (Ala.App. 1968) (discharged jury cannot be resummoned to correct insufficient verdicts)
- Deramus v. American Hearing Aid Centers, Inc., 950 So.2d 292 (Ala. 2006) (clerical correction allowed when not altering judicial reasoning)
- Dollar v. State, 687 So.2d 209 (Ala. 1996) (Rule 29; clerical errors in judgment or record corrected by court)