Money v. State
138 So. 3d 332
Ala. Crim. App.2012Background
- Money was convicted of criminally negligent homicide (Class A misdemeanor) and sentenced to jail, fines, restitution, and costs.
- The underlying incident occurred about Oct 17, 2006, when Money and his girlfriend Curry argued; Curry lay in the road and was struck by a vehicle.
- There were no eyewitnesses to the events leading to Curry lying in the road; dispute whether Money rendered Curry dazed or Curry lay there voluntarily.
- Money was indicted for reckless manslaughter (Class B felony) but convicted of the lesser-included criminally negligent homicide.
- Money argued the misdemeanor statute of limitations had expired because the conduct occurred in 2006 and indictment occurred in 2009, after the 12-month limit for misdemeanors.
- Trial court relied on Rock v. State to hold that the charged felony governs the statute of limitations, allowing prosecution to proceed and convict on the lesser offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the time-bar voids the conviction for the lesser offense. | Money argues the misdemeanor is time-barred. | State contends the charged felony governs; Rock supports conviction. | Conviction void; time-bar invalidates the lesser offense. |
| Whether Rock conflicts with Hall and Spears on lesser-included offenses after time-bar. | Rock conflicts with Hall/Spears; apply Hall/Spears instead. | State adheres to Rock’s analysis that charged offense governs. | Rock disavowed; Hall and Spears control for this issue. |
| Whether the prosecution commenced within the applicable statute of limitations. | Indictment occurred within 3-year felony period? or 12-month misdemeanor period governs? | The charged offense determines the applicable period; indictment timely under felony provision. | Prosecution commenced after the misdemeanor period; time-bar applies to the lesser offense. |
| Whether a conviction for a lesser-included misdemeanor can stand when charged with a time-barred greater offense. | Lesser-included conviction should be permissible if the greater offense is time-barred. | Trial court had authority to convict on the lesser offense only if timely. | No; cannot convict on a time-barred lesser offense when the greater offense is time-barred. |
| Whether the case should be reviewed for jurisdictional defects or subject-matter jurisdiction. | Challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction due to statute of limitations. | Court had jurisdiction over charged offenses but not authority to convict time-barred offense. | Statute-of-limitations defect is jurisdictional for the trial court’s authority; reversal proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. State, 558 So.2d 967 (Ala.Crim.App.1989) (look to charged offense to determine if SOL had run; dicta in some contexts)
- Hall v. State, 497 So.2d 1145 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (cannot convict a lesser offense after SOL has run on the lesser offense)
- Spears v. State, 160 So.2d 727 (Ala.App.1935) (lesser-included offenses and time-bar considerations—statute of limitations must apply)
- Cox v. State, 585 So.2d 182 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (distinguishes lack of subject-matter jurisdiction from lack of authority to try time-barred offenses)
- Ex parte Hamilton, 970 So.2d 285 (Ala.2006) (de novo review of legal issues; application to undisputed facts)
- Ex parte Seymour, 946 So.2d 536 (Ala.2006) (jurisdictional analysis focusing on whether the court had authority to try the offense)