Riley v. State
166 So. 3d 705
Ala. Crim. App.2013Background
- Riley was convicted of capital murder for killing Scott Kirtley during a first-degree robbery; his accomplice Dewon Jones was convicted of felony murder and received 30 years; surveillance video, DNA evidence on a cigarette packet, and gun recovered; Riley ultimately was retried after a remand for a prior error; presentence report and mitigation evidence were central to sentencing; the circuit court imposed death after balancing aggravators and mitigators; numerous evidentiary and pretrial/publicity issues were raised on appeal.
- The defense sought to portray Jones’s felony-murder conviction as analogous to Riley’s case, and Riley contested differences in intent required for capital murder; the State argued the shooter’s intent differed from the lookout and that only capital murder liability applied to Riley.
- DNA testing linked a bloodstain on a cigarette pack to Kirtley; autopsy showed three gunshots with a mix of intermediate-range and contact shots indicating deliberate killing.
- The trial court relied on a five-page presentence report and substantial mitigation evidence, including Riley’s upbringing, head injuries, substance abuse, and family history, to weigh against a single aggravating factor.
- During sentencing, the court expressly weighed statutory and nonstatutory mitigators and reaffirmed the jury’s death recommendation, concluding the aggravator outweighed mitigation.
- The appeal included challenges to prosecutorial use of evidence, Batson claims, alleged plain-error issues, pretrial publicity, and a defense-requested instruction on residual doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones’s felony-murder conviction could be used as substantive evidence against Riley | Riley argues that the State improperly relies on Jones’s conviction to prove Riley’s guilt | State contends differences in intent between Jones and Riley justify only capital murder for Riley | No reversible error; State’s rebuttal and court instructions were proper and any error was not prejudicial. |
| Whether the presentence report was inadequate for sentencing | Riley contends the report was outdated and lacked social/medical history | Court had access to mitigation evidence beyond the report; no plain error | Not plain error; circuit court considered the full mitigation mosaic and substantial information beyond the report. |
| Whether admission of prior-bad-act and character evidence and Batson claims were improper | Riley argues improper 404(b) evidence and discriminatory jury strikes | State offered race-neutral justifications; no purposeful discrimination demonstrated | No reversible Batson error; alleged 404(b) evidence deemed non-prejudicial or harmless. |
| Whether trial court properly instructed on mitigation and residual-doubt arguments | Riley asserts residual doubt should be treated as mitigating and jury unanimity on mitigators matters | Residual doubt not a statutory mitigator; weight is discretionary | No error; residual doubt instructions rejected consistent with precedent. |
| Whether Ring/Waldrop issues invalidated the death sentence | Riley argues Ring requires jury factfinding for aggravators | Waldrop controls; the guilt verdict established the aggravating finding | No Ring violation; the jury’s guilt verdict overlapped with the aggravating finding, sustaining the sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Brown, 11 So.3d 933 (Ala. 2008) (plain-error standard applied; mitigation considerations cited)
- Wilson v. State, 42 So.3d 732 (Ala.Crim.App. 2010) (adequacy of presentence reports and mitigation reviewed for plain error)
- Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala. 1987) (race-neutral explanations in Batson and credibility determinations)
- Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1980) (invalidates all-or-nothing capital-offense scheme where evidence supports lesser-included offenses)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (Sixth Amendment requires jury find aggravating factors in capital cases)
- Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So.2d 1181 (Ala. 2002) (application of Ring in Alabama death-penalty context; overlap/ double-counting issues)