203 So. 3d 134
Ala. Crim. App.2016Background
- On Jan. 4, 2009, David Todd Stephens killed his ex-wife Tonya, placed her body in his truck in Hale County, and buried it on his father's property in Pickens County.
- Ten days later (Jan. 14, 2009), after learning cadaver dogs might search the property, Stephens dug up the body in Pickens County, partially dismembered it, and set it on fire; he was arrested and confessed.
- Stephens was indicted in Hale County for murder and abuse of a corpse (alleging burying the body in an unmarked grave); he was convicted in Hale County of manslaughter (lesser-included) and abuse of a corpse and sentenced.
- While Hale County charges were pending, Pickens County also indicted Stephens for abuse of a corpse; the Pickens indictment tracked the statute but did not specify acts.
- Stephens moved in Pickens County to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds, arguing the Pickens prosecution sought to punish the same abuse already tried in Hale County; the trial court granted the motion.
- The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the Hale and Pickens prosecutions charged discrete, non-unitary acts and that double jeopardy did not bar the Pickens prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars Pickens County prosecution for abuse of a corpse after Hale County conviction for the same statutory offense | Stephens: only one abuse occurred (the acts are unitary); convicted already in Hale County so retrial in Pickens is barred | State: two separate abuses occurred — burying (Jan. 4) and later digging up/dismembering/ burning (Jan. 14) — so separate prosecutions permitted | Reversed trial court: prosecutions not the same in fact; two discrete acts allowed separate prosecutions |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. State, 709 So.2d 1340 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) (double jeopardy protects against successive prosecutions and multiple punishments)
- Ex parte Russell, 643 So.2d 963 (Ala. 1994) (an indictment supersedes antecedent charging instruments)
- United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1992) (admission of evidence of other misconduct is not prosecution for that misconduct)
- Swafford v. State, 112 N.M. 3 (N.M. 1991) (distinctness factors support separate punishments for separate acts)
- Williams v. State, 104 So.3d 254 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012) (double jeopardy does not bar conviction for discrete repeated acts of same statutory offense)