157 So. 3d 1001
Ala. Crim. App.2014Background
- Trimble was indicted for attempted murder under Ala. Code 13A-4-2 and 13A-6-2 and was convicted by jury of the lesser-included offense of first-degree assault under 13A-6-20.
- The circuit court sentenced Trimble, as an habitual felony offender, to life imprisonment and ordered $50 to the crime victims’ compensation fund plus court costs.
- The evidence showed Barnes severely injured during an October 2011 incident; police found Trimble shirtless with blood on him and Barnes in a bedroom with a severe facial injury, and Barnes identified Trimble as the assailant.
- Barnes testified to prior violence and threats by Trimble, including a prior broken nose and threats to harm or kill her, and a prior arrest related to those acts.
- The State sought to admit collateral-act evidence under Rule 404(b) to prove intent to kill, and the circuit court gave limiting instructions to the jury.
- Trimble challenges (1) admission of collateral-act evidence and (2) denial of a pro se post-trial motion for a new trial; the State concedes harmless-error review applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral-act evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b). | Trimble argues the evidence was improper character evidence. | Trimble contends the acts were prejudicial and not probative. | Admissible for intent/motive with limiting instructions; not reversible error. |
| Whether the collateral-act evidence was harmless error if improperly admitted. | Error could have affected the outcome. | Conviction for the lesser offense shows lack of prejudice. | Harmless beyond reasonable doubt; no reversal. |
| Whether the circuit court properly denied Trimble’s pro se motion for a new trial. | Claimed lack of arraignment and ineffective assistance warranted a hearing. | Counsel represented Trimble; pro se filing improper. | Circuit court did not abuse its discretion; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 808 So.2d 1148 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (discretion in evidentiary rulings; collateral-act evidence context)
- Ex parte Loggins, 771 So.2d 1093 (Ala.2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Davis v. State, 740 So.2d 1115 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (collateral-act evidence admissibility guidance)
- Irvin v. State, 940 So.2d 331 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (collateral-act evidence and Rule 404(b) framework)
- Saffold v. State, 494 So.2d 164 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (collateral-act evidence admissible to prove intent/plan under proper limitings)
- Childers v. State, 607 So.2d 350 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (prior acts may be relevant to intent when element requires it)
- Ex parte Crymes, 630 So.2d 125 (Ala.1993) (harmless-error inquiry for improper evidence)
- Ex parte Greathouse, 624 So.2d 208 (Ala.1993) (harmless-error framework for improper evidence)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard requires beyond reasonable doubt)
- Ex parte Pritchett, 117 So.3d 356 (Ala.2012) (pro se motions; representation considerations after counsel appointment)
- Holland v. State, 615 So.2d 1313 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel vs. hybrid representation)
- Pardue v. State, 571 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1989) (courts may overlook pro se pleading when represented)
- King v. State, 613 So.2d 888 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (appointment of counsel at critical stages of trial)