Ware v. State
181 So. 3d 409
Ala.2014Background
- In 2008 James Lee Ware was convicted of first-degree rape, first-degree burglary, and first-degree robbery; sentenced as an habitual felony offender to consecutive life terms; Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed; Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari on two issues (Confrontation Clause and sufficiency of evidence for the armed element).
- Victim (L.M.) was raped in 1993; rape kit retained; no other physical ID evidence at scene.
- In 2004 Cellmark (private lab) tested vaginal swabs, produced a DNA-profile report and case file; DFS compared the profile to CODIS and matched it to Ware; DFS confirmed by a new cheek swab sample from Ware.
- Cellmark’s molecular geneticist, Jason Kokoszka, supervised/reviewed the testing, signed the Cellmark report, and testified; several Cellmark technicians who performed underlying tests did not testify. Ware objected under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause to admission of the report and related evidence.
- Victim testified she “felt, she thought, something sharp” in the attacker’s back pocket while being assaulted; no weapon recovered or seen, and no explicit representation by Ware that he was armed. Ware asserted alibi evidence (disputed). Trial court admitted the DNA report; jury convicted on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ware) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause: admission of Cellmark DNA-profile and case file based on non-testifying technicians | Report admissible because Kokoszka supervised/reviewed, signed report, testified and was cross-examinable; thus Confrontation Clause satisfied | Admission violated Sixth Amendment because the actual analysts who performed tests (the witnesses against Ware) did not testify; Kokoszka was a surrogate/reviewer, not the witnesses who made the report | Affirmed: Kokoszka’s testimony and signature satisfied Confrontation Clause as applied in this case |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Ware was armed (first-degree robbery) | Victim’s feeling of “something sharp” in assailant’s pocket supports a reasonable belief that Ware was armed; § 13A-8-41(b) permits victim belief as prima facie evidence | Victim’s vague, equivocal testimony ("thought" she felt "something sharp") is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ware possessed a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument | Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove the armed element for first-degree robbery; remand to enter conviction on lesser-included offense |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Ware was armed (first-degree burglary, 1993 statute) | (State urged that the armed element was satisfied by the same evidence supporting robbery) | Same as above: no proof Ware used, threatened, or otherwise employed a weapon; no weapon shown | Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove the armed element for first-degree burglary; remand to enter conviction on lesser-included offense |
| Remedy on insufficient armed-element proof | State: affirm convictions | Ware: acquittal on first-degree charges or reduction | Court: vacate first-degree robbery and burglary convictions; remand to enter judgments/sentences for appropriate lesser-included offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statement standard under Confrontation Clause)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (forensic certificates can be testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (confrontation requires testimony of analyst who performed/ certified test absent unavailability)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (plurality: expert may rely on out-of-court lab report; fractured decision on testimonial status)
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (overruled on reliability standard by Crawford)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (interpreting fragmented Supreme Court opinions)